2 May 2001 Legislative Assembly 539

WEDNESDAY, 2 MAY 2001

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

PETITION The Clerk announced the receipt of the following petition—

Somerset Dam Mrs Pratt from 1,600 petitioners, requesting the House to intercede and, if possible, prevent the closure of the Somerset Dam camping and picnic ground.

PAPERS MINISTERIAL RESPONSE TO PETITION The following responses to a petition was tabled by The Clerk— Response from the Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mrs J Cunningham) to a petition presented by Mr Horan from 84 petitioners, regarding the regulation of inner-city parking by the Brisbane City Council: 27 APR 2001 Mr R Doyle The Clerk of the Parliament Legislative Assembly of Queensland CENTRAL DOCUMENT EXCHANGE M29 Dear Mr Doyle I refer to your letter of 5 April 2001 forwarding a copy of a petition tabled in the Parliament on 4 April 2001 regarding the regulation of inner-city parking by the Brisbane City Council. Under the Local Government Act 1993, the Brisbane City Council has control of all local government roads in its area. The Council's control of roads includes the regulation of the movement of traffic and parking of vehicles. Local governments are afforded considerable autonomy and there exists no powers for the State Government to intervene or direct the Council in this matter. With respect to the signage used, the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 provides that local governments must install official traffic signs to regulate parking in their areas. Responsibility for the design of official traffic signs rests with the chief executive of the Department of Main Roads. I trust this information is helpful. Yours sincerely (sgd) Nita Cunningham Nita Cunningham MP Minister for Local Government and Planning MINISTERIAL PAPER The following ministerial paper was tabled— Hon. M. J. Foley (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts)— Queensland Theatre Company—Annual Report for the year 2000

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dingoes, Fraser Island Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.32 a.m.), by leave: I have ordered, after consultation with the Minister for the Environment, that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service conduct an immediate cull of dingoes on Fraser Island following the dingo attacks on two boys on the island on Monday. By 'culled' I mean destroyed, as humanely as possible and as quickly as possible. I stress that what I am referring to is a limited cull of any dingo that frequents the townships and the camp grounds. The two dingoes believed responsible for the fatal attack on a nine year old boy and the attack on his seven year old brother have already been culled. Further culling will take place at the Waddy Point camp ground where Monday's fatality occurred. Any dog that stays in the bush will not be touched. 540 Ministerial Statement 2 May 2001

Further, I have ordered the strict enforcement of the 'no feeding' law, which is the root cause of the current problem. This offence can carry a fine of more than $1,000 and I want to see the penalties imposed in every case that is detected. The Minister for Environment will have something further to say about that in a ministerial statement shortly. I believe this is a commonsense approach and one that will be acceptable to all fair-minded Queenslanders. It is not acceptable to have dingoes wandering through townships and camping grounds on the island. The dingo is protected in Queensland in national parks by virtue of the fact that it is a wild animal. It is not protected as an animal to be befriended, tamed or habituated to human contact, as has occurred on Fraser Island. Fraser Island is a very large island which is almost all national park and is close to pristine wilderness. There is enough room for a viable population of wild dingoes to exist without coming anywhere near the few small townships and camp grounds that are mainly confined to the eastern side of the island. As Premier, I have responsibilities to ensure the safety of visitors to our national parks and to protect the wildlife that lives in those national parks.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Naltrexone Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: I understand the high level of community interest in using Naltrexone both as a drug for relapse prevention and as a withdrawal treatment for opiates. Families who are suffering as a result of a loved one's addiction want relief, they want a cure, but there are no quick fixes. The proponents of Naltrexone, including Dr Stuart Reece, would have us believe that Naltrexone tablets or Naltrexone implants are the miracle cure that these unfortunate families are searching for. I wish it was. But my government has had concerns from the beginning that this cure may not be the answer and that is why we have moved cautiously and have instigated proper trials. This has brought us into conflict with Dr Reece and his methods. However, I am pleased to report that investigations by Queensland Health following two complaints about Dr Reece in 1999 resulted in changes to his practices which have brought him into line with our Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulations with respect to his use of controlled drugs such as Diazapam, Valium and Rohypnol. The proponents of Naltrexone play down the alarming signs that treatment with this drug may lead to fatal consequences. I note that in today's Courier-Mail Dr Reece concedes that there are risks associated with the use of this drug, but he still argues that claims that Naltrexone is dangerous should not be enough to stop the treatment. A recent report in Western Australia by a psychiatrist, Dr James Fellow-Smith, and a GP, Dr John Edwards, found that untreated heroin addicts had a one in 100 chance of dying, while heroin dependent persons who had been prescribed Naltrexone had a one in 61 chance of dying. That is almost twice the risk. I find that fact to be of grave concern, and that is one of the reasons why I believe that the Courier-Mail has been quite correctly pursuing this issue. It also found that heroin dependent people prescribed methadone had a mortality rate of one in 458. The risk for Naltrexone is fourfold compared with the outcome of being prescribed methadone. This was based on a study of 3,617 heroin users. It found that heroin overdose, in combination with other central nervous system depressants, was the main cause of death in the Naltrexone and methadone test groups. Patients using Naltrexone risk overdose when they reuse heroin after ceasing treatment. Most deaths in the Naltrexone test group occurred within a month of ceasing treatment. What this means is that treating heroin addicts is not something that can be done quickly and easily. Even when heroin users have received a course of treatment, they may continue to be at risk—in fact, even more at risk than if they had not been treated. That is why, in 1998, my government allocated adequate funding of $400,000 for proper clinical trials of the Naltrexone treatment so that it could be trialled safely and effectively. It is because of the complexities of addiction treatment that our approach to the problem has not been tied to one treatment or one action. Queensland Health was also involved in trialling the use of buprenorphine. The training of doctors who will be using this drug began this week. We have resisted strong community and media pressure to provide Naltrexone as a treatment for opiate addiction through the public system until the national trials have been evaluated. That is one of the reasons why we have 2 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 541 taken this cautious approach, and I am pleased to see that the Courier-Mail supports our attitude and approach in this matter. The role of Naltrexone as a treatment option will be much better understood when the results of the national evaluation of pharmacotherapies are finalised at the end of 2001. My government is taking drug addiction very seriously and we are involving many different treatments, many areas of medical expertise and many different departments and organisations in our approach, but we will not endorse any quick fix solutions and we will not apologise for being cautious when dealing with people's lives.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Shepherdson Inquiry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.), by leave: I want to make it very clear that I welcome the Shepherdson report on electoral fraud, and so does my government. The inquiry was good for the Labor Party and good for democracy. The actions of a few rorters nearly destroyed a good Labor government committed to job creation and a visionary program to make Queensland the Smart State—and I will never forgive them for it. The Labor Party has learned from the inquiry's investigations, has acted against those who did not do the right thing and has formulated a package designed to create the best system of government in the country and restore public faith in the electoral system. In January, on behalf of my government, I promised to deliver a far-reaching twin reform package. Let there be no misunderstanding anywhere: I will deliver it. I table a copy of that Barcaldine plan. The reforms in this plan, Restoring integrity—the Beattie good government plan for Queensland, will be implemented. There has been criticism of some of the people attending the Labor Party's reform conference on 12 May, which is one of the matters referred to in that document. I agree. Rorters are not welcome. I do not think any of them should come. But they are entitled to natural justice. However, in my view they should reconsider their positions. The major figures in this shameful behaviour should never be allowed back into the party. But the position of some of the young kids who may have been manipulated could be given consideration in a few years by the party, which is what I said yesterday. Again I emphasise the reforms I have promised will be introduced and all parties will be the better for them. I make the point that, in the report yesterday, the commissioner suggested that all political parties should be subjected to any changes. That is a very important point that was made by the commissioner and, in my view, is one that should be taken on board by all members of political parties and all leaders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Virgin Blue Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.), by leave: News that Virgin Blue now looks set to employ 1,000 people by Christmas this year is a ringing endorsement of my government's success in winning the airline's Australian headquarters for Queensland. I am delighted by the announcement by Virgin Blue Chief Executive, Brett Godfrey, of the company's updated employment target. That is three times the number of jobs originally anticipated at this stage of the company's Australian operation, and the overwhelming majority of those jobs are here in Queensland because that is where the headquarters is. If these predictions hold true, by Christmas Virgin Blue will have exceeded its target to eventually employ 700 staff in Queensland. Mr Godfrey confirmed the new employment targets when he announced Virgin Blue's latest expansion plans. The plans include a $1.1 billion investment in Virgin Blue's next generation 737 aircraft, with the first of the 14 new aircraft arriving in Queensland yesterday. The company also announced it would be extending its services with direct flights between Sydney and Coolangatta from 17 June this year. All of those new members on the Gold Coast would be absolutely delighted that the government's approach to Virgin Blue has delivered a service from Sydney to Coolangatta from 17 June this year. I know that the Minister for Tourism is delighted. Not only has Virgin Blue lived up to its commitments—it promised that it would fly to centres of 50,000 or more—we have had Townsville, now Coolangatta and now we look forward to the rest of Queensland. 542 Ministerial Statement 2 May 2001

This decision opens the door for thousands more Sydney tourists to take advantage of cheap fares to the Gold Coast. This will mean even more jobs for Queensland through jobs created in the Gold Coast tourism industry because of an increase in visitors arriving on Virgin jets. Virgin Blue has been the biggest shot in the arm for Queensland tourism in at least a decade, and maybe a generation. The airline has already extended its operations to Townsville, as I said, and executives continue to examine extending its air routes in the state and are in discussions with other regional centres. I should just add that, at the state election, we ended up with seven Labor representatives in the Gold Coast area and, with Tom Barton, we could add eight if we wish. I have no problem with that. Mr McGrady: Eight is not enough. Mr BEATTIE: I do not want to get into that. Let me make the point: two months into this government and where is Virgin Blue going? To the Gold Coast! So there you go. The new Labor members in that area can take a pat on the back for an early achievement.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT International Students Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: Today I have the enormous pleasure of welcoming international students from around the world to Queensland. More than 90 students from universities across the state have been invited by the Beattie government to Parliament House today to attend the Fourth annual welcome of international students as a sign of the Queensland government's commitment to multiculturalism and building strong relationships with our world neighbours. This annual welcome event began under my predecessor, the member for Murrumba, in 1998 to publicly recognise the mutual long-term benefits of cultural exchange for both Queensland and the home countries of around 23,000 students who choose to study at Queensland schools and universities every year. A truly Smart State builds strong relationships with its neighbours, taps into the global knowledge economy and promotes community vitality and diversity. Recent comments made by the member for Nanango highlight why events like today are so important. Contrary to misperception, international students do not take away opportunities for Queensland students. They provide our students with an opportunity to learn about other cultures, make friendships that will expand their horizons and boost Queensland's links around the world. Through participation in our schools and universities, international students enrich our communities, help build tolerance and an appreciation of cultural diversity—all of these benefits in return for access to quality Queensland education. At 1 p.m. today on the Speakers Green, I look forward to welcoming our international guests and thanking them for choosing Queensland. I invite all members of parliament to take the time today to join me in making our overseas visitors very, very welcome to ensure they receive the respect and the hospitality they deserve.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Unemployment Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.45 a.m.), by leave: There are few issues of more concern to the people of Queensland than the scourge of unemployment and there are few aspects of unemployment more soul destroying than being caught in the black hole of long-term unemployment. How a government responds to the needs of people caught up in this cruel predicament is surely a measure of the quality of that government and its ability to respond to the needs of the people it serves. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a report which passes stern judgment on the Howard government over this very issue. Titled Pathways to work: preventing and reducing long- term unemployment, this report condemns the way this crucial issue has been mishandled by the federal coalition government. I table this report. At the same time, let me remind the House that long-term unemployment is an issue which has been given high priority by the Beattie government and is at the heart of this government's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. 2 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 543

This is a report which carries significant weight, because it is a collaborative statement from a number of key bodies concerned with economic and social policy. Let me name them all: the Australian Council of Social Service; the Business Council of Australia; the Committee for Economic Development of Australia; Dusseldorp Skills Forum; Jobs Australia; the Youth Research Centre at the University of Melbourne; the Australian Council of Trade Unions; and the Boston Consulting Group. By any measure, that is a highly credible group. And this report is a litany of condemnation of the Howard government. For instance, this Pathways to work report is critical of the federal government's lack of funding for programs to reduce long-term unemployment. It argues that present funding levels are not sufficient for job network providers to offer the kind of intensive help that the long-term unemployed need. It also argues for a stronger financial commitment to employment and training assistance. It is a stinging indictment of the Howard coalition government. The report found that Australia lags behind most comparable OECD countries in its expenditure on employment assistance for job seekers. In fact, while many OECD countries have recently boosted their expenditure in this area, Australia under the Howard government has reduced it. What an indictment! A government member: Shame! Mr FOLEY: As the honourable member says: shame! The Pathways to work report proposes three priority areas for action to prevent and reduce long-term unemployment. First, ensuring a successful transition from education to employment. Over the last 30 years, full-time employment opportunities for early school leavers have all but disappeared. Disadvantaged young people need a second chance to secure a job or pursue training, and I refer honourable members to the initiative that I announced yesterday in this House of the extra half a million dollars to the Gold Coast Institute of TAFE, which is doing excellent work in that area. The second priority area is ensuring a successful transition from retrenchment to re- employment. Retrenched workers, particularly those whose education and work force skills are limited, face a high risk of long-term unemployment. The report recommends that employers, government, unions and other relevant parties work together to provide retraining and other employment assistance to high-risk retrenched employees at an early stage. The third priority area is reducing long-term unemployment. Mr Schwarten: Hear, hear! Mr FOLEY: I thank the honourable the Minister for Public Works and Housing for his strong commitment in this area. We have seen apprentices and trainees put in and given a chance through a range of programs and a number of long-term unemployed employed through the Community Renewal Program administered by the minister. At present a substantial minority of long-term unemployed job seekers are denied intensive employment assistance through the Job Network. Instead, they are offered basic job-matching assistance or short job-search training courses, even though many need much more substantial help to secure employment. The report argues that all long-term unemployed people should be offered intensive employment assistance. This report is particularly significant for the people of Queensland. In essence, the approach recommended by the experts who compiled the report is consistent with the Queensland government's Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative and related programs. Indeed, the Beattie government has recognised each of the three priority areas in its labour programs, initiated so brilliantly by my predecessor, the Honourable Paul Braddy. The proposed Kickstart for Youth Program will target early school leavers aged 15 to 24 years in communities with high youth unemployment. The Worker Assistance Program is an early intervention program that aims to assist workers displaced as a result of large-scale retrenchments to make a successful transition to alternative employment. The Community Jobs Plan and Community Employment Assistance Program, established in October 1998, target long-term unemployed people and those at risk of long-term unemployment. The Community Employment Assistance Program funds organisations to provide assistance in the areas of literacy and numeracy, living skills, vocational training, job search and job placement. Those programs have successful outcomes. 544 Ministerial Statement 2 May 2001

It is particularly encouraging to see that such eminent economic and social policy experts endorse this government's approach to the problem of long-term unemployment. Unlike the Howard government in Canberra, the Beattie government continues to listen to and respond to the urgent needs of the people of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Health Promotion Project, Rockhampton and Mount Morgan Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (9.51 a.m.), by leave: The Beattie government was elected in 1998 with a promise to allocate $1 million a year for a Health Promotion Advisory Council to address the rapid increase in preventable diseases. Yesterday in this House I spoke of the Falls Prevention Program to be conducted in the Wide Bay area as part of the government's push to return a preventive focus to Queensland Health. We know that physical inactivity is a major contributor to a wide range of health problems from heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer to depression, hypertension and osteoporosis. Rockhampton and Mount Morgan are also to be the focus of an ambitious and exciting health promotion project to increase levels of physical activity. Mr Schwarten: Hear, hear! Mrs EDMOND: And I am sure that the member for Rockhampton will be there supporting them. The people of Rockhampton and Mount Morgan will be encouraged to walk 7,000 steps a day on the path to improved health. Seven thousand steps, or 30 minutes a day, is the minimum level of activity needed for a beneficial effect on one's health. I have been trying to get the message across since I have been minister that we need to do everything we can to strengthen prevention strategies to have a sustainable health system. We know from experience that browbeating the community about its eating, exercising and drinking habits does not always work. We also know that health projects developed by the community itself have the best chance of working. That is why the Beattie government, through Health Promotion Queensland, will be investing $800,000 over the next two years to get the community working together and walking together to improve people's own health, particularly adults of working age and the unemployed. The impetus for the project's activities will come from the community. It will be lead by Central Queensland University, the University of Queensland, Rockhampton Council, Queensland Health and community representatives who were involved in the project. Many local groups and organisations in the Rockhampton and Mount Morgan communities have confirmed their involvement. They are too many to mention here. The funds will be used to support a locally based project team to develop ideas generated by the community. The key message of 7,000 steps a day will raise community awareness about what is needed to start taking control of one's own health care. All it takes is 7,000 steps a day to obtain maximum benefit for those who are inactive and to maintain a level of fitness for those who are already active. Everyone who takes part in the program will receive a pedometer to show them that physical activity can be built into their day, rather than assigned to a special time when people may not then make that time. The idea of 7,000 steps being accumulated over one day is consistent with the latest research that shows that both everyday activity such as climbing stairs, walking to the bus, shopping and even walking to the television instead of using the remote control, and planned activity such as sport, jogging, swimming and cycling are beneficial. People will also be encouraged to join walking groups and exercise classes through various settings such as their workplaces and churches. It is not about hi-tech, expensive exercise equipment. The project will be using networks of health and other professionals and community groups to get the message out. There will also be strategies to make walking easier and more interesting, such as developing walking trails, maps and signposting in collaboration with local councils. It is an ambitious project, and the level of support expressed through the diverse range of project partners is encouraging. However, there is a lot at stake if we do not succeed. Inactivity is believed to be second only to tobacco as the cause of death among men and it is the most important contributor to illness and injury in Australian women. 2 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 545

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT West Chermside Shooting; Police Service Report Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.55 a.m.), by leave: Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the Hanbury Street, Chermside shooting incident in which three police officers were shot at close range by a male gunman. The three officers, Constable Sharnelle Cole, Constable Darryl Green and Sergeant Chris Mulhall miraculously survived the shooting. As of today, Sergeant Mulhall and Constable Cole have returned to duty, while Constable Darryl Green remains under a course of ongoing treatment. All three officers are a credit to the Queensland Police Service. To have two out of three members back on duty within 12 months of the shooting is clearly indicative of the support that they have received from their colleagues. The Criminal Justice Commission recently released a report entitled Integrity in the Queensland Police Service. It was overall a positive report, with the main finding being that overall standards of police behaviour had improved over the last decade. It also found that most members of the public who have contact with the police are satisfied with how they are treated. I feel that the general tone of the report is positive and, as the report says, there is greater acceptance by the community of the general good standard and quality of policing. I believe the report provides assurance that any unacceptable behaviour is being identified and acted upon. The report acknowledges that the Queensland Police Service has implemented measures in recent years to enhance integrity within the service and will continue to do so. It found that the increased focus on police integrity and accountability in the last decade has not had an adverse impact on police operational effectiveness. It has also identified several priority areas for the future. For example, matters have been raised about providing operational police with tape recorders. It has also raised the matter of drug and alcohol testing for members of the service. I can assure the House that areas that require government input are being looked at in detail, in consultation with the Police Commissioner. The report recognises the efforts of the Queensland Police Service to improve standards of integrity. The Queensland Police Service is showing itself to be an accountable service that is helping to make Queensland a safer place for all who live here.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dingoes, Fraser Island Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.58 a.m.), by leave: As I informed the House yesterday, work has begun to determine the risk to humans posed by the dingo population on Fraser Island. The risk assessment will build on work already done on the management of dingoes on the island, including the draft dingo management plan for Fraser Island. I have told my department to give effect to that work immediately. I told it to ensure that the entire process is completed within the month. The terms of reference state that we will identify which animals and areas are likely to present risk to humans over the long term. Further to the culling ordered today, we will develop principles and practices of a longer term culling program that looks specifically at locations where human and dingo interactions have become commonplace. We will engage leading Australian experts on dingo management to advise on future management directions. I have asked for the immediate development of management procedures, including instructions for the management in the field. We will develop a long-term risk assessment program. We will also investigate if the current fines and penalties for feeding dingoes are tough enough. My department has been enforcing the standard operational procedure that any dingo that shows aggression towards human beings is destroyed. As honourable members know, up to 40 dingoes have been culled from the island in the past decade. The Premier and I have both said that those dingoes which hang around campsites and townships will be culled. I table the terms of reference which— identify which classes of animals are likely to present risks to humans; develop the principles and practices of a culling program that includes specific prescriptions in relation to particular locations where human-dingo interactions have become commonplace; 546 Ministerial Statement 2 May 2001

engage leading Australian experts on dingo management to advise on future management directions; develop immediate options for management procedures, including instructions for the management of field situations; develop a long-term risk assessment program; and review current fines and penalties for the feeding of dingoes.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Q-Build Projects Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.00 a.m.), by leave: I want to inform honourable members of several recent initiatives by Q-Build that have delivered valuable training opportunities while building or protecting important community assets. Last weekend marked the official opening of the state's oldest public building, the Commissariat Store built by convict labour on the river bank in William Street. A two-year, $2.1 million restoration program undertaken through Q-Build has delivered a magnificent new venue for the museum collection of the Royal Historical Society of Queensland. The project also offered a rare opportunity to keep traditional building and stonemasonry skills alive. Q-Build rotated as many apprentices as possible through the project—stonemasons, plumbers, carpenters and painters. Experienced master craftsmen passed on skills to the next generation, ensuring that Q-Build has a work force which can care for our historic public buildings for many years to come. I am told that six skilled stonemasons and a quarryman were amongst the convict gang to originally build the Commissariat Store in 1829. It also took six skilled stonemasons from Q-Build to chip and chisel new life into this historic building under the latest refurbishment project. The $2.1 million renovation project included a $1.1 million Federation Fund grant from the federal government. I am pleased that this project has brought back to life a building from our state's past so that it can be enjoyed by future generations. It is especially pleasing to have the renovations completed in time for our Centenary of Federation celebrations. Since the House last met, the $72 million Roma Street Parkland project has also been officially opened by the Premier. Q-Build has undertaken the management of the parkland and is also using the parkland to help employ and train its first two horticultural trainees. In the week prior to Anzac Day, the Premier and I unveiled a new memorial to recognise those who fought in the Battle for Australia in the South Pacific during World War II. Honourable members may be aware that I authorised the construction of the memorial after representations from veteran Bill Puckering and his local member, the member for Nudgee. It was a pleasure to finally grant Bill his wish for a memorial after his long struggle. Indeed, I commented at the time that Bill had fought longer for a memorial than he had fought for his country. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the efforts and skills of Q-Build stonemasons John Higham and Craig Gilbert, who helped build the memorial. Last week I inspected the new Varsity Lakes State School on the Gold Coast. As my colleague the Minister for Education would be aware, Q-Build acted as construction manager, with four of its staff managing 24 separate trade packages. Six Q-Build apprentices also trained on the project, which was delivered on time prior to the start of the 2001 school year. Q-Build remains ready to assist in times of emergency. As my ministerial colleague the honourable member for Mount Isa knows, Q-Build performed magnificently on Mornington Island to clear up and repair damage to buildings when Cyclone Abigail swept through in late February. Q-Build tradesmen were deployed immediately and offered assistance to the Mornington Island Community Council. A crew of six is still on the island working on government buildings. I ask critics of Q-Build to consider who would undertake such work so promptly if Q-Build did not exist. One of Q-Build's recent community projects was to help the Hear and Say Centre at Auchenflower in Brisbane achieve new facilities to help young deaf children. The refurbished centre, opened in early April, caters for children who have cochlear implants—the so-called 'bionic ears'—teaching them to listen and to talk. Q-Build donated 2,000 hours of work by apprentice carpenters, plumbers, painters, joiners and electricians to construct an administration area, auditorium, kitchen, play areas, bathrooms, walkways and waiting areas. 2 May 2001 Ministerial Statement 547

I am pleased to inform the House that 16 indigenous apprentices training under a special Q- Build initiative have progressed to stage 2 of their competency-based program. At present 20 apprentices are employed in Q-Build's special indigenous training program in the communities of Woorabinda, Palm Island, Kowanyama, Bamaga, Umagico, Injinoo and New Mapoon. Once again, critics—or those who rush to judge Q-Build without knowing the facts—might like to suggest where those 20 young people would receive training if Q-Build did not exist. The same goes for the 100 apprentices employed earlier this year under Q-Build's regular training scheme.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.05 a.m.), by leave: A key plank of the historic South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement reached between the timber industry, the conservation movement and the state government back in 1999 was the transition from native forest harvesting to plantations over 25 years. Under the agreement, the Queensland government committed $8 million to a research, development and extension strategy to enhance the capacity and international competitiveness of the timber industry. This integrated research project, known as Hardwoods Queensland, is being undertaken to address the technical challenges in the development of a solid wood industry in Queensland based on eucalypt plantations. I can announce today that the Department of Primary Industries has entered into a research alliance with one of the world's largest timber growers, Shell Forestry Limited in South America. This research alliance aims to further accelerate Queensland's developing hardwood plantation industry and reduce rotation lengths of eucalypt plantations. Hardwoods Queensland is being undertaken by the Department of Primary Industries through its Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences. Shell Forestry Limited has extensive trials in Paraguay and Argentina with hardwood tree species that are of major interest to Queensland's developing plantation hardwood industry. Shell Forestry Limited's trials are much older than anything available here in Queensland. In turn, Queensland researchers boast expertise that is currently not available at Shell Forestry Limited. So both parties stand to make major gains by working together. Shell will have access to all the data generated from the project and will apply that to their South American and any other relevant forestry operations to optimise the yield from their high quality eucalypt timber. Five DPI staff members will be working in South America with Shell Forestry Limited over the next six months. This project is a win-win situation for both parties but, importantly, it represents another win for Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Rural Water Use Efficiency Program Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.07 a.m.), by leave: Water is a precious resource that affects everything we do as Queenslanders, whether it be in the home, on the land in primary production or turning the wheels of industry. Because water is such a finite resource, particularly in rural areas, it is essential that primary producers are encouraged to use water in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible. That is why in January the Premier launched the Queensland government's new $14 million Rural Water Use Efficiency Program. This initiative is about helping farmers access the best technology available to get the most out of every drop of water available. Under the program, financial assistance is available to primary producers through their industry organisations to purchase water equipment, technology and services to achieve best practice in irrigation water management. Individual primary producers can apply for subsidies of up to 75 per cent of the cost of equipment such as water meters, surge valves, soil monitoring equipment, weather stations, improved irrigation systems, and training and consultancies. The resultant efficiencies in water use will help irrigators increase productivity, produce a higher quality product and increase their yield, while reducing operating costs, water wastage and the impact on the environment. For example, up to 50 per cent of the water used in fruit and vegetable production can be saved, and the average savings for other areas and industries can range between 10 per cent and 50 per cent. 548 Ministerial Statement 2 May 2001

I am delighted to inform the House that the government's Rural Water Use Efficiency Program is proving to be an overwhelming success in rural Queensland. In the three months since the Premier's announcement, the government has received nearly 700 applications from primary producers to participate in the program. I recently had the pleasure of presenting a cheque in Mackay for $1.34 million to Canegrowers Queensland, which represents the sugar industry's share of the $3.5 million funding available this year under the program. Other rural industries will benefit from the financial incentives. These include $845,700 for producers in the fruit and vegetable industry, $670,000 for the cotton industry and $554,125 for dairy producers. These are the first instalments of a three-year program developed following extensive consultation with industry to determine the most cost-effective way for individual primary producers to improve irrigation management. This first year is a trial year for the Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, but the government will be looking at ways to broaden and improve the scheme in the following two years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT National Science Week; Tall Poppy Campaign Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (10.10 a.m.), by leave: Last night I launched National Science Week at a function in Brisbane. This launch was held in conjunction with the Tall Poppy Campaign dinner and included many representatives from academia, research bodies, industry and those from across government who have a passion for the promotion of science. Also in attendance was Australia's only living Nobel Laureate, and University of Queensland graduate, Professor Peter Doherty. As Minister for Innovation and Information Economy I recognise the importance of science and technology as the key driver of innovation in our society. Innovation means doing things smarter—developing new products, new processes and new services that are delivered more effectively than in the past. Innovation also includes new institutional structures and arrangements that are open and transparent and which actively promote, not suppress, challenging ideas and new ways of doing things. The underpinning of innovation requires a culture that encourages risk taking, invests in knowledge creation and actively seeks to apply new technologies across the whole community at every opportunity. While Australia has an enviable record of international achievement in science, its performance has lagged behind some of the world's powerhouses. For instance, Australia's spending on research and development has not kept pace with other nations. In fact, Frank Berger, the CEO of Mincom, said that we are not bad at the 'R' but not really good at the 'D'. There have also been falling enrolments in key science and related disciplines at universities and secondary schools. There is not enough interaction between our key research institutes and industry. The level of commercial development of our good ideas has been poor, our industrial structure is still dominated by low technology and our commitment to developing our knowledge workers as measured by training levels is low. The Queensland government recognises the importance of providing a culture of excellence in science and technology, hence our active support by sponsorship and public recognition for both National Science Week and the Tall Poppy Campaign. National Science Week and the Tall Poppy Campaign address the need for recognition of the worth of Australian achievements, the importance of science to our everyday lives and the urgent need to invest in science, knowledge development and diffusion. It is only by initiatives such as these that we can continue to grow as a state and successfully confront the economic, environmental and social challenges that await us. National Science Week is a celebration of Australian science and technology. It is about providing positive role models to young people who are considering a career in science and who see the worth and value of real innovation in our economy. In Queensland the Beattie government is proud to be the major sponsor, helping the community to learn more about science issues and to bring scientific debates to the top of the public agenda. The government has also introduced a number of important initiatives to support innovation. In particular, our Smart State strategy has sought to move Queensland in the direction of innovation through a strategy for improved skilling, funding support for key research bodies, strategic international collaborations, the establishment of the Queensland Innovation Council and participating in the Australian Technology Showcase. We now have the right environment to allow for strategic, long-term, whole-of-government policy decisions to promote innovation and the 2 May 2001 Parliamentary Committees 549 commitment to put innovation and support for science firmly at the top of the policy agenda and keep it there. With the establishment of Australia's first Department of Innovation we now have the necessary mechanism to develop and drive innovation strategies across government. We can actively engage in collaborative arrangements with Queensland industry, our education and research institutions and the broader community. When it comes to innovation and technology, including the important role science will play in our future, Queenslanders can know that this government is here for the long haul. We want the Smart State to benefit all Queenslanders and their families now and in the future.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES Appointment and Membership Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.14 a.m.), by leave: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing and Sessional Orders— (1) Members be appointed to parliamentary committees as follows— Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee— Ms Struthers (Chair), Ms Nolan, Miss Simpson, Mr Lee, Mrs Pratt, Mr Lawlor and Mrs E Cunningham Members' Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee— Mrs Attwood (Chair), Mrs Sheldon, Mrs Croft, Mr Fenlon, Mr Flynn, Ms Phillips and Mr Springborg Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee— Mr Wilson (Chair), Mr McNamara, Mr Shine, Ms Boyle, Mr Hobbs, Dr Kingston and Mr Copeland Public Accounts Committee— Hon. K. W. Hayward (Chair), Mr Mulherin, Mr Rowell, Mr Hopper, Ms Jarratt, Mr Choi and Dr Watson Public Works Committee— Mr Livingstone (Chair), Mr Strong, Mr Malone, Mr Poole, Mr Quinn, Ms Stone and Hon. K. R. Lingard Scrutiny of Legislation Committee— Mr Pitt (Chair), Ms Barry, Mr Wellington, Ms Keech, Ms Lee Long, Mrs C Sullivan and Mr Seeney Standing Orders Committee— Mr Speaker (ex officio) (Chair), Hon. P. D. Beattie, Hon. T. M. Mackenroth, Hon. A. M. Bligh, Mr Horan, Hon. K. R. Lingard and Mr Johnson (2) These appointments to be effective as from assent to the Parliamentary Committees and Criminal Justice Amendment Bill. SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRAVELSAFE–APPOINTMENT AND MEMBERSHIP— (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Travelsafe, be appointed to inquire into and report on all aspects of road safety and public transport in Queensland. In particular the Committee shall monitor, investigate and report on— (a) issues affecting road safety including the causes of road crashes and measures aimed at reducing deaths, injuries and economic costs to the community; (b) the safety of passenger transport services, and measures aimed at reducing the incidence of related deaths and injuries; and (c) measures for the enhancement of public transport in Queensland and reducing dependence on private motor vehicles as the predominant mode of transport. (2) That the committee consist of Mr Pearce (Chair), Mrs C Scott, Hon. V. P. Lester, Ms Male, Ms Lee Long, Mrs Reilly and Miss Roberts. (3) That the committee have power to call for persons, documents and other things notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament. (4) That the committee may examine witnesses on oath or affirmation. (5) That a quorum consists of four members of the committee. (6) That the Chair of the committee or the Deputy Chair when acting as Chair, shall have a deliberative vote and in the event of an equality of votes shall also have a casting vote. (7) That as soon as practicable after the end of each year ending 30 June the committee shall prepare a report on the operations of the committee during that year. (8) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they may be inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Motion agreed to. 550 Private Members' Statements 2 May 2001

NOTICE OF MOTION Vegetation Management Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.14 a.m.): I give notice that I will move— That this House recognise and acknowledge the negative impact the Vegetation Management Act has had on those people who invested in timber as a revenue source and give consideration to— (1) reviewing the current legislation to allow limited timber harvesting to an average income per annum; (2) pay compensation for loss of revenue; or (3) purchase those areas designated for preservation.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Brisbane Markets Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.15 a.m.): Yesterday in this House we witnessed a bumbling, stumbling, incompetent display by the Treasurer and Deputy Premier. First of all he stood up in this House and said in a ministerial statement that cabinet had decided it was going to sell the asset of the Brisbane Markets and use the proceeds to undertake painting. When he was questioned about that maintenance program he said it was not a maintenance program; it was a capital program. This Treasurer does not know the difference between a coat of paint and a capital program! That was the first serious mistake. Last night he was forced to come into this House and admit his mistake in another bumbling display, to try to talk his way out of what he had said earlier that morning. During that process he again admitted that part of the proceeds from the sale of the Brisbane Markets would be used for this maintenance program. This government does not have enough money to undertake the normal, day-to-day maintenance of the schools of this state such as reroofing, painting and rewiring, which should come from the Education budget. That money is not there and the government has to sell off assets to generate it. It is like a taxidriver selling his cab in order to get the money to paint his house. That is the sad and sorry state of affairs that exists in Queensland under the Beattie Labor government. It is not good enough to have a Treasurer who does not know the difference between painting the walls and a capital asset. It is not good enough to have a government which will sell the family silver to pay for annual maintenance costs that should come from the budget. This government is getting our finances into a sad and sorry mess. We have a Treasurer who does not know how to control the sale of assets so the proceeds are properly used to give back to the people of Queensland. If there are more stumbling, bumbling mistakes by this Treasurer, then it is obvious that this position is too important for him to stay in. We must have sound financial management in Queensland by someone who knows what they are doing. Time expired.

Roma Street Parkland; Izit Entertainment Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (10.17 a.m.): I congratulate the Premier and the Public Works Minister on the opening of the Roma Street Parkland on 6 April. Not only did the guests enjoy their muffins and tea in such a fabulous setting, enjoying the wildlife and public art; they were treated to street theatre as well. The parkland, which is a sensational asset to Brisbane and a great place to take a stroll to de-stress, will also on occasion be a source of employment—employment for actors. Actors who are not gainfully employed in our theatres or on our film sets often find performance work in street theatre. As I was leaving Roma Street Parkland I heard someone singing but could not see anyone—then up rode Rachel McCracken on her horse Farrar. Rachel is a resident of Pinkenba and one of the many performers that Izit Entertainment employs. Izit Entertainment is one of the few performance-based companies that operate without funding. For the first five years the company directors were paid below minimum award rates and now earn over $65 above the award. Izit Entertainment's philosophy has always been the creation of work for local artists. In just over 10 years of operation Izit Entertainment has paid over $2 million directly into the pockets of artists. It has performed at every major arts festival in Australia. Izit Entertainment's main objective is to take its unique style of comical theatre to the people. Its inspiration comes from the laughter and enjoyment of their audience, and I thank Izit Entertainment. 2 May 2001 Private Members' Statements 551

Golden Years Centre, Nundah Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (10.19 a.m.): Along with the member for Clayfield, I recently attended the 25th anniversary of the Golden Years Centre in Nundah. I was particularly honoured to be in the presence of one of the founding members of the centre, Mr Jack Murray, and its inaugural president, Mr Stan Dawson. These two men must have felt a great sense of pride in witnessing the results of their initial efforts some 25 years ago to create a centre for local senior citizens. The Golden Years Centre is a community resource centre for persons aged 50 years or over and for young people who are in receipt of an invalid pension. Its development and growth over the last 25 years is a story of success and a tribute to the commitment of a group of people dedicated to enriching the lives of our senior citizens. For many years there had been a push for recreational facilities for older people in the Nundah and surrounding community. Early in 1970 this gained momentum, culminating in the Nundah Rotary Club calling a special meeting with the objective of establishing a senior citizens club. Other local service clubs quickly came on board and a joint committee was formed to develop plans and raise funds. The centre was officially opened in April 1976 by the Governor of Queensland and at the time was considered to be state-of-the-art in aged care and senior citizen service delivery in Australia. Thus the Golden Years Centre grew out of a sense of community spirit and its establishment was based on community cooperation. The centre has repaid this debt to the local community many times over since its inception. Today the centre is seen as an essential community resource. It currently has 500 members, including 20 life members, and provides an ever-increasing range of creative recreational and support services, including day respite, Meals on Wheels and a community visitors scheme. I offer my congratulations to the Golden Years Centre on its 25th anniversary. Particular congratulations must go to the board and centre management. I also give my special thanks to the staff and volunteers of the centre, who always make members and visitors most welcome and whose positive attitudes are always uplifting.

Black Sigatoka Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.20 a.m.): A $200 million a year industry is under threat at the moment in north Queensland and thousands of jobs in small communities are in jeopardy. Black sigatoka, a fungal leaf disease, has infected commercial banana plantations, causing a 50 kilometre quarantine zone to be implemented. North Queensland grows 85 per cent of all bananas produced in Australia. Sydney markets sell between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of all bananas in our country. Negotiations have taken place between the New South Wales and Queensland governments to reduce the quarantine zone. Black sigatoka has previously been restricted to small outbreaks in feral unmanaged banana plants in the Cape York area. Only one case of a commercial property being affected had occurred. North Queensland's banana industry is very vigilant and self-sufficient in its banana quarantine project and is running from a self-imposed levy and provides a regulatory body that effectively manages pests and diseases. DNA technology is being used at the moment for early detection to keep this current outbreak of black sigatoka under control. The banana industry is doing all it can to exterminate black sigatoka affected plants, but the problem is too big and the banana growers need additional help from the Queensland state government to completely eradicate the disease. More staff are urgently needed on the ground for surveillance of the fungus and there is a dire need for compensation for affected growers, who cannot sell their fruit. In the future, the key to a successful campaign will be early detection. The industry needs every ounce of assistance the state government can provide to protect our clean, green image for this industry that is worth so much to the northern region of the state. Time expired.

Northgate-Petrie Railway Line Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (10.23 a.m.): Mr Speaker, as you would know, those of us who live on the north side of Brisbane can never be outdone by the south-siders. Last weekend, while the south-siders celebrated the opening of their wonderful new busway, we on the 552 Private Members' Statements 2 May 2001 north side had our own great public transport initiative happening. I am happy to inform the House that the first trains began running on the newly constructed Northgate to Petrie third track. This $100 million-plus project began in July 1998 and has provided over 400 full-time equivalent jobs. To say this has been an enormous task would be an understatement. As well as the laying of the track, the project includes upgrade to stations, roadworks, new footbridges, the installation of lifts to make many of the stations more accessible and the installation of sound barriers. The entire project is expected to be completed in the near future and then we will have our celebration. This morning I place on record my appreciation and thanks to the project manager, Mark Anderson, who has done a magnificent job in coordinating the whole project. I pay tribute also to Teresa Robertson, the project's community liaison officer. Both Mark and Teresa have been just a phone call away when I have needed them to address any issue arising out of the work being done. Of course, a project of this size could not have been undertaken without there being some community or individual disturbances. On that part of the line which runs through the electorate of Kurwongbah a number of issues arose, and I have no doubt this occurred in other areas as well. In my area these issues were wide ranging, from the serious issue of the elderly being concerned about the height and structure of the temporary steps at Lawnton Station to the more unusual matter of a meat ants' nest being disturbed when a sound barrier was built. The ants got nasty and took out their revenge on unsuspecting nearby residents. But the project team responded promptly to my calls for assistance. For this I thank them and I thank the team on behalf of the local community. Time expired.

