PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Tuesday, 24 May 2005

PRIVILEGE ...... 1489 Conduct of Member for Darling Downs ...... 1489 PRIVILEGE ...... 1489 Comments by Attorney-General ...... 1489 RULES OF THE HOUSE ...... 1489 PETITIONS ...... 1490 PAPERS ...... 1491 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ...... 1492 Report ...... 1492 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1492 Member for Bundaberg ...... 1492 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1492 Queensland Girl Guides ...... 1492 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1493 International Conventions ...... 1493 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1493 Tourism and Aviation Industries ...... 1493 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1494 Freedom of Information Act ...... 1494 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1495 Community Cabinet, Sunshine Coast ...... 1495 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1497 Health System ...... 1497 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1502 Orthopaedic Services, Fraser Coast ...... 1502 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1503 Mental Health Services ...... 1503 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1503 Citrus Canker ...... 1503 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1503 Alvarez, Ms V ...... 1503

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2005 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 24 May 2005

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 1504 Report ...... 1504 OVERSEAS TRAVEL ...... 1504 Report ...... 1504 DISSENT FROM MR ACTING SPEAKER’S RULING ...... 1504 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 1504 Health System ...... 1504 Curtin, Mr JJ MP ...... 1505 Health System ...... 1505 YMCA Youth Parliament ...... 1505 Health System ...... 1506 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 1506 Patel, Dr J ...... 1506 The Health Report 2003 ...... 1507 Community Cabinet, Sunshine Coast ...... 1508 Overseas Trained Doctors ...... 1509 Dreaming Festival ...... 1509 Toowoomba Health Service, Director of Psychiatry ...... 1510 Education, Capital Grants Funding ...... 1510 Health System ...... 1511 Business Red Tape ...... 1511 Whale Hunting, Japan ...... 1512 Public Housing ...... 1512 Queensland Ambulance Service, Rosters ...... 1513 Street Parties ...... 1513 Queensland Health, Performance Bonuses ...... 1514 Local Government ...... 1515 Dairy Industry ...... 1515 Leukaemia Foundation, Fundraising Walk ...... 1516 Capital Works Projects, Transport and Main Roads ...... 1516 Food Exports, Asia ...... 1517 PRIVILEGE ...... 1517 Member for Noosa ...... 1517 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 1518 Health System ...... 1518 National Sorry Day ...... 1520 Health System ...... 1520 Vegetation Management ...... 1521 Back to Work Parents and Carers Program ...... 1522 Education Funding ...... 1523 Child Safety ...... 1524 Road Infrastructure ...... 1525 Vietnam War; Iraq War ...... 1526 Mareeba Hospital, Maternity Services ...... 1527 Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen ...... 1528 WILD RIVERS BILL ...... 1529 First Reading ...... 1529 Second Reading ...... 1529 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1531 First Reading ...... 1531 Second Reading ...... 1531 TOURISM, FAIR TRADING AND WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1533 Second Reading ...... 1533 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 1534 Morris Inquiry ...... 1534 TOURISM, FAIR TRADING AND WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1536 Second Reading ...... 1536 Consideration in Detail ...... 1558 Third Reading ...... 1559 DEBITS TAX REPEAL BILL ...... 1559 Second Reading ...... 1559 Consideration in Detail ...... 1564 Third Reading ...... 1564 CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1564 First Reading ...... 1564 Second Reading ...... 1565 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 24 May 2005

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1568 Second Reading ...... 1568 Consideration in Detail ...... 1586 Third Reading ...... 1587 DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1587 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 1588 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (PORTABLE LONG SERVICE LEAVE) AMENDMENT BILL ...... 1588 Second Reading ...... 1588 Consideration in Detail ...... 1593 Third Reading ...... 1593 ADJOURNMENT ...... 1594 Alderdice, Mr S ...... 1594 Bloomfield, Ms E ...... 1594 Caloundra, Police Resources ...... 1595 Federal Government, Industrial Relations Reforms ...... 1595 Disability Services, Funding; Ambulance Service, Rostering ...... 1596 Nucrush Quarry Open Day ...... 1596 Low-lying Coastal Areas ...... 1597 Russell Island Rural Fire Station ...... 1597 Booth, Mr F ...... 1598 Hoolihan, Mr A ...... 1598 24 May 2005 Legislative Assembly 1489 TUESDAY, 24 MAY 2005

Legislative Assembly Mr ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. J Fouras, Ashgrove) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

PRIVILEGE

Conduct of Member for Darling Downs Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I refer to an alleged matter of privilege raised by the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing in the House on 22 March and by letter to the Speaker on the same day. I advise that I have considered the matter and decided that the issues raised, even if proven, would not constitute a breach of privilege as there is no proceeding of the House or a committee which has been affected and nor does there appear to be any interference with the rights and privileges of any member. Commissions of inquiry are instruments of the executive arm of government. Any alleged interference with their inquiries or witnesses should be referred to the relevant commission, the Crime and Misconduct Commission or the Queensland Police Service.

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Attorney-General Mr ACTING SPEAKER: On 11 March 2004 the member for Maroochydore wrote to the Speaker alleging that the Attorney-General committed the contempt of deliberately misleading the House during his contribution to a debate in the House on 9 March 2005 about the Information Commissioner. The words of the Attorney-General which form the basis of the member’s complaint are very general; namely— The committee was aware of all the connections, of all the past history, of all the CV of the appointee. The member in her correspondence lists three specific matters that the member alleges the committee was not made aware. The member claims that the omission of these three matters being disclosed to the committee makes the Attorney’s statement deliberately misleading. It may well be correct, as the member alleges, that the committee was not in fact made aware of these three matters. I am, however, unable to determine this precisely from the material before me. However, I am able to state from the material before me, including the minutes of the committee that have been tabled in the House, that the committee was provided with extensive information about, and there was apparently considerable discussion concerning, the appointment process and the applicant’s connections, history and CV. In short, even if the member is correct as to what the committee was not informed about, I find that there is an insufficient basis to demonstrate a prima facie contempt of deliberately misleading the House based on the Attorney-General’s very broad statement. Therefore, I intend to take no further action in respect of this matter.

RULES OF THE HOUSE Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I have come to the conclusion that some honourable members need reminding of some basic, but important, rules of the House. Interrupting other members I draw to the attention of members standing order 251, which provides the general rule that when a member is speaking no other member may converse, make noise or disturbance so as to interrupt the member speaking. There are limited exceptions to this rule. Unfortunately, a number of members seek to use points of order or matters of privilege inappropriately to either interrupt other members or to interrupt the order of business generally. Points of order A point of order is essentially a question as to whether the present proceedings are in order or allowed by the rules of the House or parliamentary procedure generally. An attempt to allegedly correct the record, or allege that another member is misleading the House, or put the member’s own position on a matter, or introduce another topic or material is not a point of order. 1490 Petitions 24 May 2005

A member’s point of view is not a point of order and is merely disorderly. Persistent, deliberately disruptive or frivolous points of order, being disorderly, may result in a member being warned under standing orders 252 to 254. Matters of privilege A genuine matter of privilege suddenly arising may be raised by a member at any time under standing order 248. To satisfy the requirements of standing order 248, a matter must firstly be a matter of privilege and, secondly, it must be a matter that has suddenly arisen and requires immediate redress. The reality is that few matters fall within the definition of a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Matters that may fall into that category include: members being unable or prevented from entering the chamber, strangers being present in the House and interrupting proceedings, or required material not being available for the proceedings. Unfortunately, as with points of order, some members attempt to use matters of privilege to allegedly correct the record, or allege that another member is misleading the House, or put the member’s own position on a matter, or introduce another topic or material. These are not matters of privilege suddenly arising. If any member believes another member has deliberately mislead the House then the most appropriate procedure is to write to the Speaker with all evidence available supporting the allegation. Given statements by the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee about the importance of members correcting their own errors at the earliest opportunity, I will allow members to rise at an appropriate point in proceedings to correct incorrect or misleading statements that they themselves have made in proceedings. I will not allow other members to simply rise and allege a deliberate misleading of the House during the course of business. Persistent, deliberately disruptive or frivolous matters of privilege, being disorderly, may result in a member being warned under standing orders 252 to 254. Language Members need also to remember that standing orders and practice and procedure also prevent unparliamentary language, personal reflections on other members and members addressing each other directly across the chamber. All of these rules are aimed at ensuring civilised debate and questioning on issues rather than personal attacks across the chamber. Unparliamentary language is difficult to define and no exhaustive list of expressions can be provided. Largely, what is unparliamentary by necessity lays in the realm of who is in the chair but, generally, it is any language or expression that is unworthy of the dignity of the House or parliament as an institution. What may be acceptable language in some places outside parliament, indeed may even be common usage in some places or forums, does not necessarily mean it is acceptable in this forum. A further separate matter relates to personal reflections. Standing order 234 provides that imputations of improper motives, personal reflections, unbecoming or offensive words in relation to another member is disorderly. A member has a right to require the withdrawal of such reflections. Generally, if the affected member believes a statement is a reflection, then the chair will require withdrawal and not make an objective assessment. However, I ask members not to consistently wear a glass jaw, as this should be a House of some vigorous debate and often withdrawal is sought in trivial circumstances. I make the observation that often personal reflections are simply unnecessary and distracting. It is an uncreative mind that must use personal reflections in debate, questions or answers. Finally, I remind members that the behaviour of one member in the House reflects on all members. Observers in the public gallery, or those members of the public watching or listening via the TV or the Internet, gain a lasting impression of what they see or hear. I have asked the Acting Deputy Speaker and all temporary speakers to be vigilant, fair and consistent in enforcing the above long-standing rules of the House.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Bore Water, Traveston Miss Roberts from 20 petitioners requesting the House to intervene to prevent the pumping of vast quantities of potable bore water from Traveston for non-rural use.

Water Charges Mr Hobbs from 162 petitioners requesting the House to not impose taxes for licensed water bores and dams as well as the interim $3 per mega litre charge for water harvesting until such time as meaningful consultation has been undertaken with Queensland's water using communities and a social and economic impact study has been conducted to determine the effect of the taxes on water users and their communities. 24 May 2005 Papers 1491

Dental Services, Richmond and Hughenden Mr Knuth from 329 petitioners requesting the House to increase the incentive package to attract suitably qualified dentists to western communities to redress the chronic shortage of dental services in centres such as Richmond and Hughenden. The following honourable member has sponsored an e-petition which is now closed and presented—

Wild Rivers Mr Lee from 1,383 petitioners requesting the House to protect all wild and free flowing rivers that remain in Queensland and detailing eight measures to protect the wild and free flowing rivers.

PAPERS

PAPERS TABLED DURING THE RECESS The Clerk informed the House that the following papers, received during the recess, were tabled on the dates indicated— 13 May 2005— • Board of Teacher Registration—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School—Annual Report 2004, and Appendices A and B • Board of Trustees of Brisbane Girls' Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Rockhampton Girls' Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Townsville Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Toowoomba Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Ipswich Girls' Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Ipswich Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Board of Trustees of Rockhampton Grammar School—Annual Report 2004 • Queensland University of Technology—Annual Report 2004 Volume One and Volume Two • James Cook University—Annual Report 2004 • Central Queensland University—Annual Report 2004 • Griffith University—Annual Report 2004 • The University of Queensland—Annual Report and Appendices 2004 • University of Southern Queensland—Annual Report 2004 • University of the Sunshine Coast—Annual Report 2004 • Response from the Minister for Police and Corrective Services (Ms Spence) to a paper petition presented by Mr McArdle from 3529 petitioners requesting the House to increase the number of police on patrol in the Caboolture region. • Response from the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries (Mr Palaszczuk) to two paper petitions presented by Mrs Sullivan from 2774 and 40 petitioners requesting the House to rezone areas in the Moreton Bay region. • Aboriginal Co-ordinating Council—Annual Report 2004-05 • Marine Incidents—Annual Report for 2004 16 May 2005— • Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice (Mr Welford) to a paper petition presented by Ms Barry from 855 petitioners requesting the House to repeal sections of the Criminal Code to ensure that termination of pregnancy is no longer subject to criminal law 19 May 2005— • Final Government Response from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee Report No. 12 titled The preservation and enhancement of individuals' rights and freedoms in Queensland: Should Queensland adopt a bill of rights? • Final Government Response from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie) to Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee Report No. 46 titled A preamble for the Queensland Constitution? 23 May 2005— • Erratum to the Explanatory Notes for the Freedom of Information and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 tabled on 11 May 2005 • Response from the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (Mrs Keech) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr English from 4980 petitioners regarding amendments to the Liquor Act 1992 imposing lockouts on entertainment venues • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Stuckey from 40 petitioners requesting the House to introduce a control program for the growing population of crows in the south Palm Beach area STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000— • Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 84 and Explanatory Notes Aboriginal Land Act 1991— • Aboriginal Land Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 85 Electricity Act 1994— • Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 86 1492 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005

Plant Protection Act 1989— • Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 87 Community Ambulance Cover Act 2003— • Community Ambulance Cover Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 88 Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— • Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 89 Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000— • Police Powers and Responsibilities Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 90 Tow Truck Act 1973, Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995, Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— • Transport Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 91 Forestry Act 1959, Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Forestry and Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 92 MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie)— • Letter to Acting Speaker (Mr Fouras) from the Premier and Minister for Trade (Mr Beattie), dated 19 May 2005, regarding absence of the Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors (Mr Pitt)

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Report Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (9.40 am): In accordance with section 108 of the Freedom of Information Act, I table a report on the operation of that act for the financial year 2003-04.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Member for Bundaberg Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 am): I have some sad news that I wish to draw to the attention of the House in relation to the member for Bundaberg, the Hon. Nita Cunningham MP. Nita’s husband, Elvin, is very sick at the moment and is currently in Brisbane for medical treatment in a nearby hospital. The honourable member will be in parliament during this sitting where possible, but, of course, will be attending the hospital as required. Despite these difficult and demanding circumstances, the honourable member has made it clear to me—and I now advise the House—that she will be available to appear before the Morris commission of inquiry should that be required. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish Elvin all the best with his treatment and wish both Elvin and Nita all the best for the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Girl Guides Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 am): There are a couple of matters that I wish to report on quickly. Firstly, may I acknowledge State Commissioner for Guides, Lynne Price, and her colleagues who are in the gallery this morning. As we all know, Girl Guides is an organisation that creates safe and friendly environments for children and young people. Today, it is my pleasure to play a role in promoting Guides Week and especially the fundraising for Guides Week—the biscuit appeal. Soon after this I will join with the state members of the Queensland Guides Council—the member for Mount Ommaney, Julie Attwood, the member for Clayfield, Liddy Clark, and the member for Springwood, Barbara Stone—to promote this most worthy cause. I urge all members and indeed all Queenslanders to consider buying these biscuits and supporting Girl Guides. Girl Guides is hoping to raise more than $200,000 this year. They are in the gallery and I want to make sure that they are made to feel most welcome. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Its mission is helping girls and young women grow into confident, self-respecting, responsible community members. It is its community involvement that differentiates Guiding from many other activities available to girls and young women. 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1493

Guides are regular participants in Australia Day, ANZAC Day, Harmony Day and Citizenship events and celebrations across the nation. It has more than 5,500 members in Queensland and there are 10 million girls, young women and women members of the World Association of Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting in 134 countries. Guides were established in Queensland in 1919. And in 1928 it was established as an international organisation to actively fight racism by giving girls the opportunity to learn about other countries and make friends with girls from around the world. The multicultural appeal of this is excellent and consistent with what my government is endeavouring to do here in Queensland. Through Guides girls are given the opportunity to work with leaders on a weekly basis to learn about the environment (by camping and environmental education programs), community service (through fundraising and volunteering), self improvement and goal setting (by earning badges and awards when an activity is mastered), achievement (by mentoring younger Guides and working through the Guide program) and mastery of outdoor and recreational activities (canoeing, abseiling, rope climbing and archery are but a few of the many activities Guides are trained in.) Girls and young women are therefore equipped to become leaders and decision-makers. Depending on the ability and ambition of each Guide there are opportunities for travel and international friendship. Some Guides end up becoming leading politicians, writers, businesswomen and community leaders. Famous former Guides include Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anita Roddick (Body Shop Founder and Executive Director) Gloria Steinem (Feminist writer) and Quentin Bryce (our very own Queensland Governor.)

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

International Conventions Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Queensland has overtaken all other Australian states in rankings of global destinations hosting the most number of international conventions in 2004. I seek leave to report to the parliament by incorporating that ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Brisbane undertook 29 international events and Cairns 17. Queensland’s total of 46 compares to Victoria’s 33 and New South Wales’ 31. The data on international meetings is compiled annually by the Amsterdam-based International Congress and Convention Association (ICCA) which ranked Australia number eight overall in the world. The annual ICCA Report for the association market presents a comprehensive analysis of trends in international meetings. Every year, the new ICCA figures are anxiously awaited by destinations around the world, all competing for a share of the lucrative market. In the Brussels-based International Association of Congress Centre’s (AIPC) 2004 world’s best venue rankings announced last July, two Queensland convention centres, Cairns and Brisbane, were named number one and two respectively. Both centres are operated by Brisbane-based Ogden IFC which is the largest venue management company in the Asia-Pacific Region, with responsibility for 15 major facilities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Tourism and Aviation Industries Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): Tonight I will host a government business reception for two of our great and growing industries—tourism and aviation. Together they employ well over 150,000 people in Queensland and earn billions of dollars in exports. I seek leave to incorporate the detail of the ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. International tourism arrivals to Australia are forecast to soar by 5.8% each year over the next decade—meaning that by year 2014 Australia can expect 9.3 million visitors. To ensure that we entice as many of these people as possible to Queensland, Tourism Minister Margaret Keech has initiated work on a 10-year strategy for sustainable growth. Business will create the jobs, make the investments, win the markets and deliver product to the customers—so industry will have an indispensable role in this strategy. That’s why we have established an Industry/Government Steering Committee, which is consulting with operators through 17 regional workshops, a brochure and a website. Long-term planning for the aviation industry is a key to our vision for tourism, because the two are intrinsically linked. In the past two years, new international services into Queensland have boosted seat capacity by 37%, contributing $573 million in direct spending and creating an estimated 6500 jobs in the tourism industry. There was a 20% increase in domestic seat capacity in Queensland between May 2004 and this month. This represents an extra 37,500 seats a week. It’s no coincidence that since 1998 we’ve worked to build the Smart State as an aviation and aerospace hub in the Asia-Pacific. Aviation now employs 5000 people in Queensland. 1494 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005

Significant aerospace companies with expansion plans in Queensland include Boeing, Virgin Blue Operations and Maintenance, Australian Aerospace, Sikorsky, Smiths Aerospace, Raytheon and Australian Airlines. The chief executive officer of Boeing, David Gray, sang Queensland’s praises in The Weekend Australian on 21 May. David Gray said: “Amberley has turned out to be a great home for our military business and Brisbane airport has attracted Qantas, Smiths Aerospace and Australian Aerospace are building the helicopters out at Brisbane airport.” Mr Speaker, the Alteon/Virgin Blue simulator centre and the Qantas Heavy Maintenance Facility at Brisbane Airport are two recent additions that build the critical mass of aviation technical capability. Aviation Australia, the $15.2 million training centre we established in 2001, produced 277 graduates in its first three years—and 95 per cent of them found employment in aviation and related industries. As David Gray told The Weekend Australian, the centre “is producing some very good technicians, and we and others are the beneficiaries of their output”. This year’s intake includes 144 Aircraft Maintenance Engineers who will complete all instruction and practical work for their apprenticeship in a one year full time course. Aviation Australia has been such a resounding success that it will be a model for training and skills centres of excellence for other Queensland industries. It is already taking off in our schools with elements of Aerospace Studies included in some subjects at six Brisbane schools as part of a collaboration between Education Queensland, Aviation Australia and Boeing Australia. In 2006, Aerospace Studies will be a new OP subject for Year 11s at nine schools across Queensland. Through the Department of State Development and Innovation, we have a dollar-for-dollar grant scheme worth $1.8 million over three years to support small and medium aviation enterprises. This will help local firms upgrade business systems, adopt new technology, develop new products and improve export marketing. A further $200,000 has been allocated for measures to upgrade management skills for the aviation industry to help small aviation businesses take advantage of emerging opportunities offered by Defence and large aviation firms. Defence is planning to upgrade the RAAF base at Amberley over the next three to five years, and the Queensland Government will help businesses capitalise on this by establishing an Aerospace Park next to the Amberley Base. Queensland businesses are already winning Defence contracts—for instance Australian Aerospace is supplying 22 Tiger armed reconnaissance helicopters. 18 Tigers will be built at Eagle Farm and this project is expected to need 130 skilled workers. Australian Aerospace is also negotiating where it will manufacture 12 multi-role helicopters for Defence. Together, tourism and aviation are helping lay the foundations of Queensland’s future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Freedom of Information Act Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I have two other quick matters. This morning the Attorney-General tabled a report under section 108 of the Freedom of Information Act which proves that my government is more open and accountable than the government in which members of the opposition were leaders. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: The official statistics show that during 2003-04 almost 90 per cent of documents were released. In 1997-98, when the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party were ministers, only 85 per cent of documents were released. In 2003-04 there was a full release of documents requested in 81.5 per cent of applications. In 1997-98 the figures were 80 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate more detail in Hansard. Leave granted. And I remind Members, the media and the public of the 1,963 documents which were hidden from FOI requests by the present Opposition Leader when he was a Minister for only four months or so in 1998. In 2003/2004 12,288 applications were made to State and local governments. This is 1,177 more applications than the previous year. And it is a massive rise on 1997/1998, when there were only 7,511 applications made to State and local governments. 11,029 applications were made to state government agencies. Of these, 5,046 were personal applications—and therefore free of charge—and 5,983 were non-personal, with an application fee of $33.50. Of the various government agencies, police received the largest number of applications in 2003/2004—2,387. This represents an increase of 10.4% or 242 more than the last reporting period. Other agencies with large numbers of applications were Health (2,065); Industrial Relations (1,724); Corrective Services (1,127) and Transport and Main Roads (603). Several agencies had very large increases over the previous year, including the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (51.7%); Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (44%), Education (37.3%) and Industrial Relations (27.6%). 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1495