Dingoes, Fraser Island Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (10.25 a.m.): I wish to speak about the fatal attack on a young boy by dingoes on Fraser Island. I record my sympathy to the boy's family. The draft Fraser Island Dingo Management Strategy was published in April 1999—two years ago. I will quote verbatim from that strategy. It stated— 1. The possibility of a fatality resulting from a dingo attack is real; 2. A cull to a sustainable level will be undertaken if research can show the population is not in balance with natural foods; 3. Under existing regulations, a person who feeds a native animal that is dangerous can be prosecuted; 4. The common law duty of care requires the QPWS to address the safety of people entering and using the lands, water and facilities in the Fraser Island Recreation Area. The management plan recognises that measures can and will be reasonably taken to prevent harm to visitors. This strategy recognises that dingoes are an important tourist attraction and that some dingoes have developed aggressive tendencies, and that strategies aimed at educating visitors were implemented but were reported as not successful by Twyford in 1994. Dr Corbett, a dingo expert, was commissioned and he recommended various measures, none of which has been installed. He reported that aggressive interactions can occur following familiarisation and for other reasons: dingoes regarding humans as competitors or intruders into their domain, which they are prepared to protect; and dingoes regarding humans as prey. This category includes young dingoes practising hunting skills. The plan proposed by Fred Williams and Bruce Jacobs has been totally ignored. This plan would give the tourists and the dingoes the best of both worlds. Time expired.

Rita Mills Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (10.27 a.m.): Last Saturday I was privileged to be a guest speaker at the launch of Rita Mills' latest CD album Mata Nice, which translates as 'irresistibly nice'. For many in south-east Queensland this may be an unremarkable event, but in her home country, the Torres Strait Islands, Rita Mills is nothing less than a living legend adored by all. A naturally gifted musician and singer, she made a ukulele at the age of seven with odds and ends from around the house. When she turned nine, she taught herself to play on her brother's guitar, and so began a career that has spanned more than five decades. 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 553

A born entertainer, she first sang and played at functions and hotels on Thursday Island. And then with her two sisters, Cessa and Ina, the famous Mills sisters were born. From 1988 to 1995 they travelled to over 80 major musical festivals and concerts throughout Australia and Europe, including Expo '88, where they were a great hit. In 1995 the Prime Minister awarded them Australia's highest indigenous art award, the Red Ochre Award. It was in that year that Rita decided to embark on her own career, promoting her people and sharing her unique Torres Strait Island culture all over the world, acting as an extraordinary ambassador for the Torres Strait Islands and for Australia. People who see her performances enjoy not only unique music and dance but also feel in their hearts her message of friendship. Just as she was inspired by Eartha Kitt, her music and achievements are an inspiration to young indigenous women, sending the message: be proud of your culture, stand tall and strong and achieve your dreams. Saturday's launch at the Small Pier Marketplace Theatre was full to overflowing with family friends and supporters to pay their respects and enjoy a fun-loving performance by this national treasure, who is herself most definitely and above all 'Mata Nice'. Thank you, Rita, for the privilege, and congratulations on a wonderful new CD.

Major Capital Infrastructure Projects Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.29 a.m.): I rise to express the concerns that have been expressed by the construction industry at the failure of the Beattie Labor government to implement major capital infrastructure programs. Last weekend we saw the government taking credit for the opening of the South East Busway, just as it did in relation to the Pacific Motorway last October. I do not need to remind the government that the contracts for those projects were let by the former coalition government. The construction industry in this state knows very well who let those contracts. They also know who built the Pacific Motorway. That project was conceived, planned, designed, its contracts let, and its construction was commenced and almost completed in less than three years under the former Borbidge-Sheldon coalition government. Where is the Beattie Labor government's equivalent of the Pacific Motorway project? We know only about the Brisbane Valley bypass and the port road, and we know where the finance came from. Is it the $30 million diving board that the Minister for State Development is building just outside this Parliament House? Perhaps it will link up with the tunnel to nowhere that was supposed to be stage 1 of the inner-northern busway. That was the tunnel that was to provide access from the Queen Street bus tunnel to Roma Street, but it disappeared somewhere in the Transport Minister's too-hard basket, which was the same fate as the Briztram project. I note that there is also to be an official opening of the Airtrain project this weekend. The initial contract for that project was also signed by the Borbidge government. We all know that it is a private enterprise contract. Of course the Minister for Transport said that he had to renegotiate the deal. I am also delighted that he has seen fit to endorse the projected patronage of 2.3 million passengers in the first year. I call on the Premier to show leadership and to put in place capital works programs on the eve of the roads forum here in Brisbane so that private enterprise and local government know how this state is going to be developed and advanced in the future. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before commencing question time, I welcome in the public gallery parents, teachers and students from the Samford State School in the electorate of Ferny Grove. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Dingoes, Fraser Island Mr HORAN (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Minister for Environment to his refusal yesterday to give a categorical guarantee that no Fraser Island dingoes have been relocated to the mainland under his government, either during this term or its first term. I further refer to reports that this is being considered by the government in response to the tragic fatality on Monday, and I ask: how many dingoes have been relocated from Fraser Island and where have they been put on the mainland? Mr WELLS: Part 1: none; part 2: nowhere. I can say quite categorically that certainly not during the time that I have been minister has any dingo been relocated from the island, and I am advised by my department that during the entire— 554 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001

Opposition members interjected. Mr WELLS: If honourable members listen, they might learn something. I am advised by my department that during the entire period that the Department of Environment has been involved in it, no dingo has been relocated from the island. Let me make it clear that there is no policy of releasing dingoes from Fraser Island into the wild. That policy is not in place, it has not been in place—according to the advice of my department—ever, and it is not under consideration. The culling which will take place in the immediate future on Fraser Island is going to put a line between human habitation and the dingo population of Fraser Island. Decades ago, there was a time when the dingoes were wild animals that behaved like any other wild animal and, at the sight of a human being, would move away and go back into the bush. But over a period of decades what has happened as a result of tourists hand feeding the dingoes and encouraging the dingoes and some—foolishly enough—seeking to have their photographs taken cuddling dingoes, is that those people have caused the dingoes to become habituated to human contact to the extent that we have a wild animal that, nevertheless, is fearless of human beings. That situation has led to a tragedy, and that is a situation that needs to be reversed. The only way that we can do that is by proceeding with the culling that was ordered today. But that culling is not all that is going to be required. I have referred the House to a risk management strategy. That risk assessment, which the department has commenced, is going to advert to the question of: to what extent can the dingo population be sustained on Fraser Island? We have now a dingo population which is far too large to be sustained by the natural environment of Fraser Island. It is a dingo population that has got to that stage only by hand feeding by human beings and by the obtaining of human-sourced food for the dingoes. At the very least, that population must be reduced to a size that the ecology of Fraser Island can sustain in a natural way, and that may require further culling—even after the culling which is taking place—to draw a line between human habitation and those areas in the wild that are populated by the dingoes.

Industrial Relations Legislation Mr HORAN: I refer the Premier to the turmoil which has occurred in the House this morning over the planned Address in Reply debate being postponed and the industrial relations bill being moved from No. 13 on the notice paper. I note also the long absences from the chamber during the first hour of the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Treasurer and the Premier, and the presence in the corridors of Bill Ludwig, leader of the AWU faction, and I ask— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. Mr Hobbs: Big Bill's back. Mr HORAN: Big Bill is back, yes. I will just repeat what I was saying. I note also the long absences from the chamber during the first hour of the Minister for Industrial Relations, the Treasurer and the Premier, and the presence in the corridors of Bill Ludwig, leader of the AWU faction, and I ask: what is the sudden urgency to pass the industrial relations legislation? Mr BEATTIE: Elvis has left the building! As members would be aware, the government's program is determined on the basis of a range of issues. An Opposition member: A wing and a prayer. Mr BEATTIE: The member will need more than a prayer. Under the standing orders, legislation before the House cannot be debated other than when it is called on. If I wanted to be cute about this, I would simply indicate that to the Leader of the Opposition, because the bill is before the House and he would understand that, technically, his question is out of order. Does the Leader of the Opposition understand that? Technically, his question is out of order. But notwithstanding the fact that the question is out of order, I am happy to respond; I will talk generally around it, not in particular. So I will save the member from himself, and I am happy to do that. Mr Schwarten: That's a hard task. Mr BEATTIE: It is a very hard task. I am reminded of an article which appeared in today's Bulletin magazine. It involves the Liberal Party, but it could equally apply to others. There was a meeting that took place after the 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 555 state election. Shane Stone, who is the federal President of the Liberal Party, made some references to the state Liberal membership at that time. Interestingly, when referring to Liberal Party MPs, he said— I'm sure some MPs think that manual labour is a Spanish tennis player—that was certainly the case among state members. I have to say that I totally endorse the position of the federal leader of the Liberal Party's organisational wing. I do not want to hear a bad word about this man Shane Stone. He is credible and intelligent. More importantly, he is a perceptive individual, and I cannot for the life of me understand why he was removed as leader of the Liberal Party or at least the Liberal-National Party in the Northern Territory. I will have discussions with whoever I believe it is appropriate to discuss issues with from time to time. Yes, Bill Ludwig was here at a meeting this morning. The Treasurer and I met him on a range of issues, as I do when I meet leaders of business. In fact, one of the criticisms directed at me and the Labor Party is a fair one. Unfortunately, I have spent more time with business than I have with trade unions. And from time to time, I will meet trade union leaders and I will meet business leaders to discuss issues of common interest, because this is a consultative, listening government. And when it comes to legislative programs—as members would know, government business takes precedence. We will do what members opposite did when they were in government. From time to time bills will be drafted, and changes to legislation will be made in the interests of Queenslanders.

Liberal Party Memo; Mr S. Stone Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to today's edition of the Bulletin magazine and ask: can he inform the House whether it is now any clearer why the federal Liberal Party has started performing policy backflips on a regular basis? Mr BEATTIE: It is very interesting. It was a great article. I have to say that this article in the Bulletin magazine today is one of national importance. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He did. He is very intelligent. The member for Stafford is like that. One of the things that we should all bear in mind is that the day after the state election on 18 February Mr Shane Stone, the federal President of the Liberal Party, met with federal Liberal members. It was a Sunday—all of the members will recall it—and they unburdened themselves. Remember, this is before the Ryan by-election. This was after the state election. Look at what they said. These are some of the things that they concluded. Shane Stone wrote this letter to the Prime Minister. He said these things— We are seen as a mean Government. That is the first thing that Shane Stone concluded. The Queensland members told Shane Stone that. The memo continued— Mr Stone says that comment reflects the party's own polling. So what we have here is the Liberal Party polling showing that the federal government is a mean government, and the federal Liberal members themselves agree. It goes on—and this is the Liberal Party members expressing views about themselves— The Government won't even listen to our own people, so what hope the public? Isn't Shane Stone a very intelligent and perceptive man! It also stated— Mr Stone says blame for that comment can be sheeted home to Treasurer Costello. It goes on— All we have achieved is to raise the anxiety level of ordinary Australians. This is what the Liberal Party and Shane Stone are saying in his memo. So much for the Prime Minister's vision of a relaxed and comfortable Australia! But the memo goes on— Perhaps one of the most telling and recurring comments centred on the view that we had gone out of our way to 'get' the very people who put us there. The self-funded retirees, the small business sector, self-employed, professionals, farmers—all middle Australia. 556 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001

I could not have said it better myself. The Liberal Party, and indeed the National Party—because part of the criticism is directed towards John Anderson— Mr Seeney: Fair go. You criticised John Anderson. Mr BEATTIE: And the Liberal Party criticises John Anderson. It and Shane Stone are on the same ticket. I have to agree with the honourable member. He attacked the federal leadership and he is right. On this one matter he is right. So what we have is a Liberal Party and a National Party at a federal level which Shane Stone quite correctly identifies has basically attacked self-funded retirees, the small business sector—and Queensland is the small business state of Australia—the self-employed, professionals and, of course, farmers. The only party in Australia that looks after farmers is the Labor Party. We are the only ones in this nation who are concerned about farmers. Mr Stone also made a rather odd comment, as I said before, about the Spanish tennis player. You see, the truth is out. I say to the people of Queensland, as I did in the state election: this federal government is out of touch. It does not care about Queenslanders, it does not care about Australians; it is simply out of touch. It does not matter whether it is tree clearing, which it will not fund properly; whether it is the east coast management plan—it will not fund that properly; it has tried to undermine the regional forest agreement; and it will not fund us for public transport. Look what it did with the Centenary of Federation Fund—it stole $65 million from us. It will not fund housing properly; it will not fund aged care properly; it will not fund education properly; and it will not fund health properly. The sooner this federal government is removed from office the better Australia will be.

Airtrain Citylink Mr JOHNSON: In directing a question to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads, I refer to the forthcoming opening of the Airtrain project and ask: does the minister endorse the projected patronage of 2.3 million passengers in the first year of operation? If the project does not prove viable, will the government maintain the operation of the rail services and associated infrastructure? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. As I would have thought the honourable member would have known, the Airtrain project is a fully private sector funded project and the risk assessment, including patronage levels, would have been undertaken by the financiers of the project before they decided to ultimately proceed with the project. I had the opportunity to travel on Airtrain out to the international airport the other evening. I think what they have done there is a great job. Transfield in particular, which was responsible for the construction of the Airtrain project, has delivered the project on time and on budget. I think it has done a fantastic job. I think what it demonstrates is that this government has got on with the job of forging private- public sector partnerships and that we have encouraged the private sector to invest in public infrastructure. The Airtrain project, as honourable members should know, is what is known as a BOOT scheme—that is build, own, operate and transfer—and the contracts that we negotiated mean that in 35 years time the ownership of this important piece of public transport infrastructure will revert to the state. I think that is a tremendous boost to the long-term future of the public transport requirements of the people of south-east Queensland. As a result of the Airtrain project, we will join the major capital cities of the world like London and Paris in having direct rail services between our airport and the centre of our capital city. People will be able to depart every 15 minutes from the domestic and international terminals to the centre of Brisbane and every 30 minutes from the domestic and international terminals to the Gold Coast. Imagine what that will do for the people of the Gold Coast and for the tourism industry on the Gold Coast—people will be able to travel directly from the domestic and international terminals to the Gold Coast. That is a fantastic achievement. I cannot believe, to be quite frank, that the member for Gregory would come in here days before services on that project are due to start and try to cast doubt on the project and on its patronage projections and try to suggest that it will fall over and that the government might have to bail it out. Where do these people opposite get off? They were relegated to the rump that they are in this parliament because they whinged and whined and carped about all of the positive initiatives that we have put in place to create jobs, to create economic and employment 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 557 opportunities for the people of Queensland and to make sure that we give people in Queensland a positive outlook.

Golf World Cup, Gold Coast Mr PURCELL: In directing a question to the Premier, I refer him to his recent announcement of the first International Racehorse Owners' Association Golf World Cup to be held on the Gold Coast, and I ask: what benefits will this tournament bring to Queensland? Mr BEATTIE: Quite significant benefits. It is amazing when you think about it. We have ended up with all these additional members from the government for the Gold Coast and things are just happening down there. It is just amazing. This is a real can-do government. We promised that we would represent everybody regardless of where they lived and regardless of how they voted, and I have to say that in all parts of the state this government is delivering. The Magic Millions carnival on the Gold Coast is about to become even bigger and better. As the Minister for Tourism knows, because she has been to this event on a number of occasions, it is a magnificent international event. It is about to become better, thanks to the addition of a new feature event with a truly international focus. That is the first International Racehorse Owners' Association Golf World Cup. This exciting new tournament was created by Queensland Events after discussions between the Hong Kong Racehorse Owners' Association and obviously myself as minister. It will be held at The Glades Golf Course and will coincide with the Magic Millions carnival. We should see some of the world's most influential thoroughbred owners teeing off to contest the amateur event. The whole purpose, of course, is to attract them here, encourage them to spend their money, create jobs in Queensland and boost the Gold Coast as a tourism destination to the world. One of the reasons I am so excited about this new event is that Queensland's own Greg Norman is behind the tournament via the giant SFX Corporation. SFX, which has its headquarters in the United States, is one of the world's largest sports and entertainment corporations. It manages events such as the Greg Norman Australian PGA Championship held in Brisbane in December—another event we supported. The International Racehorse Owners' Association Golf World Cup will provide a chance for owners to meet socially in a carnival atmosphere at the same time that some of Australia's finest young thoroughbreds are paraded at the Conrad Jupiters Magic Millions sales. It also gives those racehorse owners an opportunity to see all that the Gold Coast has to offer, in addition to the Magic Millions carnival. That can only benefit the Queensland tourism industry. I should add that a little bit later today the Minister for Tourism and I are going to launch on the Gold Coast a major initiative for the future of tourism. The reason we are doing that is that the tourism industry is not only the state's second biggest industry—important as that is—but also it employs 130,000 Queenslanders. That is a lot of people in a major industry. It does not matter whether you are in Cairns, Townsville, all the way down the coast or in country Queensland, this government is getting right behind tourism because of the large number of people it employs. As the Minister for the Arts knows, the heritage trails which are being built across this state will be the biggest boost to rural tourism this state has seen in its history. That is why we have put money into facilities like the Qantas Museum. We have put money into all facilities across the bush because we see a great opportunity for jobs. If members add all this up and add to it the decision yesterday by Virgin to not only bring the first of its 14 new planes here but also to fly to Coolangatta, members can see that tourism is going to advance to a very significant level here.

DNA Testing Mr FLYNN: My question is directed to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. Whilst I applaud the Beattie government's introduction of compulsory DNA testing for offenders, I ask the minister to state the current position on the possible extension of these tests to include all Queenslanders at birth—an idea, I might add, thought by many to be a gross invasion of civil liberties. Mr WELFORD: I thank the honourable member for the question. The proposal that the honourable member raises about the possible extension of DNA testing to all Queenslanders has previously been raised—and I note that it was reported in the national media—by the federal 558 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001

Liberal member for Herbert, Mr Lindsay. I did not quite catch the view of the honourable member in his question, but I infer that he considers this proposition to be a gross invasion of privacy. That is certainly a view that I share. I think it is an outrageous proposition that has been raised in what appears to me to be nothing less than a cynical publicity stunt by the member for Herbert. I do not think any reasonable Australian would believe that DNA testing should be properly used for any purpose other than crime investigation, which is the purpose for which it is used, and also for the purpose of ensuring that the truth in relation to criminal activity is arrived at, including the exoneration of people who may otherwise be accused of crime and be found, through proper testing, not to be the offender. I share the view of the honourable member and I can assure all members of this House that in no way would our government contemplate for one minute the proposition of the member for Herbert.

Airtrain Citylink Mr REEVES: I direct a question to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Anyone travelling to or from the Brisbane Airport, including the member for Gregory, would have noticed the advanced state of the development of Airtrain. Can the minister further advise of the recent progress of this project? Mr BREDHAUER: I can. I am delighted to receive this question from the member for Mansfield because, unlike the opposition members, who have demonstrated that they are negative about these important projects for south-east Queensland, he is an advocate of public transport, as he indicated yesterday. If he wanted to, he could get on the busway at Garden City, change over at Buranda and catch the train out to the airport—and I am sure that he probably will at some stage, because it will save him a lot of money when compared with a taxi fare. There have been important recent developments. Last Saturday night I had the opportunity—I have alluded to this briefly—to attend a celebration at the Sheraton Hotel for the finalisation of construction of the Airtrain project. That celebration included a trip on the train out to the international terminal and back. Indeed, it was a night on which people who had been associated with this project, including the Beattie Labor government, which has backed this project—in fact, we made it possible—were able to celebrate the fact that construction was drawing to a close and the entire project and services were about to start. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to join the head of the Airtrain project, Ken Devencorn, at Roma Street Station to launch the web site, www.airtrain.com.au, which will be part of the public education campaign to help people to understand the services that are available. Today we have also launched a very exciting media advertising campaign in the Courier-Mail and in the electronic media. I table a copy of that advertisement for the information of the House. We are about promoting the positive things that are going to make a difference for public transport infrastructure and services for the people of south-east Queensland, which people such as the member for Mansfield seem to appreciate but which the member for Gregory just wants to knock. Mr JOHNSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks made by the honourable minister offensive, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw. Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition claimed in this House that the contracts for the Airtrain project had been signed off and the project started under the previous coalition government. What nonsense! Mr Beattie: We made it possible. Mr BREDHAUER: We initiated the project. It was conceived under the Labor government, as was the busway. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Actually, I as Treasurer personally signed the agreement. Mr Beattie: You did not. Mrs SHELDON: Yes, I did so, and I have a copy of it. I have a photo of the four people who signed it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will not have a debate. 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 559

Mr BREDHAUER: The contracts were signed by David Hamill, as the former Treasurer, and me on 23 December 1998, and the first sod on the project was turned by the Premier and me on 14 July, Bastille Day, 1999—an important day for another reason. The project was conceived under the Goss government. The opposition had it for two and a half years. We signed the contracts and we delivered it.

Queensland Ambulance Service Mr MALONE: I direct a question to the Minister for Emergency Services. The Queensland Ambulance Service south-western region, encompassing the Toowoomba, Stanthorpe, Goondiwindi and Roma stations, has recently been advised by the acting regional director that its officers in charge will not be replaced on days off. This will equate to a departmental saving of $250,000 per annum and allows for the real chance of some of the smaller stations being closed on weekends. Given that accidents and emergencies occur at any time, and especially on weekends, I ask: why has funding been cut in this region? How can the minister ensure that current standards will be maintained and, particularly, that stations in that region will not be closed on weekends? Is this policy being applied in other areas of the state? Mr REYNOLDS: I welcome the question that has been asked by the honourable member for Mirani and say once again in this House that the Queensland Ambulance Service is recognised as the best-practice service in Australia. That ambulance service is one that I am enormously proud of as Minister for Emergency Services. I also inform the shadow minister that in two or three weeks time I am making an extensive tour of the south-west Queensland area—indeed, I will be taking in some of the areas that the member has mentioned today—including Dalby, Charleville, Quilpie and so on. I believe that some of the areas the member has mentioned are very important in regard to ambulance service delivery. The Queensland Ambulance Service is enormously proud of the response times it has achieved. That is a recognition of what the Beattie government over the last three years has done, in stark contrast to what the opposition did in 1997 and 1998. Well does the shadow minister know that, as do the 11 members who remain as the Queensland opposition. Response times for the Queensland Ambulance Service are pivotal to the work that is done in this emergency services area. In regard to the stations that have been mentioned by the honourable member, I will take on board the concerns that he has raised today and I will inform him of any prospective changes. One of the things I have brought into play very early in my tenure as Minister for Emergency Services is thorough consultation with local government, communities and anyone who is affected by any changes that are made, whether in relation to fire services, ambulance services or any other part of the Emergency Services portfolio. That is my record over the past few months and it will continue to be so. I will get back to the honourable member on the issues he has raised in the parliament this morning. I will do that at the earliest opportunity.

Drugs Mr CUMMINS: I ask the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to inform the parliament what Queensland police are doing to fight the war on drugs. Mr McGRADY: I certainly thank the member for this question, because it gives me the opportunity and, indeed, a great deal of satisfaction to inform the House that the Queensland Police Service has recently struck a major blow in the war against drugs. Early last month, a year- long operation involving the Queensland Police Service, the National Crime Authority and the Queensland Crime Commission was wrapped up. The operation culminated in the discovery and the dismantling of the largest drug manufacturing site ever seized in this country, at Jimboomba. One of the things that the police found at this site was a process used to produce an acid substance that is a precursor for making amphetamines. Sixty litres of that liquid substance was seized. Just one litre costs approximately $1,500 and it can make one to one and a half kilograms of amphetamines. The police estimate that this factory was producing half a million dollars worth of this acid a week. The operation resulted in 17 people being arrested on a total of 100 drug-related offences, including the trafficking and manufacturing of amphetamines. Four properties were restrained under the Proceeds of Crime Act and more than $26,000 in cash was seized during 30 raids that 560 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001 took place right across south-east Queensland. The police inform me that the operation netted such a significant haul of drugs and the products to make drugs that it will create a large dent in the amount of drugs hitting the streets, not just in south-east Queensland but potentially right across eastern Australia. We are getting tougher on the people who produce drugs, who endanger our society and who profit from this human misery. My message today to drug dealers—to those people who are merchants of death who peddle in this vile trade—is simply to take note of the work that the police are doing, and be warned. If those people want to continue to produce drugs or, indeed, deal in drugs, they will be caught and they will feel the full force of the law upon them.

Freedom of Information Mr QUINN: I refer the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to comments made by the Premier on 13 July 1998 when he told the Courier-Mail that under his government ministers would no longer be able to stymie freedom of information searches by tabling politically sensitive documents at cabinet meetings. The Premier went on to say that his stance had the potential to cause his government some embarrassment, but he said that he was 'committed to the principle'. I ask the Attorney-General: given that almost three years has passed since the Premier announced his commitment to this principle, when does he intend to introduce amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to facilitate the Premier's personal commitment to preventing ministers from abusing the FOI process? Mr WELFORD: What the Premier said a number of years ago still stands today. Our government holds the view that no minister of this government takes documents to cabinet solely for the purpose of excluding them from FOI. That is the practice that our government continues to apply today. From time to time documents do go to cabinet for cabinet's consideration. Documents are prepared every day in government departments for the purpose of the deliberations of cabinet. It is only proper, in accordance with the FOI laws that have existed for some time, that those documents remain confidential to enable governments to consider matters with candour and to allow public servants to deliberate and provide advice with candour. Those are proper principles that should apply. It is proper that, if documents go to cabinet properly for the purpose of cabinet's deliberations, those documents are exempt from FOI under the laws that have existed for some time, and which the opposition when in office never changed. The practice that the Premier has announced previously and advised to cabinet ministers of this government, and which the honourable member referred to in his question, continues to apply.

Community Cabinet, Gold Coast Ms KEECH: I refer the Premier to the community cabinet meeting held at Southport on Sunday and Monday of this week, and I ask: what was the feedback from the Gold Coast community on his government's strong support for their region? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for the question. We all know that she is a very hardworking member for Albert, along with the rest of the team that represents the Gold Coast area. What a dynamic team! They are a very big improvement on the people they got rid of! The feedback during the community cabinet meeting at Southport was extremely positive. People recognised what my government is doing for the Gold Coast. Let us look at some of those things. We are delivering a new $100 million Gold Coast Convention and Exhibition Centre at Broadbeach. We have approved the new $3.1 million Surfers Paradise fire station. We are upgrading our state schools on the Gold Coast with new information technology equipment. We have allocated $54 million to redevelop the Gold Coast Hospital and we also spent $1.1 million refurbishing the mental health unit. Since 1999, $27 million has been allocated towards purchasing hospital services for public patients at the new private hospital at Robina. More than $8 million in additional recurrent funding has been allocated to the Gold Coast health service district. On Monday, the Police Minister and I announced a further 30 first-year constables for the Gold Coast, which is on top of the 69 additional police already provided. We have invested millions of dollars in the region's roads. We delivered the word-class Pacific Motorway, which the 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 561

Minister for Transport and I opened. What a great motorway we built! It showed that only my government can build a motorway like that. What a great job the Minister for Transport did. Without him, we would never have had that motorway. Without him, we would never have had the busway or the Airtrain city link, either! Mr Johnson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Let the record show that the former Transport Minister is applauding. I appreciate his generosity of spirit. That is well done. One gets that only from a real country boy. What a generous spirit. If one ignores his tie, he is a good man. If one looks past his tie, there is a heart of gold. An honourable member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, it is pumping away. Housing programs have been boosted, with $4.55 million being spent in the Surfers Paradise electorate alone. We have provided support for the Gold Coast marathon and Indy. The other day the minister and I opened another development at the hospital. Of course, more recently Virgin Airlines announced that it will fly to Coolangatta. I am not highlighting the Gold Coast only because, as some members may be aware—and I will be accused of being politically convenient—an event is being held on Saturday that I thought it important to remind everybody of, we are doing this across the whole of the state. It does not matter where one lives, my government is delivering because it is a can-do government that puts Queenslanders first. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Beaudesert, I recognise in the public gallery parents, students and teachers from Ipswich East State School in the electorate of Ipswich.

Lang Park Mr LINGARD: I refer the Treasurer and Minister for Sport to the fact that all ALP members in the previous Public Works Committee voted against conducting an inquiry into the government's proposal to rebuild Lang Park. Is the minister aware of any funding arrangements that would prevent the new Public Works Committee or Public Accounts Committee inquiring into the Lang Park project? Mr MACKENROTH: I am unaware of what went on at a committee meeting in relation to a decision on whether or not to look at the redevelopment of Lang Park. I am not aware of any conditions. There may be some, but I am unaware of them. Let me say that the member's party, through a former State of Origin player—and I hope he does not come to Lang Park on Sunday night—tried to make the redevelopment of Lang Park a major issue at the last election. Continually members opposite said that the $280 million that will be spent on the redevelopment would be used to fund other matters. Might I say some of that capital expenditure was promised for recurrent expenditure. Heaven help us should someone in the coalition say something like that, but they did and I could actually get the documents and show it to them! They also promised $1 billion worth of expenditure for which there was no money. To enable them to find the money, they simply changed the figures in the budget papers. Then all of a sudden they had the money. I think the redevelopment of Lang Park was judged at the last election. The local member advises me that the two local polling booths gave her a two-party preferred result of something like 70 per cent. Mrs Edmond: 71 and 68. Mr MACKENROTH: It was 71 per cent and 68 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. I think that shows that the local people there have judged it. The opposition parties, both the Liberals and Nationals, told people to judge us on Lang Park. They made their judgment. I do not think you could have a greater event than an election to decide whether a government has a mandate to go ahead with the projects that they put forward. I do not think that we could have been any more open in relation to what we were going to do with the redevelopment of Lang Park than we were. We allowed the election to be held before we made any decisions. The election was held. We won the election, and we will now get on with rebuilding the stadium. The last football game will be held there this Sunday night. We are still negotiating with the council on the finality of our development application. Once that is done, we will get on and we will build it. I heard someone 562 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001 here talking this morning about the need for capital expenditure. That capital expenditure is going to create jobs here in our state.

Housing Ms NOLAN: I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to statements made in Sydney yesterday by the Prime Minister, John Howard, when launching the St Vincent de Paul winter appeal, and I ask: is he aware of any announcements made by the Prime Minister which would help disadvantaged households, especially those in need of housing? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Already this member has made a great commitment to addressing homelessness in her electorate. No, I am not aware of any such statements being made, and I would not be swinging by my tongue waiting for it to occur, either. The truth is that the front page of this magazine in my hand sums up the Howard government: 'Mean, tricky, out-of-touch and not listening'. Even their own are saying that about them. The truth of the matter is that we have a new breed of people in Australia. They are called Howard's homeless. The fact is that yesterday during his address he prattled on about partnerships between the government and charitable organisations and agencies. What is that partnership that he talks about? Increased costs through the GST, a higher number of clients as a result of it, more demand on services and less funding! What do the charities, such as St Vinnies, do in response to that? They have to live with it. That is the partnership. It seems to me that that is the way that the Howard government has done business for a long period. Anything that Howard, Costello or any of them say about homelessness or poverty has a hollow ring to it. As far as I am concerned, on the issue of poverty or homelessness he has all the credibility of a shark in a salmon farm. The grim reality is that in Queensland we are being expected to do more with less. Somebody was talking about maintenance. The maintenance bill alone on public housing is about $600 million or $700 million—just to get them up to a reasonable standard. That is happening right across the nation. What has been the response from the Howard government? Continued cuts! Of course we did not hear any mention of that yesterday in response to the statement. I think that the Prime Minister had a hide going down there and launching the winter appeal. It is certainly the winter of discontent for people who are out there, pushed up to crisis accommodation services in Queensland, such as those in the honourable member's electorate, for example. The truth is that, unless Howard puts money into the next budget expressly for public housing to deal with crisis accommodation, the situation is going to get worse. Already in Queensland we have found that 90 per cent of the houses in the private rental sector, which Howard is always going on about, that have been built in the last 10 years are over $150 a week to rent. That is clearly out of the range of people who have been pushed down the poverty chain as a result of the GST. The fact of the matter is that not one word of what Howard has to say is correct. His colleagues in Queensland are right; they are deadset sure to be concerned following what happened recently. I encourage the Tories over there to read the article in this magazine because that is one of the reasons why they are sitting over there.

Railway Sleepers Dr KINGSTON: I ask the Minister for Transport: is it factual that Q-Rail is finding it necessary to replace cement sleepers and that there is an acute shortage of wooden sleepers? If so, what is causing that acute shortage of hardwood sleepers? Mr BREDHAUER: Yes, it is true that QR is, in many cases, upgrading our railway lines using concrete sleepers because, by using concrete sleepers and heavier gauge rail, we are actually able to operate faster, more efficient rail services, which is providing economic and employment benefits to the people of Queensland. It has been the practice of Queensland Rail for many years to move away from the use, in many cases, of hardwood sleepers. Hardwood sleepers were the way of rail construction a century ago. But in more modern times it has been the practice of railways around the world to use concrete sleepers. Given that we have had the criticisms about this government and our commitment to capital works and infrastructure, I might just instance that about 18 months ago 2 May 2001 Questions Without Notice 563 the Premier and I were able to announce that we were going to undertake a $240 million upgrade of the railway line between Rockhampton and Townsville, and that involved using concrete sleepers and heavier gauge rail. The reason we do that is that it allows the trains to go faster—100 kilometres per hour. We realigned the track at the same time. We can now provide better transport services to the freight operators. It operates more quickly, they get more timely delivery of their produce, they get greater reliability of services and it has a flow-on benefit to passengers who are travelling on the railway line. Mind you, we did that at the same time that the Commonwealth government was promising to spend $250 million on upgrading the national rail network between Perth and Brisbane. So they were going to spend $250 million between Perth and Brisbane; we were spending $240 million between Townsville and Rockhampton. But it gets better, because in last year's state budget we allocated an additional $82 million so that we could upgrade the railway line between Townsville and Cairns. So we now have a $320 million rail upgrade program which will benefit all of the people from Rockhampton north. The $240 million expenditure was a commercial decision by the government owned corporation Queensland Rail so that it could provide better services to its freight customers. Not only that, but we have also announced that the rail that we are replacing in that process will be used on some of the western lines so that we can upgrade them and provide better quality rail services. Quite frankly, the honourable member's question is ridiculous.

Rural Fire Vehicles Mr PEARCE: I direct a question to the Minister for Emergency Services. I read with interest at the weekend that the Beattie government has commenced a $1.5 million roll-out of some 25 new rural fire vehicles across the state. Can the minister please inform the House what benefits these new vehicles will bring to rural fire services? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for Fitzroy for the question. I know that the member is extraordinarily interested in the fire service in his area. The Fitzroy electorate is an area which is serviced by many fire services. The Beattie government is committed to ensuring high level service delivery across all portfolios to the state's rural and remote regions. The provision of emergency services is no different. Our 1,628 rural fire brigades are the backbone of the state's fire front, delivering services to 93 per cent of the state's population. On the weekend I announced that more than two dozen rural fire brigades across Queensland would soon receive new, state-of-the-art four-wheel-drive trucks as part of a $1.5 million vehicle roll-out. These new vehicles will assist with the response to fire emergencies. The Beattie Labor government has contributed $48,000 towards the cost of each vehicle and brigades have contributed $12,000 raised through rural fire levies, grants or the local community. It is with a great deal of pride that today I say that over the past two years this government has allocated almost $10 million towards producing some 180 new rural fire trucks. That is in stark contrast to the effort made by the coalition government in its two and a half years in power. We are the party for the bush. We are the party looking after rural fire services. They know it, and we are proud of it. The new vehicles will go a long way towards reducing the age of the state's rural fire fleet and will ensure more of our rural volunteers have access to the best possible equipment to perform their vital role in their local communities. Delivery of these new vehicles is also timely as our rural brigades set up their planning and hazard reduction for the warmer months ahead. The Montville Isuzu medium attack vehicles are new prototype vehicles created as a result of extensive input from rural firefighters. It will be with pleasure that I and the member for Nicklin will hand them over at Montville on 13 May. They feature a range of improved design features, including an 11 horsepower pump; an 1,800 litre tank, replacing the 1,400 litre tank featured in the old design; and a slightly heavier cab chassis. The new vehicles are fitted out with the latest in firefighting equipment and will allow rural firefighters to greatly improve their responses to local areas.

Wivenhoe Dam Mr SEENEY: I refer the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines to plans by the South East Queensland Water Corporation to embark upon a $50 million project to upgrade Wivenhoe Dam, with that capital cost to be recovered by an estimated 18 per cent rise in water 564 Questions Without Notice 2 May 2001 charges in Brisbane and surrounding areas. I ask: given that this is the latest impost, following the imposition of the infamous picnic tax and the closure of recreation areas, does the minister believe it is now time for him to use some of the financial windfall that the state government received from the corporatisation of these public assets to allay the continuing escalation of costs to ordinary Queensland families in south-east Queensland? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. As the honourable member would be aware, as a result of the corporatisation of SunWater and the South East Queensland Water Board, the matters referred to are decisions by that corporation, 80 per cent of which is the responsibility of local government. The decisions of the South East Queensland Water Corporation reflect the decisions of those local governments.

Careers in IT&T Industry Mr LEE: Can the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy explain the latest move by the government to attract young people into the IT&T industry to meet skills shortages? Mr LUCAS: It is a great pleasure to be asked this question by a member of this House who is not only a very keen supporter of education and who represents an electorate which contains a large university, the University of Queensland, but also a supporter of educating young people in information technology. I am delighted to announce that my department has developed a kit in conjunction with Queensland education and TAFE authorities designed to show young people why a career in the IT&T sector might be right for them. I launched it last week at Wynnum State High School. Wynnum High has many famous graduates, and the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines is a prominent graduate of that great high school. The kit, entitled IT&T Career Stuff, is available for distribution to all secondary schools and TAFE institutes throughout Queensland. It contains two videos, entitled Discovering Information Technology and Telecommunications and Exploring Information Technology and Telecommunications, and a 30-page booklet set out in a lively and informative style. It is specifically directed to appeal to young people because they are the ones we want to encourage to that career. It is hoped this will address statistics that are of concern to the government that not enough young people are choosing IT&T as a preferred career, notwithstanding the fact that it is the fourth largest employer in Queensland. Another area of concern is that, of those who do take up a career in IT&T—I note that the wife of the honourable member who asked the question has a career in IT&T—only 20 per cent are women. That is clearly a problem, given the increasing number of women studying at university, because they make up the majority of students. There are many good potential female students missing in IT&T. There is one thing about women and IT&T: like computers, women can do more than one thing at once. They should be eminently suited to a career in IT&T. Another important factor in terms of women's access to IT&T is that a career in many aspects of information technology allows women who are primary care givers the flexibility they want to be able to work from home or allows flexible working hours. IT&T also offers the opportunity for a high income. It is worth while encouraging women to consider this profession. It is very important to remember that careers in IT&T do not just involve the concept of geeky people sitting in front of a computer programming source code. It is about web design. It is about supporting agriculture. It is about supporting logistics. It is about software engineering. The categories of careers are as broad as one can think. It is all part of the Beattie government's plan of enabling people to participate in the IT&T skills in the Smart State strategy. It does not matter whether the students are from Wynnum State High School or Longreach State High School; if people choose to undertake study in IT&T, they can get a good income, travel the world in many cases and come back to a career in Australia. The Beattie government has created conditions in the Smart State whereby there are high-income jobs for people who want to make a commitment to work in Australia in IT&T. That is very important for us to remember. This kit will be launched throughout Queensland through an arrangement with the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry at forums at Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Bundaberg, Gladstone and many other places.

Industrial Relations Legislation Mrs SHELDON: I refer the Minister for Industrial Relations to a letter he received yesterday from the President of the Industrial Court of Queensland relating to rushed and secretive legislative proposals to strip the president of his administrative powers. I ask: considering this is a 2 May 2001 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 565 blatant political attempt to punish a court for its independent decision to grant teachers a pay rise, will the minister explain why the Beattie Labor government is determined to attack the doctrine of the separation of powers in this state? Mr NUTTALL: In relation to the question that has been raised in the House today, first of all one has to say that there is legislation before the House. Mrs Sheldon: It has nothing to do with that. Mr NUTTALL: Just hang on. Having said that, I say this: there is no attempt by this government whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, to attack the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission. I want to make that very clear to the parliament today. This government is and has continued to be a strong supporter of the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission, and we will continue to be that. In terms of the decision in relation to teachers, this government always said that it would accept the umpire's decision, and it has. We have moved on from there. This government has a very good working relationship with the Teachers Union. We will continue to work with unions in terms of overall issues that affect them. In terms of the Industrial Relations Commission—and I reinforce this for the last time—we as a government respect its independence.

Disability Access Week Ms JARRATT: I ask the Minister for Disability Services: given the importance of equitable access for Queenslanders with a disability, how is the government promoting access in the private, public and community sector? Ms SPENCE: I thank the honourable member for the question. 'Access' is a word that is laden with meaning for people with disabilities. Access is about more than being able to approach or enter something. For people with disabilities, access is about the difference between unemployment and getting a job. It is about boredom and recreation. It is about social isolation and being able to fit into community life. Access is a challenge that people with disabilities face on a daily basis but is something that is largely forgotten by the rest of society. That is why Disability Services Queensland hosts Disability Access Week each year. Later today I will be joining with my colleague the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads to launch an important part of Disability Access Week, and that is the Disability Access Awards. Each year through these awards we honour individuals, businesses and community organisations that go the extra mile to ensure that people with disabilities truly have equitable access. The reason I am joining with the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads is that we have a new category in the Disability Access Awards, and that is the transport access category. I understand that later today in Roma Street we will see a new addition to Q-Fleet, that is, the disability access train. I am told that this train is something to behold. It has extra wheelchair spaces, accessible toilets, a hearing aid loop to hear public announcements, plush special handrails and passenger doors. In addition, this year as part of the Disability Access Awards we have a new category, that is, the media awards. In previous years we have had some inspirational entries in the Disability Access Awards. Last year, for instance, we honoured a regional cab company for its accessible service, we honoured a school for countering school bullying, and we honoured a supermarket for an employment program to increase its work force for people with disabilities. Eighteen per cent of Queenslanders have some form of disability. As the baby boomers join the ranks of the grey army, it is likely that our understanding of access and the need for disability access will increase. Access makes smart business sense as well as being important to improving the community life of people with a disability in this state. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

CORRECTIVE SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (11.31 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Corrective Services Act 2000. Motion agreed to. 566 Corrective Services Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

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

Second Reading Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (11.32 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. It is my responsibility to introduce this bill which will ensure that there is a sufficient statutory basis to maintain current strip searching practices essential for the security of facilities and the safety of staff and prisoners. The operational requirement of strip searching of prisoners is a sensitive issue. It is a practice which has been described at times as an intrusion upon a prisoner's dignity. However, reservations about strip searching must also be considered in the context of the state's statutory and common law responsibilities to ensure the security of facilities and the safety of staff, prisoners and the community. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! There is too much noise in the chamber. Members wishing to have a conversation will do so outside. Mr McGRADY: Strip searching is an essential strategy to deter and detect the entry of drugs and prohibited items. As strip searching also reduces the risk of entry of escape implements, the practice is an essential part of protecting community safety through minimising the risk of escape. Where a critical operational practice lies between the competing obligations of preserving prisoner dignity as against the safety of prisoners, staff and the community, it is important that an appropriate balance be struck. The balance must be one that protects community safety by minimising the risk of escape and reduces the dangers to prisoners and staff whilst ensuring the practice is no more intrusive than is necessary to secure these objectives. This bill represents the endeavour to achieve this balance. The bill provides authority to the chief executive to give directions by instrument in writing requiring the strip searching of prisoners. The person in charge of a corrective services facility must order the strip searching of prisoners as required under the directions. However, the person in charge of a facility may excuse a prisoner from strip searching if the prisoner's exceptional circumstances are such that the person in charge considers it unnecessary for the prisoner to be strip searched. In this context, 'unnecessary' may indicate that the prisoner's exceptional circumstances make it extremely unlikely that the prisoner could have a drug or a prohibited item hidden under their clothing. For example, under the exceptional circumstances provision, a pregnant prisoner who returns to a secure facility from an escorted antenatal visit might be excused from a strip search if the officer who escorted the prisoner advises the person in charge that the prisoner had no likely opportunity to obtain a prohibited thing whilst on the visit. The person in charge may direct that the prisoner not be strip searched. The bill provides the person in charge with discretionary powers to make an order for the strip searching of prisoners if the person in charge is satisfied that the strip searching is necessary for the security or good order of the facility or necessary for the safe custody and welfare of prisoners. This provision could be used in circumstances where, for example, a knife is found to be missing from the kitchen of a secure facility. The person in charge may be satisfied that the strip searching of prisoners who worked in the kitchen that day is necessary. It is self-evident that in situations where a knife or a high-risk workshop tool is missing that sufficient powers have to be in place to ensure that the item can be found quickly. Under the Corrective Services Act 1988, strip searching practices have developed in accordance with operational requirements. This bill seeks to ensure that a statutory basis is provided to allow for these practices to be continued. The bill does not herald an expansion of strip searching beyond current practices. To balance the intrusiveness of strip searching, the bill provides for additional provisions to protect prisoner dignity in these searches. The safeguard principles are similar to some of those already in legislation under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000. Requirements include that a corrective services officer carrying out the search must— ensure that the way in which the prisoner is searched causes minimal embarrassment to the prisoner; 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 567

take reasonable care to protect the prisoner's dignity; carry out the search as quickly as reasonably practicable; and allow the prisoner to dress as soon as the search is finished. Sections 14 and 112 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 are subject to a slight redrafting to ensure that prisoners comply with orders given to or applying to the prisoner even though a general order may not specifically name a particular prisoner. This is a technical redrafting only. The government considers that the amendments contained within the bill will achieve the necessary balance between safeguarding prisoner dignity and protecting prisoners, staff and the community from the risks posed by the entry of drugs and prohibited items into secure facilities. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Seeney, adjourned.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 22 March (see p. 97). Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (11.40 a.m.): I rise to speak on the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment bill which is now before the House. However, I must query why it has been brought from No. 13 on the Notice Paper to being debated now. The National Party will not be opposing this bill. This bill will assist some of the people in society who most need assistance, and we believe that it is important that they are given this chance. The Industrial Relations Commission has, in its review, recommended some improvements and changes to the long service scheme. The minister in this bill is implementing these recommendations. The National Party supports long service leave and incremental increases in this where appropriate and affordable. We believe that the presence of long service leave in the workplace environment encourages employee loyalty to their employer. This is beneficial to the whole of society as it stalls the creation of a labour market environment in which employees are often chopping and changing jobs creating a high job turnover. This high job turnover, or labour market churning as it is also known, has some major downsides. It leads to a feeling of uncertainty and insecurity among employees, especially older workers who typically suffer larger income losses when they lose their jobs. Nervous workers have less reason to show loyalty to firms, and morale suffers. As members would realise, it is a self-perpetuating set of circumstances. We support long service leave for this reason. This bill implements an entitlement to eight and two-third weeks worth of long service leave to employees after 10 years of service. This is as opposed to the existing long service leave entitlement of 13 weeks after 15 years of service. The reduction of the time period maintains the same ratio of leave to service. This aspect of this bill we endorse. It is important that additional impost is not put on small business by a greater ratio of leave to service. If this ratio is increased, it will impose an additional barrier to the employment of the very people this bill is designed to assist by business as they have to weigh up the cost of leave entitlements. If these become too great, potential employers are likely to look at the situation and say, 'While I can afford to put an employee on now, in the future I will not be able to fully fund their entitlements. It is best I just cope without them.' This would be a sad state of affairs, as it would create a situation where people are not getting a job in the first place. Queensland at present has the highest unemployment rate in the country. The only way of combating this situation is by creating an industrial environment which encourages business to put on that extra staff member. We cannot create more employment without such assistance from the private sector. This is a point that the government seems to be missing. It keeps putting into place employment programs which create pretend jobs, and when the initial period of employment is completed there is no support for those pretend jobs to be converted into real, meaningful, long-term jobs which will contribute to an ongoing and increasingly prosperous economic environment in Queensland. What the Government must understand—and it seems to be missing this point—is that Queensland is a predominantly small business state. Small business needs an environment which helps and encourages it to generate the jobs we need. Members opposite show the government's ignorance of this fact by the present counterproductive laws. As I said before, increased long service leave creates a situation where the employment of a job seeker can become too expensive for the employer. Also, it must be remembered that the 568 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 cost of long service leave is affected by many other factors. For example, our figures show that if an employer has on staff a casual employee under the Retail Industry (Interim) Award for a basic 32 hours a week, they will have a long service leave liability of almost $95 a week. If the casual rate rises, so does their liability. It is difficult to budget for uncertainties. As to clause 9 of the bill, allowing the cashing out of long service leave after 10 years of continuous service—we support this aspect. This clause was lobbied for by employer groups for a very good reason. The taking of long service leave by the employee causes a real problem for the employer, particularly small businesses. If an employee takes their long service leave, the employer has to find a replacement for the extended time for which they are not present. The employer, for that reason, has to find a temporary replacement, which can sometimes be quite difficult. However, that is compounded by the fact that the employer must have a replacement who is trained sufficiently to properly fulfil the needs of the role. Therefore, if the employee elects not to take actual leave but, instead, takes their entitlement in cash, this—in particular for small business—greatly reduces the impost on the business. It is important that this is the employee's election, as the whole aim of this entitlement is to allow employees a break from work. However, for some employees it is much more preferable and convenient to take it in cash. Indeed, if they do not have the ability to access this entitlement in cash, they may not benefit from long service leave. On another point, I note with caution that the government is legislating to give effect to the views and conclusions of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in their entirety. I caution that if this is to become a trend, the government is, in effect, giving the control of industrial relations laws and their effects to an unelected body. I again inform the House that the opposition will not be opposing this bill. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (11.49 a.m.): I am pleased to speak in support of the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2001. The improvements to long service entitlements in this bill signal a positive start to the government's industrial relations agenda for the second term. During its first term, the government put in place the most forward looking industrial laws in the country. These new laws recognise that industrial relations has both an economic and social dimension. It cannot be viewed simply as a mechanism for improving the bottom line because, much more fundamentally, industrial relations is about how we live, how we work and how we interact as a community. The Industrial Relations Act 1999 therefore seeks to balance economic and social objectives in a way that reflects the changes that have occurred in the workplace and the community. Over the past decade or so we have seen a major transformation in the labour market. Familiar notions of standard time employment and permanent jobs for life have disappeared for large sections of the work force. We now have more casual, part-time and contract employment. Many people are working longer and harder hours. Female employment has increased dramatically. New industries such as IT and biotechnology have emerged. The unchecked deregulation of the labour market promoted by the conservative side of politics did not provide the answers for dealing with these new trends and developments. It was time for a change. New perspectives needed to be developed. That is why, for example, Queensland is legislating for the first time to ensure that all workers, whether or not they are covered by an award or an agreement, have access to essential community standards of employment such as annual leave, sick leave, parental and carer's leave and bereavement leave. To ensure that these conditions remain relevant to community standards the legislation provided the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission with a key role in reviewing these entitlements. In the case of long service leave, the current entitlement has been unchanged since 1964—more than 35 years ago. To ensure that this entitlement was treated as a priority issue for review, the legislation provided for this review to occur before 30 June 2000. During the review, the Full Bench heard evidence outlining the extent of changes that have occurred in the labour market since the entitlement was last changed. The Queensland government and other parties argued that the entitlements should be updated to reflect these changes. These arguments proved persuasive. In its decision the QIRC found that 10 years is now a long time for an employee to spend with an employer. Having legislated for the review, the government committed itself to implementing the result of that review in full and ensuring that the benefits of the enhanced entitlement were made available to all Queensland workers. The government, with the full support of the major parties who took part in the review, decided that legislation would be the best means of doing this. The government therefore begins this second term with legislative amendments that provide real benefits to working people in Queensland. 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 569

The demands of balancing work, family and life in a modern day world are one of the key policy changes confronting us over the coming years. The provision of reasonable leave entitlements that respond to contemporary circumstances is just one step we can take towards addressing these issues. Under the amendments, employees can now look forward to having earlier access to long service leave, which will be provided five years earlier. This will ensure that a number of workers previously denied access will now enjoy that benefit. At the same time, these are responsible enhancements that recognise the cost imperatives facing employers. I note that the new entitlement does not increase the rate at which leave accrues and that there are transitional arrangements to phase in the changes. As these amendments demonstrate, Labor will continue to work towards achieving fair and balanced workplace laws which recognise the need to balance both economic and social objectives and which keep pace with today's rapidly changing labour market. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (11.53 a.m.): In joining the debate on this bill today I would like to say that, firstly, the Liberal Party supports the major concepts of the bill. We have seen a big change in conditions of work, particularly the permanency of work. We have seen an increase in casual jobs. People are leaving jobs after a period of years. Where once it was not unusual for someone to have been in a job for 30 years, now if someone has the same job for 10 years it is unusual rather than the norm. So it would seem reasonable that this new entitlement of 8.6 weeks leave, relatively speaking, after 10 years continuous service to replace the existing entitlement of 13 weeks leave after 15 years continuous service should come in. When I was the previous shadow minister I spoke to a number of employee and employer groups and they were not against that concept. So I think that is a reasonable amendment to a bill, and the opposition will support anything that is reasonable. The bill contains the words 'transitional arrangements to phase in the new entitlement'. I would like the minister to detail later what those transitional arrangements might be and how long he envisages they would be in place. There is also an entitlement to payment for long service leave after seven years continuous service if the employee terminates because of the employee's illness, incapacity, death or a domestic or pressing necessity. I think that all of those things are fair and reasonable. However, it is in regard to the next clause that I have a few queries. It states— Or if the employer dismisses the employee for a reason other than the employee's conduct, capacity or performance or the employer unfairly dismisses the employee. There is a real sting in that clause. It refers, of course, to the unfair dismissal laws which all employers, and particularly those in small business, regard as unfair, iniquitous, an onus and a burden on them. These are not employers who are out to try to hit employees; in fact, they are employers who really value good employees—as I have over many years. If you are trying to run any sort of business you need good, loyal and able employees or you cannot do your job. This issue of unfair dismissal has caused a lot of grief in business communities, particularly in small business communities, because of the burden it has imposed on their time and on their paperwork. It has dragged them away from their own businesses. I think it is only fair that an employer should have the right up to a period of time—and I think we have said, from memory, about 12 months—to dismiss an employee if that employee is really not performing. They should not have to go through the whole long, dragged out procedure of proving why they should be able to dismiss that employee. When the opposition was in government its legislation provided that any small business with 15 employees or less would be exempt from those unfair dismissal laws for a certain period. The policy that the opposition announced before the last election extended that provision to all businesses, because it seemed reasonable that no matter what size your business you should have the ability, if an employee is not performing, to get rid of that person without the general problems that seem to occur in this day and age if an employer is trying to get rid of someone who is not suited to the job and, frankly, is not performing. When we consider the current unemployment rate in this state, which I think is the highest in the nation—something like 8.9 per cent I think at the last count—then surely the government should be looking to create an environment in which jobs can be given to people and kept and where employers, particularly small businesses, are prepared to put on more employees and do not feel restricted. I know that the unfair dismissal laws have certainly added to the lack of permanent jobs and increased casual employment because that creates fewer problems for the 570 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 employer. So I do not consider that this bill in any way enhances the lot of the employer—the employer who pays the wages, who creates the job, let us face it. There would not be a job if the employer had not created it. I think that that negativity needs to be examined and I hope this new minister will do so. It also provides for the removal of the prohibition on cashing out of leave, providing instead that, where a relevant industrial instrument provides for this to happen and an employee and employer agree, the employee be paid for all or part of their long service leave entitlement instead of taking the leave or part of the leave. Nowhere can I see what this industrial instrument is. I ask the minister: what is it? The next sentence says, 'If no industrial instrument provides for this to happen, an employee may apply to the QIRC to order payment on a compassionate or financial hardship ground.' So if we are going to speak of industrial instruments, I think that we need to spell out what they are. If they are not in place, why not? We need to make sure that both employees and employers understand exactly what the 'termination' in the bill means. I have referred to jobs growth and I see euphemistically it is mentioned in the second reading speech that this Queensland government has created jobs and has a high priority in creating them. In point of fact, that has not been delivered, as we can see. This current Labor government—and may I add that the same applies to the government before the last election—has not created the jobs. Who can ever forget Premier Beattie's 5 per cent job target mantra? It seems that has disappeared over the horizon and he has now forgotten all about it. Meanwhile, Queensland drags itself into the very unacceptable position of having the highest unemployment rate of any mainland state. I firmly believe that that is because of the industrial relations laws, which are punitive in many aspects—and I have referred to the unfair dismissal laws—that this government has put in place. They are not employer friendly laws. Frankly, because of that, they are not employee friendly laws. Mention is made of the independence of the industrial commission. Over the past 24 hours, we have seen that this minister intends to nobble the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission. As shadow minister, I spelt out in this House that, if the coalition formed government, it would most certainly still have the Industrial Relations Commission. The previous coalition government believed in a fair and independent arbitrator and in no way had we a policy that would remove that independence. When I look at this letter, which I received from the President of the Industrial Court of Queensland, in which he very clearly sets out this minister's intention to do just that—to nobble the Industrial Relations Commission and its independence—I really have to wonder where this government is coming from. This morning I asked a question about the separation of powers. I am pretty sure that the minister does not have the faintest idea of even what the doctrine is, let alone what it means. Possibly he could explain it to us later, but I guess by that stage his bureaucrat will have helped him out. I think that it fairly flies in the face of the separation of powers to try to nobble the administrative powers of the President of the Industrial Court. The President of the Industrial Court is so concerned that he wrote a letter to the minister. The minister is fully aware of this. When I refer to what had happened before the advisory committee it will show that the minister knew that this process has been in train for a little while. I will quote the letter because it should be in Hansard— Dear Minister I am writing to you in my capacity as President of the Industrial Relations Court of Queensland and on behalf of the Vice- President, the Commission Administrator and Commissioners of the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. It has come to our attention that the Government seeks to introduce Legislation into Parliament on 2 May 2001 which will have the effect of amending certain parts of the Industrial Relations Act 1999. I wonder if this is in the amendments, which we still have not seen. I notice that the minister has not circulated the amendments. He should not worry, we will scrutinise them to see if he has dropped that in through the back door, because his predecessor did that on a number of occasions. The letter continues— The matters in question (i.e. the role of the President of the Industrial Court and the proposed transferral of his administrative functions to the subordinate role of the Commission Administrator) had been raised earlier this year before the President's Advisory Committee. The propositions posed by the representative of your Department in this respect met with no support from any of the members. He then states in the letter that the committee is made up of the president himself, the commissioner administrator of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, the chief executive or his nominee, two persons representing employee organisations, two persons representing employer organisations, two persons who have knowledge of or experience in 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 571 industrial relations and one person representing the Anti-Discrimination Commission. So that entire body of people unanimously disagreed with the minister trying to nobble the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission. I am very surprised that a lot of Labor members, including a lot of new Labor members, who are former unionists, some of whom were employed by unions, are prepared to let their minister do this. After all, they have championed the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission. Now they are quite happy for the minister to nobble it. We can just imagine who the representative is going to be to look after these administrative powers. We do not have to use our imagination very much to know that that representative will be someone who will be very compliant with the minister and with whatever his policies on this issue may be. That goes exactly against the doctrine of the separation of powers. It is a backdoor method of a government that does not like the decisions of any tribunal—and in this case it is the Industrial Relations Commission. There is no doubt that this move is related to the decision on the Teachers Union case, because that has been indicated in the correspondence. The government did not like the payout that the Industrial Relations Commission gave to the teachers. There are some members opposite who are teachers. What do they think about this? The government did not like that decision so it thought, 'Well, we will get them. Quid pro quo.' I just wonder why the government has an Industrial Relations Commission if it is going to nobble it, and that is exactly what it is going to do. The hypocrisy of this Labor government, if it goes ahead with this proposal, is quite breathtaking in its broadness. Where is the honest, open and accountable government that Premier Beattie consistently talks about? Of course, it does not exist. We know that. However, by these sorts of actions the general community is going to know that, too. This move would certainly seem to be one of the first signs of complete arrogance by a government that has immense numbers and that can rubber-stamp any legislation or legislative changes that it wants—and in a state that has no upper house. May I add that we are the only state in the nation to have a unicameral parliament. So we have government by decree and, may I add, parliament controlled by executive government. We have all of the things that any democratic society does not want. This government is into only month two of its term. It is going to be pretty good by the time we get to month 30, let alone month 36, if it ever gets that far! It is with considerable concern that I ask the minister to address the genuine concerns raised by Mr Hall, the President of the Industrial Relations Court, in his letter to the minister. He is very concerned that there has been no adequate time for public consultation and no real time for discussions with unions or employer groups. It is very interesting to note that Bill Ludwig was here today and was mentioned before. He was speaking to the Treasurer and the new Industrial Relations Minister. It is also interesting to note that, after his visit, this bill came up from No. 18 or something like that on the notice paper to No. 1. It would also be interesting to hear what riding instructions Mr Nuttall received regarding what he intended to do to the Industrial Relations Commission. I am sure that Bill Ludwig was not coming down for shortbread and morning tea. The fact of the matter is that he is still calling the shots. I guess that he is looking after union interests, which obviously Mr Nuttall is not. I say to this House: beware, we are still being governed by union power. Bill is back. As a new minister, Gordon does not know what he is doing. So they pulled in Terry Mackenroth, who I did not think was the Leader of the House anymore but who obviously is still acting in that capacity and made sure that the order of bills on the notice paper was changed. It will be interesting to see if there is an amendment, as Mr Hall has proposed will happen, that will be dropped on our table without giving us time to consider it adequately—let alone consult with anyone—or whether the amendment has been put back in the pipeline and we will receive it a little later. I think that this is a pretty sorry day in this state for industrial relations and for fairness. We have seen the absolute sham of this government. It says that it is looking after employee entitlements. Obviously, the government did not like what happened in relation to the teacher's entitlements, so it is going to change the whole system. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (12.09 p.m.): I rise in support of the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2001. The bill before the House introduces significant improvement and change to the long service leave entitlements currently operating in Queensland. 572 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

Long service leave is a longstanding entitlement in this country and we can be proud of the fact that Australia has led the way in establishing such an important and progressive entitlement. The concept of providing an extended period of paid leave rewards employees for long service with the one employer and provides long-serving employees with a break from work, enabling them to renew their energies and pursue other interests at intervals during their working life. It can also provide an incentive for employees to remain with their employer and, therefore, help to reduce labour turnover. This, of course, reduces costs for employers. However, it is necessary for our conditions at work to reflect the society that we live in. For this to happen, the level of entitlements cannot be set in stone for all time. In Queensland, the current long service leave entitlements, which were established back in 1964, have not kept pace with changes in the labour market and with community standards in other jurisdictions. The current long service leave entitlements in Queensland are amongst the least favourable in Australia at 13 weeks leave after 15 years' service. Meanwhile, changing trends in the labour market have made it increasingly difficult for workers to accrue 15 years service with the one employer in order to access long service leave. With increased working hours and work intensification, workers have also been finding it more difficult to balance the competing demands of work and life outside work, whether that be their family responsibilities, social and community activities, study commitments or just personal relaxation. The Queensland government provided the appropriate forum for those types of issues to be considered in the context of long service leave, with a requirement in the Industrial Relations Act 1999 for a full bench of the QIRC to review the entitlements before 30 June 2000. Over 20 parties across union and employer groups participated in the review, ensuring the full bench received a broad range of perspectives on the issues involved. Of course, not every party could expect to see their position reflected in the final outcome. However, all parties, including the government, have respected the decision of the QIRC as the independent umpire. All major stakeholders, both unions and employers, have supported the need for legislation to implement the outcome of the review. In this bill we can see many of the essential elements of the government's approach to industrial relations. The Beattie government's industrial laws have been developed to suit the needs of both employers and employees, and to accommodate the emerging trends in employment patterns and arrangements. They seek to balance both economic and social issues and to reflect fundamental human rights and responsibilities. This amendment legislation provides a reasonable enhancement of current standards that offer a fair outcome for workers while recognising the cost imperatives facing employers. This outcome provides the appropriate balance between economic and social objectives consistent with the principal object of the legislation. The amendments bring Queensland into line with community standards for long service leave prevailing in other jurisdictions. This helps further the objects of the legislation by ensuring that wages and employment conditions provide fair standards in relation to living standards generally prevailing in the community. The amendments introduce a new entitlement that is more relevant to the labour market of today and of the future. This reflects the objects of the legislation to address emerging labour markets and work patterns, and the need to balance work and family life. Finally, the introduction of this legislation, consistent with the outcome of the long service leave review, demonstrates in practice the importance the government places on the QIRC as the independent umpire. As these amendments demonstrate, under the Beattie government Queensland will continue to set benchmarks for fair and balanced industrial relations legislation. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.13 p.m.): In rising to speak to this bill, I wish to raise a number of issues with the minister. These issues do not require an answer; they provide a recognition of the work force as it is today. Many people have spoken, not only in this chamber but elsewhere, about the increased casualisation of the work force. That is a sign of the times. It is a symptom of the changing working role that people are undertaking. Along with many people, I am concerned about how young people will cope when it comes to major purchases under those circumstances. When I was younger, if one wanted to purchase a home one would go to the bank. The first question that would be asked was, 'Are you in full-time work?' If the answer was yes, the bank's expectation was that unless the applicant did something patently stupid, he or she would remain in that job. One had a reasonably reliable income to service what is, in most instances, a significant loan. With the increased casualisation of the work force, I worry about my children and other people's 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 573 children who may be faced with a situation where they work only 20 hours or less a week, or they may be on call. Therefore, they cannot project their income for a 12-month period. That will create a great deal of strain not only on the individual but also on the family and on their ability to make commitments to large debt, particularly involving the purchase of a home. This industrial relations amendment bill recognises casualisation to the extent that people are working for shorter periods for the one employer. It used to be that many local government employees were employed in the one job for 30 or 40 years. They would start out in the job at 13 or 15 years of age and stay there for their entire working lives. Nowadays, if a young person says that they have been with the same firm for five or seven years, they are regarded as a long-term employee. The amendments contained in the bill recognise that changing working structure. I commend the minister for that, because people deserve to have financial recognition for continuous service with one employer. The other matter that I want to raise, which the bill will go some way towards recognising, has allegedly occurred in my own electorate. It affects large work forces in particular. When reviewing the work force and looking at reductions in the work force, employers may look at categories of people whom they could target, perhaps subliminally. Those will be union agitators, people with a certain illness stream, particularly if it is provoked by that industry, and, thirdly—and, as I said, allegations of this have been made in my own electorate—people may be targeted for redundancy or dismissal on the basis of their proximity to long service leave entitlements. The fact that this bill introduces formally the pro rata payment of entitlements where an employee is terminated on the basis of illness, incapacity, domestic or other pressures gives some relief to those employees who feel aggrieved by the process that they may have faced. It will not help those who have already been sacked or made redundant, but it will give some comfort to employees who may face that situation in the future. I commend that move. I recognise that the bill also gives some relief to people who leave employment not because of their own illness but because of pressing domestic family matters. That is becoming more and more relevant in today's society. In many families one or other of the income generators, the mother or the father, may leave work because they can see that the social pressures on their children are significant, to the point where those dependants require a more reliable adult presence at home. That is a valid reason for giving up employment. It is a responsible reason for giving up employment if one or other of the parents says, 'Our children are showing pressure from the current societal standards. We need to be there to give them support.' I thank the minister for recognising those issues. From what the member for Caloundra said it is evident that she was accurate in her expectation that amendments would be moved to this legislation. I put on the record my disappointment that, at this late hour, when we have two speakers and we are about to go into the committee stage of the debate, what may or may not be significant amendments to the Industrial Relations Act are circulated. That is disappointing. A new minister has responsibility for the portfolio, but I would have expected that he would give people more time to contemplate potentially important amendments. I register my disappointment at the lateness of those amendments. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (12.19 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to talk to the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2001, otherwise known as the long service leave amendment bill. This bill arises from a decision in June 2000 of the independent umpire, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, to review the basis of long service leave entitlements for Queensland workers. This was a specific requirement of the Industrial Relations Act and was the first extensive inquiry by an industrial tribunal into long service leave entitlements conducted in Australia since the 1960s. The outcome of the inquiry was to recommend that the government amend the Industrial Relations Act to update the long service leave standard to a level similar to that in other Australian states. The current long service leave standard under the Industrial Relations Act is for workers to receive an entitlement of 13 weeks leave after 15 years continuous service with an employer and for pro rata payment to be made on termination after 10 years. The new recommended long service leave standard will improve on the existing entitlement by allowing workers to have earlier access to the same entitlement but after 10 years. It will also allow for access to pro rata leave after seven years if an employee is terminated or if the employee has resigned for reasons of illness, incapacity, death, or domestic or other pressing necessity. The new standard also incorporates a limited cashing-out provision for long service leave if an award or an agreement provides for cashing out to occur and there is a signed agreement 574 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 between the employer and the employee. Other individual employees may also apply to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for their leave entitlement to be cashed out on compassionate or financial hardship grounds. I am aware of many real compassionate issues relevant to workers in my electorate of Bundamba, and I know that workers generally will be very pleased with this particular amendment. The review of the long service leave standard took place under the auspices of the new Industrial Relations Act and required the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to consider fair community standards as well as new and emerging patterns of work. In doing so, the commission was required to counterbalance both economic and social objectives. The last review of Queensland long service leave entitlements was conducted some 37 years ago—in 1964—and it is clear that the nature of work has changed dramatically since that time. Over the past 20 years in particular there have been significant changes to how we live and work. More than 60 per cent of the labour market now undertakes non-standard work. That is, six out of 10 people no longer work a typical nine to five, Monday to Friday job. More than one in five Queenslanders are working more than 50 hours each week, while over one in three are employed casually. There has also been a decline in the length or duration of employment for a large number of people. More and more people are now working for lesser periods of time with the one employer and are changing jobs and careers in an ever-increasingly dynamic labour market. These changes in the labour market have meant that there are now large groups of employees without access to conditions of employment, conditions that were once developed around the prevalence of long-term, permanent employment. As a result, many workers are currently unable to access any part of their entitlement to long service leave in Queensland. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission therefore recommended that employees be able to access their entitlement at an earlier time, reflecting the substantial growth in the number of workers staying with the one employer for between seven and 10 years. While these improvements to long service leave entitlements will benefit many workers, the amendments have also taken into account the economic impact on Queensland employers. The amendments, based on the independent decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, will be phased in. The costs of the enhancements are minimised because, while employees will have earlier access to their leave entitlement, the rate at which leave accrues is not increased. The improvements will also assist many employees with balancing their work and life commitments. As a working mother I know how difficult this can be. Of course, an added benefit of this for many employers is increased productivity as a result of employees being more relaxed and less stressed. The amendments are reasonable and moderate. They will benefit an estimated 88,000 Queensland employees and have a minimal cost impact on Queensland employers. Importantly, they will bring Queensland into line with the majority of other Australian states, reflecting fair and decent community standards. The amendments reflect the decision of the independent umpire, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which was given the imprimatur to review the long service leave standards. These amendments reflect the outcome of that independent review. In summary, the bill recognises the fundamental objectives of Queensland's industrial relations laws: that conditions of employment must reflect fair and contemporary community standards; that they must take into account new and emerging labour market trends; and that they must help workers to balance their work and family lives. I believe this bill will do just that. I congratulate the Minister for Industrial Relations on taking into account the issues of women workers and working mothers and the impact of work on their family lives. I commend the bill to the House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (12.25 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill, currently before the House. I will make a few comments about long service leave. It is good to see these improvements recommended by the Industrial Relations Commission in this bill, although I believe the full bench could have been a little more courageous. As most speakers in this debate have identified, work practices in Australia have changed enormously. As the member for Bundamba just said, it is 37 years since this act has been looked at and any improvements for workers made. 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 575

If honourable members compare the work practices of 37 years ago with the work practices of today, they will realise that there is no comparison. Thirty-seven years ago all people were employed on a permanent basis. They had some chance of getting long service leave. Today they have just about no chance. Most industries in the blue-collar area— Mr Schwarten: There were no labour hire companies back then. Mr PURCELL: As the member for Rockhampton said, there were no labour hire companies back then. The number of people who are employed on a permanent basis at the moment is very, very small. I would be very surprised if half the work force is currently employed permanently. They are the only people who have some chance of getting long service leave. As we know, the minister recently improved portable long service leave provisions. That scheme operates in the building industry—predominantly for blue-collar workers. Even going back 20 years, those workers would have had no chance of getting long service leave. They were denied a condition of employment that other workers in this state and this country enjoyed for many years. It is great to see that under this bill the work of casuals and people who work on a part-time basis and people's service to a particular industry or employer will be recognised. The bill also clarifies that the provisions relating to the calculation of leave for casual employees also relate to part-time employees and those who have at any time during the period of continuous service worked as a part-time or casual. So those people now have some chance of getting that service recognised for the purposes of long service leave. Most members in this House would recognise that people are now working longer hours for less pay. In relation to conditions of employment, as I said, the full bench should have been a little more courageous and possibly made the 13 weeks long service leave available after 10 years. It has certainly made long service leave more accessible for people who leave an industry due to an employer terminating their services, illness or the industry closing down. If they are unfortunate enough to die, that money will now go into their estate. These days, only those people who belong to strong unions have overtime clauses in their agreements or awards. The wharfies, the miners and those who belong to the Builders Labourers Federation or the CFMEU have overtime clauses in their awards. If honourable members look at provisions relating to employees in the retail sector and to a lot of public servants, they will see that all those provisions have been taken out. Slowly but surely those provisions are whittled away because they have been cashed in. So people are working a lot more hours for less pay. Changes to long service leave could be used as a way of levelling that. I found it strange that the member for Caloundra had the audacity to come into this place and attack a Labor government over its treatment of the Industrial Relations Commission. Industrial Relations Commissions were introduced by Labor governments. That is why the Labor government is— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. The member is misrepresenting me. I find it offensive and I ask him to withdraw it. These amendments that have just been dropped in the House do exactly what I said they would: they nobble the commission, and those opposite are allowing it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask for that comment to be withdrawn. I found the comment that we do not support workers offensive. I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr Schwarten: What's she talking about? Mrs SHELDON: His words. Mr Schwarten: What words? Mrs SHELDON: You should listen to them occasionally, Mr Schwarten, instead of being a pugilist. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Caloundra will resume her seat. Mr Livingstone: What did you say? Which words do you want withdrawn? Mrs SHELDON: I found it offensive and I ask it to be withdrawn. Mr Schwarten: What? What do you want withdrawn? Mrs Sheldon: Listen in future and you'll find out. 576 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