The amount collected in application fees for non-personal applications rose from $114,143 to $144,946. The amount collected in charges for time spent by agency staff in dealing with non-personal applications rose from $136,949 to $155,320. I point out that the revenue received remains a fraction of the cost to the agency of dealing with these matters. Importantly, under our FOI legislation, agencies must provide applicants with an early notification of the estimated charges, giving them an opportunity to revise the scope of applications in order to minimise expense. No charges apply for non-personal applications that consume less than two hours in staff time. I thank all of those people in government agencies whose efforts have helped Queenslanders with their applications under the FOI Act. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Community Cabinet, Sunshine Coast Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): The people of the Sunshine Coast certainly made the cabinet and me feel very welcome indeed. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Callide under standing order 253(1). He has not stopped interjecting this morning. Mr BEATTIE: We held our 83rd community cabinet there the weekend before last. I seek leave to incorporate all details of that meeting in Hansard. Leave granted. It was our 83rd Community Cabinet and conservatively—at least 32,000 people have met with since election in 1998. This was our second Community Cabinet on the Sunshine Coast in two years. I want to thank local MPs Emergency Services Minister Chris Cummins, Cate Molloy and Carolyn Male [Peter Wellington and Fiona Simpson] for their assistance. The total formal deputations for the meeting was 158—meaning we have had 6793 formal deputation now in total. The key announcements included: On Wednesday May 11 Local Government Minister Desley Boyle announced $221,000 towards the Caloundra City Council's $550,000 construction of a new water main—it will improve the quality and supply of water to the Glasshouse region and help meet population growth needs. On Thursday May 12 Chris Cummins outlined $190,000 for Disaster Mitigation Work and Studies in Maroochy Shire. On Friday May 13 Public Works and Housing Minister Robert Schwarten announced the Government will help fund the restoration of two of Buderim’s heritage icons with grants from the new Community Memorials Restoration Program. A $10,950 dollar-for-dollar grant is for the Buderim Memorial Hall Association had been approved towards refurbishment and painting of the hall. And the Buderim Palmwoods Heritage Tramway will also receive a $3,995 grant towards the restoration and relocation of its German-built Krauss locomotive. The same day Desley Boyle and I announced today State Government calling expressions of interest from diving operators to conduct commercial activities at the ex-HMAS Brisbane artificial reef. It is due to be sunk off the Sunshine Coast later this year. The former guided missile destroyer is due to be sunk about 2.8 nautical miles east of Mudjimba Island in late July and operators are being offered the chance to bid for 5-year licences to operate at the artificial reef & wreck dive site. The ex-HMAS Brisbane will be an outstanding attraction and a centrepiece for dive tourism in Queensland—similar sites in Australia attract more than 10,000 divers each year. This is an exciting opportunity for Queensland dive companies to capitalise on the commercial potential of the site. We¹re calling for proposals from individuals and organisations with the vision, financial resources, professionalism and expertise to achieve this. The government is encouraging a range of diving opportunities at the site—in relation to the number of clients, the level and type of service provided and vessel size and types. It is anticipated several operators will be licensed to use the site while club and private divers would be given access through a controlled booking system. It is expected recreational users will be charged $15—$20 to access the site. Fees will cover the development and ongoing management of the reef costing about $200,000 a year over 10 years. Ship preparations are on track to achieve scuttling by mid-to-late July. On Saturday May 14 Tom Barton announced: Twenty young Sunshine Coast adults disengaged from school are returning to the classroom with the help of Cooloola Sunshine TAFE. The adults are participating in the Making a Difference program to improve their life skills. 1496 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005

The success of the pilot program held earlier this year prompted the TAFE to offer a further two courses. Tom also announced that more than 170 building and construction workers on the Sunshine Coast will be able to turn their skills and experience into formal qualifications thanks to a new program offered at the Cooloola Sunshine TAFE. TAFE will run a pilot program designed to provide a trade qualification to experienced industry workers. A significant number of workers in the industry on the Sunshine Coast are operating with restricted licences or as general labourers—this Rapid Trade Program will recognise the skills and knowledge gained through experience. Workers will be assessed and then they can undertake whatever extra training is necessary for them to gain a formal trade qualification and a full licence. As well the Government will back a Sunshine Coast project to help 48 migrants gain work. The one-year Maroochy Neighbourhood Centre project will receive $76,000 from our Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. The grant will allow the centre to run one-day workshops for jobseekers from non-English speaking backgrounds. On Sunday May 15 Robert Schwarten and I announced the Government will purchase a five-bedroom house and two, two- bedroom duplex units to boost public housing on the Sunshine Coast. The $1 million had been approved for the purchase of the dwellings at Lakeshore Place and Eastern Rise, Little Mountain. Tony McGrady visited the Kawana Business Village construction site (the site of the new SDIC Sunshine Coast office). Energy Minister John Mickel inspected Energex’s Mooloolaba upgrade. ENERGEX is responding to the Sunshine Coast’s continued population & commercial growth by allocating record funding over the next financial year to strengthen the power network. Almost $40 million in major projects for the Sunshine Coast region will be undertaken this year. In the past nine months ENERGEX has spent $17.2M on Sunshine Coast projects. Yesterday’s $40M announcement is further evidence of our determination to provide this—one of Australia’s fastest growing regions with a healthy electricity supply. ENERGEX will commission the new $3.5 million substation at Mooloolaba this month. Other major projects being completed in 05/06 financial year include: • Upgrade Sunrise Hills substation with 2nd transformer—estimated cost of $3.5M. • Upgrade s/station Tewantin—2 larger transformers—$8.9M. • New substation at Cooroy—$5.4 million. • New substation at Landsborough—$5.8 million. • Upgrade capacity of Kawana substation with 2nd transformer & major distribution feeder works—$4.2M. • Upgrade Caloundra substation—2 larger transformers & upgrade overhead distribution feeder—total $8.4M. • Upgrade Kenilworth substation—$950,000. • Upgrade high-voltage feeders Alexandra Headlands—$1.7M. • Install underground cables at Coolum—$1 million. Chris Cummins and I joined Education Minister Anna for a sod turning on the $2.7 million new facility being built at Mountain Creek State High School here to meet the demands of strong enrolment growth. Mountain Creek State High School is Queensland’s largest school catering to more than 2090 students across Years 8-12. The double-storey block will incorporate eight classrooms, disabled access and covered links to existing buildings. Also it should be noted that the electorates of Noosa, Maroochydore, Glass House, Caloundra, Nicklin and Kawana more than $57.08M has been spent since 2001on new and refurbished facilities in state schools. Facilities funding to non-state schools $39.13M 2001—2005. Major Projects include a new School at Caloundra West total project cost of stage 1 is approximately $15.2M. It is designed as a P-12 campus will open with P-6 classes. The opening enrolment is predicted to be approximately 350 students. Year 7 students will be accepted in 2007. Stage 2 of Chancellor State College is to provide accommodation for Years 10 to 11 for the start of the 2006 school year. The total project cost of Stage 2 is approximately $11.0 million. Prep schools include: • Nicklin Montville State School • Noosa Tewantin State School, Good Shepherd Lutheran College • Glass House Maleny State School, Tullawong State School • Caloundra Golden Beach State School, Caloundra Christian College As well on the Sunday Chris Cummins and I handed over a new defibrillator valued at more than $21,000 to Kawana’s Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) paramedics. And we also handed over also a new $25,000 floodboat to the Coolum SES Group. The new boat will be a boost for SES volunteers in the Coolum area. On Monday May 16 we announced: that we proposing new laws to curb water pollution and avert the loss of thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in tourism, fishing and aquaculture. Local Government, Environment and Planning, Minister Desley Boyle and I detailed that the proposed laws put the planning spotlight on three regions: Mary River Basin/Great Sandy Region; Douglas Shire home to the Daintree Rainforest and shores of the Great Barrier Reef; and Moreton Bay/South East Queensland. Later this year the Government will put to the Parliament new laws and develop new programs to clean up our act on stormwater, sewerage, and agricultural run-off. Before we do that we want to hear more views from Queenslanders, so Cabinet has decided that we should release a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) and water quality guidelines for consultation until 29 July 2005. An example of our proposals would be ensuring councils in these regions have the right sewerage and water treatment systems, before approving new suburbs or industries. 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1497

Transport Minister Paul Lucas announced that Public transport on the Sunshine Coast is set to become more efficient and responsive to community needs. The government will spend $10 million over the next three years to improve services. This is in addition to ongoing yearly funding of $5.5 million to maintain these services over the next seven years. The funding is part of an historical investment in Queensland's public transport, designed to get people out of their cars to reduce traffic congestion and environmental damage. Under the draft TransLink Network Plan, Kawana residents can look forward to more bus services and better frequency and reliability with improvements to be introduced from July, making public transport easier to catch than ever before. For example: 1. Route 602 travelling from Caloundra to Nambour via Kawana which currently operates every 2 hours will become a regular hourly service running seven days a week. 2. Route 622 will now start at Kawana Shoppingworld and travel to Peregian Springs via Glenfields Boulevard and Mooloolaba TAFE on an hourly frequency, seven days a week. Currently only five services travel this route daily. Paul and I have also just announced we are beginning construction on nearly $600 million worth of Sunshine Coast roadworks in the next two years. This is actual pushing dirt and pouring concrete, not just planning. It is part of a program to reduce traffic congestion. Of the 10 projects we are beginning, seven start within the next 12 months. We already have graders and bulldozers working on 5 projects worth $219 million on the Sunshine Coast. That’s just the start. The Sunshine Coast hasn’t seen anything yet. We will be moving millions of tonnes of earth and laying tens of thousands of cubic metres of concrete and bitumen. In all, we are spending $777 million on Sunshine Coast roads over the next five years—an increase of $500 million or 180% on spending over the past five years. We already have accelerated major road projects to reduce road congestion and we are looking at ways to accelerate them further. Also Tony McGrady was involved in a Smart State announcement detailing that the Sunshine Coast’s general aviation sector will benefit from a $200,000 State Government program to boost business management skills in general aviation across the State. General aviation includes small aircraft manufacture, light aircraft maintenance, charter, agricultural aviation as well as flying doctor, aerial fire fighting, flood and disaster relief and search and rescue. There are 700 general aviation businesses in Queensland, most are small and often employ less than five people—Within South East Queensland there are significant groups of general aviation businesses at Archerfield, Caloundra, Maroochydore, Gold Coast and Brisbane airports. A vibrant general aviation sector is crucial in continuing to develop Queensland as an aviation and aerospace hub for the Asia Pacific region. The growth in Queensland's aviation and aerospace industries continues to outpace the rest of Australia. While in the region I took the opportunity to detail the major elements SEQ INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. The big ticket items for the Sunshine Coast include: • $1B to plan and build a rail corridor from Beerwah to Maroochydore over the next 20 years, starting in 2006-07. • $980M to plan and build an additional rail line from Caboolture to Nambour starting in 2005-06. • These will cut travel times by 12 minutes a run and in effect 24 minutes a day the gain will be close to two hours a week. • $791M to build 23 new Sunshine Coast schools next 20yrs. • $500M for a new Sunshine Coast hospital by 2014-15. • $107M to expand the Caloundra Hospital and to build three new Health Hubs on the Sunshine Coast, Northlakes and Caboolture for flexible and responsive public and private sector services co-located in a central area. • $90M to widen Maroochydore Road to four lanes between the Bruce Highway and Martins Creek from 2005-06. • $78M to be spent on water supplies in the Mary River, including a new weir and water storage improvements. Due to the regional nature of water supply, the Sunshine Coast will benefit from additional supplies and infrastructure elsewhere in the region. • We have $1 billion for a new passenger rail service between Beerwah, Caloundra & Maroochydore, giving Sunshine Coast its first passenger rail service along the coast. The rail line will reach Caloundra in 2014/15 and Maroochydore by 2020.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Health System Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 am): This morning I want to address the House on the future of health. Over the next four months, while the royal commission and the Forster review are sitting, my government is starting work on a blueprint for the future of health. Today I am setting out some of my initial thoughts about this blueprint but more work needs to be done. Gordon Nuttall, the Minister for Health, and I will be doing that in conjunction with our ministerial colleagues. 1498 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005