Mr PURCELL: I do not know what the member found offensive. However, I said that the member attacked a Labor government for not supporting the Industrial Relations Commission. Mrs SHELDON: That is exactly what I found offensive, because those opposite are nobbling the Industrial Relations Commission by their amendments. I ask the member to withdraw an untrue statement. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is nothing personal contained in this. The member will resume her seat. Mr PURCELL: I find it very strange that anybody on the Liberal side of politics could utter anything about the Industrial Relations Commission and not choke on their words, particularly the member for Caloundra. Those opposite have not supported the Industrial Relations Commission over the years. I recall a Liberal Industrial Relations Minister sacking a commissioner for the first time in history, against convention, and not reappointing him. That happened under a Liberal government. Anybody who says that the Labor government does not support Industrial Relations Commissions does not know the facts and is stretching the truth to get a headline. How can anybody who supports Peter Reith—as the Liberal side of politics does—after what he has done to workers, that is, removed the issue of industrial relations from the realm of the Industrial Relations Commission and put it in the law courts so that employees cannot afford to defend their rights, have the audacity to come into this place and say that we do not support the Industrial Relations Commission? Mrs Sheldon: Well, you don't. Mr PURCELL: We certainly do, and the member saying that we do not will not change that fact. However, if those opposite got up in this place and attacked their colleague in Canberra, that is, Peter Reith, for the low person that he is and what he has done to the Industrial Relations Commission and industrial relations in this state, we would believe what they say. Just because they mouth it does not make it true. Actions would certainly help us to believe what they are saying. Returning to the bill, there are a couple of items that I am not happy about. I refer in particular to the cashing out of long service leave. In effect, that means that employees can choose not to take long service leave but to take the money instead. I can certainly understand the reason why that situation has come about—that is, people do not have full-time employment. As a result of the way in which Peter Reith and the Liberal Party deal with industrial relations, people do not have full-time jobs. Their wages have been depressed under the Reith Liberal regime. When people are on the verge of losing their house or cannot afford to buy clothes and other items for their children, of course they would prefer to cash their long service leave entitlement in order to continue to look after their families. However, this is not a good way for us to be travelling. Long service leave was designed to enable people to take time away from the workplace in order to spend time with their families. Once again, the Liberal Party mouths off about supporting families. However, it does not support families. If the state and federal Liberal Parties supported families, they would support workers, their salaries and their conditions. Workers are family people. They have children. They have commitments. It is very simple what workers want: they want a reasonable chance of having a permanent job in a reasonably safe working environment that pays a decent wage which gives them some security. It is fairly simple. Of course, the other side of politics wants to attack that. It sides with employers and makes those conditions as harsh as possible. Mr Reeves interjected. Mr PURCELL: My time is up. Mr Nuttall: Keep going. Mr PURCELL: I have just been told my time is up. Mr Nuttall: You go as long as you like. Mr PURCELL: The enormous amount of information placed in front of the Full Bench supported the fact that Queensland has the least favourable conditions for long service leave. We on this side of politics will be working to rectify that in the coming years. I can assure the House that it will not be another 37 years before long service leave is looked at again. Peter Reith will not be around too much longer because at the next federal election he will lose his seat. He will be 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 577 but a memory for the people of Victoria. And the way John Howard is travelling at the moment, he will lose his seat, too. I will now state some facts with regard to the industrial relations track record of those opposite. I point out that the former Liberal industrial relations spokesman in opposition and Industrial Relations Minister in government is no longer in this place. Workers understand who supports them and who does not. The same thing will happen to the federal government when it lines up at the next election. The unemployment situation in this country is hidden because of the extent of casualisation, and that issue was raised earlier in the debate. Under the Howard-Reith plan, a worker who works two hours a month is considered to be employed, not unemployed. Liberal members on the other side of the chamber, who like to get their hands on the Industrial Relations portfolio from time to time, think that people are employed when they work two hours a month. They ought to do something about that. Hiring people through labour hire companies casualises the work force. Those opposite supported the casualisation of the waterfront when there was a proposal to bring in individual industrial agreements, which was knocked on the head. That was a big turning point for Peter Reith. Peter Reith's power has diminished since then and will continue to diminish from now until the Howard government loses power. A Labor government will look after workers and get the economy back to where it should be. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (12.38 p.m.): I rise to speak very briefly on the Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill, and I will mainly talk about the process that this minister has adopted. I would have thought better of the minister than the kind of sneaky thing he has tried to do with the proposed amendments he has introduced. This bill has been lying on the table since 22 March this year. For the last six weeks we have not heard a peep from the minister about the fact that he was going to introduce a major change to the operations of the Industrial Relations Commission—not a peep—that is, not until yesterday, when a letter from the President of the Industrial Court, Mr David Hall, to the minister was leaked. In terms of what has gone on here today and over the past few weeks, when the minister introduced this bill there was not a word about what was intended. There was not a word in his second reading speech—no indication—that he was going to interfere directly with the way in which the Industrial Relations Commission operates. This is the way the Labor government operates. It wants to nobble them. That is what it is going to do. The government is going to nobble it, because it is going to put in an administrative commissioner to do its bidding. That is what it does everywhere. It is going to put in an administrator, and that does not necessarily mean the president of the commission. That is the concern. The minister knows that that is precisely what is going to occur. Mr Livingstone: What did you do to Ray Dempsey when you were in government? You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Dr WATSON: That is yet to be seen. Why is the President of the Industrial Relations Court so concerned? Why wasn't the President of the Industrial Relations Court consulted about this? Why were the other commissioners not consulted about this? According to the letter leaked yesterday from Mr Hall, there have been no significant consultations at all. Mr Nuttall: Are you saying the president of the commission leaked it? Dr WATSON: I said that it was leaked. I do not know who leaked it. It was just on the news. That letter was released and it clearly demonstrates that the minister has not bothered to consult them. There is absolutely no doubt that this is an action by a re-elected Beattie Labor government which did not like a decision of the Industrial Relations Court. The first bill introduced into this parliament by the new minister is one in respect of which he was not forthcoming with the parliament. He will go down as the minister who upon introducing his first bill simply failed to disclose to the parliament and the public what he intended to do. That is an extremely poor way of going about ministerial business. He ought to be ashamed of the fact that he did the Premier's bidding in this case, or that of whoever else in the cabinet or government wants to prosecute this piece of administration. If the minister had any integrity, when introducing a bill he would tell us precisely what he was going to do. Mr Livingstone: Tell us what you did to Ray Dempsey. You sacked him. Dr WATSON: We are talking about this minister and his administration of the portfolio. All honourable members, particularly all of those who have served in cabinet previously, know that when a bill is introduced from time to time there can be administrative changes. After a bill has 578 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 been lying on the table, a broader range of people and even the opposition from time to time will come up with amendments that a government finds acceptable and the bill is changed. Amendments are put forward. That is part of the process. But we expect that, when a bill is introduced into this place, the full ramifications of what is being done should be explained. The minister should not have snuck away for six weeks hiding from public comment. The reason this was moved from position 13 or 14 to position 1 on the Notice Paper today was so the minister could introduce this amendment and get it through without any significant publicity. It is about changing and interfering with the Industrial Relations Commission and minimising the amount of negative publicity on this issue. It is not about open and accountable government, it is about sneaking things through. The only difference between what this minister is doing and what has happened on other occasions in the past is that this is not being done at midnight. It is being done at midday instead of midnight. But for that fact they would be operating in precisely the same way as some other honourable members have in the past. This is an absolute disgrace. The new minister has not been in this portfolio for even three months. On his first attempt at introducing a bill into the parliament he chose to do something like this. He ought to be ashamed. He should tell his cabinet colleagues and the Premier that, although he has done this today, he will never do so again. This is not the way that the minister ought to be remembered. This is an attack on the Industrial Relations Commission over a decision the government did not like. This is a sneaky way of trying to get something through the parliament with no opposition and no public scrutiny. Government members interjected. Dr WATSON: No, the government is going to try to sneak this through and hope that no-one picks up on precisely what it is doing. The minister is trying to sneak this through and he failed. He deserves to be condemned over this process. I cannot even speak about whether this is administratively correct; none of us has had a chance to speak to the Industrial Relations Commissioners and none of us has had a chance to call David Hall to find out precisely what the impact will be and how it will affect the operation of the commission. There has been no such opportunity at all. There has been no opportunity for members on this side of the chamber to consult with the wide range of people who ought to be consulted on this bill. The minister may have consulted a couple of his union mates the Deputy Whip spoke about earlier. He may have done deals with Bill Ludwig early this morning. Mr PURCELL: Mr Deputy Speaker, I object to the member saying that I have been consulted on this. I have not. What he said is untrue. The information I got in relation to that I got from one of the minister's staff this morning. Dr WATSON: There is no point of order. But even so, I will accept the fact that he was not consulted. There were probably very few people consulted on this, in particular any of the backbenchers, who ought to have known what was going on. I bet this did not go through the caucus. Did everyone in the caucus know what the minister was going to do? Ms Spence: Of course it did. Dr WATSON: Of course they did. They all went over it and said, 'Yes, that's novel. This is a really good way of doing this.' Mr Schwarten: This is boring and repetitious. Sit down. Dr WATSON: The member is boring and repetitious. The fact is that this has been done in a way meant to minimise the amount of adverse publicity. It is meant to make sure that opposition members cannot fully consult and speak with people on the Industrial Relations Commission and cannot find out precisely what is going on. This is the arrogant way in which this government intends to operate. As I said, the minister ought to be ashamed of the fact that the first bill he introduced into this parliament was introduced in such a way so as to minimise the amount of public comment on and scrutiny of the bill. If he continues his ministerial career in this vein, he does not deserve to be a minister. Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.47 p.m.), in reply: I know it is the role of the opposition to scrutinise and probe into government business, but can I say that this really is a storm in a teacup being brewed up by the opposition. A number of points have been raised by speakers from the opposition and I will address those in my reply. Firstly, I thank all honourable members for their contribution in the debate. As I stated in my 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 579 second reading speech on 22 March, the introduction of this bill, we believe, will provide—and we have to look at this—real benefits for working people in Queensland by improving their long service leave entitlements. In making these improvements to current entitlements the bill before the House builds on the foundations established during the first term of the Beattie Labor government. The industrial relations system developed in Queensland under this government has focused on outcomes that balance economic and social objectives, that reflect community standards and values and which respond to changes occurring in our workplaces and in our communities. Already we believe this system has established new benchmarks throughout Australia with community standards of employment relevant for the work force of today and, of course, the future. The bill before the House continues on this progress. We believe it strikes the balance between economic and social objectives by providing Queensland workers with improved access and entitlements to long service leave. I note that both the opposition spokesperson from the National Party and the opposition spokesperson from the Liberal Party have indicated their support for the long service leave provisions, and I thank them for that. We do this while minimising the cost impact to employers. In doing so, it brings Queensland into line with community standards for long service leave in other jurisdictions and provides a positive response to changes occurring in the labour market. I believe that the key features in this bill need to be reinforced, that is, that it is a new entitlement of 8.6667 weeks leave after 10 years continuous service, which replaces the existing entitlement of 13 weeks leave after 15 years service. It provides for transitional arrangements to be phased in with the new entitlements. It provides an entitlement to payment for long service leave after seven years continuous service in specific circumstances rather than the current 10 years. It clarifies that the provisions relating to the calculation of leave for casual employees also relate to part-time employees. Cashing out of long service leave will be permitted if an award or an agreement provides for this to happen and the employee and the employer agree in writing for the employee to receive a cash payment in lieu of physically taking the leave. Individuals who are not covered by an award or an agreement which allows for cashing out of long service leave may apply to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to order payment on a compassionate or financial hardship ground. In introducing this legislation, the Labor government has implemented the results of a review of long service leave that was conducted by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The review was conducted under section 58(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999, which required a full bench to review the entitlement to long service leave before 30 June 2000. This was the first such review of a general employment condition under the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and was particularly timely given that the current long service leave entitlements in Queensland have remained unchanged since 1964 and are among the least favourable in Australia. The need for this review was identified during the task force review of the industrial relations legislation in 1998. In its report to government in December 1998, the task force received a number of submissions arguing for improvements to the current standard. The task force recommended that the commission review this standard. The government adopted this recommendation, using section 58(2). The review began in November 1999 and gave all interested parties the opportunity to put forward their views through written submissions, oral argument and witness evidence. Following the conclusion of the full bench review on 27 June last year, the Queensland government decided to legislate to give effect to the outcomes of the review—a course of action supported by both the employers and the unions alike. The introduction of this legislation demonstrates in practical terms the Queensland government's support for the role of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission as the independent umpire in reviewing conditions and ensuring that they remain relevant to community standards. The new entitlement of 8.6667 weeks leave after 10 years service ensures that our legislative standards keep pace with changes in the labour market. Employment patterns have changed since 1964 in a way that makes it increasingly difficult for many workers to access the entitlement after 15 years service. In a labour market that is more mobile and with more part-time and casual employment, 10 years is now regarded as a significant time to spend with one employer. There has been an increase in working hours and work intensification, which makes the entitlement to long service leave more relevant as a form of respite from the workplace and 580 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 allowing workers to balance work and their daily and family lives. For these reasons, I have no doubt that workers will welcome the fact that they will now be able to access their long service leave five years earlier. If, however, an employee would prefer to receive a cash payment rather than taking all or part of their leave entitlement, the bill also provides a mechanism for this to occur after 10 years service. The needs of employers have also been taken into account. The cost impact of the enhancement is minimised because the rate at which the leave accrues is not increased. Furthermore, the new entitlement will be phased in through a set of transitional arrangements that were proposed by the Queensland government during the review and recommended by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. These arrangements ensure that an employer will not be faced with an immediate long service leave liability for an employee, for example, who already has 10 years continuous service before the commencement of the legislation. The earlier access to a pro rata payment in certain circumstances after seven years service is another reasonable improvement to current standards contained in this bill. This brings Queensland into line with a number of other jurisdictions that provide earlier access to a pro rata payment on a conditional basis. This amendment again provides an appropriate response to changes in the labour market since 1964. In recommending this new standard, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission noted evidence presented by the Queensland government during the review that the number of people remaining with one employer between seven and 10 years has been on the increase. As the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission observed, this means that under the current standard there is a group of workers whose service is far from fleeting but who fall just short of an entitlement to long service leave. The new standard ensures that this additional group of workers can enjoy the benefits of long service leave. I now turn to the opposition's contribution to this debate. As I said earlier, I note that both the National Party and the Liberal Party have indicated their support for the long service leave provisions, and I thank them for that. However, the honourable members suggested that adopting the decision in its entirety gives the government's decision-making power to an unelected body. We do not believe that this is correct. The commission's decision followed its assessment of the merits of the arguments of the various parties, that is, the unions, the employers and the government. The government has accepted the conclusion of the independent commission and has legislated on that basis. The honourable member for Caloundra has asked for details on the transitional arrangements and how long they will take to put in place. I am happy to advise her of that. The transitional arrangements in this bill were proposed by the Queensland government and recommended by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. In effect, these arrangements apply to all employees whose continuous service begins before the commencement date of this legislation. They have been introduced to ensure that an employer will not be faced with an immediate long service leave liability for an employee, for example, who already has 10 years continuous service before the commencement of the legislation. The transitional arrangements will not apply to an employee starting after the legislation commences. On the statements made by the honourable members for Caloundra and Moggill about the commission, I have the following comments. The commissioner who is currently the commissioner administrator is Commissioner Bloomfield. Commissioner Bloomfield was appointed to the commission in 1993. Prior to that, he was the executive director of the Metal Trades Industry Association, which is now known as the Australian Industry Group—not, as intimated by the honourable member for Caloundra, that we would appoint someone from the union side. In his position as executive director of the MTIA, Commissioner Bloomfield gained considerable administrative experience. These amendments before the House today clarify the commission administrator's responsibilities. These amendments clarify the job that he will need to do. Issues have been raised about the independence of the commission and a letter by President Hall. In response to that, I table advice that we have received from the Crown Solicitor. Much has been said about the government nobbling and interfering with the commission and the separation of powers. This letter will clarify that position for all honourable members. Our question to the Crown Solicitor was— Could the proposed legislation be seen as an attempt on the part of the Government to interfere in the operation of an independent Commission as claimed by the President in his letter. The response from the Crown Solicitor was— You have advised me that the amendments are intended to clarify the respective roles of the President and the Commissioner Administrator, and given that the Commissioner Administrator is a member of the Commission, it is difficult 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 581 to see how these changes can fairly be interpreted as involving an interference with the independence of the Commission, given that they do not change the nature of the powers or fetter their use. That letter clearly indicates that we have in no way interfered with the powers of the commission. This is simply about the administration of the commission. This is simply about clarifying an issue in the 1999 industrial relations legislation, under which a commissioner administrator was first appointed. This is simply ensuring that the role of the commissioner administrator is carried out. I will have more to say about that at the committee stage. The honourable member for Gladstone raised a number of concerns about what was happening with work at some workplaces. The government shares the concerns raised by the member for Gladstone. The high rate of casualisation is a matter of concern. I thank her for her supportive comments about the elements of the bill. I would like to thank all my backbench colleagues for their important contribution to the debate. In developing this legislation, the government consulted with all employee and employer organisations which took part in the long service leave review. I would like to thank all those involved for their contribution. The bill before the House represents a continuation of the fair and balanced approach the Beattie government has introduced to industrial relations in Queensland. The amendments provide a reasonable enhancement of current standards and a fair and balanced outcome for both employees and employers. This demonstrates the government's ongoing commitment to industrial relations legislation that balances economic and social objectives. It ensures fair and relevant wages and conditions reflecting community standards and responds to emerging labour markets and work patterns. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. G. R. NUTTALL(Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) in charge of the bill. Sitting suspended from 1.02 p.m. till 2.30 p.m. The CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like to acknowledge the presence in the public gallery of members of the Sherwood Probus Club. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. New Clause 10A — Mr NUTTALL (2.31 p.m.): I move amendment No. 1 circulated in my name. 1. After clause 10— At page 8, after line 24— insert— '10A Amendment of s 75 (Conciliation before application heard) 'Section 75(6),'president'— omit, insert— 'commissioner administrator'. '10B Replacement of s 264 (Administrative responsibilities for the commission and registry) 'Section 264— omit, insert— '264 Administrative responsibilities for the commission and registry '(1) In addition to performing the functions of a member, the commissioner administrator is responsible for the administration of the commission and registry, and the orderly and expeditious exercise of the commission's jurisdiction and powers. '(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the commissioner administrator is responsible for determining the member or members who is or are to constitute the commission, including a full bench of the commission, for a matter or proceeding. '(3) The commissioner administrator has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done to perform responsibilities under subsection (1) or (2).'. '10C Amendment of s 269 (President or commissioner administrator to consider efficiencies that may be achieved by allocating matters to dual commissioners) '(1) Section 269, heading— 582 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 omit, insert— ' 269 Commissioner administrator to consider efficiencies that may be achieved by using dual commissioners'. '(2) Section 269, 'the president and'— omit. '10D Amendment of s 270 (Reallocation of commission's work) 'Section 270, 'president or'— omit. '10E Amendment of s 278 (Power to recover unpaid wages and superannuation contribution etc.) 'Section 278(6), 'president'— omit, insert— 'commissioner administrator'. '10F Amendment of s 281 (Reference to full bench) '(1) Section 281(2), 'president's'— omit, insert— 'commissioner administrator's'. '(2) Section 281— insert— '(2A) However, if the commissioner constituting the commission is the commissioner administrator, the commissioner administrator may refer the matter only with the president's approval.'. '(3) Section 281(3), 'president'— omit, insert— 'commissioner administrator'. '(4) Section 281(4)— omit, insert— '(4) The commissioner administrator may approve the referral of a matter to the full bench under subsection (2) only if the commissioner administrator is satisfied the matter is of substantial industrial significance. '(4A) The president may approve the referral of a matter to the full bench under subsection (3) only if the president is satisfied the matter is of substantial industrial significance. '(4B) On application under subsection (4), the commissioner administrator may refer the matter to the full bench only if the commissioner administrator is satisfied the matter is of substantial industrial significance.'. '(5) Section 281(2A), (3), (4), (4A) and (4B) (as amended or inserted) and (5)— renumber as section 281(3) to (8).'. The amendment relates to the administration of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Act 1999 created a new position of commissioner administrator which is based on the position of senior judge administrator established under the Supreme Court Act 1991. The government's intention in establishing this new position was to ensure that the commissioner administrator was responsible for the administration of the commission and registry and the orderly and expeditious exercise of the commission's jurisdictional powers. The amendments aim to ensure that this is the case and, in particular, the administrative authority for the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission lies with one position, that of the commissioner administrator. The CHAIRMAN: Order! Would members please note that the amendment proposes a new clause. Mr LESTER: I just want to say at the very outset that the opposition is outraged that this amendment should be brought into the parliament without prior notice. In fact, the amendment was placed here in the parliament after I as the shadow spokesperson had spoken. That is treachery of the highest order. I really cannot speak in any way in favour of this behaviour. I had thought on this occasion that we were going to get a fair go, that the people of Queensland were going to get a fair go through the parliament, and that is indeed what the Premier said would happen—it would be fair to all concerned. This is not fair. Why is it that letters have been written by the president to the minister signifying enormous concerns with what the minister had proposed to do? Quite frankly, this is arrogance. There was no notice given of this and I have to ask: what does it do to the commission? What we have seen here today is a goodwill bill absolutely gutted and sabotaged. There is no other way to talk about it. What has now been created is a monstrosity. The 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 583 government has been underhand and arrogant. What it is saying is that, 'If you do not pat our backs, we will stab you in yours.' It is as simple as that. Last year the commission awarded teachers a pay rise, an increase of 14.7 per cent, in an independent and fair manner consistent with judicial integrity. It is widely known that the government is not happy with this decision. This amendment is punishment for that independent decision of the judiciary on the facts. This is a total breach of the separation of powers. Obviously, the members on the other side of the House have no knowledge of this principle which underpins our system of government. We cannot punish the judge. The courts must feel that they can make any decision without fear or favour. If there is any chance that they might be punished for making a decision which does not agree with the government's agenda, the independence of the judiciary is not complete. Quite frankly, with this sort of behaviour we are heading towards what is happening in places like Zimbabwe. I hate to say that. It hurts me to have to say it, but that is the forerunner of what is going on. The amendment shows the true vindictive nature of the present government. Statutory independence has been stripped from the commission's president. The President of the Industrial Relations Court, David Hall, is appointed until he reaches the age of 70. He has no fear of being sacked. This needs to be so, so that he feels that his job is secure if he makes a decision that the government is not happy with. That is called judicial independence. The government in one fell swoop has punished the president by taking these important powers and giving them to a person appointed only for a five-year term. This is a disgrace. No judge in Queensland can feel safe again. Queensland can no longer claim to have an independent body overseeing industrial relations. Instead, we have a yes-man working in fear of his job. That is what the government is trying to make that person. The president has been stripped of the power to arbitrate and to conciliate. The commissioner administrator will now be responsible for the exercise of the commission's jurisdiction and powers. This has been directly stripped from the president. The commissioner administrator now is to be responsible for determining the membership of the commission for the determination of matters or proceedings. The government is giving the commissioner administrator hugely wide-ranging power, yet it is impossible to guarantee his independence. He does not have to relinquish the life term. This is a disgrace. This is a get-even amendment. The government members should be condemned. They should no longer be able to hold their heads high. The president is now a powerless head. The government knew that it could not get rid of him so they stripped him of his powers. These changes have been brought in despite express opposition from every major stakeholder in the jurisdiction. The only organisation which supported these amendments is the government. Consultation is a dirty word for the members opposite. If they get some feedback which they do not like, they seem to believe that it is okay to ignore it. This is a very sad day and I am, quite frankly, ashamed to have to be sitting here in this parliament when the members opposite us are destroying the independence of the judicial commission. I think this is a dreadful thing and I say to the minister: it is not too late; withdraw the amendment. I have to ask: why was Bill Ludwig here this morning? Were there riding orders given? Those opposite cannot say he was not there, and it would seem that he is giving these riding orders and it would seem that they have all jumped. It is not good enough; it is a disgrace. The government members should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves and hang their heads in shame. Mr HORAN: Today in the Queensland parliament we are well and truly seeing what is really going to happen in this parliament where there is a dangerous majority held by the Labor Party. They will walk all over this place and walk all over Queenslanders like a dirty doormat. We have seen it in the despicable treatment of this parliament today. We have before us an amendment and those opposite did not even have the courtesy to give it to us before our shadow minister spoke. It was tabled in the House after he had spoken. The government had this amendment in its hands on 30 April at 2.53 p.m. It had plenty of time to show a bit of courtesy in bringing this amendment into the House so that it could be looked at and properly examined, researched and debated. That is the first point. This particular amendment represents a substantial change to the bill. It is not as though it is changing, adjusting or amending a particular clause; it inserts a new clause altogether. The 584 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 government introduced a relatively friendly bill, which we were going to support, but plonked on the end of it an amendment that is totally different from the legislation. This is the get-square amendment. There is no doubt that this bill is about getting square with the Industrial Relations Commission for the recent pay rise for teachers. This is the result of this unhealthy, dangerous majority of the Labor Party. Today in the halls of power, right outside our chamber, we saw Bill Ludwig—back here the very day after the Shepherdson report was brought down. He has the Premier and the Treasurer in the saddling paddock and he is giving them their riding instructions. Today, we have seen a dramatic change to the order in which legislation was to be dealt with. This bill has jumped from No. 13 to No. 1 on the Notice Paper. Today some members were to present their maiden speeches and they had brought people from great distances to be present to hear them. All of that has been changed because of the riding instructions that have been given. Already we have seen a senior person in the Education Department shifted out. I wonder if that has something to do with a get-square for the teachers' wages decision. We are really seeing a dangerous majority: a government that is drunk with power, a government that is going to treat the parliament and the opposition like a dirty doormat, a government that is just going to treat this place as though it does not exist, a government that is determined to get its own way—to put in the hobnailed boots. So if someone from a commission does something that the government does not want them to do and if that person is appointed for life, as is the president of this court, what does the government do? It strips the person of their powers so that it can get square. Mr Livingstone interjected. Mr HORAN: The member does not like hearing this. He would be the ringleader. That is the sort of thing he would like to do. That is the way he would like to operate. That is his modus operandi. There he is—the old cloth cap and bovver boots. Mr Springborg: They've brought him back. Mr HORAN: They brought him back. The member would be a specialist at this. He would be a professor of this sort of thing. Apart from the derisive way in which this parliament is going to be treated now—we can see how it is going to happen—the important principle of separation of powers is being interfered with. Some members opposite will stand up and give us pious statements about how the administration should be run. This amendment has nothing to do with administration. The government is stripping every power it can from the President of the Queensland Industrial Court because it does not like the way a particular independent decision went. I realise that governments have to manage their budgets as well as they possibly can and try to argue the case for wage rises, but at the end of the day we have to accept the independent decision of the commission. So we have now entered probably one of the darkest eras this state has seen. We have a parliament that is going to be treated with contempt. We have an Industrial Relations Commission that is going to be treated in the most unprincipled way by virtue of the president being stripped of his powers. The situation of the president having judicial independence because he is appointed for life—and therefore there is no worry that his position will be interfered with and he can make his decisions in a fair way without fear or favour—has gone. The message is out: 'If you don't do what we want you to do, we will strip you of your powers and we will give them to someone who has a limited tenure.' That is what has happened in this case. If the government wanted to show any decency towards this parliament, this legislation would have gone before the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I know that that committee was put in place only today—we passed the bill to put those committees in place only yesterday—however, this bill was No. 13 on the Notice Paper. This bill could have been brought before the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. That committee could have looked at the bill and the amendments. This amendment is a serious, substantive amendment that substantially changes what the whole act is about. The stripping of the powers of the President of the Industrial Court had absolutely nothing to do with this bill, which is all about long service leave and giving decent and reasonable conditions to workers. This amendment has been moved simply to punish this judge for the decision that was made in that court. Worse than that, the principle we all abide by and respect in this state—the separation of powers, which has been debated greatly since the 1980s—has gone out the window, because this amendment just strips this judge of his powers. This just shows that a 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 585 person can be appointed to a position to the age of 70 and yet the Labor Party, through the parliament, can still strip them of their powers. As my colleague the shadow minister said, this is a dark day for the Queensland parliament. To see the government use its majority to walk all over the major principles of the state, to walk all over the parliament itself and to break the separation of powers in the way that it is doing is an absolute disgrace. I sound a warning note to the people of Queensland: watch out, there is more coming. We know some of the other things the government is working on—measures it wants to bring into this place and use its numbers on. We know what is happening. This amendment has given us a pretty good indication of the modus operandi of this government. The government will come into this place, throw in an amendment or change to legislation at the last minute and just use its numbers to steamroll it through. The government will win this one today because it has the numbers, but we will let the people of Queensland know what the government is like. We will let them know how dangerous the majority of this government is and we will tell them that they should now start considering wiping out a few of the Labor Party members when it comes to the next election. The members opposite should not become complacent because they have three years to go; we will start spreading the message now. This parliament should be treated fairly and squarely, and the judiciary and the President of the Industrial Court should be treated fairly and squarely by this parliament. The government cannot break important principles just because it has the numbers. It still has to work fairly and squarely. The opposition will be out there telling the people what is happening. We will let them know, because it is about time the people realised the great mistake that has been made in creating this imbalance in the numbers and giving the Labor government in this state a dangerous majority. I will finish by summarising. This parliament has been treated with disdain. It is not right to bring in a substantive amendment such as this that has absolutely nothing to do with the spirit and intent of this bill, which the opposition was supporting. By doing this the government shows not only a lack of courtesy but also a disdain for this parliament and a disdain for the people who elected members to this parliament. We in Queensland are going into a dark age where government is going to absolutely tear to shreds the principle of the separation of powers. For anyone in these important positions of the judiciary and for the industrial relations commissioner—these people are supposed to act without fear or favour—the message is out that if they transgress the government will use its numbers to strip them of their powers and teach them a lesson they will never forget. So proper industrial fairness in Queensland has just gone out the window. Mrs SHELDON: The Liberal Party will not be supporting this amendment. I think in my speech at the second reading stage I highlighted why the Liberal Party would not support it. I have looked at the Crown Law advice that the minister tabled. It is becoming a bit of a thing for members of the Labor Party to table Crown Law advice and say, 'There you are. That satisfies any queries raised.' In fact it does not, as the minister knows. It is very interesting to note from the advice that questions have been asked of the Crown Solicitor, obviously, with an idea of a bit of retribution from the minister to the president of the court. I have not seen the questions, but the answers are contained in this advice. Would the minister table the questions that he sent to Crown Law? Some of them are contained in this advice, but some of them are not. The advice refers to the propriety of the facts that came out. Obviously questions were raised about the situation regarding the president of the court and if he had deliberately leaked this letter. The Crown Law advice states— However, there is no reason to suppose that the President in any way authorised or acquiesced in the distribution of what is on the face of it a leaked copy of the President's letter, and I do not propose to consider the fax further. I thought that was an interesting comment. A question that was asked has been tabled by the Minister. It states— What are the obligations on the Minister to meet with the President in accordance with his request. The answer states— The Minister has no obligation to meet with the President. Technically, that is true, but we are talking about the normal, everyday practice of an administrative situation, which this is. It is not a government policy, although obviously it is government policy to nobble a commission. This amendment will actually mean an adjustment—a 586 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 change—in the way that it is administered. In normal administrative procedures, the president would be asked, as would the other commissioners. Obviously he has not been, as his letter shows. The minister asked the following question— Has the President acted appropriately in the terms of his letter to the Minister responsible for the legislation governing the Commission and also in writing to all other Ministers and other persons (see fax) about the proposed changes. The answer states— While it might be thought highly unusual for the President to have communicated not only with the Minister but, apparently, with all other Ministers and others, there is nothing which actually prevents him from doing so if he sees fit. Those are very interesting questions considering what we are debating in the House today. The minister himself read out a question and answer that apparently implied that the Crown Law advice was that what he is doing is correct. The minister's question was— Could the proposed legislation be seen as an attempt on the part of the Government to interfere in the operation of an independent Commission as claimed by the President in his letter. The answer is very carefully worded. It says— You have advised me that the amendments are intended to clarify the respective roles of the President and the Commissioner Administrator, and given that the Commissioner Administrator is a member of the Commission ... Obviously, that answer has been very carefully written. The Crown Solicitor does not give a tick to say that everything is fine, as the minister would have us believe. We should look further at the letter of the president. It states— We have been informed of wide ranging public comment within the industrial relations community that the Government has not been happy with certain recent decisions out of the Commission. That is a reference to the teachers decision. The letter continues— If those comments are right, then that could give rise to the public perception that there may be an attempt at interference in the independent functioning of this Commission. Further, the letter states— As a consequence of these events, and with some degree of regret, a meeting was held on today's date, which included myself, the Vice-President, the Commission Administrator and Commissioners of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. At the meeting, all expressed their grave concern that these matters were to be progressed through Parliament without any attempt to discuss the issues with the very body charged with the administration of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 in Queensland. We acknowledge that, on occasions, policy matters relating to the aforementioned Act are introduced into Parliament without consultation of the Commission, however, on this occasion, the matters are of an administrative nature. All persons present at the meeting, with the exception of Commissioner Fisher (who is absent on sick leave), expressed no opposition whatsoever to the manner in which this jurisdiction currently functions. As President of the Industrial Relations Court of Queensland, and at the request of all members of the Commission, I respectfully seek that the Government delay the progression of these matters before the Queensland Parliament. We would ask that you, as Minister for Industrial Relations, meet with us on this very important and significant issue. Very obviously, what we are seeing is the legislation being railroaded through this parliament. I guess the minister, the government and, obviously, Bill Ludwig realised that this would fester in the community and that people would start asking very serious and appropriate questions about what the government is doing to the independence of the industrial commission. Therefore, the government wanted it off the books. It wanted a done deal. It has the numbers and in total arrogance it will do it. This is a matter of grave concern to all members of parliament, regardless of the side of the House that they sit on. The minister can say what he likes, but the letter from the president, which I will table for anyone to read, very clearly sets out the president's concerns and those of all other commissioners. As members of this Queensland society and, certainly, as members of parliament we have every right to ask these questions of the government, which has decided to railroad the amendments through today. The amendments amend the big industrial relations bill and I know that that can be done under the title of the bill. However, this bill was also dragged up the list to become first on the notice paper at very short notice. Because of that, we do not have with us the things that we would like to have in order to speak to the debate. In fact, I tried to get a full copy from the Bills and Papers Office, but they did not have it. We are dealing with bits and pieces of the clauses of the original bill which relate entirely to this amendment. If this is supposed to be open, straight and accountable government, one has to wonder what the government has to hide in doing this. Further, the minister did not tell the shadow minister or, indeed, other members of the parliament that these amendments were to be circulated. In fact, I asked the attendants if there 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 587 were any amendments. They said that there were some but they had not been given the advice that must come from the minister to circulate them. I then asked them to ask the minister, but he said that he would not circulate them at that time. All told, it has been a pretty sordid effort by the Minister for Industrial Relations and I do not think it sits well with him. Undoubtedly he has been propelled into this position by the real powerbrokers of the Labor Party, but it is a sad day for the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. All members who, when the division is called, will eagerly get up to support the government may live to rue the day when they did not allow democracy to happen in this place. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I rise also to speak against the amendment. I noticed with some interest the conclusion of the Crown Solicitor's advice to question four, which stated— Could the proposed legislation be seen as an attempt on the part of the Government to interfere in the operation of an independent Commission ... The answer from the Crown Solicitor states— You have advised me that the amendments are intended to clarify the respective roles ... I would be interested in a response from the minister on that because, unless I have misunderstood them, the amendments appear to diminish the president's role. His name has been removed from clauses that clarify the actions and the responsibilities that the president has, and the amendments transfer that power to the commissioner administrator. If that is a clarification of roles, the commissioner administrator has been overstepping his or her area of responsibility in the past and has been doing work that the president, according to the act, should be doing. If that is the case, there have been problems in the past. If not, I believe that the response of the Crown Solicitor could be deemed to be misleading. I have already expressed my disappointment at the lateness of the circulation of the amendments, which remove the name of the president in all instances except the insertion in section 281, which states— However, if the commissioner constituting the commission is the commissioner administrator, the commissioner administrator may refer the matter only with the president's approval. That appears to be an anomalous situation, because in all of the other clauses that deal with matters before the commission, the power has been transferred from the president to the commissioner administrator. The new clause seems to run in contradiction to the other amendments. The other thing that it may do—and again I seek the minister's clarification because there has been no time to fully understand it—is that if it does not remove the power from the president, as it appears from the letter that the member for Caloundra has referred to, it adds an additional layer or a delegated power to the commissioner administrator prior to consideration by the president. That is an additional bureaucratic or administrative role. Perhaps that is all that it does. If that is the case, it removes many of the allegations that have been made about the substantive change that these amendments, which again have been circulated late in the day, are intended to actually prescribe. My suspicion is that, rather than laying an additional layer of administration, it actually withdraws power from the president. It withdraws responsibility from the president of the commission and it transfers that to another entity, the commissioner administrator. That is disappointing. I know that over time members of the Labor Party have been staunch advocates of the independence and the role of the Industrial Relations Commission and they have been very, very adequate and powerful arguers for that. This amendment flies in the face of that advocacy for their independence. It does not change the independence of the IRC. But, as has been said earlier, it sends a message to the IRC that there are ways of removing, reducing or changing the role of an industrial relations commissioner, president or other entity simply by way of amendment in this House. That, as I said, is contradictory to all that the ALP has argued, during the six years that I have been in this House, about retaining the independence of the IRC quite separate from the political influence so that they can adjudge matters in an independent and objective manner. On the basis of the paperwork that I have received, that is, the amendments, the copies of the act that has been amended and the copy of the Crown Solicitor's advice—and I thank the minister for tabling that—on the basis of the evidence that has been presented, I can believe only that the president's powers are being reduced in terms of his or her ability to sit on the Industrial Relations Commission. Those powers are being transferred to another entity. As has been said earlier, that person—the commissioner administrator—does not have the fearless position that the 588 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 president has in that the president has a tenure that cannot be stymied or reduced. It sends the message to people who should be adjudicating on matters objectively and impartially that there will be repercussions if those considerations are unpalatable to the government of the day. I hope that the minister can reply to these matters in a way that will assure this House that these amendments do not in any way impair the independence of the commission. I think the minister will be able to do that because it does not add a connection between parliament and the IRC other than through subliminal influence, that is, the minister has removed separate, independent and inviolable powers of the president and transferred them to the administrator who has a tenured position that is relatively short—five years—and that in itself is an undermining of the commission's independence. I look forward to his response. Mr SPRINGBORG: In rising to speak on this amendment, I say that there is an old adage: when in doubt, throw it out. All honourable members have to be extremely suspicious about the motivation of the minister and the government in bringing this amendment before the parliament—an amendment which substantially changes the original intent of the legislation. As the honourable member for Caloundra said earlier on, there is no doubt that, under the broad title of a bill, a government is able to introduce fairly significant amendments. However, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out a moment ago and a number of other honourable members pointed out, we had a situation in which we had legislation before this parliament which was principally concerned about the issue of long service leave and amendments in that area. Today, the government, through I think very, very dishonest measures, has come into this parliament and snuck through an extremely concerning and inflammatory amendment. We have seen too much of this from this government. A moment ago I listened to the Leader of the House. She said, 'So?' when we raised the issue about this amendment being moved. She would know about introducing into this parliament at the very last moment inflammatory amendments in legislation which broadly had the support of all members of this government. I say to the minister that this is not good practice. I must say that I am not convinced in any way whatsoever of the arguments that have been advanced to this parliament today about why this amendment is necessary and why the committee should pass it. There is no reason whatsoever. There is nothing but suspicion in my mind about why the government is doing this. This is the typical Labor Party approach: don't get angry, get even. It intends to get even with the Industrial Relations Commission in Queensland and the president for something which he did and which they did not necessarily like. We are also seeing that the arrogance and complacency from this second-term government with a significant majority is now starting to permeate not only this parliament but places outside as well. We have complacency and we have arrogance. It is interesting to listen to some of the quips from honourable members opposite akin to saying, 'Just sit there and enjoy it because a lot more of this is going to come along the way as we go through this second term of the Beattie Labor government.' This is the equivalent of the application of cement boots to the President of the Industrial Court. I know the honourable member for Bulimba has a degree of mirth as he responds to that, but he would know all about that because of his past union involvement. They have basically applied in the political sense cement boots to the President of the Industrial Court, and that is not good enough. At the end of the day I must admit that I am very concerned about the operation of this minister. Some 2,000 years ago Caligula appointed his horse to the Senate. That horse's name was Incitatus. The reason he appointed that horse was that he felt that he would be able to do the bidding of the emperor of the day far more and be somewhat less scrutinised by the Senate. I must say that what we see here is an amendment that has been brought into this parliament today by a minister who I think is probably keen to repay his debt to a Premier who has rewarded him with a ministry after trying so long and so hard to get there. It does the minister absolutely no credit whatsoever to be a lap-dog in doing something like this which, at the end of the day, takes away significant powers and independence from the President of the Industrial Court. A moment ago the member for Caloundra read from the Crown Law advice. I was sitting there and thinking to myself, 'This is equivalent to the equivocation that we often see from the Auditor-General or auditors when you are dealing with a matter which is placed before them.' They say 'on the advice which you have put before us'. So it is not a ringing endorsement of the position of the government of the day; it is a somewhat more reserved approach and it is something which causes me great concern. 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 589

I would feel far more comfortable if the Crown Law officer in this case had access to all the information and provided an advice to this parliament—to the minister—which was far more effusive and supportive than that which was read into Hansard earlier. We have an equivocation; we have a reserved response from the Crown Solicitor in the response which has been presented to the parliament, and that concerns me greatly as well. That on its own is also grounds for concern. Why would the President of the Industrial Relations Court in Queensland write a letter of concern to the minister? If all the reasons that have been advanced by the minister in presenting this amendment to the parliament are true, that is, that this amendment is about clarifying administrative roles of officers within the commission, then I am sure that the president would not have written to the minister saying, 'Gee, Minister, I am worried about this.' That is basically what he is saying, 'I do not necessarily agree with what you are doing. I am concerned about it. This is about stripping the powers.' Certainly the president has not been convinced of the motivation or the intentions of the government in the amendments that it is bringing before the parliament, and there is much reason to be worried about this. The Labor Party came to power in this state in 1989 after the Fitzgerald inquiry. At that time it mentioned much about the independence of the courts, about the independence of the administrative process in this state and about the separation of powers. In actual fact, many members who sit on that side of the parliament campaigned long and hard on that. One would have to be suspicious of their motivation, because no sooner did they achieve the high office of Cabinet minister than they slunk back down their burrows and we have never seen them again. The current Minister for Employment is a classic example of that. He was the Attorney- General who campaigned long and hard on the issues of the separation of powers, administrative transparency and all of those good things in Queensland. He should be raising some concerns about this, because at the end of the day how would the community at large react if this parliament attempted to put through a piece of legislation that took away the administrative responsibilities, the administrative power and the abilities from the head of the three judicial jurisdictions in the state: the Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court? There would be an absolute outrage. There have been some interjections from government members saying, 'But this is not a court.' This is quasi-judicial. By and large, in an industrial sense this fulfils the same roles as our criminal courts and our civil courts. I think that what applies there applies in many ways to the operation of the Industrial Relations Commission and the role of the President of the Industrial Court. These people are appointed until the age of 70. They are appointed for that length of time—by and large it is a lifetime appointment—in order that they can undertake their duties and responsibilities impartially and run their jurisdiction the best way they believe it can be administered so that proper and fair results can be achieved. Taking that power away and giving it to the commissioner administrator, who is appointed to the position for a period of at least five years, causes the administrator to be mindful of the political situation of the day, notwithstanding their best intentions and motivation. This will make it a bit like electing judges in the United States. The person holding that position will have to take into consideration what they believe and what the general community may be feeling, but they will also have to take into consideration what the masters who appointed them to that position want from them. This is very risky. This is like playing Russian roulette. For that very reason, and because it takes away the administrative responsibility of a head of jurisdiction, we should be resisting this move. Members can imagine what would happen if this parliament tried to tell the Chief Justice of Queensland, the President of the Court of Appeal in Queensland or the Chief Judge or Chief Magistrate how they should go about running their courts and appointing officers in their jurisdiction to hear various cases. There would be an unbelievable uproar from many members in this place and from people outside this place. That is what is happening here today. The head of that jurisdiction should be able to oversee and run the commission in the way they see fit, because they know what is best. That person has been appointed until 70 years of age to do that. It is far too risky to now pass over those particular responsibilities to the commissioner administrator. I turn now to the role of the commissioner administrator. It is the job of that person to determine the membership of the commission for the determination of a matter or a proceeding. There is a real concern relating to that. If there is an issue before the commission which involves a significant implication for the state—that is, a potential decision which is going to cost the state, 590 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 such as a new wage decision or whatever the case may be—notwithstanding his or her their best intentions the commissioner administrator runs the very real risk of being brought under some degree of political scrutiny or into political disrepute. The president should be the person responsible for determining membership on the basis of how he or she sees the commission being run, not the administrator. Mr PURCELL: It is quite plain that those opposite who have spoken on this clause are speaking for one reason and one reason only: they want to get a headline or get something on the 6 o'clock news. They have all of the information in front of them. They have the advice from the Crown Solicitor and the letter from the President of the Industrial Court. They have the amendment in front of them. It is a change with regard to the administration and good governance of the commission. If something is not working the way it should be, it needs to be fixed. How out of touch are people on the other side when they talk about industrial relations? This matter has been spoken about in industrial relations circles for years—that is, we need to have an administrator in the Industrial Relations Commission that works well. We do not need a situation whereby matters that come before the commission stack up and take forever to get heard. We need them to be heard in an orderly manner for the benefit of both sides, namely, the employer's side and the employee's side. There are many commissioners. They do not work up too much of a sweat, I can tell you. I have been down there. Mrs Sheldon: So you were the hatchet man? Mr PURCELL: No, I appeared before the commission in my previous life, before entering politics. I can tell you: if anybody has an axe to grind with the commission, I have. As far as I am concerned, the union side of politics and this side of politics have always held up the commission as the independent umpire. For people on the other side of politics to come out now with their hands on their hearts and talk about how they are concerned about the independence of the commission or any governing body in industrial relations is a lie, and they know it, because their actions speak louder than their words. A Liberal government in Queensland is the only government in the history of industrial relations going back 100 years to interfere in an industrial decision—by passing acts of parliament in one sitting to deny building workers in this state a chance to have superannuation. It did that. It tried to deny building workers the right to superannuation in this state. It jammed the legislation through in one sitting. There are people on the other side of the House who were here when that happened. Members who sit on that side now were ministers in the government that did that. They should not talk to us about the independence of the commission. They did not use the commission; they used their numbers in this place to bypass the commission. They would not let the matter go to the commission in order to have the umpire make a decision. This minister is allowing the umpire to make the decision. Those opposite are trailing their coat, looking for something to get a headline. How pathetic it is! There are three Liberal members left in this House. The Liberals usually took responsibility for industrial relations in government because they could not trust the Nationals to do it. However, there are three of them left. That is how credible they are in the industrial relations area. If they knew what is happening in the industrial relations area and they talked to anybody who works in that industry on a day-to-day basis, they would know that the Industrial Relations Commission needs to have an administrator for the good governance and good working of the commission. They have the answer here with regard to interfering with the commission. It is fairly plain. They obviously cannot read English. I went to school till I was 14; I can at least understand what is put in front of me. Some of them have a bit of a job there. Mr Wilson: They failed plasticine. Mr PURCELL: Yes, they would fail plasticine. Those opposite are looking to make a political matter out of nonsense and something that is not there. The people of Queensland realise what side of politics looks after the industrial relations interests of workers. I did not see too many of them standing up and saying that Peter Reith was taking away the independence of the commission when he destroyed the federal commission and took away the ability for it to sit down and make decisions. Who said anything here then? The silence was deafening. Mr Wilson: Santo wanted to do the same. Mr PURCELL: He tried to do the same and did not have enough time to get it done. There are numerous examples of what the Nationals and Liberals do when they get a chance with regard to industrial relations. They have made it quite plain that, as far as they are concerned, 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 591 they would like to see everybody on a contract, working on a casual basis and being called in when wanted, at the behest of their employer. They want everybody to have a beeper and a phone, at their own expense, just in case their employer wants them, or they expect employees to sit at home waiting for employers to ring. They want everyone to work for labour hire companies. The federal government broke down the federal powers of the commission to prevent a decision. Not only can the commission not make a decision; it cannot arbitrate on matters. It wanted to legalise as much as it could. The jury was out for a time when Santo was trying to do that here, as my colleague from Ferny Grove said. The message came back from people in Queensland and from practitioners in industrial relations that they did not want the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland legalised like it was federally and that they do get a fair shake in Queensland. You win some and you lose some. As I said, I was at the commission on numerous occasions as secretary of the builders labourers, and I can tell members that I did not win everything. I would have liked to. And you get a little bit shirty when you don't. But that is the nature of the game. You win some and you lose some. This is an administrative issue, as members opposite know. They are really having a bit of a go tongue in cheek. This is for the good governance and the good running of the commission such that both sides, employers and employees, can get their matters heard as judiciously and as quickly as they possibly can so that the commission can move on to the next matter. Mr ROWELL: This amendment is significant, because right throughout Queensland industrial relations will be extremely important to our futures. There is little doubt about that. We are seeing a whole range of workplace agreements being put together at present. If we are going to compete with other countries around the world, we have to recognise that, by comparison, our wage structure is quite high. Mr Purcell: Rubbish! Mr ROWELL: Our wage structure is high by comparison. Mr Purcell: Are you talking about Third World countries, or are you talking about western countries? Mr ROWELL: I am talking about countries we compete against. We are competing against these countries. Mr Purcell: Oh, Third World. You want us working for, what, 20c an hour like they do elsewhere? Mr ROWELL: In many instances, we are competing against these countries. It is important that in going about our workplace relations we achieve good value for employees and employers. I am concerned that the integrity of the Industrial Relations Commission is being impacted on by this amendment brought in by the minister. I am concerned that we are getting to the point that agreements will not be made and registered in Queensland, people will be more interested in going to the federal jurisdiction. That has happened in the past, too. We want to maintain the presence and importance of the commission and its recognition in Queensland. This amendment will destroy the ability of the president—and even his very presence—to be able to fairly, justifiably and sanely go about his work in a manner such that he has no fear of reprisal over decisions he makes. I have heard a whole range of reasons, for example, in relation to the Teachers Union, that have been put forward by other members of the opposition. I think that in the future we will have considerable problems in arriving at good, sane and sound agreements. It does not matter whether that is in the building industry, primary industries or whatever other industry; in the future we will see more and more of these agreements. We need a commission that can make an impartial decision without any fear of political interference. That is the concern of many members on this side of the chamber, that is, that in the future the government might do more of what it is doing now. It has certainly impinged on the integrity of the president and made it very difficult for him to have any commanding presence within the commission. And the responsibilities have been sent off to an administrator, who is on only a five-year tenure. Irrespective of what my friend the honourable member for Bulimba might be saying about agreements and difficulties that workers have had, there is also a need for employers to make money from whatever they are doing. If we do not have an absolutely impartial Industrial 592 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

Relations Commission that can make a decision without fear or favour, we will see an unbalanced situation developing in this state. This amendment is doing exactly that. The minister is saying to the commission, 'If we don't like what you're doing, we will pass legislation to get around the situation.' That is what this amendment effectively does. I believe that in the future there will be even greater difficulties for people who want to make fair agreements between workers and employers. What we are seeing here today was rushed in. The minister has to admit that. It was not listed on this morning's notice paper in the position it is now. Suddenly an amendment arrived at very short notice, after the opposition speaker made his points. I think there was goodwill up to that time. The opposition spokesman made certain points in support of the bill. There were no concerns about it until this amendment arrived and then all sorts of doubts started to creep in about why the government had gone about this in this way. As I said, letters from the president have been cited. The issue about the teachers has been raised. A lot of that may be true. I am not even going to speculate about that. But I want to make sure that there is impartiality, a balance and support for both sides when in registering workplace agreements they go along to the Industrial Relations Commission to put forward concerns that might be held about them and that there is a balanced view about the future direction in which work will be carried out in the state of Queensland. The important component as far as that work is concerned—and the employees—is being disrupted. It now has a question mark over it. I am very disappointed to see the minister moving this amendment. Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to speak to the amendment. The reality is that there is no doubt the government can do whatever it wishes to do; it has the numbers. But what concerns me is the process that this government at such an early stage in the life of this parliament is adopting. When I look at the amendment and the bill I ask the question: where is the consistency? If I tried to do this in local government I would have been thrown out. It would not have been possible to get this through local government, yet it is in state parliament. I have tried to get some advice in relation to conventions, standing orders and procedures for introducing amendments. It seems that it is up to the government. It can do whatever it wants to do. This government has resources and support. Why the heck is it introducing such significant amendments to legislation in this manner? At the end of the day we will have to wait to hear from the Premier as to why he is proposing to show Queenslanders that this is the style of government that he wishes to lead. The bill is for an act to amend the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991. I suppose there is some connection. But by crikey I think it is a very distant connection. I have very real concerns about what is to follow for the balance of the term of the 50th Parliament. There is no need for these sorts of amendments to be introduced in this format. Why the heck couldn't this amendment have been part of the original bill? There had been goodwill right up until when the amendment was moved. What is wrong with putting the government's contentious issues out in broad daylight so everyone can see them and be prepared to speak to them in due course? Yes, the minister has been bold; he has introduced it at midday, in broad daylight. They are saying, 'Let's see how bold we can be. Let's see what we can get away with. We no longer have to try to do these things at midnight. Let's see what the opposition does.' All I can say is that I am very concerned and very disappointed. I hope all Queenslanders see this for what it is, because I believe it is totally unnecessary. We do not even have a Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and all of a sudden this legislation has been jumped to the top of the queue. I understand that tomorrow we are trying to organise the very first preliminary meeting of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I would love to know what the urgency is. I certainly cannot support it. Can I simply put on the public record my extreme disappointment with the government's actions and the way it is governing this state. Miss SIMPSON: In opposing this amendment, we need to note the extreme arrogance of this government in the way it is going about its business. As has already been pointed out by my colleagues, it is amazing what a plethora of numbers does when it comes to the reality of how they govern. They have decided to abuse the parliament by abusing its rules. Legislation is supposed to sit for 13 days on the table of the parliament. What the government has done instead is taken substantively different clauses and inserted them into the middle of a bill which has nothing to do with those clauses. The way in which the government has piggybacked this issue into the middle of another piece of industrial relations legislation shows its extreme arrogance. 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 593

As has been pointed out, the scrutiny of legislation process has been avoided. As has been pointed out, the importance of the committee structure—about which we heard the Premier talking with so much passion just the other day—has been totally abused and ignored. On the last occasion that this government did something like this, I think it related to another industrial relations bill, when the government did not have a majority in the parliament. But at least the amendments that were introduced at that time related to that particular piece of legislation. In fact, I think seven pages of amendments were put on the table on that occasion, but at least they related to that bill. However, in similar circumstances to this, the government did not have the courtesy to make the public aware of them or to circulate those seven pages of amendments prior to their debate in the House. And today, once again, we have amendments that have not been circulated to the public prior to their appearance in the parliament. These are significant amendments which, in this case, do not even apply to the original legislation. Yesterday, the Premier spoke in this place about how important the committee structure is and how he believed that people were working to achieve the outcomes and the ethics of the committee structure. But today the government is blatantly abusing that process, thereby avoiding scrutiny of this legislation, which would normally have sat on the table for 13 days, and substantially altering the intention of this whole bill by inserting these amendments into the middle of it. The National Party supported the intention of the original legislation. But it has become a Trojan Horse, because substantially different amendments have been inserted into the middle of this legislation. Therefore, the opposition will be opposing these particular amendments. We need to consider the fact that these amendments are gutting the role of the President of the Industrial Relations Court. Some Labor members have said that they are here to uphold the independence of the Industrial Relations Commission. But none of them can explain why concerns are being expressed about this process by the President of the Industrial Relations Court. Mr Springborg: If it's good for him, why's he worried about it? Miss SIMPSON: That is right. If concerns have been expressed, should the government not be dealing with the very people it affects directly? And if this was so innocuous—so purely technical in nature—and if it was purely an administrative matter with no impact upon the decision making and, ultimately, the authority of the president, why has this been rushed through without prior discussion? Why has this legislation been given this position of prominence and urgency without the appropriate scrutiny and debate in the public arena? It is interesting that, only a matter of months before the last state election, the Industrial Relations Commission brought down a ruling that was contrary to what the government wanted. It increased significantly the wages of teachers based upon a case that the Industrial Relations Commission determined was a fair case. However, it was not a case that the government hoped would be upheld. And only a matter of months later, this government—with its extreme majority and its extreme arrogance—is moving to gut the role of the President of the Industrial Relations Court, contrary to people's wishes, without proper consultation with the commission and the president, and contrary to the due protocol and processes of this parliament. It shows the extreme arrogance and extreme hypocrisy of this Beattie Labor government when it says that it is going to be balanced and even-handed and respect the role of parliament. We have seen what it is doing today. In the past, this government has abused the role of parliament by bringing in significant and extensive amendments without prior advice to the parliament or the opposition. But this legislation goes even further, because it has a substantially different direction from the original legislation and does not relate to the original legislation that was tabled in the parliament. Mr HOBBS: I am disappointed to have to speak to these industrial relations legislation amendments before the committee. The opposition thought that this would be a straightforward piece of legislation. We actually placed a bit of trust in the government. The Premier said that he would be a Premier for all Queensland; but he has proved to be not exactly that, but a Premier for the Labor Party and Labor Party mates. The Industrial Relations Commission has been a cornerstone of industrial relations in Queensland for many, many years. And with the majority that this government has, why does it need to rush through this legislation? It could still be passed following the existing process of consultation. Processes exist in this parliament to scrutinise legislation. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was put in place for the very purpose of scrutinising legislation to make sure that the 594 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 legislation that we put in place will not have any serious impact on Queenslanders, and the role of the parliament is to use that process for all Queenslanders. The other major important process that exists is consultation with the community—public consultation. Where is that? There has been none of that. Other members have said that this legislation was dumped into the House at about lunchtime today. This morning, as a member of some long standing in this place, I knew that something was happening—although one does not have to be here very long to realise that. People were huddling around the place. I noticed that the minister was missing, the Premier was missing, and Mr Mackenroth was missing. And Bill Ludwig was in town. So I thought, 'Hello, what's going on here?' Question time was about to start, but those members still were not in here. So it all came together, and we knew that something was happening. That is why the Premier was asked to explain why there was a rush to introduce this industrial relations legislation. We would be happy to debate this legislation in the normal process. The Premier said that everything is all right. He had his hands open like the pope—'trust me'. But here he is, sneaking in by the back door. The business of the House was in chaos. There are still maiden speeches to be made by some members, and people have travelled long distances to hear them. But now the government has suddenly dumped this on us to try to get its secret little deals through to help it mould the Industrial Relations Commission to the way it wants it. The government has been supportive of the industrial relations legislation process in the past. Why the sudden change now? One of my colleagues mentioned the teachers wage decision. That may have had a bearing on this; I am not sure. The government is putting in place a system whereby the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission will be in the hands of a political appointee. Government terms are for three years, but that person will be appointed for a five-year term. So if this government is in office for three years and then it loses office, that person will still be there during the next government's term. The government is trying to have it both ways. But if it thinks that we are that stupid, it has a bit more to learn yet. The member for Bulimba, Mr Purcell, said that this issue has been around for years. He said, 'Why didn't you hear about it? How come you didn't know about it?' If we did not know about it, why was it not included in the bill? It is as simple as that. Why sneak in these amendments? Any other minister who had some guts would have said, 'I'm going to put an amendment in here', or would have got someone to say something or would have passed it around. This minister has no courage at all. He is sneaking this in through the back door. The member for Bulimba said also that he had received some Crown Law advice. I have not seen that advice. I was not even going to speak to this bill, but this is a deplorable state of affairs, and opposition members need to voice their opinions when things like this go drastically wrong. The process should involve scrutiny of the legislation. We have lawyers in the lobby, and that is their purpose. They give varying opinions. Crown Law might give us an opinion, and then we might get an opinion from somebody else that helps us come to a conclusion and we say, 'Righto, that is the way we want it.' We are happy to follow that process, but we need time to be able to do that. There has been no time to scrutinise this in any manner or form in a legal sense. This is purely political, and we know what members opposite are likely to get up to. I am from western Queensland. Recently, I heard about a case in which the government tried very strongly to influence a decision of the Industrial Relations Commission. In fact, it set the scene in relation to the shearing industry and a group of troubleshooters, a group of people who supply contract shearing teams. The plan was put in place; the legislation was changed so the government could try to knock out an organisation called Troubleshooters Available. On the Wednesday the legislation went through the parliament. On the Thursday Barry Hammonds was notified that he would be hauled before the Industrial Relations Commission and in fact he was taken before the commission. I was one of the witnesses because he was my contractor. That went on for a long time. I do not know how long it went on for. I think it was a year and a half. But do members know what? At the end of the day he won! So no wonder the government is unhappy with current workings of the Industrial Relations Commission! It was a watertight case. The government set the scene; it put in place legislation. All that had to happen was to get the stamp of the Industrial Relations Commission and Barry Hammonds and the shearing industry would be brought back under the award arrangements. The government lost, so it probably is cranky about it. 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 595

That was the process. It went through a long drawn-out professional process and the Industrial Relations Commission found that it had been proved that those people who worked for Troubleshooters Available—the shearers and the other workers—were in fact better off than those under the award. That was the outcome. The government thought that the shearers, the shed hands and others were being denied a benefit because they were working for Troubleshooters Available when in fact it was the other way around. The Premier has said that he wants to be a Premier for all Queenslanders. Really, this is nothing more than a government for Labor mates. That is what it is. One day after the Shepherdson inquiry report has been tabled, guess what? Big Bill is back in town; he is in the Premier's office. Isn't that taking it a bit too far? The Premier could have waited a couple of days or a week, or bring him in at night-time or something else, but he brought him in during the day. I ran into Bill in the hallway when he was leaving. This is one day after the Shepherdson inquiry report has been presented. Far out! They are getting a bit brash. Mr Springborg: Bill's on the roll out your way, isn't he? Mr HOBBS: Well, who knows? I do not know where Bill is on the roll. I think he is in charge of the Charleville branch of the ALP. Mr Springborg: They all live at the Corones Hotel, don't they? Mr HOBBS: Well, there is a group at the Corones Hotel. I notice that they were brought up in recent times. I really want the minister to reconsider this legislation. The bill before the House today, as I said before, is something that we were happy to work along with, but when it is changed so dramatically at the last minute we become very suspicious. We are very disappointed. We think that this government is leaping into the gutter. We believe that instead of being a government for all Queenslanders this is a government for Labor members and Labor members only. Mr NUTTALL: There are several issues that have been raised in the debate on this clause and I would like to address a few of them. The first issue I would like to address is the issue that we will hear about from the opposition over the next few years and that is that we are an arrogant government. I want to reassure the people of Queensland that that is the last thing that this government will be. The Premier of this state has made it very clear to every member of his government that they are to have their feet on the ground and they are to be out there working in their electorates and talking to the people of Queensland. The last two community cabinet meetings, one on the Sunshine Coast and one on the Gold Coast, were probably the best attended community cabinet meetings that we have had in three years. It is quite evident from those community cabinet meetings that this government does intend to keep its feet on the ground and there is no hint that this government will be arrogant in any way. I think that is an important point to make at the outset. Can I just say again that I believe that the opposition has whipped up a storm in a teacup in relation to this issue before us today. I said that earlier, and I really believe it is. This is about the administration of the commission—nothing more, nothing less. It is one amendment that I have circulated. It is not a host of amendments, it is one amendment, and for the members opposite to say that I have snuck it in is just not correct. A number of them have been ministers of the Crown and they know that during a debate amendments are sometimes circulated early and sometimes they are circulated throughout the debate. This amendment was circulated throughout the debate. There was plenty of time; there was a luncheon break. It is one amendment, just one amendment. There was plenty of time for people to read it. In terms of the opposition's allegation that it keeps throwing at us about our interference with the powers of the commission, I have to say that prior to lunch I tabled the Crown Solicitor's advice. Opposition members will interpret it the way they want to interpret it. It is as simple as that. Mr Rowell: Minister, you could have waited till you got the Crown advice before you debated the bill. Mr NUTTALL: The Crown advice simply says that the government is not interfering in the powers of the commission. Dr Watson interjected. Mrs Sheldon interjected. 596 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

Mr NUTTALL: No, that is what the Crown Law advice says to us. And we are not. Let us just take the emotion out of the debate and let us just look at the cold, hard facts of what this government is trying to do. An opposition member interjected. Mr NUTTALL: I have heard opposition members in silence and I ask them to respect me and hear me in silence as well. We need to look at a little of the history of what is happening here in terms of the commissioner administrator. In the Industrial Relations Act of 1999 we created a position of a commissioner administrator. The position was based on the position of the senior judge administrator established under the Supreme Court Act 1991. The honourable member for Southern Downs said that this is a quasi judiciary court and we should be doing what other courts do. That is exactly what this is. In the Supreme Court there is a court administrator. That is simply what we are doing here—we are having a commissioner administrator. When we introduced the IR bill to parliament the then minister, who was the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, indicated quite clearly that the commissioner administrator is responsible to the president for the administration of the commission and the orderly and expeditious exercise of the commission's jurisdiction and powers. The commissioner administrator has the power to do all things necessary and convenient to be done to perform these responsibilities under the act. The position of Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court has proved effective in bringing about improved efficiencies in the Supreme Court. In establishing a similar position of the commissioner administrator for the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission the government is seeking to do the same thing and seeking to have the same efficiencies. The government believes that these amendments will contribute to the improved efficiency and effectiveness of the commission and strongly—and I say that today—rejects any suggestion whatsoever that these amendments are motivated by any other factor. It is our responsibility as the government to ensure the efficiency and the effectiveness of the commission. That is all these amendments are seeking to do. People can read any conspiracy theory that they like into it, but that is not the case and that is not what we are seeking to do. Reference has been made to a letter addressed to me by President Hall. I have written to the president today. I have sent him a copy of the amendments and I have also given a copy of that letter and the amendments to all the other commissioners in the Industrial Relations Commission. This is not a political witch-hunt, this is not about an issue other than the efficiency of the administration of the Industrial Relations Commission. As much as the members opposite want to read anything else into it, and they may do so, that is simply not the case. It is simply about saying that, in 1999, in the industrial relations legislation we appointed a commissioner administrator. After that act was proclaimed, the then minister went to the president of the commission and explained to him the intent of that move and what we wanted to see happen at that commission in terms of the administration and the efficiency of that commission. My advice is that, subsequent to that initial meeting, on two other occasions the minister spoke to the president of the commission regarding the efficiency and the operation of the commission. Today, all we are doing is clarifying in a quite clear manner the role of the commissioner administrator. Just to clarify it for the honourable member for Warrego, the commissioner administrator is already a commissioner. As I pointed out to the honourable member for Caloundra, the commissioner administrator is Commissioner Bloomfield, who, when he was appointed to the commission, was from the Metal Trades Industry Association, which is an employer body. This is not playing politics in any way, shape or form. As I said, as a government it is our responsibility to ensure that the commission runs efficiently. That is all that we are seeking to do with this one amendment. Mr LESTER: The minister has just said that today he wrote to the commissioners and to the president and sent a copy of the amendment. However, there is virtually no time for these people to study that amendment and respond to it. I cannot believe he is trying to hoodwink us, for want of a better word. By the time these people digest the amendment, the bill will have been passed. If there were some controversy about this amendment, the decent thing to do would have been to send it to the commissioners and the president and give them a week or so to digest it. Then we could have looked at it in two weeks, when parliament resumes. That would have been 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 597 the decent way to go. Instead, the minister rose in this parliament and said, 'I have sent them a copy.' This is something he has done already. I ask the minister to do the right thing by these people and simply say, 'Look, fair enough. There is some controversy over this. Let us suspend consideration of the whole bill until the next sitting of parliament.' The minister has the power to do that. He can do it right now. I ask him to do that. That way, what the minister said will have some credibility. However, at the moment it does not. The minister has just sent a copy of this amendment to those people, but we are here debating it and in a few minutes no doubt a vote will be taken. I also refer to the fact that the minister wished to clarify that this government is not arrogant. Then he went on to talk about community cabinet meetings. For God's sake, what has that to do with this issue? I say honestly to the minister that it has nothing whatsoever to do with it. We on this side of the parliament are not little kids. We are not going to be spoken to as though our concerns do not mean anything, as though we do not understand anything, as though we are in grade 2. We will not wear it. It is as simple as that. Then the minister talked about the luncheon break and things like that. The simple facts of life are: I had already made my speech when this amendment was tabled in this place. Quite obviously, at that point I as shadow spokesperson could not make any comment until the committee stage. Really, the minister is saying that this amendment is an administrative matter. That is ideological bunkum. There is no other way to put it. The president of the commission can hold office until he or she is 70 years old. The particular person we are dealing with—I will not mention the name, but we all know who it is—the commissioner and commissioner administrator, is appointed only until 1 August 2004. So if that particular person is not doing the will of the government, we know where that person is going to go on 1 August 2004. The Labor Party is well known for total arrogance and doing what it wishes to do when it needs to. I refer to the tree clearing legislation, the water bill and a few other bills. Those bills were pushed through the parliament without any reference to the opposition. A couple of opposition members spoke and then the government guillotined the debate. The government is beginning to do that more often. Today, we are having a type of guillotine but in a different form. Really, the daddy of them all is the minister saying that he sent those people a copy of the amendment today, when the debate is just about all over. Goodness me! What is he coming at? I simply make this appeal to the minister: suspend consideration of the bill, call it off for a couple of weeks and let everybody have an opportunity to digest it. Then we will know whether the minister is fair dinkum. If he does not do that, he is not fair dinkum; he is blundering this thing through for all the reasons we have said that he should not. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am in no way assured by the minster's presentation to this parliament in summarising this committee debate. Many things continue to concern me. The minister attempted to say that this role is very similar—in effect exactly the same—as the role of the administrator of the Supreme Court, who I understand is Justice Moynihan. I think this position is very different in many ways from the role that person undertakes, because there is no doubt whatsoever of the supremacy of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the operation and administrative responsibility of the Supreme Court in Queensland. There is another great difference in what is before the parliament today and what the administrator of the Supreme Court does. That is, that particular justice is appointed for a lifetime. As the shadow minister pointed out, the person with whom we are dealing today is appointed until 2004—certainly not a lifetime. We have the situation where on the one hand there is no concern over the role of running the Supreme Court, so far as the Chief Justice is concerned and the symbiotic relationship between him and the senior judge who administers, and on the other hand concern about the role of the President of the Industrial Court and the commissioner administrator. There is a difference and there is conflict. I return to what I said earlier in relation to the advice from the Crown Solicitor. It certainly was not endearing advice and it was somewhat equivocal. I say again: how many times have we gone to a community organisation and said, 'We have the audit and the audit says, "Based on the information provided to us today, we see no reason to doubt the make-up of the books",' or words along those lines? This issue is extremely significant, because this advice is provided to the government based on the information that is provided to Crown Law in this state. The minister attempted to justify dropping the amendments into the parliament at lunchtime. I could accept that if the amendments were administrative matters relating to the original intent of 598 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 the bill or matters relating to long service leave and its portability. This amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with that. The administration of the Industrial Relations Commission in Queensland and the role of the President of the Industrial Court in Queensland has nothing much to do with the substantive nature of the bill that is before this parliament. If the amendment were administrative, if it were seeking to clarify some errors in drafting or to clarify some other issues, then the excuse the minister has given to this parliament would have been far more acceptable. There is no problem with the parliament guiding the operation of a court with regard to the rules of evidence. We do those sorts of things all the time. There are certain rules that guide the operation of the Industrial Relations Commission. At the end of the day, the real concern that we should have is when one starts to interfere with the supremacy of the person who is responsible for the administration of that jurisdiction—which is what this is all about—regardless of whether it is the President of the Industrial Relations Court, the Chief Magistrate, the Chief Judge, the Chief Justice or the President of the Court of Appeal. That is the real concern. I have no doubt that the honourable member for Bulimba has an inherent streak of fair justice running through his system, because he has been involved in the union movement. He has done things tough and he is a person of great principle. However, I disagree with what he has proposed, which was basically an attack on the competence of the president. He said, 'At the end of day we are doing this because we don't like the way things are running up there.' One can look at that in a lot of ways. Do they not like the administration? Do they not like the decisions? What is the situation? We could have a lot more confidence in the proposition if the parliament had had an opportunity to scrutinise the legislation and get some decent consultation on it. The member for Bulimba says that it has been around for a long time, but this is the first time that I have heard about it. Maybe I am not moving in those fields. It is the first time that a lot of people on this side of the House and in the general community have actually heard about this. There should have been an opportunity for it to be scrutinised and for consultation to take place within the community. The government has deprived us of that opportunity. If it were so just, it would be able to stand on its own two feet and be passed by the parliament without any concern being expressed by us at all. That has not been the case. Why the haste? Why the lack of consultation and why the sneakiness? That is the real question that this committee must answer. Mr NUTTALL: Two issues have been raised, one by the honourable member for Keppel and one by the honourable member for Southern Downs. Firstly, it is not appropriate under any sort of long-established standards or protocols for commissioners to comment on any matters that are before the House. The past practice has always been that the House informs the members of what is happening. That is why it is not appropriate for commissioners to receive amendments and make comment on them. It is also not appropriate for me as the minister to give them amendments before I give them to the parliament. I would never do that; it would be improper. The second issue was raised by the honourable member for Southern Downs. There seems to be some confusion about the commissioner administrator. The commissioner administrator is one of the commissioners who has already been appointed. The appointment of the commissioner administrator is for a period of five years and the appointment expires in 2004. When that happens, the commissioner administrator will remain a member of the Industrial Relations Commission. It is then up to the government of the day to appoint a new commissioner administrator. That is how it works. That happens under the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, which states that the appointment of a Senior Judge Administrator may be for a term not less than five years. There is no difference. All we are doing is saying to the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction, 'We want you to operate as efficiently as the Supreme Court. We want you to have the same type of model that we have in the Supreme Court.' Mr Springborg: A judge is appointed for a lifetime. Mr NUTTALL: So are commissioners now. Under the Industrial Relations Act 1999, commissioners are appointed for life. There is no difference. Mrs SHELDON: I wish to say a few words about what the minister has said. The bill of 1991 was strongly rejected by the then Chief Justice, who, like the President of the Industrial Court, saw it as an attack on his ability to run the administration of the Supreme Court. In fact, when in government we reversed that decision. A judge still administers the courts. As has been said, that position is held by Justice Moynihan. However, the Chief Justice has the power to administer the 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 599 courts if he so wishes. The bill of 1991 took that power away. At that time the Chief Justice was Justice Macrossan. We returned that power to the Chief Justice, and rightly so. As the minister has said himself, the government is doing to the Industrial Relations Commission what the 1991 bill did to the courts. The government is taking power away from the president of the commission and giving it to an administrator. Evidently, it is doing that because it does not like the way that the current head of the Industrial Relations Commission has been administering the Industrial Court. It does not fit with what the government wants. It is the 1991 proposition recycled. It was not accepted then and it is not accepted now. The minister can make any excuse he likes and he can table any reserved advice from Crown Law that he likes. That will not change the situation that is set out in the letter from the President of the Industrial Court and supported by all his commissioners. They do not like what is being done and they do not want it. Mr NUTTALL: I do not believe that there is any more I can contribute to the debate. I have made it very clear that all we are trying to do is ensure that the commission runs in an efficient manner. I will respond to the comments of the honourable member for Caloundra that amendments were made to the position of the Senior Judge Administrator in 1997. She is correct about that and I am not denying it. However, at all times the administration of the Supreme Court has been left to the administrator. What we are saying today is that we simply want that to happen in the Industrial Relations Commission. There is nothing more that I can add. Question—That the minister's amendment be agreed to—put; and the committee divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Hayward, Hollis, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 22—E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lester, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Copeland, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 11 and 12, as read, agreed to. Bill reported, with an amendment.

Third Reading Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.14 p.m.), by leave: I move— That the bill be now read a third time. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (4.14 p.m.): I move— Omit 'now' and insert the following after 'time'— 'on this day four weeks.'. The reason for moving this amendment is that we on this side of the House have very serious concerns that this amendment has not been looked at by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. That committee will be put into place tomorrow, once the bill relating to the establishment of the committees is enacted. This amendment effectively provides a period of four weeks for this bill to lay on the table so that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee can examine the bill and this particular amendment. During the debate a lot of concern was expressed about the way in which this amendment has been rammed through this House and the way in which the government has used its dangerous majority to introduce an amendment that was not really related to the bill. The bill that was brought into the House enjoyed relative goodwill and we were prepared to debate it. Then at the last minute—it was later than the last minute; it was after our shadow minister had begun to speak—this serious and substantial amendment was brought into the House. This is the sort of amendment that needs some scrutiny by the all-party Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. We cannot have this sort of legislation passing through the House without it undergoing that particular scrutiny. Earlier in the afternoon I said in my speech that what we have seen today is a very dark hour in the Queensland parliament. It is a dark hour because this parliament has been treated with 600 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 disrespect and disregard. There has been no courtesy. In fact, there has just been a bullyboy tactic to bring this very substantial amendment into the House at the last minute. So no-one on this side had much chance to prepare, to research or to understand the real depth of intent of this particular amendment. However, we were able to do that at the last minute and we have fought a battle here today to bring to the attention of the people of Queensland what the Labor Party is attempting to do, which is two-fold. First of all, this is the get-square amendment, because the Labor Party is decidedly unhappy or furious at the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for the decision that it made regarding the three-year pay rise arrangement for the teachers of 14.7 per cent. That was a long, drawn-out affair, but finally we all have to accept the decision that was made by the independent umpire, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. That decision was made, but for this government, with its new-found arrogance and bullyboy tactics, that was not good enough. It thought, 'Here's a chance. We'll fix them up now so that in future they will start to do what we want.' This government has stripped the president of substantial powers and transferred those powers to his deputy, the commissioner for administration. The commissioner for administration has a five-year tenure, of which there are only three years left, but the president himself is appointed on a virtual lifetime basis, until he is aged 70. So that means that the government has no control over him. He is able to act totally independently and fairly, make proper decisions, play the game with a straight bat and deliver a fair and independent judgment on difficult matters such as the arbitration of the teachers' salaries. So the government is going to teach the president a lesson, bring him to heel and transfer his powers to the commissioner administrator. Apart from being a bullyboy tactic, this is a real attack on the separation of powers. Imagine if the government moved into some of the other court jurisdictions and tried to strip them of their powers if a decision went in a way that it did not really want. It could give the powers to the 2IC, whom it had under restricted tenure, and it would be able to change him over at the end of his tenure. With this particular amendment the opposition is giving this parliament a chance to act in a democratic way. I say to all those people on the other side, particularly the new members, that we listened to some of their maiden speeches and we heard them speak about democracy, equality and all the rest of it. Here is a chance for them to put their words into action. We are proposing only one thing—that this bill lay on the table for four weeks. They cannot complain about that, can they? That is fair enough. I could have moved that this bill lay on the table of the parliament for three months or longer, but I have allowed for four weeks. It is not a long time. It gives the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee time to get together. It means that there is a not a delay in the enactment of workers' long service leave entitlements, which are an important part of this bill. It is for only four weeks that we want this bill to lay on the table so that our all-party Scrutiny of Legislation Committee can look at it. That is not too much to ask of a fair-minded government, is it? If there is half a streak of decency in anyone here, they will vote for this amendment because it gives our parliamentary committee—not the executive—the chance to look at this and say yea or nay to this bill and, in particular, to this amendment. Mr Purcell interjected. Mr HORAN: I heard what the member said. We should put him before the discrimination committee. Mr Purcell: They can make a comment but this place makes the decision. Mr HORAN: That is right. This place should make the decision. That is right. One of the processes of making a decision in here is having a bill considered by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. Mr Purcell: After 32 years we brought it in. Mr HORAN: We have one now, and members opposite want to put it in the cupboard. They do not want to use it. Why did they fight for it? If they are so pious, why did they fight for it but do not want to use it now? They want to use it when it is convenient to them. They do not want to use it when it comes to a bit of downright decent democracy. There is a chance for the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee to look at this legislation. I can tell by the smiles on the dials of members opposite that they are treating this matter as a bit of a joke. It is quite obvious that they want to bludgeon this legislation through the House with their new-found dangerous majority, but they do 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 601 not want to use the normal democratic principles to examine the legislation to ensure that it is correct and does the right thing by the people we represent. I again say that this legislation tramples on the separation of powers. This is interference like we have never seen before in relation to the arrangements for the President of the Queensland Industrial Relations Court. This legislation transfers the powers of the president to another position where the government has more control. It is being moved to a position where there is limited tenure. This is a dark day for Queensland, and I do not believe we have seen the likes of it before. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mr HORAN: Does the member agree with coming in here and trampling all over the parliament? Does she agree with that? Does the member not want to use the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee? Why not just get rid of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee if that is the way those opposite feel? Is this legislation not important enough to send to the committee? Members opposite voted to pass the Parliamentary Committees and Criminal Justice Amendment Bill yesterday, yet now they want to sideline one of the most important committees and not even use it. It is a gross abuse of the government's numbers. It is a gross abuse of the principles of democracy. It is a gross abuse of the real principles on which the committee system is based. Here is the chance for those opposite to show that they do believe in the committee system. Here is the chance for them to show that there should be some sort of principled way in which substantive amendments to bills can be introduced in this House. There should be some sort of principled way in which this House operates. If those opposite do not support this amendment, Queensland will know the calibre of the government. They will know that it is prepared to trample all over the parliament and that it is prepared to use bullyboy tactics. On the one hand, members of the government talk about equity, democracy and all the rest of it, but when it comes to the real test they will be found wanting. My recommendation is that government members support this amendment. By allowing this legislation to be examined for four weeks by the parliament's Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, they would be supporting this parliament—the people's parliament. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (4.25 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and say to all honourable members that this is a reasoned response to address the concerns raised by members on this side of the parliament during the debate. If the legislation was scrutinised, it may very well turn out—although I doubt it—that the intentions of the government were as noble as that proposed by the minister at the committee stage. If his intentions were so noble, I suggest that the minister would have consulted with the shadow minister and consulted far more broadly with the community. That certainly has not happened. We find it far too convenient that this amendment was just snuck into the House. The all-party parliamentary committee which scrutinises legislation did not have an opportunity to look at it because it was not constituted, and that is of particular concern. The Leader of the Opposition proposes that this legislation lie on the table of the House for four weeks from today, which would allow ample time for the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee to be able to scrutinise it. We know from the history of that committee that it has operated in an extremely bipartisan way. A number of recommendations made by that committee have been picked up by the ministers responsible for the various pieces of legislation that have passed through this parliament. That committee is respected by all sides of the House in relation to its deliberations, its analysis of legislation and any fundamental attacks on the rights and liberties of the people of this state and the institutions that are put in place to protect the people of this state. This is an issue which gives rise to significant concern. That concern is great enough to justify all members voting to support this amendment, which would allow this legislation—which has bipartisan support, with the exception of one amendment—to lie on the table of the House for one month to give that properly constituted committee an opportunity to scrutinise it and to make an analysis and recommendation to this parliament. We would be far more comfortable if that approach were taken and the committee came back and said that what the government was doing was right. That would enable our concerns to be laid to rest. However, the converse might also be true. This is a reasoned response. It does not seek to hold the parliament up unnecessarily, as the Leader of the Opposition said. Four weeks is a reasonable time for the committee to look at the legislation. It gives people time to take advantage of the good aspects of the legislation 602 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 before the parliament. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is certainly deserving of the support of all members. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (4.27 p.m.): I simply ask the parliament: what is the rush? After all, the Beattie government has espoused democracy in a big way. It continues to talk about it, but that is about it—it only talks about it. We are asking for four weeks. That is not unreasonable at all. It gives the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee a chance to look at the legislation. What is wrong with that? Why on earth does the committee exist if we are not going to use it? The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee was created to scrutinise all legislation, particularly when there is a concern. The fact that there is a concern in relation to this legislation will be made known to the public and the public will want to know why it is of concern. I know why there is such a rush: because the government wants the legislation voted on and finished so that that is the end of the argument. It does not want it scrutinised. If it is scrutinised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, no doubt other people will scrutinise the legislation and the amendment and they will want to know why it was rushed through. Government members will be questioned about it. The minister will be questioned about it. The Premier will be questioned at press conferences. This is a hit-and-run—bang, through, gone, finished, on to the next lot of legislation. That is contrary to what the government was talking about before the last election and contrary to what it was talking about at the opening of parliament. It was going to be a listening government that took on board the concerns of the people. It was not going to act hastily. It said, 'No, we've got a big majority. We are going to be very careful. We are aware of the confidence that the people have in us. We are not going to show any disrespect to that confidence. We will make sure that all legislation is scrutinised and carefully thought out.' I do not know how many times I have heard the word 'consultation'. It said, 'We will consult. We will do this.' A few moments ago the minister talked about community cabinet meetings. What on earth is their use if the government is going to behave like it has today? Mr Horan: It's just a facade. Mr LESTER: It is a facade. That is really what it is. All we want is four weeks to let the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee and a few other people have a look at this. Then it can come back and then that will be it. It is up to the minister. He will either do the right thing or stamp his foot on Queensland and say he does not care about it at all. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (4.30 p.m.): I have listened with interest to the debate this afternoon. Because of the way this amendment was introduced into the parliament and because I had some other commitments I was not able to be here to debate the amendment. But I feel that I have to rise this afternoon to support the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition to have this lie on the table for four weeks to allow the people of Queensland to look at what is being proposed—four weeks for all of the interest groups to have the consultation that is— Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I would like some clarification about standing order 141 in relation to tedious repetition. We have heard this in the second reading speech, we have heard it in Committee and now we are hearing it in this motion. Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the member. Mr REEVES: Standing order 141 deals with repetition by a member or other members of the same points. That is all we heard in the second reading, in Committee and now at this stage of the debate. There has been repetition by every single speaker from the opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will watch that matter. I see some valid points in what the member is saying, but I will watch it and see whether we have complete repetition or just a few words being repeated. Mr SEENEY: That foolish point of order from the honourable member is so typical of the approach being taken by this government to this whole issue. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members are allowed to take points of order. That is part of the democratic processes of this place. Mr SEENEY: I accept that they are able to make points of order. I am making a comment on the relevance of the point of order as part of this debate. As I was saying— 2 May 2001 Industrial Relations and Another Act Amendment Bill 603

Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find the comments about the relevance of my point of order offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will withdraw. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Since I have been in this place I have seen some pathetic attempts at labelling things as offensive and asking that they be withdrawn. That would have to rate as one of the worst. Mr REEVES: I rise to a point of order. I find the statements by the member for Callide offensive and I ask that they be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will withdraw. But would he then address the motion. He is not addressing the motion by remarking on what the member for Mansfield is saying. What he is supposed to be doing now is addressing the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The member will withdraw and carry on with his contribution. Mr SEENEY: Mr Speaker, with respect, I do not think the comment I made was directed at the member for Mansfield. But if you instruct me to withdraw and for the sake of the House getting on with business I will withdraw. Mr SPEAKER: Order! And continue with your contribution to the amendment. Mr SEENEY: Yes, I will return to the amendment moved by the member for Toowoomba South. It is an amendment that has a lot of credibility and makes a lot of sense, that is, that this proposition lie on the table of the House for four weeks to allow the people of Queensland time to examine it and to allow me time to examine it. As I said, I had other commitments this afternoon, and I did not have time. It was introduced by the minister after the shadow minister had made his speech. I have listened at a distance to the comments made by the minister about why this amendment was necessary. Might I say that those comments were very brief and lacked any real attempt to explain it. To explain this amendment as some sort of an administrative necessity is a cop-out. And my good friend the minister knew that when he delivered those attempted explanations. The minister knew that that was a very shallow attempt at an explanation. The honourable minister knew that he had been sold a hospital pass and, the good character that he is, was embarrassed by the situation that he was put into. He was embarrassed by the situation that Bill Ludwig, the Premier and the Treasurer put him in by forcing him to amend this piece of legislation, which the shadow minister correctly referred to as goodwill legislation that we were prepared to support, and turn it into something completely different. That is why it should lie on the table for four weeks. I would like to direct my comments to the new members of parliament. The other reason that it should lie on the table is to give some meaning and integrity to the comments that all of those members made in their maiden speeches—all of those hand on your heart, self-righteous, play the violin speeches. All of that sort of stuff is turned into an enormous mockery. It reduces every one of you. It turns every one of you into a hypocrite if you, so early in the term of this parliament, come in here and vote for something that is a misuse of this place. It is a travesty of democracy to change a piece of legislation to the extent that this one has been changed and force it through with no consultation. None of you has consulted with the people you represent. None of you has had a chance to do that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide will address the Chair. Mr SEENEY: If you support this amendment moved by the member for Toowoomba South you will have the chance to do that. You will have the chance to live up to the fine-sounding rhetoric that one after another you came into this House and poured forth in terms of how you were going to represent the people who elected you, how you were going to do the right thing and how you were proud to be part of this democratic institution. And so you should be. But if you support this today you belittle yourselves, you turn yourselves into cheap hypocrites and you make a complete mockery of the things that you stand for. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Callide! The member will address the Chair and will also return to the amendment. That is my final warning. Mr SEENEY: The other point that I would like to make about why it is important that this proposition lie on the table for four weeks relates to what the Premier has continually said in this House and the points that he has made, quite correctly I might add, about raising the standards of parliament and the degree of public respect for it. The Premier has made those types of statements in this House and in the media ad infinitum. I think he deserves support from every honourable member in that endeavour, if he was genuine. If it was a genuine endeavour, he 604 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 deserves support from every member here. This vote this afternoon will determine just how genuine he is in that endeavour. Every morning in question time we see an act in here about improving the standards in parliament, improving the standards of accountability and about consulting with the electorate. With this amendment we will have a test of how serious this government is about improving those standards. We will have a test this afternoon when we vote on the amendment moved by the member for Toowoomba South of how serious this government is about consultation and about all of those things that the TV cameras love. Isn't it a shame that there is no media coverage for this debate? There is plenty of media coverage for 10 seconds out of question time with people saying, 'You're a fool,' and, 'No, you're a fool.' That is the stuff that gets on television. The vote that we are going to take in a few minutes' time will test the integrity of this government, the integrity of the Premier and Treasurer—the blokes who got their riding instructions this morning from Bill Ludwig. It will test the integrity of all of the new members of parliament who came in here and made wonderful, fine-sounding speeches with violins and all the rest of it. But there will not be anyone in the gallery, there will not be any television cameras; the people at home in their lounge rooms tonight will be treated to a 10-second grab from question time this morning. The real test of this government will be in a few minutes time. That test will illustrate to the people who follow the democratic processes here just how serious this government is and just how serious the Premier's clown acts— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have been very, very lenient with the member's repetition. He is now repeating himself continually. Unless he has something further to say, I ask him to resume his seat. Mr SEENEY: I regret that I was not able to be here earlier this afternoon to debate the amendment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has already said that. Mr SEENEY: I am just summarising, Mr Speaker. I regret that I was not able to be here. That I was not able to be here illustrates why this amendment should be agreed to. I urge the committee to support the amendment moved by the member for Toowoomba South. Members will do that if they are interested in preserving their own integrity. Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (4.42 p.m.): For the benefit of the new members, I point out that this is a tactic to try to delay the passage of the bill. We have had lengthy debate on this today. This is just a filibuster to try to delay the bill. For that reason, I oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. Question—That Mr Horan's amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 21—E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lester, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Springborg, Copeland NOES, 65—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Question—That the bill be now read a third time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 21—E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lester, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Springborg, Copeland Resolved in the affirmative. Mr SPEAKER: Order! For any further divisions, the bells will be rung for two minutes duration.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL Hon. J. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (4.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend certain local government legislation, and for other purposes. Motion agreed to. 2 May 2001 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 605

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

Second Reading Hon. J. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (4.55 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill was introduced into parliament in November last year but lapsed when parliament was prorogued. The Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 (LGOLA Bill 2001) contains all the key provisions that were in the lapsed bill, with some minor changes to dates of commencement and transitional provisions. It also contains some new provisions. The purpose of the bill is to achieve a number of objectives in the areas of national competition policy, local government electoral arrangements, provision of local government infrastructure and integrated state planning. Firstly, the bill amends the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) and repeals the Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board Act 1987 to convert the Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board from a state statutory authority to a new commercialised local government entity similar to a joint local government. Secondly, the bill amends the LGA to provide that a councillor vacates local government office on becoming a candidate for election to the state or Commonwealth parliaments. Thirdly, the bill amends the LGA to make clear that local laws or subordinate local laws purporting to prohibit or restrict the distribution of how-to-vote cards at local government or state elections have no effect. Fourthly, the bill amends the LGA to provide a head of power to require all operators on the Kuranda rail line to pay a levy of $1 per passenger, with the funds raised to be used to assist Mareeba Shire Council in the provision of tourist infrastructure in Kuranda. Fifthly, the bill extends by two years a sunset clause allowing councillors and council employees to comprise up to one half of the directors of local government owned corporations and extend by two years a related sunset clause for review of this provision. Lastly, the bill amends the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) to clarify the intention of the IPA to preserve the operation of development control plans made under the repealed Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (P&E Act), to provide interim development controls for two local governments pending implementation of planning schemes to be made under the IPA and to correct a drafting ambiguity in relation to ministerial call-in powers. The bill also makes a minor amendment to the Land Title Act 1994 to correct an oversight in the transition to the IPA. The provisions in the bill will help with the ongoing implementation of current reform programs as they affect local governments and other statutory and industry bodies. In addition, they will contribute to maintaining public confidence in the local government system. They will also help the Mareeba Shire Council provide infrastructure to cater for tourism development in the town of Kuranda. I will outline the components of the bill in the order in which they are presented. Firstly, I will address the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to the Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board. The proposed amendments provide for the conversion of the existing Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board to a new local government entity similar to a joint local government. The bill also repeals the Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board Act 1987. The board is one of the state's significant business activities which must be considered for reform in accordance with national competition policy (NCP) competitive neutrality requirements. The board is currently established under the Townsville Thuringowa Water Supply Board Act 1987. The board was created in 1987 to supply bulk water to the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils and to large industrial customers that require more than 200 megalitres of water per year. The board is currently a state statutory authority, but its legal structure was modelled on the 606 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2 May 2001 joint local government provisions in the repealed Local Government Act 1936. The board was originally formed in preference to a joint local government, largely to resolve differences between the two councils over decisions concerning administration of bulk water supply in the area. The enabling legislation provided for the board to be made up of an equal number of councillors from each council with an independent chairperson. In 1997, an NCP public benefit assessment recommended that the board be commercialised. In negotiations over implementing this recommendation, Townsville City Council and Thuringowa City Council proposed the board become a joint local government. However, the councils also proposed that provision be made for the joint local government to continue to have an independent chairperson. A joint local government under the Local Government Act 1993 must draw all its members from the component local governments. Because the councils wanted both a joint local government model and an independent chairperson, a proposal was developed for a new type of local government entity with the features of a joint local government, but with an independent chairperson who is not a councillor of either component council. Under the proposal, both councils appoint the independent chairperson. However, there is a reserve power for the Governor in Council to appoint the chairperson if the councils cannot agree. The new joint local government entity is to be commercialised, that is, it will operate on a commercial basis. This move is a consequence of the NCP public benefit assessment in 1997, which found that commercialising the board was in the public interest. Once this occurs, all four of Queensland's urban water boards will either be commercialised or have an equivalent form of commercialised restructure applied to them. This will allow Queensland to meet its obligations under the NCP agreements to reform all the state's urban water boards. It will safeguard the receipt of Commonwealth competition bonus payments by the state. The role of the board will essentially remain the same—it will supply bulk water to the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils and to other bulk water customers in the Townsville area. This is consistent with the approach taken in the Water Act 2000, which sets up a single framework to regulate all water service providers. Under the Water Act 2000, local governments have the option of setting up a monopoly to supply retail water in a declared area. This means that local governments can continue to exercise their role in protecting public health through supplying safe and clean water to people's homes and businesses. However, the Water Act 2000 does not permit a local government to declare a monopoly over the provision of bulk water services, for example, to industrial customers. The provisions in the bill dealing with the board's jurisdiction reflect this approach. The board will have jurisdiction to supply bulk water to the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils and to any other bulk water consumers in its operational area. For over two years, negotiations have been occurring to secure the agreement of the Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils to convert the board to a joint local government entity. While Townsville City Council has raised some operational issues to be addressed in implementing the changes, both councils have advised they support the legislation proceeding. The bill provides for commencement of the provisions relating to the board to be on 30 June 2001. As part of its NCP obligations, it is desirable for the Queensland government to be in a position by June 2001 to advise the National Competition Council it has taken action to legislate on this matter and that new arrangements will be in place by 30 June 2001. Failure to meet this timetable would likely result in the loss of competition payments from the Commonwealth. Since the intention is for the bill to be passed by June 2001, it is not intended that commencement of those provisions of the bill on 30 June 2001 will have a retrospective effect. I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to councillors who run for higher office. The bill provides for councillors to vacate office on becoming a candidate for election to the state or Commonwealth parliaments. This proposal was included in a discussion paper prepared by my department as part of a review of local government electoral arrangements following the March 2000 local government elections. The discussion paper was released for public comment in June 2000 and a period up to 6 October 2000 was provided for submissions in response to the discussion paper. The LGA currently provides that a person is not qualified to hold office as a local government councillor if the person is, or becomes, a member of an Australian parliament. This means that a councillor can nominate for election as a member of the legislative assembly or the 2 May 2001 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 607

Commonwealth parliament but, if elected, the office of councillor becomes vacant from the time of election. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The current law was put in place following a review of the local government electoral system carried out by the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission in the early 1990s. The rationale is that a person should not be able to be both a councillor and a member of State or Commonwealth Parliament. At present, if a member of the Legislative Assembly wishes to nominate for election to the Commonwealth Parliament, the member is required by virtue of section 44 of the Australian Constitution to resign from the office before nominating for election. Local government electoral arrangements are largely based on the State arrangements. The aim of this proposal is to bring greater consistency between the requirements on councillors and the requirements on members of the Legislative Assembly seeking higher office. The issue of councillors running for higher office was first raised for public debate in 2000 and was the subject of an editorial in The Courier Mail on 31 May last year. The editorial addressed the arguments for and against councillors having to resign before running for higher office. While it acknowledged that the public is entitled to the best possible pool of candidates at elections, the editorial suggested this needs to be balanced against the view that the current arrangements encourage 'nomination without responsibility', a view put forward at the time by the member for Logan. Local governments in Queensland have a level of autonomy that is the envy of their counterparts in other States. In Queensland they are treated as governments in their own right. Given the level of autonomy enjoyed by councillors in their role, it is only appropriate that they should be subject to the same principle that applies to members of State Parliament who want to run for higher office. Despite opposition from local government, there is general community support for this move, demonstrated through the consultation process on the proposal. A total of 74 submissions were received by my Department in relation to the proposal. Of these, 13 expressed support for the proposal, while 61 were opposed. All 51 councils that made submissions oppose the proposal. However, of the 22 submissions from respondents other than councils and the Local Government Association of Queensland, 13 were in favour of the proposal, and 9 were opposed and a number of the submissions supporting the proposal were from individual councillors. My Department also commissioned an independent survey of community attitudes to the proposal. The survey was carried out in October 2000 by a professional research firm. 53% of respondents indicated support for the proposal, 35% were opposed and 12% were undecided. So, while there is opposition to the proposal from councils, which is to be expected, the community in general supports the proposal. The main reasons given by respondents in support of the proposal are that: ¥ there may be a conflict between a councillor's quest for higher office and their duties as councillor; ¥ it would stop councillors being elected with the intention of then seeking higher office prior to completing their full term of office; and ¥ it achieves consistency of treatment between elected representatives at the local and State levels. I believe these arguments outweigh the objections that have been raised by local government and by the Opposition. Mr Speaker, I now turn to proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to local laws regulating how-to-vote cards The Bill includes an amendment to the LGA to make clear that it is beyond the jurisdiction of local government to make a local law or subordinate local law which purports to regulate the distribution of how-to-vote cards at local government or State elections. On 16 March 2000, a regulation was made under the LGA to overturn certain provisions of two local governments' local laws, which purported to prohibit the distribution of how-to-vote cards at local, State and Commonwealth elections. This action was taken following Crown Law advice that it is beyond the jurisdiction of local government to make a local law which purports to prohibit the distribution of how-to-vote cards and that, to the extent that any local laws did purport to prohibit or restrict the distribution of how-to-vote cards, the local laws were invalid. However, on receiving advice of the proposed regulation, one of the councils, the Caloundra City Council, attempted to circumvent the effect of the regulation by making a subordinate local law under its existing Local Law dealing with Licensing. The State could not prevent this subordinate local law being made, because the process for making a subordinate local law under the LGA does not require consultation with the Minister for Local Government. Under Caloundra City Council's Local Law dealing with Licensing, a person must obtain a licence to carry out certain 'prescribed activities'. Under the subordinate local law, the distribution of how-to-vote cards was listed as a prescribed activity. As such, candidates at the March 2000 local government election and the February 2001 State election were required by the council to obtain permits in order to distribute how-to-vote cards in the vicinity of 100 meters of a polling booth in this council's area. 608 Local Government and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2 May 2001

While Crown Law has advised that local laws purporting to prohibit how-to-vote cards are invalid, in light of this council's actions, an amendment to the LGA is necessary to remove any doubt that it is beyond the jurisdiction of a local government to make a local law or subordinate local law which purports to prohibit or restrict the distribution of how-to-vote cards at local government or State elections. Mr Speaker, I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to the Kuranda Tourist Infrastructure Levy On 23 March 1994, the Kuranda Tourist Infrastructure Levy Agreement (the Agreement) was signed between the Queensland Government and the Mareeba Shire Council to provide for contributions towards tourist infrastructure in the town of Kuranda. The Agreement had an initial life of 10 years but was extended in May 1997 for a further 10 years. The Agreement is due to expire on 1 April 2014. The Agreement is based on the Queensland Government contributing to the Council $1 per rail passenger between Cairns and Kuranda. To date Queensland Rail (QR) has voluntarily collected the payment from passengers by incorporating the levy in the price of a ticket. Passengers on Skyrail, visitors arriving by car or bus, and local traders also contribute to infrastructure provision in Kuranda by means of other arrangements. In the case of Skyrail, contributions are in accordance with a formula set down in the Agreement (since May 1997). The council can require car and bus visitors to Kuranda to contribute through a system of regulated parking. Commercial business operators contribute through a special rate over and above their general rate. Funds raised under the Agreement from Kuranda Rail and Skyrail are remitted on a quarterly basis to Mareeba Shire Council. Since the Agreement was signed in 1994, a total of $3,276,487 in levy collections has been paid by the Government to Mareeba Shire Council. The Agreement requires Mareeba Shire Council to spend the funds on providing tourist infrastructure identified in an approved works program, developed after extensive community consultation as part of the Kuranda Strategic Management Plan. This Agreement is a unique arrangement that was developed to address the specific problems facing Kuranda as a centre that attracts tourists as day visitors. There is limited capacity for the council to generate sufficient revenues from day visitors to fund the provision of the infrastructure needed to cope with the large volume of tourists. A third party operator is seeking access under the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997 to the Kuranda rail line and is expected to commence operating in the near future. Because QR has been the only rail operator to date, and as it has been collecting and remitting funds on a voluntary basis, legislation has not been necessary to enforce the levy requirements. However, with the advent of third party access and the prospect of a third party operator soon commencing operation on the Kuranda rail line, the legality of enforcement of the levy is now an issue. Once competition commences on the Kuranda rail line, it will be important that there be a level playing field for all operators in terms of paying the levy. The only way this can be achieved is through legislation to require all rail operators on the Kuranda line to pay the levy. The legislation will enable the Queensland Government to fulfil its commitment under the Agreement to provide to the Mareeba Shire Council the equivalent of $1 per passenger on the Kuranda rail line. While the legislation provides a head of power to require rail operators to pay the levy, it does not deal with the detailed procedures for passing on the funds to the Mareeba Shire Council. These are administrative matters that are currently dealt with in the Agreement. The Bill provides that the payments to the Mareeba Shire Council are to be made on the conditions decided by the Minister. The intent is that the funds will be passed on to the Mareeba Shire Council in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The requirement in the Bill for the payment of the levy expires on 1 April 2014. This is intended to reflect the fact that the current Agreement between the Queensland Government and the Mareeba Shire Council expires on 1 April 2014. However other provisions in the Bill dealing with the Kuranda rail levy expire on 30 June 2015, which ensures rail operators must report on payments to the State Government for amounts collected by the levy in its last financial year. Mr Speaker, I now turn to the proposed amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 in relation to councillors and council employees as directors of local government owned corporations In order to meet the State's NCP obligations, amendments to the Local Government Act 1993 (LGA) were enacted in 1997 to enable local governments to corporatise their significant business activities. This framework was modelled on the equivalent provisions for State-owned entities under the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. However, the LGA also contains a transitional provision that for a limited time after passage, councillors and council employees could comprise up to one-half of the directors of the board of a Local Government Owned Corporation (LGOC). This provision was to accommodate local government concerns about having an initial presence on the Board of Directors of an LGOC. A period of 2 years was allowed from the passage of the amendments for councillors and employees to be LGOC directors. This 2 year limit does not apply to an LGOC that is a holding company with no operational activities. In this case it is the subsidiaries of the holding company to which the 2 year limit applies. In addition, the amendments to the LGA required the Minister to complete a review by 1 July 2001 of the appropriateness of councillors and council employees being directors of LGOCs. During the transitional period, Queensland local governments have not moved to corporatise their business activities, largely because of the Commonwealth income taxation arrangements in respect of corporatised local government business activities that impacted on the financial viability of potential LGOCs. However, the Commonwealth has advised it intends to make the necessary legislative changes to provide new taxation arrangements in respect of LGOCs. This means a number of councils could decide to establish LGOCs over the next two years. 2 May 2001 Sessional Order 609

As no LGOCs are in existence at the moment, it would be preferable not to review the provisions at this stage. If the Commonwealth takes action to clear the way for councils to establish LGOCs over the next two years, this should provide a basis for reviewing whether the transitional arrangements should be continued. Consequently, the Bill provides an extension until 1 July 2003 of the provisions permitting councillors and council employees to be directors of LGOCs. As a consequence, the Bill also extends until 1 July 2003 the deadline for completing a review of these transitional arrangements. Mr Speaker, I will now address the proposed amendments to the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA) in relation to: ¥ development control plans made under the repealed Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 (P&E) Act; ¥ amendments to the IPA in relation to interim development controls; ¥ an amendment to the IPA to correct a drafting ambiguity in relation to Ministerial call-in powers; and ¥ an amendment to the Land Title Act 1994. I have taken the opportunity to include in this Bill three amendments to the IPA and a related amendment to the Land Title Act 1994 to clarify aspects of the intention and operation of the IPA and to provide interim planning controls for two local governments pending the implementation of proposed IPA schemes. The IPA preserves the operation of certain development control plans (DCPs) made under the previous planning legislation. Last year, issues were raised in a matter before the Planning and Environment Court in relation to the Kawana Waters DCP challenging the validity of precinct plans made under the DCPs and development approved under those plans, on the basis that these actions are inconsistent with the IPA. The intention of the Act has always been that these DCPs should continue to operate in the same way as they did under the previous legislation. The particular matter was settled. However, if the issue were to be raised again, a decision contrary to the intention of the IPA could have a general impact on the validity and operation of DCPs for master planned community developments throughout Queensland. The proposed amendment, to take effect retrospectively, will clarify the existing provisions of the IPA and remove any doubt about the validity of plans made and development approved under the DCPs to which the provision applies. In addition, the Shires of Wambo and Belyando have indicated their intention to prepare planning schemes under the IPA for their respective areas. At present these Shires have planning schemes in place only with respect to the urban parts of their shires. The local governments are concerned there are significant local development issues that need to be addressed and that are not addressed by the general state-wide controls applying under the IPA such as those relating to building safety and pollution control. In particular, the local governments have concerns about the potential effects on flooding of the location of significant land use activities like feedlots, piggeries and poultry farms. The local governments also are concerned about the local environmental and amenity effects of kennels and aquaculture activities. The former Local Government (Planning and Environment) Act 1990 provided for local governments who had resolved to prepare a planning scheme to have all or part of generic interim development control (IDC) provisions apply to their area pending the introduction of a proposed planning scheme. To provide Wambo and Belyando with a similar level of interim development control, the IPA has been amended to provide for the IDC provisions under the P&E Act to apply to an appropriate extent to their areas until their IPA planning schemes are in place. However, as was provided under the former Act, the IDC controls have been tailored to address specific issues identified by the two Shires. A small amendment is also being made to IPA to correct a drafting ambiguity in relation to Ministerial call-in powers. The effect of the current wording is to imply that the call-in powers may only be exercised for development applications where an appeal has been lodged in the Planning and Environment Court. This is unintended as it makes significant parts of the subsequent sections meaningless. The amendment clarifies the original intent of the section. The amendment to the Land Title Act 1994 corrects an oversight that occurred in the transition to the IPA. The creation of an easement giving access to a road is assessable development requiring the approval of the local government. However, the oversight allows an access easement to be created without any need for evidence of the local government's approval of the easement to be submitted to the Titles Office. This has allowed some access easements to be registered without prior local government approval, potentially creating local traffic safety hazards where the accesses meet the road. The amendment inserts a provision in the Land Title Act 1994 making local government approval of the instrument of agreement for the easement a prerequisite to registration. The Local Government Association of Queensland has been consulted on provisions in the Bill. The Local Government Association through its annual conference has adopted policies that are in opposition to the electoral amendments in relation to councillors vacating office on nominating for Parliament and local laws purporting to prohibit or regulate how-to-vote cards that were outlined above. I accept that the Association will naturally want to advocate on behalf of the interests of its members, but on these matters the Government has had regard to the wider public interest. The Association has advised that it supports the other provisions in the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned.

SESSIONAL ORDER Address in Reply Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (5.06 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— 610 Address in Reply 2 May 2001

That the resumption of the debate on order of the day No. 1 now occur and that time spent in debate account towards an allotted day. Motion agreed to.

ADDRESS IN REPLY Resumed from 5 April (see p. 420). Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Before calling the member for Gympie, I would like to remind the House that it is the member's first speech and ask that she be given all the courtesies that are reserved for such occasions. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—ONP) (5.06 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand proudly before you today as the people's representative for the seat of Gympie. I would like to begin my address by pledging my allegiance to this great nation and to the Queen and her heirs and successors. The role I have been elected to fulfil is one which I take great pride in and one which I regard as being of the highest honour. The opportunity to work on behalf of my fellow Australians is a privilege that many will only ever dream about. I vow to do the best job I possibly can for the people who make up the Gympie electorate. I was born and raised in Sydney, New South Wales, and moved to Queensland three years ago, at the age of 27. I can honestly say that the choice to move here was probably the easiest decision I have ever made. Growing up in a city, and one which I believe to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, meant that I missed out on the experience of growing up in an area which is rich with community spirit, where people actually say hello to each other on the street without the fear of being robbed or having their intentions misconstrued. I have also discovered since moving to the Cooloola Shire that neighbourly hospitality really does exist and people actually take the time to get to know one another. I realise that, in comparison, I am painting a pretty negative view of city life, but this is the reality of living in a regional area as opposed to a major city. There is just something wonderful about the region in which I live and represent, and I would defy anyone to spend any time there and not be seduced by its charm. One of the reasons I chose to stand at the last state election was to show my community how appreciative my family and I were at being accepted with such open arms. I wanted to give something in return for the hospitality and friendship which has been bestowed upon us since we arrived. One of my aims in the next three years will be to dispel the view that all politicians are dishonest. Unfortunately, I have found that this view is quite prevalent within our society and it is a reputation which, I am sad to say, many politicians deserve. My plea to my fellow members is to reverse this trend. Let us actually do something for the people who gave us our jobs. Let us make them proud of us. Let us make them glad that they put their faith in us. Our constituents have put their trust in us and, therefore, we must never fail in our duty to work exclusively on their behalf. Let us look beyond our personal political leanings and work together as compassionate human beings. Our electors have the right to be considered and informed of the formulation and implementation of policies, because we in this chamber are responsible for the lives and livelihoods of those people. Recently, government members displayed a complete lack of sensibility towards the suffering of their fellow Australians. They really should be ashamed of themselves. Let us look at what has been done to our dairy farmers. The government could have at least pretended to put up a fight. The deregulation of the dairy industry has had a negative flow-on effect within the community. Farmers have had their incomes cut by more than half. Those people no longer have control of their industry or their futures. They are no longer financially viable. Where is the sense of competition? All their sense of security has gone and they can thank the major parties for their current situation. There are dairy farmers in my electorate whose families have worked 365 days a year for generations providing milk to Australians. They now have farms that are worth nothing. They have nothing but debt to pass down to the next generation as a result of this government's weakness in signing away those families' livelihoods. Many of those farmers and their forefathers fought and died for us in wars with other nations in order to maintain our freedom, democracy and way of life. Look at how they have been repaid. If members were told today that parliament was abolished and that they were unemployed and if they were given a paltry exit payment to pay off their debts, how would they feel as 2 May 2001 Address in Reply 611 practically overnight their whole means of survival had been taken away? It is very easy, sitting here knowing that one has a job and future prospects, to disregard what those farmers are going through. However, members should remember that come next election the people whom the government treated with such disdain will decide whether government members keep their jobs. I say to the people of Queensland that we can help our dairy farmers by refusing to buy milk exported by the other states. We should buy only Queensland milk. If the government will not look after us, we have to look after ourselves. It has been estimated that the Gympie region will lose approximately $50 million annually as a result of the forestry agreement and the dairy deregulation. That is a lot of money to be taken out of a community. Farmers are no longer able to employ workers and, thanks to the RFA, numerous jobs have been lost. For example, in Cooroy the locking up of land has meant that mills have closed down and people are out of work. I love the environment and appreciate the value of protecting parts of it, but if that is done at the expense of people's jobs it cannot be justified. How can one justify putting trees before people? So much for jobs, jobs, jobs. What my constituents and I want to know is where, where, where and when, when, when? Fishermen have also suffered as a result of the deregulation of their industry. They are now told when, where and what hours they can operate. Our primary producers must be protected from overseas producers. Other countries protect their industries and primary producers while we destroy ours. We must not reward other countries which pay their employees a pittance to produce their goods cheaper than us, whilst we are penalised because we pay decent wages and provide decent conditions for our workers. It has been a long time since the Labor Party stood for the worker. Fabianism is obviously dead. I advocate that we start supporting Australian industries instead of overseas industries. Queenslanders do not want everything they consume to be imported from somewhere else when we can supply the same goods right here within our own state. The idea of buying products such as bananas, pineapples and oranges does not make sense. Sure, let us import goods that we cannot produce, but let us not put Australians out of work when we have our own viable industries. If this is the government's idea of competition, it needs to get a new dictionary. Australians have to come first, but if their government does not put them first, who will? As politicians, we must ask ourselves, before agreeing to any policies or treaties: how will this affect Australians and, in this parliament's case, Queenslanders? We need to consider the ramifications of every one of our decisions. We must be realistic and acknowledge the fact that no other state or country is going to put our needs and our interests first. That is our job. I regard it as an insult that, whilst we have large numbers of unemployed, a disintegrating public health care system and poorly staffed public schools, this government spends millions of dollars on Brisbane parklands. This government has taken teachers out of the classrooms of schools in my electorate. It is about time the government reprioritised its funding. How are we to become the Smart State if schools are understaffed and our children are leaving school barely literate? In a number of instances, parents are moving their children from public school to public school in the hope that one of them will be able to educate their kids. I am sure that this government repeats its jobs, jobs, jobs and Smart State mantras just to convince itself that it is actually doing something constructive. It is irresponsible for education to be subjected to funding cuts. What about the millions of dollars that have been spent on an advertising campaign alerting parents to the dangers of drugs whilst hospitals are being closed down and the waiting lists for drug rehabilitation centres grow by the hour? There is no point knowing that one's child has a problem if the government will not provide anywhere for that child to seek treatment. I realise that the road ahead will not be an easy one, but I have always loved a challenge. I have learnt very quickly that when people say that politics is a dirty business they mean it. So far I have already had to put up with the ignorance and rudeness of members and supporters of other parties—people who are so prejudiced and afraid of the party to which I belong that they cannot appreciate that I am here for the people of Queensland. It greatly offends me that, when I do what I was elected to do, when I do what my constituents asked of me during the election campaign and when I follow through with my campaign promises, I am accused by people such as the Minister for Health of pulling political stunts. Views such as those are despicable. If a Labor member had been elected and was working as hard as I am, I wonder if they would be accused of pulling such a stunt or would they be praised for doing the same things as I? 612 Address in Reply 2 May 2001

Honourable members should believe me when I say that I am under no illusions about what I will be able to achieve in this chamber. I am aware of the fact that this government holds the majority of seats in the parliament. However, I am not going to allow that fact to put me off or to make me any less determined to make a difference. If this parliament is to be a true democracy, all votes should be cast secretly to allow each and every member to vote according to their own conscience and not be bound by party lines. Within this politically correct society there are very few people who are prepared to brave the disapproval of their fellows or the censure of their colleagues. Moral courage is all too rare in this day and age. The lure of financial gain has become the new god to many people, and social apathy has been the result. The major parties have forgotten that it is the Aussie battler and the ordinary rank and file member who represent the majority of residents of this state. I am completely against catering exclusively to the minority groups in this community. My belief is that all Queenslanders should be recognised and represented equally. Until that occurs, we will continue to fragment. On behalf of my electorate, I have vowed to save our local hospital. The Gympie public hospital has staff who are brilliant, staff who are caring and staff who are compassionate. However, compassion and caring do not achieve much when wards are being closed, facilities are being downgraded, patients are being sent 100 kilometres out of the district for basic care and staff morale is at an all-time low. The hospital is in such a state of crisis that it cannot afford to repair the operating theatre airconditioner in time for scheduled operations. That is a perfect example of budgets coming before people. The hospital has no specialists because, according to its senior administrator, 'No specialists want to live in a place like Gympie when we can't afford to keep them.' That is unacceptable. The hospital cannot afford a full-time pharmacist, gynaecologist or anaesthetist. There is one senior medical officer who is also the medical superintendent. That person currently does the job of five men, working 18 hours each day, seven days a week for months on end. The waiting list at the hospital for simple dental treatment is over two years and for cataract surgery the waiting list is at least 18 months. If our hospital is in such great shape and is being upgraded as the minister has said, then, in all honesty, why are there so many staff members—including doctors, administrators, nurses and dental staff—on stress leave? Doctors have been forced to resign in order to protest the dire situation that the hospital is facing. Nambour Hospital, which is where most of our patients are being sent, is under considerable strain because of the excessive workload that has been thrust upon it. In my endeavours to get the minister or the Premier to reassure us that more staff are being employed and that the hospital is not being downgraded to become a purely nine to five facility, I have been accused of pulling a political stunt. I say to Mrs Edmond that all I am trying to do is to get to the bottom of this problem. All I want to do is to be able to allay the public's fears. I do not see how this is a political stunt. My job as a member, which surely she can appreciate, is to follow up on any issue of concern to the people of my electorate. If she is too afraid to face those doctors, the citizens and/or me, for that matter, with a straight and honest answer, then she is not doing her job. I have heard on the grapevine, in fact, since the minister's office never contacts me, that there is currently a review planned for the hospital. I guess that if this government runs true to form, the review will be completed, but not until the hospital closes its doors for the last time. I wonder when this government will see fit to give the money it promised during the election campaign—or was that just another pre-election lie by their candidate? The voters obviously thought so. The state Minister for Health has been sent letters from half a dozen junior medical officers asking that their workload be eased and that more senior medical officers be employed so that they can be sufficiently supervised. These doctors find it unsafe to have only one doctor for every 90 patients. A dozen senior local general practitioners have also approached the minister asking for help. I myself called upon the Premier and the minister, or at least their representatives, to come to Gympie to discuss this issue with the people. The Premier declined and did not send a representative. The minister declined and told my office that 'the minister and her office have important things to do'. I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that this comment went down like a lead balloon. The good citizens of my electorate do not take kindly to their needs being classed as 'unimportant'. 2 May 2001 Address in Reply 613

According to the Minister for Health, there is nothing wrong with the hospital; the minister has 'everything in hand'; there is no downgrading occurring at the hospital; it is all a figment of my electorate's imagination. I have with me today over 100 letters addressed to the minister outlining their personal experiences with the lack of adequate facilities in the hospital. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table copies of these letters today. If the minister has any decency whatsoever, she will actually read these letters. Leave granted. Miss ELISA ROBERTS: I would also suggest that the minister have a look at the local Gympie newspapers over the last few weeks just to gauge public opinion. I am sure that the minister's other so-called important business will suddenly become very irrelevant. I am committed to working towards bringing back the health services which have been taken away from our local hospital. Our community is entitled to a high standard of medical care and facilities. Our doctors, nurses and health professionals are entitled to carry out their jobs without restrictions. The medical industry is not the place for economic rationalism. It is at this point that I would like to read out a letter from my local newspaper outlining the views of many in my electorate. It states— The State government has snubbed its own supporters by not sending a representative to the Health forum held on Monday. Our local representative is the spokesperson for all. I have not heard her yet say that she will only look after the One Nation's supporters. Health issues should be non-political, unless our leaders decided to use it for black mailing us in voting for a party we do not want. Obviously, I must support the Labor Party if I want to receive medical treatment in Gympie. Are we living in a free democratic society supporting human rights, or under the pretence of equality for all. Or are we ruled by despots? No longer will the public be kept in the dark as to what is being done in their parliament, with policies being put into place without their consent or knowledge. The public has put their trust in the major parties for far too long. It is time our government became accountable to the people they represent. I wish to thank the people who voted for me for giving me a chance. I will reward them with honesty, enthusiasm and a fighting spirit to rally on their behalf for the betterment of their lives. I want them and their children to be employed. It is wrong that our youth have to leave their families and head for the cities to find work. What are their options? To stay home and go on the dole? I propose that the government supports the implementation of One Nation's apprentice scheme and subsidises small businesses to take on school leavers as apprentices. It is only commonsense. The city of Gympie is known as 'the town that saved Queensland'. It is about time we returned the favour. It is now our turn to save her. I will not be forced to be ashamed of my heritage, nor will I apologise for my ancestors, for it is to them that we owe this great country of ours. We should apologise to them and their memory for the mess that the major parties have imposed on this great nation. I want to reiterate a comment I made to the people of the Gympie electorate soon after the election, and that is that I vow to work tirelessly on their behalf for the betterment of our community. I also wish to emphasise that political credence will be irrelevant, as I believe it should be, in all areas of public service. In the words of the late John F. Kennedy, I regard the election of the three One Nation candidates to this parliament as not 'a victory of a party but a celebration of freedom'. Those who espouse the bipartisan system are trying to hang onto an outdated system which is, and only ever has been, partially democratic. Any political threat to the status quo is vilified and taunted in the hope that it will fade away. That has not happened to One Nation because we truly do represent the people. No amount of petty political prejudice, abuse or negative publicity generated by others' fear of being ousted will impede our rise. I want to assure all Queenslanders, and especially the citizens of my electorate, that I will not assist this government in selling them out. I will only support legislation that has them as its beneficiary and not some overseas multinational. Lastly, I wish to express to my electorate that I will never give up on them, no matter what. I have taken on this challenge and I will not shy away from it. When I was a soldier I swore my allegiance to my Queen and my country. I would have laid down my life and fought for you and I will fight for you now. Be reassured that your voice, through me, will be heard loud and clear within this chamber. I will not be intimidated. I will not be pushed around. I am going to fight for what I believe in. Like it or not, I am going to be around for a long time because my electorate deserves decent representation. 614 Address in Reply 2 May 2001