We need a health system which: is people oriented and focused on people’s needs; allocates resources where they are needed; promotes better health, as well as better health care; is structured in a simple way, easy to use and navigate; is staffed by a multiskilled and flexible work force; expands the roles of nurse practitioners; offers high levels of quality and safety in all parts of the system; values staff; and deals openly and honestly with both medical and system complaints. Let me go through the areas. Firstly, let me talk about structure. Let me be frank. I am not convinced that Queensland Health in its current structure can meet the challenges I have just outlined. There may be a need to break up this very large and cumbersome organisation. One answer could be to establish a hospitals department, and this could be complemented by a department of primary care and health service integration. This is only an option but one worth thinking about. Under this model, we may be able to deliver better hospital services as well as improve our prevention and primary health care services. We should also be able to achieve better integration of services with health service providers talking to each other and sharing information in the best interests of the patients. Structure is the first issue. Let me now talk about complaints. People—patients and those who work in our health services— have to understand their rights and we have to ensure that complaints are taken seriously, fully assessed and acted upon speedily. I am also keen to ensure that the actions are then closely monitored and that people are held accountable for their implementation. We need structural change and to streamline complaints mechanisms to make sure that patients and staff can have their views heard and taken seriously. We may need to remodel the Health Rights Commission to achieve this. There are a number of options for creating independent complaints bodies and I am keen to look at them. I have taken the liberty of forwarding to Peter Forster, Tony Morris QC and the Crime and Misconduct Commission these initial thoughts about potential structural changes and I am interested in receiving their views. The third area to be examined is the work force. Apart from structural change, we need to look at innovative work force solutions. Professor Peter Brooks, the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Queensland, talks about the need to break down the ‘ego system’. This would open the way for medical professionals to accept other health care providers as integral players in the health care system. Let us talk about nurse practitioners. One step in this direction is to fast-track the introduction of stand-alone nurse practitioners. These highly trained health professionals are playing an increasingly important role in many countries, working in primary care and some specialist areas. At Prince Charles Hospital nurses are trained as first assists to the surgeons undertaking coronary bypass surgery. This means they actually provide direct assistance to the surgeon. We must expand this initiative throughout the public hospital system. I am also aware of an initiative in Britain where the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Nursing are working together to develop nurse surgical training. This will see nurses trained to perform routine surgical tasks. We need to look at these models and adapt them to the Queensland context. I am also advised that other countries have trained nurse anaesthetists to undertake some routine procedures. At the moment in Queensland, we have a severe shortage of anaesthetists in the public hospital system which is delaying elective surgery for many patients. We have to do something to address this problem in order to be able to offer public hospital patients elective surgery in a reasonable time frame. Yesterday’s Melbourne Age newspaper reported an innovative scheme to allow nurses to discharge patients from hospitals without having to wait for a doctor’s final approval. This seems a commonsense change. It gets patients home quicker, frees up doctors to do more complex tasks and, in an average sized regional hospital, would allow around 2,000 extra patients to be treated. Also, in the United States there are around 60,000 physician assistants who are trained and licensed to practice under the supervision of doctors in primary care, emergency, chronic disease and surgery. If nurse practitioner systems can work in Britain and the United States, why not in Queensland? Task substitution initiatives are not restricted to nursing. Options are being explored in many jurisdictions for enhanced roles for radiographers, pathology technicians, dental technicians and optometrists, and all with the aim of freeing up doctors’ time to concentrate on the more specialist tasks. The patients are the winners. Let me talk fifthly about more doctors. We also need to train more Australian doctors. Both levels of government have responsibilities for the training of our highly skilled doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. The Commonwealth government controls the number of university places. Until recently, there has been no increase in medical school intakes, despite increases in both population and demand for medical services. Clearly, we need to train more health professionals than we are training at present. In 2003 I tabled a paper at the Council of Australian Governments meeting which alerted the Prime Minister to the projected shortfall in skilled and qualified health professionals. Unfortunately, little action has resulted from the Commonwealth and, in fact, I will again raise these issues when the council meets on 3 June. I 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1499 am also keen to investigate whether we can develop more effective scholarship schemes that encourage graduate doctors to work in regional and rural Queensland. I have asked my department to provide advice on this. Let us deal next with the Medical Board. In the interim, we will still need to use overseas trained doctors until we train more Australian doctors, but we will ensure that they are appropriately registered, monitored, trained and supervised. Working closely with the Queensland branch of the Australian Medical Association, my government has recently designed the toughest registration system in the country. The changes mean that prior to registration applicants will, one, have the board in the country where they trained send a certificate of good standing directly to the Medical Board of Queensland; two, have the board in any country where they practised send a certificate of good standing directly to the Medical Board of Queensland; three, provide specific references in support of their application for registration and have the recruiting agency certify that reference checks have been undertaken; four, have their initial qualification certified by the International Credential Service of the United States Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates; five, pass a computer administered screening examination from July 2006; and, six, successfully pass the English language proficiency test. After registration most registrants will be supervised for one to three months and, if necessary, referred to the Skills Development Centre at Herston for further skills assessment. Registrants undertaking specialty activities such as surgery, anaesthetics and obstetrics will be supervised by an external supervisor nominated by the relevant college. Within six months, registrants will receive professional development and training about Queensland’s legislation, Aboriginal health, women’s health, cross-cultural training, health insurance and how best to work in the Australian health care system. Registrants must complete the Australian Medical Council’s examination or the relevant specialty college certification within four years of their initial registration, and supervisors will be required to report on the clinical competence of the registrant after one month, three months, six months and 12 months in each annual registration period. If issues are raised with regard to clinical competence after registration, registrants will be required to undertake further clinical assessment. Supervisors must refer any issue to Queensland Health for a review of the registrant’s employment status and the board will consider any action necessary in relation to the registration status. That is the Medical Board. Let us move on and talk about more nursing home beds that are needed. As indicated, our population is ageing and we will need to get ready to care for increasing numbers of senior citizens. Already, too many senior citizens are stuck in acute hospital beds because there are too few alternatives, especially in regional and rural Queensland. In future, we will need better community support services to allow our older people to remain at home for as long as possible and we need urgent action from the federal government to provide more beds for aged citizens. Let us move on to information technology. Information technology can play an important role. People who use more than one health service can quite rightly expect that they should not have to repeatedly explain their history. We also do not want clinicians to spend their valuable time hunting and gathering basic patient information. That is why we have been working on, and will continue to improve, the electronic transfer of health records. Now let me address some of the health problems and solutions. To deliver the necessary changes, we face significant challenges. We know the problems and we have a good idea where the future challenges lie. No change is not an option. No solution, if it achieves our vision, is off limits. I want to stress to the people of Queensland today and to those working in the health system that we should not be afraid of opening the system up to scrutiny. This is the only way to find what is wrong and fix it. Given the calibre and fierce independence of the people in charge of the inquiries, I have every confidence that we will receive positive and far-reaching recommendations that will lead to improvements in Queensland’s health system in the future. Today I call on all Queenslanders with an interest in making the health system better to come forward with complaints, ideas and suggestions. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Now is the time to be part of the solution. After I have delivered my statement, all members will receive a copy of it and an invitation from me to make a direct submission to me on their ideas about how to improve the system, and I will be writing specifically to the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. Let us deal with other issues and problems such as our dispersed population. Queensland is the most regionalised state in Australia. Most Queenslanders live outside our capital city. We have nearly four million people spread over 1.7 million square kilometres, presenting a unique challenge for service delivery. The challenge is to apply a consistent approach to health services so that people across the state know what they can expect and that they have access to the same level of quality and safety everywhere. Even if a service is not available in their own town, Queenslanders need to know that they are part of a bigger service network which gets them access to the services that they need. Let us talk about access to hospital services in a geographically dispersed state. Queenslanders frequently use public hospitals for services that could be provided by general practitioners. In regional areas, people are very attached to their local hospitals and have a high level of expectation that they will 1500 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005 have all of the services they need close to where they live. In clinical service delivery, there is a need to keep up staff’s technical skills through constant practice. There is also a need to have certain support services and safety standards in place to ensure quality and safety. We must be realistic about this. We know that not every community will have a tertiary hospital or all of the possible health services the system can provide. But people rightly should expect two things: firstly, that they are part of a clinical service delivery system that ensures their access to the services they need in a timely and safe manner; and, secondly, there is no compromise on quality and safety anywhere in the system. Let us talk about integrated services. We have been talking about strengthening primary health care for a long time, but we can do better in this area. We need to continue to pursue the establishment of bulk-billing GP clinics alongside emergency departments in public hospitals. This is designed to ease the pressure on our hospitals’ emergency departments and provide a better service for patients. We need to have GPs linked with our community health centres and communicate easily with our public hospital system. Achieving effective links between different parts of the health system is much harder to do than it seems and is dependent upon partnerships across sectors. People should be able to access a quality primary health care service when they need it, but it should not distract busy emergency departmental staff dealing with major acute problems such as trauma. Let us talk about the ageing population. Our population is ageing and costs are rising unsustainably. Health expenditure on older people—our senior citizens—is nearly four times that of people aged less than 65 years. One-quarter of Australians will be aged 65 years or more by 2044-45, and this is roughly double the current proportion. This will have a profound impact on the demands placed on our hospital system. Health expenditure on senior citizens is nearly four times that of people aged under 65 years. Health care costs are projected to rise by about 4.5 per cent of gross domestic product over this same period, with ageing accounting for nearly one-half of this. Parents in our society have many pressures and worries about health—not just worries about their own health, but they have one eye on the health of their kids and the other on the needs of their ageing parents. Our ageing population will have an impact on the provision of health care in a number of ways. There will be a shift in health service resources towards senior citizens, particularly in relation to the treatment and long-term care of those with chronic diseases. There will also be a greater need for community care and support for care givers. Our senior citizens will also require quality care in our nursing homes, as I indicated before, and better community support services to allow them to remain at home for as long as possible. Let us talk about chronic disease. There is a significant increase in chronic disease requiring prevention and management. Part of that is due to better health care; part of that is due to the ageing population—us living longer. The increase in chronic disease, its prevention and management will be a major strategic health priority in the years ahead. Chronic diseases including depression, dementia, heart disease, asthma, stroke, type 2 diabetes and kidney disease account for more that one-third of all deaths in the state. The causes are the result of a complex interaction of social, economic, environmental, and genetic factors. They are modern-day diseases. Declines in the amount of physical activity, poor nutrition, an increase in the number of people who are overweight and obese, as well as continuing high levels of smoking and alcohol misuse require action if we want to reduce a potential explosion in demand on the Queensland health system in the future. Much of the burden of disease caused by these conditions can be prevented by reducing smoking rates, improving nutrition, increasing physical activity and reducing rates of harmful and hazardous alcohol consumption. We need to help people manage their own health better and make healthy choices, in particular in the context of the burgeoning incidence of chronic disease. People require the knowledge, skills, ability and tools to manage their own health. This will keep them healthier and out of hospitals. The growing prevalence of chronic disease forces us to meet new significant challenges to review established methods of health care and service delivery; plan work force needs into the future; identify new technologies that we will require; strengthen our focus on prevention and primary care; and develop new models of care based around the home and the community, not just our hospitals. We need to ensure that our young people get a discipline of a healthy, active lifestyle. I want to talk now about the complex funding system. We are also hamstrung by a very complex funding system that is split between the Commonwealth and the states, which encourages buck-passing rather than fixing the problems. We are trying to do more all the time with less and, frankly, we are struggling to keep up. This is not just a problem in Queensland but also in other Australian states and across the Western world. There is no doubt that the health system we have in Australia is complicated, with two layers of government funding around 70 per cent and the rest coming from private health insurance funds and individual contributions. Let me set that out. Medicare is funded by the Commonwealth, with copayments by users, and that provides a range of medical services including GPs and diagnostics. Individuals fund the largest share of other professional health services like physiotherapy. Public hospitals are jointly funded by the federal government and the states, but the states are responsible for them. State governments are mostly responsible for funding and running services such as mental health and community health and 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1501 patient transport as well as public health programs including health promotion, disease prevention and environmental health. Residential aged care is mainly funded and regulated by the Commonwealth, which also funds services for veterans. This split in responsibilities for funding and delivering health care services creates inefficiencies and gaps and it wastes money. It also tends to fragment care for people, particularly the elderly and those with a chronic illness. Under the current five-year Australian Health Care Agreement, the Commonwealth has cut public hospital funding to Queensland by around $160 million compared to the last agreement. That potentially equates to 61,000 Queenslanders missing out on hospital admissions. The agreement represents a 2.1 per cent funding increase for public hospitals this year. By contrast, the Commonwealth government has sanctioned private health insurance premium rises of nearly eight per cent. In short, public hospitals are being asked to do more with less. This is not an excuse: it is a fact and it is a challenge. Queenslanders expect governments to work together and sort out these problems. Ultimately, they do not care who pays so long as services are provided where they are needed and when they are needed. We will need to enter into new models of cooperation and funding to meet these challenges. The Commonwealth government needs to take factors such as growing population and geographic needs into account in its funding model and we need major reforms of Commonwealth-state relations in health. At the moment, it is wasting millions—indeed billions—and we need to fix it. I want to talk now about our health work force. I made some reference to this before, but it is crucial to the future of health services. Countries in the Western world are identifying difficulties in attracting and retaining sufficient staff to meet future health care needs. In Australia, growth in the working age population is projected to decline. At the same time growth in our older population is rising. In short, there will be fewer people to care for more patients who require more care. The work force of the future will need to be increasingly flexible. The traditional barriers between professions will need to be overcome and services will need to integrate. The changing nature of the work force will require ongoing planning and training for both existing and new health workers. Both levels of government have responsibilities for the training of our highly skilled doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. The Commonwealth government controls the number of university places. Until recently, there has been no increase in medical school intakes despite increases in both population and demand for medical services. I have said this before. I say it again, because it is crucial to having more Australian trained doctors. Clearly, we need to train more health professionals than we are doing at present. State governments are responsible for the training of junior doctors, nurses and allied health professionals once they are employed in our public health system. The training of medical specialists is shared between the medical colleges and the hospitals where they are employed. This involves a significant commitment of resources, time and effort by health professionals be they in general practice, an operating theatre, a midwifery clinic or a mental health group. It is this skill and commitment that is the backbone of our health care system. Strengthening our health work force is imperative. Education and training sectors need to work with governments to produce a health work force that meets current and future needs. We have to train more doctors, nurses and other health professionals and we have to keep them in the public health care system longer. We are losing too many of them. We have to work hand in hand with the Commonwealth, the university sector and the medical colleges—and I stress that the medical colleges have a major role to play—to increase the number of positions in universities for doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to reduce our reliance in the medium to long term on overseas trained professionals; to increase the number of training positions for key medical specialities; and to introduce more student selection and support programs to ensure that graduates reflect and return to practice in their local communities. There is already good collaboration between the colleges and state health authorities, but we can both do better—a lot better. I think that the colleges could be more flexible and approve more medical specialist positions, especially in surgery. But I recognise that for this to work state health authorities have to be prepared to fund that. I make that clear: I am prepared to look at doing that. I want to talk now about valuing the work force. As I have said previously, our doctors, nurses and other health service staff are the foundation of the Queensland health system. It is essential that we create a culture in which staff and their contributions are valued and nurtured. That is a major area of improvement. It is important that people who work in the system feel that they have some influence on where the system is going and how it responds to patients. Open lines of communication between all parts of the system are a major factor in tapping into the expertise of front-line staff and acknowledging their importance to the system and in the system. I want to talk about meeting public expectations. Health care systems across the Western world are being challenged by the demands of more informed consumers. People are increasingly using the internet to obtain health information, research medical procedures and drugs and even obtain a diagnosis for their condition. There is, quite rightly, an increasing expectation amongst consumers that they will be active participants in decisions about their health care. That is a good thing. The people who use the system need to be able to influence how services are delivered and whether a patient’s needs 1502 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005 are met. It is pretty clear that we need to simplify the system for users. The sharing of roles and responsibilities should not result in a complicated and non-transparent system for patients. They should also be able to expect that health service providers talk to each other and share information with the best interest of the patient in mind. I want to talk about new technologies, new drugs, and new medical and surgical techniques. Over the past decade there have been incredible advances in health technologies, some of which have come from health and medical research conducted here in Queensland—part of the Smart State. Further major advances are likely to occur in areas such as gene therapy and genetic screening, nanotechnology and stem cell technology. Advances in medical technology are estimated to have contributed around one-third of the health care expenditure increases over the past decade—that is, to 2002-03. These advances are welcome because they have the potential to improve the quality of life of Queenslanders. But they bring with them some challenges, particularly to the way we do things in the health system. They will require new methods of clinical practice and management and difficult choices about the way we deliver services and what we choose to invest in. I believe that what I have outlined today demonstrates clearly my government’s willingness to undertake reform to address the issues that need attention in the health system and restore public confidence in our hospitals. I table for the information of the House the Council of Australian Governments’ agenda paper on health, which I took to COAG in 2003; letters that I sent to Tony Morris QC and to Peter Forster on 18 May along with some earlier notes that I had prepared on the Queensland health system; and papers written by Professor Peter Brooks. I hope that he is called to give evidence at both the inquiries. He is the Executive Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Queensland. I also table a copy of an article that appeared in yesterday’s Age newspaper about nurses having the power to discharge patients. Let me conclude my remarks today by saying this: I think I have identified the challenges that face Queensland Health and health services in Australia. I think I have spelled out some of the solutions that we intend to implement. But the next four months and the next couple of weeks are crucial to the future of the health system. This is the most significant overhaul that health will have seen or been through since Federation. It is a unique opportunity for Queensland to improve this system. I urge Queenslanders to work with us to improve this system to make sure that it is the best in the world.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Orthopaedic Services, Fraser Coast Hon. GR NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.10 am): Following the release of the Australian Orthopaedic Association report into orthopaedic services on the Fraser Coast, this government has put into place a number of strategies to ensure that patients from the Fraser Coast receive the best possible care. I would like to assure the House that every effort is being made to reassure patients who have already had surgery and address any concerns they may have. Measures also are being put into place to provide an alternative orthopaedic service to people from the Fraser Coast. Following the resignation of a fully qualified, Australian trained orthopaedic surgeon who had been working in the district since January this year, there was no choice but to suspend orthopaedic surgery. Whilst some simple fracture clinics continue to be offered at the hospital, no orthopaedic specialist work is being carried out. Negotiations are under way to ensure that patients seeking orthopaedic surgery from the Fraser Coast Health Service District have access to that surgery. Agreement has been reached to treat any emergency orthopaedic case that presents in the Fraser Coast district at the Mater Hospital in Brisbane. Patients will be treated under our existing arrangements with the Mater. For patients seeking elective surgery, negotiations are progressing as quickly as possible and further announcements will be made. For those who have already had surgery, a patient liaison line has been established to provide a single point of contact for any patient with questions about their care. More than 490 patients, who have been treated by the three doctors adversely named in the AOA report, have received a letter explaining the situation and apologising for any distress that has been caused. This letter outlines the contact details for the patient liaison line and the process for seeking information. Any patient who has concerns about his or her treatment is encouraged to contact the patient liaison line and discuss these concerns. Arrangements have been put in place to ensure that patients have access to appropriate medical staff to review their care. These arrangements include sending an orthopaedic surgeon from a tertiary facility in Brisbane to review any patients with concerns. A counselling service has also been established to assist any patients, their families and our staff who are having difficulties. This service can be accessed through the patient liaison line. 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1503

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Mental Health Services Hon. GR NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.12 am): The submission from the Office of the Public Advocate of Queensland in the context of the Senate inquiry into mental health raises some disturbing allegations. The submission from the Public Advocate, a statutory officer of the Queensland parliament, claims over a period of two to three years a number of inadequacies in the area of mental health, in particular to discharge and referral practices. I table the submission from the Public Advocate. Mental health is an extremely complex area. The prevalence of mental health problems, particularly high prevalence disorders, in the community is known to be increasing with predictors that depression is likely to rank second in the burden of disease by 2020. The increase in the Queensland population at twice the national average presents further challenges in a system of care which is in a reform process. Nevertheless, the government and Queensland Health recognise that there are legitimate concerns in the area of mental health. As such, the government and Queensland Health, together with Disability Services Queensland and the Department of Housing, are working on a number of issues. I have asked my department to provide a full response and action plan to the submission.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Citrus Canker Hon. H PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.14 am): The Queensland government has determined to eradicate citrus canker. We have been determined to work in a national consensus and in a scientifically justified approach. Our determination to do these things has been matched only by our determination to return the citrus industry to normal trading conditions as soon as possible. Therefore, our efforts to re-establish unrestricted market access for growers in the Gayndah-Mundubbera region and ‘rest of Queensland’ zone earlier this year have been major achievements. Similarly, our efforts to secure restricted market access for those Emerald citrus properties, where two rounds of surveillance have been completed and no evidence of citrus canker has been found, were important. Interstate jurisdictions, unfortunately, have rejected domestic access for these Emerald growers at this stage. The Queensland government is not prepared to leave the Emerald growers behind; we are not prepared to walk away. The Queensland government has financially contributed to the $13 million national eradication campaign. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries has allocated additional funds and resources outside the national cost-sharing agreement for the eradication effort. The Queensland government has allocated concessional loans for the Emerald growers, and recently we announced that this scheme would be widened to offer to refinance up to $500,000 of existing debt held by the two smaller and more domestic market dependent growers, the Cordoma and Iddles families. I can announce today that the Queensland government will be offering additional funding of up to $300,000 for both of these growers to maintain effective disease control on their properties. This is in addition to Queensland’s contribution to yesterday’s decision by the National Management Group to provide about $415,000 for the harvesting and destruction of fruit. I can also announce that, in the absence of agreement from other governments and industry, the Queensland government will cover the costs of surveillance for 70,000 new trees to be planted on another Emerald district property owned by Citricorp. The Queensland government believes in the citrus industry, whether it is Gayndah-Mundubbera, Emerald or anywhere else in Queensland. We, as a government, resisted the push by some to destroy all citrus trees in Emerald not only because no other government supported this proposition and not only because it could not be scientifically justified but also because it would have destroyed the Emerald citrus industry and the Emerald region.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Alvarez, Ms V Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.17 am): Vivian Alvarez, or Vivian Solon as she is also known, was deported from Australia in 2001 when she was an Australian citizen and had been so for 15 years. When the Queensland Police Service escorted Ms Alvarez on her deportation, it did so as agents of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, or DIMIA. When Queensland police officers accompany DIMIA 1504 Private Members’ Statements 24 May 2005 deportees, they do so on a voluntary basis. Since January last year, there have been 48 deportations to 23 countries by Queensland police officers. The federal government picks up the travel cost and police officers travel on their own time and do so as DIMIA officials, not as Queensland police officers. Queensland police providing escorts are agents of DIMIA, authorised under the Commonwealth Migration Act; they are not on police duty, they are not in uniform, and they are not armed. The Queensland police officer who undertook the escort met a DIMIA officer at Brisbane International Airport and was introduced to Vivian Alvarez only minutes before her deportation. All travel arrangements for Ms Alvarez and the police officer were made by DIMIA. The Queensland police did not arrange for Ms Alvarez’s transport to Brisbane airport. On arrival in Manila, as per protocol, the police officer delivered Ms Alvarez beyond customs and immigration checks and then released her into the care of an individual—in this case, a nun—nominated by DIMIA. The QPS officer then telephoned DIMIA in Australia to inform them that the transfer had occurred. At all times the police officer acted with the consent and instruction of the federal government. Any suggestion that the Queensland police officer abandoned Ms Alvarez is absolutely incorrect and mischievous. The evidence shows that the police did their job properly, in accordance with their instructions. Police provide an escort service. They are not running an immigration system. It is the federal government which chose to deport an innocent person. Senator Vanstone must accept that it is she and her department who are responsible for this problem, not Queensland police. Needless to say, Queensland police are in the process of compiling all documentation about Vivian Alvarez and their registration of her as a missing person which they plan to submit to the Palmer inquiry this week.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.20 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 6 of 2005.

OVERSEAS TRAVEL

Report Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (10.20 am): I lay upon the table of the House a report on overseas travel from 20 April to 22 April 2005.

DISSENT FROM MR ACTING SPEAKER’S RULING Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.20 am): Mr Acting Speaker, following consideration of further advice provided to me, I seek leave to withdraw the proposed motion of dissent from your ruling of which I gave notice on 12 May 2005. I will address the issue of the Speaker’s travel expenses in due course by another method. Leave granted.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.21 am): This morning in this place we saw an extraordinary performance by the Premier. We saw him stand here and indicate that he had the solutions to the crisis engulfing Queensland Health. Keep in mind that only a few weeks ago this was the very same Premier who said he needed a commission of inquiry in order to get to the bottom of what was happening in Queensland Health because he did not have a clue about what was going on. Yet, within one day of that commission of inquiry sitting, he comes into this place with a so- called grab bag of solutions which the people of Queensland are asked to believe will fix the problem. What we have seen from the Premier this morning is simply more words, more rhetoric, more promises, more crocodile tears and absolutely no solution whatsoever. Where was Mr Beattie’s contrition this morning? Where were Peter Beattie’s apologies to these people who were maimed and the families of those who were killed as a consequence of his government’s negligence and his government’s incompetence? No-one in Queensland believes that he is capable of fixing this problem because he stuffed it up in the first place. That is the simple reality: he stuffed it up in the first place. 24 May 2005 Private Members’ Statements 1505

Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I actually have a problem: do not use that word. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Acting Speaker, they messed it up in the first place. It was this government and its negligence and its ignoring of people for so long that caused this problem. Look at what it did to Toni Hoffman, Wendy Erglis, Con Aroney and a whole range of other people who sought to blow the whistle on the meltdown of Queensland Health in this statement. There was nothing other than ignorance. There was nothing other than sidelining. There was nothing other than marginalisation of these people. This Premier cannot be believed because this Premier did not know what was going on and, if he did, he did not act. He was concerned only with his own image and the political salvation of his government. Curtin, Mr JJ MP Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.23 am): In stunned disbelief last week, the nation heard the dastardly attack by Alexander Downer on the greatest prime minister Australia has ever had—John Joseph Curtin. Downer dismissed him as an appeaser. Recent reference to ‘historical revisionists’ and ‘self-cloaked paradigms of intellectual superiority’ concerning the late premier’s record fades into insignificance compared with this assault on our history. The truth of the matter is that Curtin in the late thirties and after war was declared was the most persistent, passionate champion of Australia’s defence. Misleadingly, or out of ignorance, Downer ignored the support of the Lyons government of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policies leading to the Munich Pact. Curtin was the saviour of Australia in our darkest hour. The conservatives were divided. They were at each other’s throats. Ironically, Downer was giving the Earle Page address. It was the very Page who slaughtered Menzies with his allegations of Menzies’ cowardice in resigning his military commission in World War I to avoid overseas service. Undoubtedly Curtin’s greatest wartime achievements were, firstly, the return of the 20,000 men in the 7th Division, saving them from death and capture at Burma, and his inspiring leadership and oratory advocating an independent destiny for Australia. In achieving this, he united Australia; he inspired it. He broke the imperial chain and forged the American alliance. He stood up to ferocious criticism from the press and diplomats. He shamed strikers back to the job. He defied Churchill. He overcame personal failures to lead a nation with decency and humility. John Curtin’s name will not be sullied by this uncouth and ignorant attack. Just who is this Downer?

Health System Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (10.24 am): A few days ago the health minister announced that a new $14 million health precinct is to be built on the Sunshine Coast. This precinct will include, apparently, child health, palliative care and an adult mental health unit. What I would like to know is, if there are not enough doctors to staff hospitals that are already in existence, how on earth is this proposed health precinct going to be manned? Or, like other government promises such as the promised raising of the Borumba Dam, is this another announcement to keep the public happy in the short term, with the government hoping that by 2018 when it is supposed to be completed no-one will even remember? Still on health, we have the news that the Premier wants to alert medical communities world wide to get Dr Patel to come back to Queensland—a very noble gesture considering it was Queensland Health which paid for the doctor’s one-way ticket to get out of the country. Whilst this government has a lot to answer for in relation to the provision of health services in this state, I would like to know how hard the AMA is working to lobby the federal government to increase places for medical students. Remember that it was the AMA which lobbied the federal Labor government initially to limit the allocated places which has led to the chronic shortage of medical practitioners we are now facing. I sincerely hope that Australian doctors no longer support these student placement restrictions, or are they secretly happy with the status quo and the fact that fewer doctors in the system mean less competition, higher demand and higher prices for their services? The losers in this whole debacle continue to be the ordinary public who are being held to ransom by greedy doctors, a succession of inept health ministers and a health department renowned for using bullying and intimidation tactics to control and frighten its staff into silence and not questioning inadequacies which have been inherent in the health system in this state.