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! This is the member for Charters Towers' first speech. I ask the House to show her the usual courtesy. Mrs CHRISTINE SCOTT (Charters Towers—ALP) (5.26 p.m.): I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which this parliament meets as well as those within the electorate of Charters Towers. I acknowledge the rich culture and proud history of these people and would like to make welcome any who may be present with us today. Mr Deputy Speaker, could I also ask you to extend to Mr Speaker my warmest congratulations to him on his re-election to that high office? I rise today to make my first speech in this place deeply mindful that my election to this House is an incredible privilege and that with it comes an awesome responsibility. My electorate is one of the largest in Queensland. At over 260,000 square kilometres, it is larger than the state of Victoria. It begins in the Peak Downs shire, with its principal towns of Capella and Tieri near Emerald in central Queensland, and stretches to Einasleigh, Georgetown, Forsayth and Mount Surprise almost in the Gulf of Carpentaria. One very important issue to the people of the Etheridge Shire, which incorporates these last four centres, is their need to retain the Copperfield Dam—presently under threat of decommissioning. The people of the region are very serious about their need to retain the dam, and I am passionate about my support for them. This dam near Kidston is unique in so many ways and I consider it would be an act of economic vandalism to decommission it when the people of my electorate need to retain it so desperately for their future economic and social prosperity. We wish to retain it in its true and correct form and not to have it emptied, altered or destroyed. We have it; let's keep it. I will be working with all the interested parties to find a way to retain this dam for the people of my electorate and for the future of Queensland. This electorate also encompasses the Western Downs communities of Muttaburra, Aramac, Jericho and Alpha, and the mining communities of Clermont, Tieri, Moranbah, Capella and Ravenswood. It ranges from a 20-minute drive out of Townsville at Hervey Range to Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond and Maxwelton, to the borders of the McKinlay Shire, where I spent my childhood at a station on the blacksoil plains at what is now David Moore's property of Strathfield. Not far away is Kynuna and its famous Blue Heeler Pub. Born in the Kimberley region of Western Australia and having lived in the north and west of Australia on properties with my family as they moved with my father's occupation as a property manager, I have a deep affinity with what we call the 'three R' people—rural, regional and remote. I travelled home from hospital after my birth with my mother on a Flying Doctor aircraft. My baptismal certificate is signed by that famous AIM padre John Flynn, or 'Flynn of the Inland' as he is called. I began my school life on distance education before the days of School of the Air and as a member of Agforce and before that the—unfortunately titled—Cattleman's Union, I speak, hear and understand the language of those involved with earning their living from the land. It has been said of me that, for a Labor person, I have an impeccable National Party background. If by that statement it is meant that I have an affinity with the people of the bush and regional and rural communities, then that is fine. That is certainly very true. I do have that affinity and I will support these people whenever they need me to do so, but I do not agree with that analysis of my background. My politics has nothing whatsoever to do with my upbringing, gender, occupation, income or religion. Rather, it has everything to do with how I think and my deep-seated ideals about fairness, a fair go for everyone, social justice and caring for those who are unable to help themselves. These people are not limited to those living in the bush—as we term it—or the people who make their living from the land. This win for the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Charters Towers poses a number of firsts. In company with its neighbouring seat of Burdekin, it is a seat which has not been held by the Labor Party since 1957. I was told many things when I first became a candidate for this electorate before the 1998 election. One statement was that the seat was unwinnable for the ALP. With the help of the only finance we had from the CFMEU and Emily's List, we achieved an almost five per cent swing, proving it was not unwinnable at all. Thanks to people who have never voted Labor in their lives before, branch members, friends and family who have been help and comfort and because of the extra financial help received not only from the CFMEU but also from the AMWU, Emily's List and the state office of the Labor Party, the seemingly impossible has now been achieved. 2 May 2001 Address in Reply 615

I should also like to thank my mentor from Emily's List, Jacinta Allan, MP, the member for Bendigo East, who, together with former Premier and founder of Emily's List in Australia, Joan Kirner, was always there for me when I needed advice or information. I also pay tribute to our Premier, the Honourable Peter Beattie, and his team who gave help and support and who visited the electorate numerous times. Thank you one and all. Mr Premier: you said to me one day, 'Just win, will you?' I heard you and obeyed. I am just doing as I was told, Boss. Another of the discouraging statements I heard was that the electorate was a man's seat. Well, not anymore! As the first woman to hold the seat of Charters Towers, I am also the first female to hold it for the ALP. That can never be taken away from. Coincidentally, having lived in the electorate almost all of my adult life, it is also the very first time in my voting life I have ever had the person I voted for as a member of state parliament. I pay tribute to my family and friends, without whom none of this would have been possible. My father-in-law, Bill Scott, was offered the candidature of the seat in the 1950s. For various reasons he had to decline. It is satisfying to know the seat has now come home to the family and to the party. To the people of the electorate and the people of the 'world', as the city of Charters Towers is known to us locals: I thank you. You have given me everything in the way of friends, family, education and now a job I love. I am working hard to repay that trust. To my husband, Bruce—or the minister for war and transport, as I generally refer to him—to that young man I sat next to in school from year 7 onwards: thank you from the bottom of my heart. This would not have been possible without your support or the support of our children, Tanya and Allister. To my very special sister-in-law, Jean Scott, and friends Jill Wilkinson, Lyn Murray and Carol King: thank you. You have been the rocks on which I have leant many times and you have never failed me. I also acknowledge amongst my list of firsts the first female mayor of the city of Charters Towers, Mrs Dorothy Birgan. Mrs Birgan made history as our first female mayor. Although she tells everyone she has now retired from public life, she still lives in our community with husband, Harry, and is looked up to as a gracious and highly regarded senior who continues to command our respect. During my time in this House, I will try to remember a statement made by someone I always refer to as 'our visionary mayor of the Dalrymple Shire', Councillor Peter Black. Peter always says it is better to be respected than liked. As someone for whom I have an enormous amount of respect and with whom I have a relationship I treasure, I note his words for future reflection and action. This victory for the Labor Party is one for many people and I would like to mention just a few of those who have kept the faith. I acknowledge local member Arthur Rekow and his wife, Myrtle. Arthur has been chaining his chair and table to the fence at Charters Towers Central State School at three in the morning on election days since 1956. He does that to get the best place under what he terms 'his' tree. I have also heard Arthur tell people he planted that tree. We are not sure if that is quite the truth, but it is a good story! To Ron Donaldson in Richmond; Henry and Shirley Masters and Jennifer Anderson in Jericho; Morna Mallet in Alpha; the Torkingtons in Hughenden; Dave Parker—who continues to assure me that it is actually true that 'Real men don't eat quiche'; the Hannays in Aramac; the Beatty family, their relations and our supporters in Muttaburra; the Barnes family; the branch and the 'Rio rejects' in Clermont; all the Labor members in Moranbah, who are too numerous to mention; Sue Ford and Pat Hayward from Greenvale; Bev Finch and Karen Butler in Georgetown; Ray Brindley and Gillian Carter in Forsayth; Vince Murphy and Terry Hennessey in Mount Surprise; the Talbot family; our friends in Pentland, Homestead and Tieri; Tom and Hazel Ball in Prairie; the Gornelles in Mingela; and the Lehrkes in Ravenswood, some of whom have never been ALP members but who have been handing out how-to-vote cards for losing candidates since 1957: this is for you. To people like you across the electorate—friends all, members in branches across the region, as well as our fellow travellers: I salute you. The Charters Towers electorate is a huge and diverse one whose industries could broadly be described as grazing, farming, mining and education. Tourism is a growth industry. Some of our rural people have moved into station and farmstays as a way of diversifying and value-adding their businesses. Such enterprise is to be applauded and encouraged. The people of rural, remote and regional Queensland are a resilient and tough breed who have faced many challenges and overcome a huge number of those challenges. 616 Address in Reply 2 May 2001

The problems we have all seem to stem from one cause, and that is we are losing population. This in turn leads to the loss of services and therefore we lose nurses, teachers, doctors, dentists and other allied health professionals and para-professionals. There seems to be little understanding that, where there are vacant houses caused by the exodus to the coast, people who are unemployed—or who are sometimes from a much lower socioeconomic group than the surrounding area—are then encouraged to move in and rent these vacant houses. Even though there is decreased population, there are more people who need our help. There is a need for increased services, not decreased ones. It would be remiss of me if I were not to mention the torrid times on the coalfields of central Queensland at the moment together with the actions of BHP, or the 'Ugly Australian', as they have come to be known on the coalfields. BHP would have us believe that this struggle on the coalfields at the moment is all about wages. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is about the casualisation of our work force. It is about BHP wanting to have the unfettered right to use contract labour who, at the end of their shifts, will go home to different places in Australia for their days off. It is about BHP wanting a frightened, cowed, dysfunctional work force which is too tired to care about its working conditions and too far apart to organise to improve them. They do not care about paying more if workers can be prevented from organising to achieve a better way of life. It is not about restructuring, rationalising, downsizing or right-sizing; it is about dividing and ruling, dividing and conquering. On the one hand, BHP says they are good corporate citizens. On the other hand, they are on record as saying they are not into communities. I have been to the picket line at Peak Downs and heard the miners' concerns. I have talked with Larraine Noonan and the women's support group and I know their fears. I applaud the women of the coalfields for their unswerving support, because we know historically that when women cannot put food on the table for the children it is the women who send the men back to work. It was so in Wales 200 years ago. It is not hard to see what BHP is trying to achieve now. The other reason we need to protect the mining communities is that the casualisation of our work force is the greatest threat to family life that exists. The plain hard facts are that when a man is away from his family in Cannington or Selwyn or wherever working 21-day, 12-hour shifts, he only has the opportunity to work and sleep. The worst he can get up to is to have a few too many beers at the canteen. When he has his five or seven-day break, he travels and sleeps the first day, sleeps the second day, has the middle days off and is travelling back to work on the last day. It is the classic Sunday Too Far Away syndrome. Back at home the children are growing up in what is effectively a single-parent family. The pressures on the partner are enormous. She is lonely and, although it is not meant to happen, someone else comes along. Another family in Australia becomes dysfunctional and fractures. Another family becomes a statistic. But BHP does not care about that because they are 'not into communities'. As a woman I represent more than half the population and as a mother I represent the family. So when BHP say they are not into communities, then my reply is that I am into communities and I am here today to send them a message that what they are trying to do is not on. We need our mines and we need all our miners and their families, and we need them to live on-site with their families on the coalfields for the continued prosperity of the communities, the region and the state. I am proud and grateful for the opportunity to work in the interests of these and other people as well as the small businesspeople of the coalfields who are dependent on the continuation of their communities. There is one word which separates the present federal government from the Labor opposition. There is one word that separates John Howard and his born-to-rule attitude from Kim Beazley. There is one word which I believe clearly defines people of my political persuasion from the others. That word is 'compassion'. I am asking now for compassion for the people of the coalfields. In the past we have had a period of listening to the health system and a period of listening to the people of Queensland. I believe it is now time for a period of listening to the people of the coalfields. I know they want and need to see cabinet ministers out there, and that is why I have requested a community cabinet to be held at the coalfields. People out there are hurting, and I beg honourable members to listen to them. I have said that the people of my electorate will never be alone while I am their member and I will always try to be there for them when they need me. Sometimes this is difficult and entails many thousands of kilometres of travel—something I know a number of other honourable members in this House would also experience. During the past year I have travelled more than 2 May 2001 Address in Reply 617

50,000 kilometres to keep the faith with the people of my electorate. I expect in the next 12 months I will travel no less. To help others understand what motivates people like me, I would like to relate an incident that occurred in the small community of Greenvale, around 200 kilometres north of the town in which I live. This community was once a thriving mining town, but because of circumstances it is now largely a community of people who receive pensions or social security benefits. There are many frail senior citizens living there. There are no railway lines, no scheduled air transport and no buses. It is on a single-lane road to nowhere. The Flying Doctor comes once per fortnight, if a landing is possible. At one time, on seven out of 10 fortnights it was not possible and the community went without their doctor. Services which appear on paper are not always what they seem in places such as Greenvale. Indeed, prescriptions must travel a 400 kilometre round trip by road to be filled at the nearest chemist. Life in these places is not easy and not for the faint hearted, and it is wonderful to find so many community-minded people who do such good work under very difficult circumstances, as they do in other tiny communities, such as Homestead, Ravenswood, Pentland, Prairie, Muttaburra, Aramac, Alpha and Jericho, where quite often fewer than 10 per cent of families will have a full-time breadwinner, simply because there are no jobs to be had. This community of Greenvale has an excellent voluntary ambulance service, superbly looked after by Lyn and Kerry Fennimore. One afternoon a family with a number of children had a crisis. The father was away. It was the day before payday and the day before pension day. One of the small children presented with severe stomach pains and had to be evacuated by ambulance. As any child would, the boy wanted his mother to travel with him. As any mother would, she simply picked up her purse, which contained 35c, sent the other children, none of whom was old enough to drive a car, next door to be looked after, and went with the child. On arrival at the Charters Towers Hospital the child was examined and nothing was found to be wrong. Mother and child were turned out into the night knowing no-one and with not enough money to make even a local phone call. It is unfortunate they struck a new young medic who apparently did not know about the Red Cross house at the back of the hospital. He probably did not even realise that these people had come from out of town. Because it was late at night, the matron, who certainly would have helped, was not around. That mother had to ring around Greenvale, reverse charges—to someone who would accept her call—until she could find someone who, on the night before pension day, had enough fuel in their car to do the 400 kilometre round trip to pick her up. I find it very hard to tell this story without becoming emotional. It may be that I do not have the facts absolutely correct, but the core message is still there, and whenever I falter in my efforts to help the people of my electorate I think of that family and the trauma they must have gone through. I think of other families who slip through the net of safety and care and ask myself, 'What am I doing to help these people?' During my time in this House I will continue to ask myself the same question, no matter who I am dealing with and no matter for whom they voted: 'What am I doing to help these people?' I want to be their ally, their champion and their friend. I do not want to fight them; I want to fight for them. This is a new beginning for the people of my electorate. I will keep the faith with them and for them. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this House today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Poole): Order! I remind the House that this is the member's first speech. I ask members to extend to her the usual courtesies. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (5.44 p.m.): Firstly, I pledge my loyalty to the Crown, Australia and Queensland. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you and the Speaker on your election to high office. Special thanks also go to the people in the Tablelands electorate for choosing me to be their representative. I can assure all the voters, whether they voted for me or not, that I will at all times represent them all to the best of my ability. Thanks also go to the team who assisted me throughout the campaign, short and sharp as it was, and to all the booth workers and scrutineers who manned all 29 booths in such wet and miserable conditions on that Saturday of the election. To Peter, Mike and Des, May and Bev, Len and Betty: you were all super. To my daughters Jackie, Michelle and Vicki: a big thankyou. Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to introduce my electorate to you. The Tablelands electorate is one of the most diversified in Australia and geographically is situated in one of the nation's richest food bowls. Because of our proximity to Asia and with our ability to produce so much in the way of 618 Address in Reply 2 May 2001 foodstuffs—we are already the smart part of the state—all we need now is a smart government to encourage manufacturing. The two major towns in the electorate are Atherton and Mareeba. Mareeba services the northern end of the electorate and is the main centre for the Mareeba-Dimbulah Irrigation Area, which was opened up after the building of the Tinaroo Dam in 1956. The supply of water to this area really made it boom. Out of that grew the large tobacco industry, which prospered until recent years, when government in its wisdom decided to close down the industry and import tobacco and tobacco products—at a time when Australians are using more tobacco products than ever. It decided to give jobs, jobs, jobs to people in foreign countries instead of to our own people, as this was in line with the government's push towards globalisation. Mareeba has also seen in relatively recent times the loss of its meatworks, bacon factory, railway and sawmill. After the loss of the tobacco industry, farmers, being smart and innovative people, diversified into rice, tea-tree, fruit, vegetables and other industries, only to find governments once again preferring to cut tariffs and import goods, thus providing jobs to foreigners instead of to our own children. The people are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated, as no matter which way they turn they run into brick walls. Sugarcane is now being grown increasingly across the electorate, with a new mill being established between Atherton and Mareeba a few years ago. Although sugar prices have been at record lows for many years, we are hopeful that the next crop will see better returns. Mareeba is the centre for many small outlying towns and communities such as Chillagoe to the west, which is the last outpost before reaching the larger cattle grazing properties. Chillagoe has renowned limestone caves which are a great tourist attraction. To the north are Julatten and Mount Molloy, in the hinterland beyond the coastal towns of Mossman and Port Douglas. Cattle, fruit, vegetables and cane are the main products there. The Biboohrah, Bilwon and Emerald Creek areas also rely on Mareeba for services. Mareeba is only a 45-minute drive from Cairns. It has a very dry climate and one can predict fine weather there for about 90 per cent of the year. This makes it an ideal centre for sporting activities and industry. It also has many of the attributes necessary for a future international airport, particularly if we had a more direct route to Cairns. Atherton is the most central town in the Tablelands electorate and is situated in the middle of rich volcanic agricultural land. It boasts the Golden Triangle, which is a large expanse of flat agricultural land where most crops can be grown extremely well. In the past maize, peanuts and potatoes were extensively grown, but since deregulation of the maize industry by Labor's Ed Casey very little maize is now grown. Peanuts and potatoes are now being overtaken by sugarcane as farmers diversify in the hope of better returns. Atherton also services an extensive reach of country to its south and west—country that ranges from dense rainforest to savanna-style grazing land and is home to a number of large cattle stations. The gateway to this western country is the remote outpost of Mount Garnet, famous for its annual race meeting, which draws thousands of spectators from many parts of Queensland and interstate. North-east of Mount Garnet lies the town of Ravenshoe, which once had a thriving dairy and timber industry. There are still some dairy farmers left, but the timber industry has all but come to a standstill since World Heritage listing came into effect. There is one major mill left, which mainly deals in pine. Another small family mill has just closed because it could not obtain a viable stand of timber from Forestry, even though it had orders to fill. The conditions written into the lease by the Department of Natural Resources were so onerous that the miller could not possibly comply with them all and still harvest the millable timber. Herberton, closer to Atherton, was once well known for its mining. There are still many mining sites in the Tablelands electorate but, as we all know, mining has come to a virtual standstill since the inception of native title. The hardest hit, naturally, have been the small miners, who for the past 10 years or so have not been able to process ore and as a result have not been able to provide for their families, because the government is unable to make up its mind as to how native title is going to work and there is no sunset clause in legislation to date. Meanwhile, mining machinery worth millions lies depreciating at a great cost to the miner. Once again, due to government intervention, miners' livelihoods and assets have been stripped away through no fault of their own. The effects have been felt throughout the community—not to mention there has been economic loss to the state. Another town of substance in the electorate is Malanda. Malanda has always been the hub of the dairy industry on the tableland. Before deregulation, when farmers were receiving a 2 May 2001 Address in Reply 619 reasonable price for their milk—around 58c per litre for market milk—they could afford to maintain and upkeep their farms by fertilising their paddocks, maintaining their roads and fences, upgrading their dairies, and so on. They were not told that, within six months, the price would drop to its present average of 25c to 28c per litre, a rate at which farmers cannot survive for long. Now, small businesses in the town are really feeling the pinch as the remaining farmers tighten their belts more and more and more. Malanda has a very large and modern dairy factory employing many local people. A few years ago, the factory became part of the huge Dairyfarmers cooperative. As part of recent upgrading, with most of the money provided by Dairyfarmers and a small amount promised by the state government, the cooperative hopes to install a large stretch mozzarella cheese plant that will take over from the present cheddar cheese plant. We are living in the hope that this factory will remain viable. An annual turnover of some $100 million comes from market milk, cream, cheese, butter and casein. It is not hard to see that the industry has been of great value not only to my electorate but also to the economy of Queensland as a whole. But with deregulation, the future certainly looks bleak. The Malanda area also had a large timber and veneer mill at Peeramon, which employed many people until it was closed down due to World Heritage, with the loss of many jobs. Dairying has been the industry that has kept nearby Millaa Millaa alive after the loss of its sawmill. Now, with dairy industry deregulation impacting on the area, this small town will be lucky to survive. Already the local butcher shop has closed, and other businesses are feeling the pinch. Yungaburra and Kairi, east of Atherton, also lost sawmills to World Heritage. With the redistribution of boundaries, the Tablelands electorate now takes in East Palmerston, on the Palmerston Highway, and extends to Mena Creek, south-west of the coastal town of Innisfail. The main industries are cane and bananas. Most of the canefarmers in the area supply the South Johnstone mill. However, the mill recently went into receivership and, subsequently, has been purchased by the foreign-owned Bundaberg Sugar Company at a bargain basement price. To add to the tale of woe, banana farmers are now faced with the banana disease black sigatoka. It cannot be emphasised enough how important it is not to import from pest-affected countries at all to safeguard our own product. Our quarantine system must be stepped up. Generally speaking, we have the best, most efficient and smartest farmers in the country, and we are very proud of them. The miners and timberworkers were also some of the best. Their input into the economy of Queensland has been enormous. Without these people in rural and regional areas producing goods, where will the money come from to keep the city people in jobs? The rural and regional people are the backbone of the nation. Drought and flooding rains have not caused these problems; they are the result of inappropriate decisions of man. Make no mistake about it, the country people may be affected first by national competition policy and the government's push towards globalisation, privatisation and the foreign ownership of our assets, but it will eventually catch up with our city dwellers. Earlier in my speech I mentioned a number of small towns which had suffered due to the closure of local sawmills through the introduction of World Heritage. Last year, Queensland celebrated 'A Hundred Years of Forestry'. Certainly the first nine decades of the century gave us something to celebrate. During this time, forestry made a significant contribution to the economy and development of the state and was a major source of employment in many regional areas. A practical management system for state forests recognised the diversity of public demand for use of the forests and provided a balance of environmental conservation, production and public recreation. Queensland built up a corps of highly skilled forest managers and developed sustainable forest harvesting practices that were internationally recognised as world's best practice. Plantation programs were initiated throughout the state in a responsible endeavour to supplement our natural resources and provide for our timber needs in the future. Atherton had one of the biggest district offices, from which it controlled selective logging. It was so well done that we had tourists and southern politicians alike come and marvel at what 'beautiful, pristine, virgin rainforest' we had. They were naive; for that same rainforest had been so well and so selectively logged over and over and over again for nearly a century that no-one could tell the difference. So in its wisdom, the government decided to call it 'World Heritage' and lock it up. The former Forestry Department, which had very efficiently and effectively managed the forests, was dissected and its bits left struggling in the bureaucracy of other organisations. Large areas of forest which provided a sustainable supply of high-quality timber have been withdrawn from production, and expansion of plantation programs has all but ceased. As a 620 Address in Reply 2 May 2001 consequence, many sawmills in rural centres in north Queensland have been forced to close. Hundreds and hundreds of jobs were lost directly and indirectly. These forests now lie idle and unproductive while our government, once again in its wisdom, sees fit to import timber from foreign countries which clear-fell, not selectively log for the benefit of future generations. This, to me and my constituents and all the people who lost their jobs, livelihoods and assets and way of life, is the height of hypocrisy. It is a total indictment against the Premier that the Tablelands Labor candidate did not succeed in the recent election. The result reflects the distrust and apathy felt by my constituents for the Premier—their own 'home town boy'. With regard to health, I know that I am not alone in this state when I despair about our public health system. Leading up to the last election, the Premier was heard to boast that Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen was his mentor. Well, the Premier has big boots to fill, because we in Queensland remember that when Joh was in office we had the best free hospital system in the world. Now, people are being turned away from the hospital system because it cannot cope. Many pensioners who have paid their due taxes find that, in some cases, there is a waiting list for health or dental services of up to three years. I know that the Health Minister will dispute this, so I have taken the liberty of bringing with me a letter from a constituent. The letter states— I wish to air my grievance re the hospital dental clinic. I have just paid $1,100.00 to have my teeth attended to by a private dentist. Prior to this, on inquiring at the clinic as to when I could see a dentist I was told there was a 35 month waiting list unless it was on emergency. At the time it wasn't though. I knew my teeth needed attention. I am 78 years old and because I've taken good care of them I am fortunate enough to still have most of my own teeth. It is less than 12 months since I had a filling replaced so I've been able to have them checked fairly regularly—until now. This is no reflection on the staff at the clinic whom I've always found to be courteous and helpful. I find it absolutely appalling that at my age, I can't get the service at the local clinic to which I am entitled. I get a pension which I feel I am justly entitled to. The best of British luck to you in your quest to get a better service at our hospital. Peter Beattie boasts of being an Atherton boy. Never have our hospital facilities been in worse shape. He and Wendy Edmonds should hang their heads in shame. That is the end of the section I wish to quote, but this is one of many complaints against the public health system received in my office. It seems that unless a person qualifies as an emergency case, their alternative is to go to a private doctor or dentist and pay the gap between the scheduled fee and what the doctor charges. This means that, generally speaking, there is no free hospital or dental system unless it is an emergency or a person is prepared to wait in a long queue. So what are we paying taxes for? Our health workers, like all public servants, are bound by codes of conduct which restrict them from speaking out in public, to the media or even to their local MP about the parlous state of the health system. To do so, they risk being demoted or even losing their jobs. Is this democracy? I think not! On the subject of education, there are a large number of schools in my electorate—about 30 at last count—including primary, high and private. There is always a cry for more funding, but the stock answer from government is that there are no funds available. The teachers do a fine job, considering their hands are tied as far as discipline is concerned. The responsibilities required of them over and above the call of duty are of concern. Touching on roads, we must have some of the worst roads in the state in the Tablelands electorate, and I feel that we get no more than crumbs when it comes to funding. On law and order, the fact that ordinary people have to bar up their homes while petty criminals get a rap over the knuckles and are let out to reoffend speaks volumes. When a person comes onto your property, has an accident and then can sue you, it indicates that something is dreadfully wrong with the system. It seems our globalist governments are hell-bent on turning us into a very un-Australian nation by encouraging us to become a suing society, a dob-in society, a politically correct society and a red tape society. I would like to dispel the perception that One Nation is racist. That is just political propaganda. My late husband was Australian born of Chinese descent and the Asian people I have met have been some of the nicest and most honest citizens—not to mention the best cooks. We in One Nation are fighting for Australians, all Australians, no matter what colour or creed. We are against the takeover of small individuals by big corporate companies. We are fighting for the little Aussie battler, for the Davids against the Goliaths on a local level, on a national level and now, with the new buzz word 'globalisation', on an international level. Who or what is this monster called globalisation? Why are the major parties subservient to it? Our national assets are being privatised one by one and sold off to foreign multinationals at 2 May 2001 Vegetation Management 621

Australia's expense. Industry after industry is being closed down in the name of deregulation so similar goods can be imported. By importing we are denying our own children their right to jobs while we create work for people in a foreign country. In my electorate alone we have witnessed the destruction of our timber industry, our tobacco industry and our mining industry and now we are witnessing the disintegration of our once proud dairy industry. And while our farmers desperately diversify into other crops in a bid to save some of their assets, our globalisation governments put every obstacle in their way by importing what we can produce ourselves and by removing tariffs to make it even easier for foreign producers to compete. In my electorate the Beattie government in Labor's last term introduced tree-clearing laws on freehold land, put up rural valuations by up to 300 per cent, and now irrigation water charges are being significantly increased. When will this madness end? Our leaders in government do not seem to care about how their policies affect ordinary people. Now the people have had enough. In my electorate they are very angry at the loss of their livelihoods and their assets. It is time we were able to give our children real hope for the future. People want changes in government policy, and One Nation intends to support them in their fight for change. Thank you. Debate, on motion of Mr Fenlon, adjourned.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (6.02 p.m.): I move— That this House recognise and acknowledge the negative impact the Vegetation Management Act has had on those people who invested in timber as a revenue source and give consideration to— (1) reviewing the current legislation to allow limited timber harvesting to an average income per annum; (2) pay compensation for loss of revenue; or (3) purchase those areas designated for preservation. I move this motion to ensure that the situation facing the victims from vegetation management, regional forest agreements and various other forms of legislation are not forgotten. As time moves on they should not be swept under the carpet and forgotten. Because these people are a minority, it is too easy to sacrifice these few for the many and not address their very real concerns. I listened to the debate in the House today on the industrial relations bill and watched how vigorously the government fought to protect what it believed was some encroachment on workers' rights, which would perhaps reflect badly on their superannuation. The government should be given due credit for protecting workers' remuneration. Yet where legislation attacks rural land- holders and removes their ability to maintain and grow what was virtually to be their self-funded retirement package and/or superannuation, nothing happens. Where is the righteous indignation from these government members? Where is the support for these rural and regional workers from, as several Labor ministers were happy to proclaim this morning, the self-proclaimed party for the bush? Why is it always rural and regional areas and occupations which continually bear the brunt of legislation without any defence of the victims' rights or the so-called underdogs when it comes to fighting against these bills—the underdogs the Labor Party prides itself on protecting? The sustainable management of Queensland's native vegetation is vital for protecting our unique biodiversity and to ensure the long-term productivity and profitability of Queensland and Australian industries as a whole. No-one disputes this, although many would dispute the manner of achieving the best outcome. These acts are supposed to provide a clear guide to ensure our land is sustained for generations to come. Again, no-one would knock that ideal. Despite the legislation's good intentions, it is very clear that farmers, graziers, timberworkers and millers have all lost the right to utilise portions of their freehold land, whether it be for grazing, timber or farming. For some it has dulled what had been and could have been a bright future. Irrespective of a person's support for or against the original pieces of legislation, what we have here is a situation where legislation has affected people adversely. This legislation has been passed in this House and these people are asking for our help. They are asking for a solution to a problem with which they have been inflicted and which has a totally different outcome on their lives than the one for which they had carefully planned and prepared. For many of these people who are in the autumn years of their lives, this is an unkind and unnecessary impost. 622 Vegetation Management 2 May 2001

I would like to read a letter from one of the people affected by this and other forms of legislation. The letter states— We are a small family sawmilling company established in the late 1940's and were entirely dependent on private stands of timber for our log supplies until acquiring an allocation of 107 cubic metre's of logs per annum from dpi forestry reducing our dependence on private log supply to a limited degree but to remain viable we still have to source a further five to six hundred metre's per annum from private supply. With the introduction of the government tree clearing and environment protection legislation we are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain sufficient log supplies from private sources. Without sufficient private timber we are in a position where our livelihood as sawmillers is under threat. Although the State Government is committed to ensure supply of all allocations for the next 25 years our small allocation 107 cubic metres per annum was of little value without the availability of additional private supply. This considered we have sold our allocation to another Sawmilling Company after the Government exercised their first right of refusal. Our projected business plan was to buy land which had established stands of natural timber of which we have over the years purchased approximately 150 hectares of natural forest containing millable timber and during the final years of our working life cut the millable timber from said land which we commenced to do three years ago and to then sell the land (we have had some extremely good offers over the years) to fund our retirement. To present we have cut all millable trees from one 70-hectare property. However with the introduction of Government land clearing legislation we have been told by the department of natural resources the land is in an area that is totally protected from land clearing thereby negating our business plan of selling the land and funding our retirement. We are in effect left with land we can not clear so making the possibilities of selling unlikely. Government is quite clear on the requirements of land holders regarding land clearing and the penalties imposed for violation of legislation but offer no solutions or help to landholders who have no say in the land yet have to pay local council rates on land that has become unprofitable to own. This man has been told by the Department of Natural Resources that he is in a declared area which cannot be clear-felled and therefore his chance to sell at the price he could have reasonably expected is no more. There have been instances where the Department of Natural Resources staff have in fact informed land-holders that they were in declared areas when they were not. This is misinformation which has caused much unnecessary distress to many families, individuals and businesses. On occasions, DNR staff have misinformed landowners—now more rare than in the past, I admit—and they need to be fully aware of the pain and distress their words sometimes inflict. A prime example is the situation in which a number of families invested all their savings and superannuation into buying large properties. One couple in the South Burnett region paid $1 million for the freehold land and the timber rights. Such a price was justified at the time, as the amount of millable timer on the property was only about half cut. Their intention was to run cattle at a low stocking rate and practice silviculture and thus improve their country and make a sustainable and environmentally responsible income. Governments sold the people the land that is timbered and all the rights and title will be freehold. These people bought believing, as they were told from childhood onwards, that freehold country is sacrosanct. People have paid premium prices to the government for their right to freehold and now the government has taken away that right to do what they need or what they want to do inside their boundary fence. The problem for these families is that they have spent their savings and superannuation. They were hoping to be self-funded retirees. They wanted to sell the land to provide for their superannuation. Some of these people are losing a substantial amount of money. Their companies are no longer viable and their businesses will soon have to be closed down. The original plans for most of these people are now unlikely to succeed, as the land that is unable to be cleared for agricultural purposes is very unlikely to sell. These property owners are also left with council rates of many thousands of dollars each year for land that is virtually controlled by the state. They have become government caretakers without pay. The Vegetation Management Act and other acts have had a disastrous effect on many people. Not only has productivity on their land decreased, their retirement funds have all gone up in smoke and they are left with many extra bills that small incomes and pensions cannot cover. Almost all of the people who own freehold land have no intention of clearing their land of trees recklessly. However, they demand the right to farm them and utilise them as they see fit without interference from anyone who has made zero input into the production of those trees. They cannot grow trees without some expense in the way of lost income from other aspects of their farming operations. This used to be compensated in some form or other from the production of the trees. 2 May 2001 Vegetation Management 623

I acknowledge the importance of trees to the environment. However, I believe that there are other ways of achieving the aim of having trees other than through the current vegetation management legislation. I have no doubt that the government members, with their overwhelming numbers of support staff, will have worked diligently to negate arguments put forward by the supporters of this motion. However, the truth remains the same. Legislation relating to vegetation management, the RFA, the dairy deregulation and other similar matters has been passed in this House. Such legislation hurts people—sometimes a lot of people, sometimes only a few. No matter which way we look at it, those people who have been affected have had their retirement funds, their investments, their superannuation virtually stolen away from them. Such negative outcomes of legislation, whether that be to the dairy, pastoral, timber or any other industry, needs to be addressed. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (6.12 p.m.): I second the motion. I bring to the attention of the House the negative impact that the Vegetation Management Act has had on those people who have invested in timber as a revenue source. A lot of people bought properties in the belief that the timber on that property was already or would become a viable source of income. A lot of forest country is poor country and thus no other income can be sourced from it. Quite often, forest country is extremely poor for grazing stock. Thus the value of the country lies in the timber that is ready to be harvested. Some farmers have structured their debt level according to the timber that they have available to harvest. Quite often, the income from the timber would be used to reduce debt, thus helping a heck of a lot of rural people who have tough cattle blocks. We must introduce compensation for those farmers who have been adversely affected by these laws. I would like to see a program introduced to allow these people to selectively harvest their timber. When trees are removed selectively, that makes way for younger vegetation, thus enabling our forest areas to replenish themselves quickly and effectively. Our farmers are extremely good, self-funded conservationists; they are the same people who have helped to build and are continuing to build this great nation that we all adore. Over the past 15 years, I have cut narrow leaf ironbark rails that are approximately five inches thick. The point I make is that people could now cut rails of exactly the same size from exactly the same area. Timber replenishes itself. If compensation cannot be made available to these people, I call on our government to purchase these timber blocks. If it is so important to look after this so-called dying natural resource, I ask the government to please put its hands into its pockets and start to look after these suffering people. Being a former dairy farmer, I know what it is like to suffer due to senseless, insane government policy. My milk quota was senselessly and gutlessly taken away from me overnight, my cows lost their value and my farm was devalued due to exactly the same sort of senseless policy that these farmers are now facing by not being able to harvest selectively the timber that they own on their freehold properties. I ask members to imagine being told that they can live in only half their houses. That is about the only example I can think of to try to make members realise just how ludicrous these laws are. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (6.14 p.m.): I move— Omit all words after 'recognise' and insert the following— 'the success of Queensland's vegetation management legislation in maintaining biodiversity and preserving the environmental and economic sustainability of the State; and further, condemns Federal Government attempts to interfere in, and ride roughshod over, Queensland's management of its natural resources, including vegetation.'. The Beattie Labor government recognises the need to conserve areas of vegetation, to maintain biodiversity and to preserve the environmental and economic sustainability of the state for future generations. Fundamental to that recognition is a commitment to protect Queensland's native vegetation. That is why last year this government introduced the most comprehensive vegetation management controls Queensland has ever had on both freehold and leasehold land. The Vegetation Management Act was developed following extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including rural industries, conservation groups, the urban development industry, rural communities, local government and government agencies. This broad community involvement is ongoing through the establishment of 20 regional vegetation management 624 Vegetation Management 2 May 2001 committees throughout the state. This process gives local communities direct involvement in developing voluntary vegetation management arrangements that are best suited to their own regions. The Queensland government has already made a significant investment of some $111 million into Queensland's vegetation management. This funding is being used to promote good, economically sustainable vegetation management practices, to provide support to land- holders through extension services, and landscape planning and assessment. Already we are seeing tangible benefits from the new vegetation management regimen. In the six months since the enactment of the Vegetation Management Act, Queensland has achieved a significant reduction in the number of approvals for land clearing. In the period from 1 September 2000 to 28 February 2001, my department issued 115 permits for clearing of remnant vegetation with a total area of 70,800 hectares. This compares with data showing that some 424,000 hectares had been cleared over the previous 12 months. This result is proof positive that Queensland's vegetation management controls are working and are effective. The honourable member, in moving her original motion, claimed that the Vegetation Management Act has a negative impact on land-holders who have invested in timber as a revenue source. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Queensland government acknowledges some land-holders' use of timber as an important revenue source. In recognition of this, sustainable timber harvesting is allowed under the Vegetation Management Act—an act that enjoys the support of none other than the Queensland Timber Board. As I said, Queensland's vegetation management controls are working and are proving to be effective. If there is one source of frustration—and the member for Nanango should take notice of this—to all stakeholders involved in the vegetation management debate, it is the lack of support from the federal coalition government. As I said earlier, we have invested some $111 million in relation to vegetation management planning throughout this state. What is missing is the necessary compensation, particularly for freeholders of land. Once that area of endangered and of concern ecosystems on their land is identified, we can then go out there, through our Department of Natural Resources officers, and enter into real suggestions with those land-holders about how to protect that land and compensate them for it. Mr Seeney: How much have you given by way of compensation? Mr ROBERTSON: We have spent $111 million so far. What we want from the federal government is for them to top that up with some $103 million. Despite all the promises of the federal coalition government—and we have seen the result of Senator Hill's performance—not one dollar has come from the federal government to compensate land-holders. Mr Seeney: Not one dollar from you, either. Mr ROBERTSON: As I said, there has been $111 million from us; there has been nothing from the federal government. I say to the member for Nanango that, until the federal government comes clean and shows us the money, the frustration of her constituents is going to continue. They have my sympathy, I can assure her of that. She needs to get on to people like my friend the member for Callide to go to his National Party colleagues and the federal Liberal Minister for Environment in Canberra and tell them to show Queensland the money, to come back here with a $103 million cheque that allows us to compensate land-holders for the controls that we have put in place. I assure the member that if it had not been for our controls, the federal government would have come in over the top of us, anyway, and her constituents would have been in a much worse position than they are currently. Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (6.19 p.m.): It is a pleasure to second the amendment that has been moved by the minister tonight. This is an important amendment because it will test what is left of the National and Liberal parties. The second part of that amendment states— Condemns Federal Government attempts to interfere in, and ride roughshod over, Queensland's management of its natural resources, including vegetation. Time and time again during the last parliament, members of the Liberal and National parties defended the actions of the federal coalition. They defended the federal government continuously. Tonight they have another opportunity to defend the federal government by opposing the amendment moved by the minister. This is their chance to stand up and say to the federal government, 'Support Queensland and stop doing what you are doing. Send the $103 2 May 2001 Vegetation Management 625 million up to the state so that we can keep moving with the Vegetation Management Bill 2000.' They have the chance to do that tonight, and the question is whether or not they will take it. Will the remains of the Liberal and National parties have the sense to support this amendment? What the Queensland people did at the last state election is obvious to everyone. They recognised that the coalition parties continued at all times to support the federal coalition. Their numbers in the parliament have been decimated because they defended the federal government when it simply could not be defended. On a number of occasions I said to them, 'While you continue to do that, you demonstrate your lack of support for the state of Queensland.' I suspect that they are threatening to do the same again tonight. The electors of Queensland know—and it has been clearly demonstrated by opposition members' actions in this parliament—that they simply do not support policies that will benefit Queensland. Instead, they continue to support the federal government. This amendment provides members opposite with the chance to stand up to the federal coalition government and show that they are committed to this state. Every time they have had a chance to support the state of Queensland in this parliament they have supported the federal coalition instead. They certainly did that with the GST. The business activity statement turned out to be a farce, yet members opposite supported it even when it was obvious to the electors of Queensland that it was a joke. Liberal and National Party members demonstrated a complete lack of support for a regional forestry agreement that was negotiated by all of the players in this state because the Commonwealth did not support it either. It came in miles after the agreement was completed. What did the then members of the Liberal and National parties do? They jumped straight in and supported the federal coalition government to the detriment of all Queenslanders, and now we can see the results of that action. Tonight, Liberal and National Party members have a chance to support this amendment and to finally demonstrate to this parliament and, more importantly, to the people of Queensland that they will stand up to the federal coalition and say, 'Enough is enough. The $103 million should come to this state.' They have a chance to support the people of Queensland in their struggle against the federal coalition. If we look to the last state election we see that the National and Liberal parties lost votes simply because they did not represent Queenslanders. When given the chance to do that on a number of issues, they elected to support the federal coalition. They were determined to take some kind of position against the people of Queensland—indeed, they took a mad political position—simply because a Labor government held office in the state of Queensland. Tonight they have the chance to support this important amendment. Time expired. Mr QUINN (Robina—LP) (Leader of the Liberal Party) (6.24 p.m.): The Queensland Liberal Party believes fundamentally in private property rights. We also believe firmly and fundamentally in the preservation of our environment, and those two issues are not mutually exclusive. Freehold landowners across Queensland have an existing right to develop their land, but that right also comes with an inherent responsibility to protect endangered or at-risk plant and animal life. The very basis of a fair and just society is one that compensates for the loss of that right. The Liberal Party supports point 2 of the motion, which calls for compensation for any loss of revenue that may result from tree-clearing restrictions. We support the view expressed in point 3 of the motion that should a property lose its viability or have its viability substantially reduced because of tree-clearing restrictions the state government of the day has an onus to provide compensation. For this reason, at the last state election the Liberal Party ensured that the coalition's policy promised to provide compensation for any loss of water or land management rights that may have resulted from government decisions. Having said that, the Liberal Party cannot support the first point of the motion presented tonight. It is simply not credible to say that landowners should be able to develop their land in isolation of each other, without any consideration of or responsibility for the collective impacts of their land management practices. That is why the Liberal Party wholeheartedly endorses the basic principle that the state government should have the responsibility for the control of land clearing on both leasehold and freehold land. That is the only way to ensure a properly coordinated response towards minimising the damage caused by land clearing across the state, particularly the devastating impact that we have seen in some areas because of panic clearing. If our rural 626 Vegetation Management 2 May 2001 communities and rural industries are to have any meaningful, long-term futures, the environment simply must be preserved. The Liberal Party does not support the first point of the motion tonight. It is irresponsible and indeed ad hoc to simply say that timber harvesting should be permitted to an average income per annum. While it may be possible that such a position is sustainable in some selected parts of the state, it would be wrong to adopt that approach over other areas that have been identified by scientific research as environmentally sensitive. The Liberal Party supports entirely the position that all decisions relating to tree clearing should be made on a scientific basis and not an ad hoc basis. It believes that regional mapping should be conducted immediately and it believes that the state government should accept its responsibility, as other states have already done, and provide compensation to those landowners affected by the legislation. Obviously farmers are important stakeholders in these issues, and the government should sit down with them and discuss the appropriate levels of controls, how they will be implemented and how compensation should be paid. Farmers need certainty to plan for the future and they need to ensure that their future is sustainable. Whenever a tough issue has to be resolved, apparently it is never the responsibility of Peter Beattie and this state government. Peter Beattie is always calling on other people to make decisions or to pay for things. Nothing demonstrates that better than the second part of the minister's amended motion, which recognises that Queensland has the responsibility to implement controls on land clearing in this state. No-one disputes that. It is inherent in the motion that the minister has moved tonight. However, what does this government want? It wants someone else to pay for it! It wants to have the responsibility but it wants someone else to pay for it. Where else have we seen this? Time and time again when the Premier has a problem in the state he raises the stakes, he raises the issue and then he runs off to Canberra and says, 'Please pay for it.' Every other state in the nation has introduced land clearing controls, but not Queensland. Why? Because we have a Premier who wants someone else to pick up the bill! That is the problem. The government wants to implement this in Queensland, and we agree that it is a state issue, but we believe that the state should provide the funds for compensation. The big problem with the Vegetation Management Bill is that it does not have any compensation regime built into it. The government is asking farmers in rural communities to accept responsibility, to have their own property rights impinged upon and to have the value of their property decreased but to do so without any compensation. The environment is too important for only one section, namely the landowner, to have all the responsibility and bear the cost. It is a community issue and the community should be involved in providing some of the compensation. That is why it is important that the state government comes to the party. Time expired. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (6.29 p.m.): I find it surprising that the original motion should ever have come before this parliament. I will explain to members how the legislation operates with respect to farm forestry and some of the other initiatives of this government in encouraging timber production on private lands, particularly in my own electorate of Burnett, in the area of Miriam Vale, which is a thriving timber plantation part of the world. The Vegetation Management Act was introduced to allow for the control of indiscriminate land clearing across Queensland. I have talked to farmers, land clearers and other people in my electorate, but not one of them could deny the fact that something had to happen. In fact, a very large number of rural land managers already exceed the standards set under the legislation and, without any prompting or financial support from the government, have adopted balanced and sustainable land management practices on their properties. The Beattie government is also committed to promoting sustained timber production on private land. When the Vegetation Management Act was drafted, the definition of 'clearing' was written to expressly exclude 'forestry practices'. This means that no approvals are required for activities that are included as 'forest practices'. Under the act, 'forest practices' include growing and harvesting trees in a plantation, and harvesting and management of native forests in a way that allows the forests to regenerate to their natural condition. The legislation stipulates that these activities must be part of an ongoing forestry business. This is a business that is planning to make recurring income from harvesting trees over a long period. 2 May 2001 Vegetation Management 627