YMCA Youth Parliament Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.26 am): Last Friday I had the privilege of being Acting Speaker for a youth parliament. After meeting and listening to these fine young people, I know that our future is in good hands. They researched in detail and spoke confidently on important issues that affect all of us, including petrol prices. They brought an example to me in my electorate of a petrol station that on Saturday afternoon was selling petrol for around $1.04, at midnight Saturday it was 90c and on 1506 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005

Sunday morning it was back up to $1.04—14 cents difference in just a couple of hours. We do have to question how this pricing is done. Women’s fashion sizing and the effect that it has on our young women was another issue that was debated. For example, jeans at an outlet that are three Xs or, in other words, extra large are the same size as a women’s size 8. What is this doing to the women in our country? Whether homework assists students in their education was debated hotly. The issue that was mostly spoken of was driver education, L-plates and responsible driving. Students spoke of the loss of loved ones in their schools because of tragic accidents. They spoke passionately and in detail of the driver education and the type of driving they would like to see on the road. They would like to become more aware of their responsibilities and their skills when it comes to driving. The Electoral Voting Age Amendment Bill was hotly debated and the discussion mostly centred on how much these young people have to offer. When it came to water restrictions, we all have a neighbour who, no matter how green their garden is, wants to hose because it is their hosing day. They discussed how important it was to start conserving the use of water in our country. Shailer Park State High School in my electorate had eight students present and I was very proud of all of them. There were two teachers in attendance and one got to be an attendant for the day. They made me very proud. The staff from all the other schools were also very impressed with all of their students. Time expired. Health System Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): All Queenslanders who have been adversely treated by the health system should feel sickened today. They would have seen the Premier come in here with his best sorry face on and stand up and suggest that he has all the solutions. One day after the commission of inquiry has begun to look into the inherent problems that he has denied for so long, he comes in here with his best sorry face on and tells Queenslanders that he has the solutions. He pats himself on the back and suggests that he has all the answers before the commission has even had a chance to delve into the problems and establish clearly what the problems are. There is only one man in Queensland who would have the gall and the hide to do that. Peter Beattie is the only man in Queensland who would have to gall and the hide to come into this parliament after six years in a leadership position, overseeing this problem and denying this problem, and stand up in this parliament and tell Queenslanders that he has the solution to the problem. Queenslanders should be a heck of a lot more worried today than they were yesterday about the future of the health system because there is no guarantee that that approach is going to provide any answers or any solutions to the problems that have beset Queensland Health. What we have seen today is a continuation of the government’s political response to a problem that unfortunately besets Queensland Health. It is a political response; it is a response that is designed to protect the government’s political butt. It is a response that is designed to protect Peter Beattie. He comes in now, after painting himself as the victim for the last few days, with his solution that he hopes is going to turn him into a hero. I do not think the people of Queensland are going to be fooled by that approach. Nor should they be fooled by that approach. It is a well-worn approach, but it will not work in this instance. Time expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Patel, Dr J Mr SPRINGBORG (10.31 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the minister’s belated admission that Dr Patel had been hurriedly provided with a one-way business class air fare out of the country. Was Dr Patel also provided with a glowing reference to enable him to continue practising by way of a certificate of good standing or other documentation? Mr NUTTALL: All matters relating to Dr Patel that are in the possession of Queensland Health have been forwarded to the commission of inquiry so that the commission of inquiry can investigate— Mr Copeland: He criticised you for not providing that information. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Cunningham, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr Springborg: This is the people’s parliament. Mr Rickuss: Answer the question. 24 May 2005 Questions Without Notice 1507

Mr Springborg: Yes or no? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order! Mr NUTTALL: All matters that are on Dr Patel’s file will be referred to the commission of inquiry so that the commission of inquiry can investigate those matters. I think that is the appropriate and proper thing to do. The member opposite should not be involving himself— Mr Springborg: Is that a yes or a no? Mr NUTTALL: We should not be trying to run a parallel inquiry here—one by the opposition and one by the commission of inquiry. The inquiry is the proper place for any issues around Dr Patel to be— Mr Springborg: We don’t need an inquiry for you to say yes or no. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, please. Mr NUTTALL: The inquiry is the proper place for any issues around Dr Patel to be aired and for matters to be fully investigated. That is the proper thing to do. I have no intention of doing anything that would impede the working of this commission of inquiry. My intention is to support the inquiry to the fullest extent that both I and the department can. We have committed ourselves to that. As all members know, the commissioner is a fiercely independent person. He should be allowed the opportunity to investigate the issues around Dr Patel and the other issues in the terms of reference without any interference from either this government or the opposition. The Health Report 2003 Mr SPRINGBORG: My second question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the culture of deception and denial that is endemic in his Labor government and in Queensland Health in particular. This document—the official report on Queensland’s public hospital system, published by the Premier’s department on the eve of the last election—which I now table, claims— Our doctors, nurses and health professionals have made the Queensland public hospital system the equal of any in the world. Is it not true that not one doctor was involved in compiling this report? Is it not true that not one nurse was involved in compiling the report and that not one health professional was involved in compiling the report? Is it not true that this official report was devised by the Premier’s own spin doctor and now stands as a classic example of the deception and denial about our hospitals that starts in the Premier’s very own office? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. This report was widely debated prior to the last state election, and I think the record stands for itself. Let me deal with the thrust of what the Leader of the Opposition said. I accept that there are cultural changes necessary in Health. The blueprint that I spelt out this morning is only the beginning of our considerations. I wanted everyone in Queensland to be aware of the things that we are thinking about doing. I have just sent the blueprint to all three inquiries—the Morris inquiry, the Peter Forster review and the CMC inquiry, which particularly relates to alleged bullying—because I want them to be aware of what the government is thinking. When these inquiries are done the recommendations will come to the government, and my cabinet colleagues and I will have to determine what changes we make and how we improve the system. Let me make it clear to the House today and to the people of Queensland: yes, there will be structural changes in Health. Mr Springborg: How many doctors and nurses and health professionals? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! You have asked your question, Leader of the Opposition. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr Springborg: How many were involved in that? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think you should be having a conversation. I cannot hear the Premier. Mr BEATTIE: As I have said, there will be structural changes in Health. There will be changes to improve the culture. There will be a more accountable system where people— Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I would have thought, bearing in mind all of the issues raised about this, that the opposition actually would be interested in solutions as opposed to the politics, but let me deal with it because it is important. We will be making cultural changes. I think that any incidences of bullying will certainly be identified at the Morris royal commission. Today I say to the staff in Queensland Health that we will bring about a culture whereby they are valued—respected and valued and part of providing the wonderful health care that Queenslanders are getting and expect from the system. I do believe that Queensland has a world-class health system. There are problems in aspects of it. I will not move away from defending the excellent doctors and nurses that we have in our system. I take the point made by the Deputy Premier: we have some of the best doctors in the world, we have some of the best nurses in the world and we have some of the best allied health professionals in the 1508 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005 world. We have to change the system to ensure that not only are they rewarded for their hard work and effort but also they are valued and respected and the system is organised on that basis. I flagged to the House this morning that I and my government are prepared to consider—Gordon and I discussed this before I raised it in the House—a splitting of the department into a hospitals department and a community health department. I think that will be a better outcome for Queenslanders. Community Cabinet, Sunshine Coast Ms MOLLOY: My question is addressed to the Premier. Firstly, I thank the Premier for coming up to the Sunshine Coast for the last community cabinet and bringing the DGs with him. An opposition member interjected. Ms MOLLOY: That is gross. You are disgusting. Shut up! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat; I am in control here. The member for Noosa will leave the running of the parliament to the chair. What you said was out of order and I ask you to withdraw the last statement. Just ask your question. An opposition member: Mr Acting Speaker— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat. Ms MOLLOY: I withdraw that. An opposition member interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I have asked that. I do not need your advice on that, either. The member for Noosa will ask her question. Ms MOLLOY: Could the Premier detail the plans the government has for future health provision on the Sunshine Coast? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Noosa for her question. Yes, the community cabinet meeting, which was our 83rd, was a great success for the Sunshine Coast. I thank the member for Noosa and Chris Cummins for their support while we were there. Monday week ago was a great day for health provision on the Sunshine Coast. The health minister, Gordon Nuttall, and the local MPs, Chris Cummins and Cate Molloy, joined me to announce that Sippy Downs will be the site for the planned Sunshine Coast health hub and a new $500 million hospital, as announced in the recent South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan that the Treasurer and I announced. A contract was signed last Monday week for the 5½ hectares of land at Sippy Downs. This hub and new hospital reinforce my government’s commitment to this region and are yet another example of our planning carefully for the Sunshine Coast infrastructure. The location of the hospital, adjoining the university, is ideal. It is ideal for a future that could include a medical school on the Sunshine Coast. That is what we want to see as part of the rebuilding plans for health and that is what Smart State thinking is all about. This relationship between the tertiary sector—that is, our university—and our health providers—doctors, nurses and so on—is absolutely essential to ensure we have the skills for the future. That is why this is good planning; that is why this is good thinking. The Queensland government is also committed to the development of an ambulatory care facility on the Sunshine Coast. This new model of service delivery for community care, primary health care and ambulatory services is centred on four groups: children, young people and families; supporting healthy ageing; managing chronic diseases; and promoting mental health. The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan is also about a vision for all aspects of daily life, be it hospitals, schools, roads or energy. This is one of the growth areas of the nation and will play a vital role in ensuring that its future needs are met. It is envisaged that the Sunshine Coast health hub will involve the consolidation of existing services that include child health, paediatric development, diabetes, palliative care and adult mental health. New services potentially include oral health chairs focusing on the paediatric population, community based rehabilitation, cardiac rehabilitation and renal disease. It is not only sensible but also practical to have a large range of services available in the one location. Funding of $14.72 million has been allocated for the project. Chris Cummins and Cate Molloy are right in saying that this massive health injection reinforces the government’s commitment to the Sunshine Coast. At 11.30 am today Gordon Nuttall and I will be meeting with various nurses to brief them on the blueprint plan I spelt out in parliament this morning. One of the things that Gordon and I will also be talking to them about is this new hospital, because there is nurse training going on at that university and they value that relationship between nurse training and the tertiary sector. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Payne Road State School in the electorate of Ashgrove. 24 May 2005 Questions Without Notice 1509