Land-holders seeking eligibility for the forest practices exemption must also ensure that they protect their land from degradation in the form of erosion, rising water tables, salinity and damage to streams. For example, trees should be planted in a contour formation over hilly country rather than in straight lines. These provisions ensure that only those land-holders who are genuinely committed to sustainable farm forestry are eligible for an exemption from the normal approval process. I am advised that this approach has the strong support of the Queensland Timber Board. I understand that its representatives met with the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister for Mines last week and reaffirmed their commitment. Hundreds of land-holders across the state are sustainably managing and harvesting their forests under the arrangements that the Beattie government has now put in place. These land-holders can rest assured that their commitment and foresight in contributing to ongoing, long-term timber supplies is recognised and they can continue unimpeded. If honourable members talk to the sleeper cutters in my area they will hear them say that they have no problems. Since the act has come into force they have seen no difference in their normal run of business. It is important to know that the Beattie government is not resting on its laurels when it comes to farm forestry and that there are a range of activities designed to support and assist growers. Three main Beattie government initiatives in this area are the development of the Queensland forest practices system, the ongoing implementation of the landmark South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement and the facilitation of carbon credits for forestry. Another major initiative of the Beattie government, which is part of the South-East Queensland Regional Forest Agreement, is the funding of the establishment of 5,000 hectares of hardwood plantations, much of which will be on private land. Every major player of the hardwood plantation industry currently doing business in Australia will be in the Miriam Vale area in my electorate within 18 months. In approximately five years' time they will actually run out of land. In my particular electorate it is a growth industry. These core plantations and the renewed interest in commercial plantations by forestry investment companies also have positive flow-on effects to the farm forestry sector in Queensland. Benefits include greater awareness and understanding of forestry as a viable and sustainable land use, the availability of a more skilled and enduring work force and the development of the critical mass of plantations to attract the interests of the processing sector. There are now in excess of 20,000 hectares of hardwood plantations in Queensland, most of which are on private land. This is more than double what was planted in 1995, and plantations will continue to grow as Queensland continues to attract local, interstate and overseas forestry companies to invest in growing commercial plantations. Time expired. Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (6.34 p.m.): I rise to support the original motion. I do so because inherent in the RFA and the vegetation legislation introduced by this government and passed by the parliament is the unstated assumption that farmers and graziers are not responsible custodians of their land, land which they hold in trust for later generations. Further, this government assumes that the judgments concerning what is responsible land use have to be made by bureaucrats—bureaucrats who infrequently leave their offices. The current bureaucracy in Queensland is short of experienced, practical, resource-use practitioners. Henry Nix, now Professor of Environmental Studies at the Australian National University, started his life as part of a grazing family. Then he became a soil scientist, mapping and planning a significant section of the brigalow scheme. He has never stopped reviewing the progress of land development in Australia. He is a member of the world Chernobyl committee, the world ozone layer committee and so on. Thus, he is respected world wide by genuine conservationists. A major study by Henry Nix in the last few years has identified that the majority—80 per cent—of land degradation caused by farming and grazing occurred in the first 30 years of settlement. That degradation occurred because our forefathers farmed in the manner to which they were accustomed in Europe. Undoubtedly they made some mistakes which we have to rectify. This legislation impacts on our current farmers and graziers. Essentially it denies that our farmers have learned anything about conservation and land care since settlement. I personally find that insulting, as do all responsible land users. When a government makes such an assumption about its constituents then that government should not be surprised when its legislation is not well received or implemented. As Bill Burrows, a deservedly respected woodlands scientist, says, politicians come and go but good science remains forever. Bill has developed 628 Vegetation Management 2 May 2001 management tools that define rapidly and accurately how many trees should be retained on any site in Queensland to maximise grazing productivity and sustainability of herbage and tree cover. Throughout south-east Queensland there are grazing families who have concurrently nurtured and sold trees and cattle. They are often equally reliant on both sawlogs and beef for their income. Over the years—often over three generations—their production of both end products has improved substantially and they have halted and even reversed any degradation that had occurred before they assumed custodianship. Often their land borders land owned by the Queensland forestry department. Only a fence separates them from Forestry owned land, but they sustainably outproduce Forestry by a factor of three to four times. I am not saying that older Queensland Forestry field officers do not appreciate the positive impacts of silviculture, but they have had their maintenance budgets so savagely cut that they are embarrassed by the state of many native forest estates. Whilst I am talking about the Queensland forestry department, I have to mention the fact that private land-holders have to maintain their land free from noxious weeds but the forestry department does not. Groundsel, lantana and rat-tail grass flourish in many exotic pine plantations and infest adjoining privately owned land. Thus, land controlled by this presumptuous government is allowed to exist in a degraded state for which private land-holders are fined. I have repeatedly invited members of the government to visit some of these silvicultured properties with me, but never—not ever—has any government member had the coverage or the genuine interest to come. Today I repeat that invitation to the new members of the government. Surely amongst 66 there will be somebody who is interested. I am a member of the regional vegetation committee which extends from Cooloola to Miriam Vale, which will meet for the first time within the next couple of weeks. By the number of phone calls I am receiving, particularly from the Miriam Vale district, the land-holders in that area are anything but happy and anything but relaxed about this legislation. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (6.39 p.m.): When the minister moved the amendment, which I support, to the motion earlier tonight, he talked about the vegetation management system put in place in Queensland by this government, the reduction in the clearing of trees and the impact that that has had across the state. As a government, we understand that there will always be some losers when the government implements change—in this case, much-needed change. However, the reality of life is that some people are affected by change. There are also many positive things which come as a result of decisions of government such as this. For example, responsible vegetation management has a major role to play in the reduction of greenhouse emissions through an international carbon credit scheme. In Queensland, the key sources of greenhouse emissions are from rural land use activities such as emissions from tree clearing and livestock as well as our lifestyle patterns, in particular high energy use and transport. Because we are a can-do government, cabinet recently approved the preparation of the Forestry Act Amendment Bill 2001, which will allow Queensland to take advantage of a range of opportunities associated with carbon credits. A lot of interest is being taken in carbon credits around Queensland at the moment. My office has had quite a few inquiries about it. A carbon credit is an amount of credit stored or sequestered in a carbon sink such as a forest plantation which can be used by governments or industry to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. There are two ways in which vegetation management links to carbon credits. Firstly, it can be linked as formally sold carbon credits. This will generally only apply to new sources of carbon such as new plantations and farm forestry, with the credits sold through an emissions trading system. This offers opportunities that the rural sector is already considering in both formal forestry and increased farm forestry. Secondly, carbon credits can also be associated with the reduced emissions that come with a reduced rate of tree clearing. While people currently talk about carbon and carbon credits, we have not yet legally recognised carbon, making any formal transactions difficult. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the Forestry Act takes a critical step in actually recognising carbon as a tradeable commodity. The proposed amendments seek to set the legislative framework for commercial dealings between landowners and industry in carbon absorbed or stored by trees and other vegetation on freehold land in Queensland. Under the amendments, landowners will be able to register carbon credit trading agreements on their land title. With the introduction of any future emissions trading scheme, high emitters such as energy industries would have to purchase credits while groups which could generate such credits, in particular rural producers and forest growers, would have a strong market on which to sell. 2 May 2001 Vegetation Management 629

There are also a number of potential economic and ecological benefits to Queensland from such a scheme. For our energy industries, purchasing carbon credits created through a carbon sink is often seen as the most cost-effective option for offsetting greenhouse emissions. For landowners and forest growers, a carbon credit trading scheme may mean a new source of income, a new source of funding environmental restoration works and sustainable soil and land management activities, together with improved agriculture and land management practices and environmental benefits such as reduced land degradation, reduced salinity and enhanced biodiversity—all of which are important things to landowners who are switched on and interested in managing their land in a sustainable way. While an international scheme is yet to be ratified, the Beattie government is ensuring that the legislative structure is in place so Queensland landowners and industry have the opportunity to participate in a carbon credit trading scheme in the future. The first step for Queensland in establishing a carbon credit trading scheme is ensuring the legal recognition of a carbon right and clarifying the contractual mechanisms that can be used to trade in those carbon rights. By recognising carbon credits, we are already generating national and international interest in our carbon. Queensland rural industries are also looking at how they may move to capture such opportunities. It is all very exciting. It is out there and it is happening. While these opportunities depend to some degree on future developments such as the establishment of an international trading system and the final form of international greenhouse agreements, major industries are already taking action in anticipation of such moves. The Forestry Act Amendment Bill 2001 will ensure that Queensland stands poised to participate in an international carbon credit trading scheme and fully exploits such opportunities. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): It seriously saddens me to sit in this parliament tonight to listen to this debate about the Vegetation Management Act once again when so many speakers obviously do not understand the issues or the legislation. We have heard contributions tonight from both sides of the House from people who are totally confused, totally mixed up and who do not understand this legislation. That is because of the way in which this legislation was forced through the House by the ideologically-driven previous minister who made no attempt to introduce workable legislation but introduced legislation which was ideologically driven and which, and I say this quite genuinely, has left the current minister with a huge job to make it work. The current minister has a huge job. The confusion in the House tonight reflects the confusion in the general community. It reflects the confusion by not only land-holders but also officers within the department who are responsible for making this legislation workable. They are just as confused as members of this House as to what this legislation involves and what this legislation requires of land-holders. I am not going to debate the legislation tonight. I have spoken a sufficient number of times in this House to place on the record my thoughts about the Vegetation Management Act. Given the result of the state election, the government has the mandate. The minister's responsibility is to make the legislation workable. The member for Nanango moved this motion tonight. The National Party supports the motion, particularly parts (2) and (3), which are the basic tenets of the arguments we have put in relation to the Vegetation Management Act right from the very beginning. We have argued that land-holders have to be paid compensation for loss of revenue. Mr Robertson: That's our argument, too. Mr SEENEY: The government should put some money in. I am sorry I have only five minutes to speak in the debate tonight, because I would like to deal in detail with the comments the minister made about the money that the state government has made available to this process. In short, the facts of the matter are that the state government has not paid one dollar in compensation. It has not addressed the compensation issue. The figure of $111 million that the minister uses relates to the departmental budget costs involved. Absolutely nothing has been contributed towards the core issue of compensation. However, time does not allow me to explore that fully. The minister and the member for Burnett are right when they say that the commercial sale of timber is allowable under the Vegetation Management Act. It clearly is. The problem is that the minister's officers and the community do not know that. The problem is that land-holders are confused about it. That confusion gives rise to land-holders coming into my electorate office and the electorate office of the member for Nanango feeling anger, frustration and contempt for the 630 Vegetation Management 2 May 2001 vegetation management legislation. That is the problem. That is the reason this motion has been moved tonight. The departmental officers are confused and, in turn, people are confused. They get angry and then go and see their local member. Anybody who does not have an intimate knowledge of the legislation does not know what the situation is. That is the challenge for the minister, that is, to make sure in the first place that his department is administering the legislation properly, and it simply is not at the moment. It does not understand it. Different people are giving different advice. I can bring to the attention of this parliament any number of examples of that. However, the bottom line is that we will support the member for Nanango's motion because of parts (2) and (3). We cannot support the government's amendment, simply because it talks about the success of this legislation. This legislation has not succeeded, because it has not been accepted by the land-holding community. It has not been properly administered by the department, because the department itself does not understand it. It was introduced by a minister who demonised the land-holders of Queensland and made no attempt to make a reasonable approach to the federal government for the compensation that they deserve. Time expired. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (6.50 p.m.): Before drafting the Vegetation Management Act, the state government undertook extensive consultation with stakeholders throughout Queensland. It also discussed the issues with a wide range of interest groups, both at the state and regional levels. No previous government has ever had the courage to take such a contentious issue to the people in this way. Following this consultation, the first Beattie government established a comprehensive vegetation management framework to achieve the sustainable management of native vegetation across Queensland. This framework covers all land tenures in Queensland and aims to achieve— the ecologically sustainable development of land; the protection of biodiversity and other environmental and social values; and planning certainty for land-holders, industry and the community. To achieve these goals, a number of strategies have been put in place. These include— laws and policies regulating where clearing can occur; information and educational programs to help land-holders achieve good land management practices; and a planning regime to provide a blueprint for actions at property and regional levels. I wish to concentrate on this last point as it shows that the government remains committed to an open process of consultation aimed at achieving practical outcomes. The Vegetation Management Act 1999 requires the development of regional vegetation management plans to cover all areas of the state. These plans give the opportunity to recognise the diversity of Queensland's landscapes and land uses. The plans will give land-holders and community and industry groups the opportunity to develop agreed solutions to specific vegetation management issues in their area. The plans will draw on local experience, scientific knowledge and the extensive planning work already done in other regional, catchment and local government plans. Across the state, 20 plans will be developed based on the bioregions of Queensland. Each plan will set directions for vegetation management in its region. They will be based on specific objectives for each region that reflect state vegetation management policies. They will record the location, type and conservation status of vegetation within the region, including areas of high nature conservation value and areas vulnerable to land degradation. Areas will be identified that should be retained or managed in a particular way. The plans will also contain regional guidelines and codes for assessing vegetation clearing applications within the region. This regional approach allows locally relevant issues, such as weed management, salinity control and management of regrowth to be addressed in a practical way. In addition, this regional information will give land-holders additional resources and improve their capacity to undertake individual property planning. Regional vegetation management plans are being developed by regional vegetation management committees and associated working groups. Planning groups are made up of representatives of key regional stakeholders and community representatives. The make-up of each group was determined after extensive consultation. The groups are supported by technical 2 May 2001 Adjournment 631 reference panels and will be provided with the best available data and information to assist their decision-making processes. Already 10 planning groups have embarked on the development of their plans. The remaining groups will start shortly. When fully operational, this regional planning initiative will involve over 300 community members across the state. These groups will be drawing on all relevant planning work previously done in their area, in particular, on the valuable work done by stakeholders in the development of local tree-clearing guidelines for leasehold land. Regional vegetation management plans will be completed within two years. I am confident that the regional vegetation management planning process provides Queensland land-holders with robust, scientifically based planning instruments. These instruments have been developed in consultation with the community, which gives them certainty and confidence in the planning and sustainable management of native vegetation on their properties. It will ensure that the approach adopted by the government remains practical and relevant. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Teller: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 21—Copeland, E. Cunningham, Flynn, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Kingston, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Lester, Springborg Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.00 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Vessel Monitoring Systems Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—Ind) (7.01 p.m.): I rise to identify an area of current legislation which is being applied in a manner that prevents some fishermen from working. It prevents them from working even when they have the correct licences to work within certain fisheries. I refer to the legislation which requires otter trawlers to have a vessel monitoring system installed and operative, except in Moreton Bay. The legislation does not recognise that a percentage of boats operate under a variety of licences. For instance, I have in my electorate a fisherman with a T1 licence which has not been used a great deal for some years. Thus, until he has a VMS he cannot engage in otter trawling. That is fair. But he also has net, crab, line and beam trawl licences. Each of these licences has its attached rights and regulations. A high percentage of fishing under these licences is done from tenders, which are usually aluminium hulls around 16 to 18 feet in length—without VMSs. These tenders fishing under crab, net and line licences do not require the installation of a VMS. But currently, when the primary vessel has a T1 licence the owner cannot utilise his tenders and his crab, line and net licences unless he has a VMS. Why? VMSs were initially introduced to monitor the scallop fishery effort, or pressure, on a resource about which not much was known. The VMS was then introduced to prawn trawlers using otter trawls. The fisherman to whom I am referring does not have a trawler winch or a trawl net. He will have to use his other licences for a long time before he can afford to buy a winch and a trawl, let alone a VMS. Currently the stripe—or the set pocket net fishery—within the Mary River is starting to run. Stripe fishing is a static process. This particular fisherman wants to attach his primary vessel between his two stripes. His prawn cooker and his icebox are permanent fixtures, but the fisherman cannot fish legally until he has a VMS, even in fisheries which do not require a VMS. Thus, this fisherman is prevented from fishing. He is prevented from improving his financial position by this all-inclusive legislation. If he fishes he can be prosecuted. His other option is to apply for unemployment benefits. 632 Adjournment 2 May 2001

All thinking people would applaud the Premier's jobs, jobs, jobs mantra, but it is obvious that his enthusiasm has not penetrated through to the growing bureaucratic layer. I say to the Premier that overzealous bureaucrats are knocking down his building blocks. Time expired.

Schizophrenia Fellowship, Gold Coast Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (7.04 p.m.): I draw to the attention of the House the problems encountered by the Schizophrenia Fellowship on the Gold Coast in its efforts to establish a clubhouse at Southport. This project is designed to assist people with a mental illness, their carers and health professionals. It is based on a model proven for over 50 years to be of worth and which is presently operating in 15 other countries. It aims to empower people to achieve a better quality of life in a non-institutionalised environment. The fellowship's efforts to establish this very worthwhile and essential community project have been frustrated and, indeed, jeopardised by the irrational, obstructive and bloody-minded behaviour of one councillor on the Gold Coast City Council, Councillor Crichlow. In 1998 an application was made for funding under the federal government's Centenary of Federation Community Projects Program, and $100,000 was granted. The federal member for Moncrieff obtained a verbal indication that council would provide land for the project at Owen Park, and application was made for a lease. Members of the fellowship were told by Councillor Crichlow that they were not wanted in Owen Park, and the efforts to frustrate and delay the project began. When the application for a lease was considered, Councillor Crichlow called for a management plan for Owen Park. There were already at least six other organisations at the park and, as a result, the fellowship lost an opportunity to purchase a suitable house. This was one of three similar opportunities lost due to delay. In October 2000 council approved a site for the Schizophrenia Fellowship at Owen Park. However, in an effort to further frustrate the project, Councillor Crichlow had a half basketball court constructed on the site. The basketball court is illegal as it is located under powerlines, which the Schizophrenia Fellowship agreed to relocate at a cost of $15,000. This person, who pays lip- service to openness and accountability, did this without advising council. When council was made aware of the half court, it censured Councillor Crichlow and resolved that the half court be removed. As usual, Councillor Crichlow conducts her campaign through the media. The Weekend Bulletin of 17 February carried photos of teenagers allegedly protesting over the loss of the basketball court. I have been there on six occasions, including during school holidays, and I have never seen anyone there. Further protests and delays are expected, and if this project is not completed by the end of the year the funding will be lost for an important project that would be of great value to the community. The fellowship has tried to keep a low profile throughout this sorry saga and has chosen not to respond to the many inflammatory, discriminatory and misleading statements made publicly and through the media. Councillor Crichlow's irrational and vindictive campaign has delayed and jeopardised the project and put the fellowship through unnecessary inconvenience and expense.

Volunteer Coastguard Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (7.07 p.m.): This government's lack of regard for human life is frustrating the residents of Cardwell and the efforts of the volunteer coastguard to keep the area surrounding Hinchinbrook Island safe. For over four years I have fought for the coastguard to get a VHF repeater station in the Hinchinbrook Island area. There is a definite need for action on this project as quickly as possible to protect the lives of the local boaters and future tourists to the area. The lack of cooperation I have had from the government on this issue is unbelievable. For two and a half years officers of the Environmental Protection Agency, under the supervision of the former Minister for Environment and Heritage, the Honourable Rod Welford, have evaluated the proposal under section 35 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992. What kind of incompetent staff did the minister have? Two and a half years for one aspect of a report! This VHF repeater station needs to go ahead for the safety of the local community and tourists, as well as the members of the coastguard who patrol the waters in that area. With no 2 May 2001 Adjournment 633 radio transmission or mobile phone coverage in many regions of the island area, a number of rescues have occurred by sheer luck through people being spotted by passers-by. Alternatively, organised rescues have taken unnecessarily large lengths of time to conduct due to communications difficulties. Parts of the Hinchinbrook area are troubled by radio shadow, which does not allow airwaves to be transmitted. This is a very dangerous situation as there is no way of calling for help. It is only a matter of time before an unnecessary death occurs because of communications problems that could be fixed simply. The Cardwell coastguard wants to put a nine-metre whip aerial on Goold Island. This aerial would improve VHF transmissions in the Hinchinbrook area, allowing better communications with the coastguard. Goold Island is the second choice site for the aerial. The first preference, Mount Bowen on Hinchinbrook Island, was rejected by the Environment Department because of aesthetic concerns it held for the island. This, however, is no reason to risk people's lives. Many options were proposed to fix this concern, including disguising the aerial as an artificial tree. Because the top of Mount Bowen is 3,000 feet high and covered by cloud for 200 days of the year, this seemed like a reasonable suggestion. Lives are at risk in the Hinchinbrook region. Communications need to be established so that rescues can be undertaken quickly and effectively. This is a very important issue in the region. Time expired.

Marae Gardens Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (7.10 p.m.): On the weekend it was my great pleasure to attend a New Zealand cultural arts awareness workshop which was organised and hosted by the Marae Gardens on Glasshouse Mountains Road at Beerburrum. Over 100 Maori people attended the workshop, which focused on the traditional arts of painting, dancing and singing while also dealing with aspects of cultural healing and storytelling. The organisers felt it was very important to provide local Maoris with a centre where they can unite as a people. Some Maoris have lost contact with their culture and some of the younger ones have not had the chance to experience it. The Marae Gardens are giving them that opportunity. A Marae is traditionally a sacred area of land where ceremonies and gatherings take place. A typical Marae consists of a meeting house, dining hall and amenities building. I have been watching the Marae take shape over the past couple of years and it is truly wonderful to see the developments that have taken place. I believe it is the first Marae to be built in Australia. So far the administration area has been renovated and is fully functional, as is the studio. The gardens are well established and there is a lovely open meeting area just near the water. The main building, where formal gatherings will take place, the Whare Nui, is being built by respected volunteers and will be a sacred place where people can come in peace with formality, respect and dignity. I felt very honoured to be welcomed to the site by the respected elder Dawn Webster and after our discussions I will be encouraging the local community to become closely involved with Marae Gardens. Can I tell members what a delight it was to be invited to the traditional hangi feast after the day's activities. The men had spent many hours preparing and tending the pit in which was laid baskets of chicken, pork and vegetables. The baskets were covered with wet sacks and then covered with soil and cooked for many hours. Some wonderful volunteers who ensured we were all well provided for served the meal. The atmosphere was relaxed and happy, with many hearty conversations taking place amongst all the generations that were there. It was also good to be at a venue which promotes a smoke free and alcohol free lifestyle. On speaking with the organisers of the awareness workshop, it was interesting to discuss the future plans for the Marae at Beerburrum. On completion, it is planned that the Marae will be the Australian head office of the Marae Constituencies of the Indigenous Cultural Alliance of Australia and New Zealand and it will also act as a focus point for Maori and other indigenous activities, including spiritual and ecclesiastical services. It will be adapted for use in a manner that enables it to accommodate people of all cultures and races, thereby operating as a multicultural meeting place. I can see the great benefits the Marae will bring to the local community not only from the social, cultural and multicultural aspects but also as a drawcard for the region as it will encourage 634 Adjournment 2 May 2001 many visitors and tourists to the area. I look forward to a long and close association with Marae Gardens and its many supporters and thank them and their respected elders for their vision. Time expired.

Youth Discipline Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (7.13 p.m.): I speak in connection with youth discipline. Today we have developed a significant youth subculture which in itself represents a significant threat to our society for the sole reason that few seem willing to face and address the main thrust of why this might have occurred. I recall a time years ago when in schools, at home and in public youth were respectful towards their elders and those in authority. At this point I can almost hear the baying mob screaming that the right of these people to demand such respect was abused by those abusing these youth. Yes, of course authority was abused. It always has been, is, and always will be. The problem is that our response to this abuse has caused the pendulum to swing to the other end of the scale. We never seem to be able to balance the scales. We have a growing community of academic trendies, frequently without children themselves, who have taken it upon themselves to educate us as to how we should bring up our young. I have heard suggestion that prospective parents should compulsorily undergo some kind of certificate course before being given a licence to breed. Certainly there appears to be a very real trend towards the extension of certification to grandparents, whom it is alleged are out of touch with modern trends of child rearing. Out of touch by whose standards? I have been labelled as some kind of radical who people say supports the use of force against our innocent young. To that I say: yes, I do. To these people I say: please wake up to reality. Violence is at times okay. Research your legislation. It is written into our Criminal Code that the application of force can be authorised, justified or otherwise excused by law. It is argued that the application of force to the person of a child merely reinforces that child's view that all violence is okay. That argument holds no more value than the view that the violence displayed in the cartoon Road Runner or others of a similar nature cause children to do the same things in real life. Yes, I was subjected to physical discipline as a child, as were both my son and daughter, who would happily face any inquiry into their upbringing and testify that any force applied to them was done, as I have previously said, with love and justice. They are wonderful children, well adjusted and with a very close and loving relationship with their mother and me. I am certain that they realise the value of their upbringing which they will carry on in any families they rear. Our Lord did not have governments and government departments in mind when he gave humans the ability to raise children. Society has created the difficulties that parents face by failing to back up a parent's natural authority. I wholeheartedly agree that we must be eternally vigilant against the worst excesses of abuse of authority. However, the right way to do this is not to ban this form of control altogether but to gradually reintroduce the kind of society where parents or other care providers have time to provide proper guidance and control rather than frustration at the pace of our lives today, which encourages a less than considered approach to the problem of sometimes recalcitrant children. There are those children who have been previously abused with excesses of discipline and I acknowledge in these cases where clearly traditional discipline has failed that the parents or others need to adjust the focus of their attempts. In closing, I have identified a need to encourage realistic debate. Time expired.

Anzac Day Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (7.16 p.m.): The day 25 April 2001 was certainly one to be remembered. With record crowds at all of the services it was proof of the importance of Anzac Day to all Australians. In my own electorate of Mount Ommaney I attended three services. The dawn service at the Kokoda Stone at Corinda was real evidence that the enthusiasm for our war heroes is increasing. 2 May 2001 Adjournment 635

Over 400 people marched on that morning, while hundreds more looked on. I was proud to participate in the march with our returned soldiers. These individuals are becoming more and more precious. Look into the future 20 years on; will we still be commemorating Anzac Day when they are gone? Yes, I think the tradition will be carried on by our youth and the families of ex- servicemen and women. At 8 a.m. I was honoured to be part of the official ceremony to unveil the new Centenary war memorial. Locals have waited eight years for this memorial to be constructed in the heart of the Centenary suburbs. Things started to happen two years ago despite the odds against us. As in wartime, people came together, and during the past few months leading up to Anzac Day we realised the dream. I thank the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing for his assistance in this matter by providing a practical solution to the issue. Q-Build stonemasons were commissioned to carve the stone and the result was simple but magnificent. The Centenary War Memorial Gardens committee led by Don Robinson, the newly formed RSL and local businesses including Western Suburbs Landscaping ensured that the stone had appropriate surroundings for the day of commemoration. The short half-hour ceremony was absolutely inspiring. This was due to the presence of some 50 members of the new Centenary Suburbs RSL sub-branch and about 250 spectators. The returned soldiers looked resplendent and proud to be there at a local ceremony dedicated to their efforts in valour. At 10.30 a.m. ex-servicemen and women and their families marched to Oxley Memorial Place to hear an address by Cadet Under Officer Steven Hunt. This ceremony was also well received and supported by the local community. Prior to Anzac Day several schools in the electorate of Mount Ommaney held special events commemorating Anzac Day. Corinda State High School, Middle Park State School and Corinda State Primary School invited guests from the armed services to honour the men and women who served our country during all the wars. It is important for children to appreciate our history in order to know the sacrifices made so that we can live in relative peace in the future. The fall-out of wartime still continues, with families indirectly suffering the trauma of past war and killing. I believe that all veterans of war have been scarred psychologically to some extent, but some of the worst to suffer are the Vietnam veterans and their families. There are many who have difficulty adjusting to normal life, with nightmares of war recurring. Families, particularly wives, want to support them but have no support themselves. It is time that the federal government made up for the difficulties which have been endured over the years. Time expired.

Nambour Hospital Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (7.19 p.m.): I rise to talk about an issue of great concern to the Sunshine Coast and certainly to members of my electorate, and that is this dispute that has arisen with doctors and other staff at Nambour Hospital over their concerns and frustrations about staff shortages and their very understandable anger when the Health Minister spoke out publicly saying that they were grandstanding and that their concerns were nonsense. Dr Roger Morris said that in the past year about 12 specialists have resigned from Nambour because they were frustrated by funding and staff shortages and a culture of contempt in Queensland Health. However, the Health Minister said that the Beattie government could not get specialists and that therefore it was going to start recruiting from overseas. The concern these doctors are raising is that 12 specialists have resigned. I know that the government is very vulnerable on this matter. However, at the end of the day it has a dangerous majority. We have seen by the Health Minister's response that she believes she can say anything and insult anybody. We have a situation whereby in some fields, such as orthopaedics and vascular surgery, there is such a desperate shortage of surgeons that people who cannot afford to go outside the public health system are really suffering. This Health Minister's response has been one of arrogance and dismissal of those concerns. People who are willing to work and want to work at that hospital say that they are not being listened to, that they have been insulted and that for years they have tried to resolve the issues with the minister but when they raise these issues publicly her answer is to ignore them. I ask that 636 Adjournment 2 May 2001

Premier Beattie intervene in the situation, because the picture that is becoming clearer is that, particularly since the election, if someone does not agree with this Health Minister she is willing to make very vindictive personal attacks and use other people who are useful to her cause in continuing that process of vindictive attacks. At the end of the day, the people who are losing out are those who do not always have a voice, and they are the staff in these hospitals who can be sacked if they speak out. That is why this government does not like those people in the hospital system or on the staff who have some autonomy, who are not totally dependent upon the pay packets provided by the public hospital and who speak out, because when they speak out they are also speaking out for those other staff who will be sacked if they do so. I have talked to those other staff who are distressed. When they raise these issues through the official channels, they are fobbed off. I believe that this Health Minister must listen to their concerns. Premier Beattie must intervene and listen to their concerns. When 12 specialists leave a hospital, something is wrong. Time expired.

Conningsby State School Centenary of Federation Celebrations Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (7.22 p.m.): Recently I had the great honour of being a guest at Conningsby State School's Centenary of Federation celebrations, at which I encountered a classic example of the capacity of our young people to combine the lessons of the past with the potential of the information age to create knowledge and understanding. Under the expert tutorage of Principal Barbara Riddel, the school's year 4 to year 7 students set out to mark the Centenary of Federation in their own unique way. Through negotiation it was decided that they would design and construct a federation arch at the entrance to their school grounds. The students set about researching, designing and making architectural drawings of their preferred arch, which were then presented to the P&C in a funding submission. The P&C President, Graham Andrews, confided in me that his committee was so impressed with the quality of the design presentation that it had little choice but to agree to the funding request. Although assistance was received from community members to actually construct the timber and lattice arch, the children were responsible for obtaining quotes and ordering materials. They also acted as tradesmen's assistants during the construction phase. It was at this stage that many of the mathematical concepts that had escaped them in the classroom took on real significance. Of course, like any really good idea, the construction of the arch was only the beginning for these students. Plans were soon hatched to have a ceremonial planting of climbing plants that would grow and cover the arch. Again, the students used research skills to determine the most suitable and desirable type of plant for their situation. In addition, it was decided to bury a time capsule beside the new arch. It was my great pleasure to assist the school's youngest student, Jack Burgess, to bury the time capsule. It was an interesting exercise for these young people to contemplate what the world would be like 25 years from now, when the capsule is due to be unearthed. What impressed me most about the Centenary of Federation celebrations at Conningsby State School was the level of ownership displayed by the students. This was not some grandiose project dreamed up by the teachers to win accolades from the parent community; rather, it was a culminating activity of a negotiated curriculum that clearly centred on the development of rich tasks in which the students navigated their own course towards meaningful educational outcomes. Further evidence of the excellent teaching and learning environment at the school was found in the classroom displays set up by the students for our enjoyment. The students had worked in teams to research, design and produce such varied projects as PowerPoint presentations that examined the history of Federation, plays that had been written around the Federation theme and a collection of 14 magnificent replica Federation arches that were constructed entirely out of recycled materials. I congratulate the principals, staff and students of Conningsby State School on the wholehearted way in which they have sought to celebrate the Centenary of Federation and also 2 May 2001 Adjournment 637 for the enthusiastic way in which they have embraced genuine outcomes-based education through a negotiated curriculum. Time expired.

Aboriginal Police Liaison Officers Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—Ind) (7.25 p.m.): I wish to draw the attention of the House to the need for two Aboriginal liaison officers for the town of Dalby. On many occasions I have spent time with Senior Sergeant Peter Bailey, who, I might add, has a very soft and caring heart towards our Aboriginal people. It is his plea to have the Aboriginal liaison officers to work with the Dalby police from the Dalby Police Station. The application had been made through the normal police channels in late 1999. Previous applications had been made in 1998. The application was supported by the then district inspector and was also, as a result of correspondence from the Dalby Town Council, re-enforced by the district officer at Dalby in October 2000. There has been a significant impact on police resources in the Dalby area due to the increase in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. In terms of population, in 1998 there were 450 Aboriginal and Islander people; in 1999 there were 600; in 2000 there were 700; and in 2001 there are 800. There has been support for the appointment of the PLOs from Tony Doolan, solicitor of the Wakka Wakka Legal Aboriginal Corporation; Gary White, the CEO of the Goolburri Regional Housing Co-op; the Dalby-Wambo Chamber of Commerce; the Dalby Town Council; Mayor Bob Wilde of the Wambo Shire Council; and Goondir Health Services. Local support agencies such as the Dalby Crisis Support Association have provided figures that indicate that there has been an increase in service requests to the organisation by members of the local ATSI community. They want these people. We need them. The issue of domestic violence is of concern in that there is the perception in the ATSI community that violence is accepted as a normal part of their everyday lives. Events such as Domestic Violence Prevention Week within the ATSI community have raised the profile of the subject, increasing the applications for protection orders. However, support for the victims should be improved. The provision of the police liaison officers would assist in this regard. I have met these people. They are good people. There is also evidence that violent behaviour in the home is being passed on to school-age children, with a number of incidents involving threats and actual violence between ATSI schoolchildren and Caucasian schoolchildren being reported. In turn, this creates social disharmony in that there is a feeling of lawlessness in the community and schools, which is of concern as the general public expect and demand that their children be free from threatening behaviour whilst they are at school. Police liaison officers from Toowoomba, Murgon and Goondiwindi are used regularly in Dalby when events that attract a large population of ATSI people are held. When the events are attended by PLOs there is never any trouble reported and there is a marked decrease in antisocial behaviour, which satisfies the local community that a successful event has been conducted. Police liaison officers have a very positive effect on managing relations between the police, the indigenous community and the public at large. Time expired.

Collinsville Museum Mr RODGERS (Burdekin—ALP) (7.28 p.m.): I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the people of Collinsville in their wisdom have decided to try to build a Collinsville museum—a north Queensland miners' museum for the workers in the mining industry. I believe that over the years workers in the mining industry have not received recognition for the work that they have done. Coalmining began in the Collinsville region in 1919, with mines designed to produce 5,000 tonnes of coal per week. Currently, over 80 years later, those seams are producing not 5,000 but 50,000 tonnes of coal per week. During the period that mining has taken place in Collinsville, tragic losses of life have occurred. On the other hand, record tonnages have been produced and product quality has been improved. Also, a fierce competitiveness has sprung up in the community, especially on the sporting fields. Unfortunately, with high-risk enterprises there are 638 Adjournment 2 May 2001 many low points, and the worst of those is the loss of life that can occur. Coalmining is an unforgiving environment and people do suffer. I believe that the coalminers should be recognised for the work that they have done. The Genesis Production company has been commissioned for preliminary development of the North Queensland Miners Museum. It has been commissioned by people within the community who have the interests of the mining community at heart, not only in Collinsville but throughout Queensland and Australia. They want the contributions of those communities to be recognised. The museum will be based on realistic animations that depict mining life. Mining displays and tracks with horse-drawn carts will highlight some of the actual features of mining life. The displays will be realistic. The museum will not be all static. People will be able to gain an insight into the full working conditions that have operated in the mines over the years. The museum will highlight to future generations of Australians what our miners of the past have put up with to achieve what the miners of today have. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.32 p.m.