Overseas Trained Doctors Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. I refer to the minister’s repeated assurances to this parliament that the bona fides of all overseas trained doctors were checked within 48 hours following the revelations about Dr Patel. In the minister’s answer to my question on notice No. 472 he has not been able to tell me how many background checks on overseas trained doctors were made by the Medical Board between 1999 and 2003 because the minister says there were not the systems to do it. Does the minister have any idea of whether the backgrounds of overseas trained doctors coming to Queensland prior to 2002 were checked at all? Mr NUTTALL: Honourable members would be aware that the answer to the question is that the Medical Board advised me that those systems were not in place in terms of some of those checks, but the Medical Board, between 1999 and 2003, had a system in place to check the credentials of overseas trained doctors in terms of the certificate that was supplied. Mr Seeney: You couldn’t tell us how many? Mr NUTTALL: That is right. Mr Seeney: Because they didn’t have the systems? Mr NUTTALL: Because the Medical Board did not have the systems between 1999 and 2003. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Member for Callide, you have asked the question. Order! Mr NUTTALL: I am simply trying to be honest in the answer to the honourable member. The member asked me a question on notice. I gave a response that said that the Queensland Medical Board, between 1999 and 2003, did not have the systems. I answered the honourable member’s question that he asked. Dreaming Festival Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s support for Indigenous cultural development is unquestioned. Can the Premier detail how this is to be further expanded with the upcoming Dreaming festival that was announced last week? Mr BEATTIE: The answer to that is yes and I would love to do that. The Dreaming, Australia’s international Indigenous festival, will be presented next month by the Queensland Folk Federation, producers of the acclaimed Woodford Folk Festival, which, as the member knows from her long involvement and support for it, is a great festival. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: I have not missed one in 15 years. Mr BEATTIE: Fifteen years? The member does not even look that old. The inaugural Dreaming festival will be held at the Woodford Folk Festival site from 10 to 13 June 2005. The Dreaming will be a vibrant festival where local, national and international audiences may experience the most comprehensive showcase of Indigenous arts from across the country and around the world. The Dreaming will include international performers like Red Heart from North America, dancers and craftsmen from seven language groups from the Papuan provinces of Indonesia, Sun Spirits Theatre Company from Canada, drummers from Korea, the Atete Polynesian dancers and filmmaker Makerita Urale from Samoa with her latest film. The program highlights also vary from Christine Anu, to Melbourne’s Movement Hip Hop Crew, to Australian Idol’s Casey Donovan and to acclaimed comedian Mandy Nolan. It is about celebrating Indigenous dance, theatre and music with all its sensitivity and passion and it is about fun and it is about culture. I table for the information of the House the brochure that goes with it and accompanying letter. The Queensland Folk Federation’s vision for the Dreaming is to reach new heights in the presentation of interactive and cultural experiences and to develop significant collaborations with international and national Indigenous communities, institutions and arts companies. They have the experience, they have the talent and they have an event proven site as well. The debut is shaping up as a truly unique event. Even Woodford’s reputation, certain as it is, will also expand and develop as a result. The festival will highlight both traditional and contemporary Indigenous art practices and challenge existing perceptions of what Aboriginal art is. It will allow the presenting of new works giving Indigenous people the opportunity to reclaim their ancestral songs, steps and stories and all to be told by new a generation of Australians. The Dreaming will also develop skills of Indigenous stallholders, providing an immediate avenue for craftspeople from remote rural and urban communities to sell works directly to the public. The festival director, Rhoda Roberts, says the Dreaming is about the past, the present and, of course, the future. She believes it will ignite age-old stories, revitalise ceremony and create an experience through the eyes and hearts of Indigenous artists both nationally and internationally. 1510 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005

Two weeks ago in this House I detailed that the government recently paid the final instalment of $120,000 to complete a $650,000 two-year sponsorship. Improvements mean the number of campers can expand. The Woodford festival, from 27 December to 1 January, attracted 130,000 people. Today I announce my government is committing at least $250,000 to ensure the Dreaming is a success. I table details for the House. Toowoomba Health Service, Director of Psychiatry Mr HORAN: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. The director of psychiatry at the Toowoomba Health District has been the acting director of mental health for Queensland for most of this year. This leaves him with supposedly half his time for his Toowoomba position. Half of his Toowoomba position is also defined as research and, as well, he has the right of private practice which he undertakes not in Toowoomba but in Brisbane. Toowoomba health service has two overseas trained doctors who are deemed under the ‘area of need’ principle as consultant psychiatrists who must practice under the supervision of the senior psychiatrist. How can the director of psychiatry possibly provide this supervision to the deemed consultants or provide mental health care to Toowoomba and region when he is hardly ever in Toowoomba? Mr NUTTALL: I think it is a bit inappropriate for the honourable member to say that he is hardly ever in Toowoomba when he really does not know the number of hours that he actually does work there. It is misleading to say that he is hardly ever in Toowoomba. He went through a job description which outlined his roles and responsibilities. Obviously if the other doctors are there and need to be supervised they should be supervised appropriately. If the member has any evidence— Mr Horan: There is only one out of the six there this week. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, you have asked the question. Mr NUTTALL: If the honourable member has any evidence at all that these people are not performing in a proper clinical manner in the terms that he has outlined, he has a responsibility to report that to the board, not just raise it in this parliament. Mr Horan interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, you have asked your question. Order! Mr NUTTALL: That is correct. The member was a former health minister so he should know better. He should know that if he or any other professional has any evidence of any doctor behaving inappropriately the proper— Mr Horan: I asked you about the supervision by the director. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Toowoomba South under standing order 253. The minister will resume his seat. I am not going to allow that to happen. I feel quite happy about the way parliament is going today although I must admit that the member for Noosa is unhappy about a comment. I did not hear it so I could not react to it. I am trying to run both sides of this House to the best of my ability. I am not perfect. I am going to make mistakes and I will not hear everything. I would like the minister to be given the opportunity to answer the question. The member for Toowoomba South has asked the question so that is it. Mr NUTTALL: The honourable member asked whether the supervising doctor was ensuring that the two doctors who were deemed to be able to work there were being supervised during their clinical work. I understand that that is the gist of the question. His role and responsibility as a doctor is to make sure that he is supervising those people properly. If he is away on other duties or in his private practice then those doctors should not be doing clinical work. Certainly they can be doing paperwork or other tasks but they should not be doing any clinical work. I will restate the position: if the member or anyone else is aware that they are doing clinical work outside their scope of practice they should report it. Education, Capital Grants Funding Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the minister for education. Earlier this year when the minister and I visited Stafford Heights State School in my electorate I was pleased to witness the principal and the P&C representatives being assisted with information about how to apply for direct capital grants under the new Commonwealth program. We specifically spoke about cooperating with the federal government for joint projects. I was therefore surprised to hear that the federal education minister, Brendan Nelson, accused the state government in federal question time yesterday of political interference to hinder the program. Would the minister please shed some light on this matter? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question and for the interest that he and members on all sides of the House have shown in working with their schools and, where possible, their federal members to ensure that schools in their electorates get access to this federal government program. The member for Toowoomba South knows very well that there has been a lot of work done between state and Commonwealth members to make sure that schools in their electorates do access these funds. 24 May 2005 Questions Without Notice 1511

Nothing could be further from the truth. The federal minister accuses Queensland of some sort of political interference to somehow hinder the allocation of $140 million worth of capital into our schools. As if! As I said, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only has the Queensland government consistently supported this program from the beginning but all principals have been provided with a 12- page document containing guidelines to assist them to apply. I quote from this document, which states— This Commonwealth initiative presents a good opportunity for Queensland schools to supplement the state government's investment in schools. Schools and community groups are encouraged to take full advantage of the benefits of the program. I table that document. On the very day that the federal minister was bagging our schools and insinuating some sort of political interference, the head office of Education Queensland was issuing a reminder to schools across the state about the deadline to ensure that they did not miss the cut-off date. I table that for the information of the House. We can only wonder how this allegation might have arisen. I would have to say that the leadership issue in Canberra must be hotting up. The federal minister is obviously so desperate to appease some of his backbench colleagues that he will repeat any unsubstantiated rubbish. His source for this information is an unnamed Queensland federal member who claims to be have been contacted by three unnamed principals from three unnamed schools. Frankly, I think it is a fabrication. I do not think those three principals exist. I think he may well have been taking advice from a former member for Clayfield. I would suggest that he, like every member of this House, learn a very valuable lesson about the reliability of that information. I am very pleased that the federal minister has raised this issue because it gives me an opportunity to outline a few things to the House. Members will remember during the election campaign the Prime Minister making it absolutely clear that the Commonwealth intended to bypass the states. In his election speech the Prime Minister stated— In relation to the government schools, we're going to do things a little differently this time. We're not going to pay the money to the State Governments. We're going to deal directly with the parent bodies. The federal government found that it had no legal basis to do that. It had to come to the states and ask us to administer the program. So, far from hindering this program, we are administering it on behalf of the Commonwealth. They could not do it, so we have to do it for them. If there are three principals out there who said this, then we will know who they are soon because they will be the only three in the state who do not apply. Health System Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Premier. I refer the Premier to comments made by Commissioner Morris yesterday that documents sought under summons by the inquiry had not been forthcoming from Queensland Health, and I ask: can the Premier assure Queenslanders that the government has not deliberately taken any documents through cabinet to simply prevent the inquiry from accessing them due to cabinet confidentiality and that it will make all documents available to the inquiry, irrespective of whether or not they have been considered by cabinet? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Robina and Leader of the Liberal Party for his question. The answer to the question is yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Business Red Tape Mr LIVINGSTONE: My question is to the Minister for State Development and Innovation. The Business Council of Australia has released a report calling on governments to cut business red tape. Can the minister inform the House what the situation is in Queensland? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. Today the Courier-Mail ran an article entitled ‘Red tape out of control’ in response to the Business Council of Australia’s business regulation action plan. The Business Council has put together a report about the amount of regulation impacting on business. It measured the legislation Queensland passes every year page by page on the assumption that most of this legislation impacts upon the business community. I would suggest that simply taking the number of pages of legislation passed by parliament every year is a very clumsy way of measuring the regulatory burden faced by businesses in our state. Every time the parliament sits, laws, regulations and indeed amendments are made to reflect the changing needs of the community. This is a necessary and vitally important part of any representative democracy. The Premier met with the Business Council of Australia in Sydney just last week and I understand that the red tape issue was never raised. However, the government recognises that there is a need to be vigilant about red tape. That is why this government has reviewed the operations of the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, which examines the regulatory burden faced by Queensland businesses. As minister, I acknowledge the need to continually update and improve this process. As such, I have recently streamlined the red tape team with the aim of making this group more task oriented. The key activity of this new task force will be to undertake real life case studies and reviews of the impacts of 1512 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005 red tape on the operational success of businesses in our state. The government understands the need for tangible results and the new task force will not just be about sitting around a table or talking about red tape; it will be about getting out there and achieving genuine results for small businesses and reducing the red tape. The new streamlined task force will comprise representatives from a small, a medium and a large business organisation, a parliamentary representative and a union representative. Can I take the opportunity this morning of putting on the record my thanks to Andrew Fraser for the tremendous amount of work he has done. The Business Council has made a number of recommendations in the report and I am pleased to report to the parliament that most of these recommendations are already occurring here in Queensland. Whale Hunting, Japan Mr WELLINGTON: My question is to the minister for tourism. Minister, I understand that our Australian Prime Minister has written to the Japanese leader informing him of Australians’ outrage over Japanese plans to kill whales in our waters. I ask: will the minister as minister for Queensland tourism join in condemning the Japanese proposal to kill whales by authorising the production and distribution of a pamphlet targeting Japanese tourists in Queensland so as to inform them of our strong support for the whales and our strong opposition to the proposed slaughter of the whales? Ms KEECH: I recognise the member’s passionate response and interest in protecting our whales. I am very keen as minister for tourism to do anything I can to protect the whales of Queensland and Australia and would be very keen to have conversations with the federal ministers. Public Housing Mr WILSON: My question is to the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing. Minister, the housing boom on top of the Howard government’s severe funding cuts has forced a record number of Queenslanders to join the list for public housing assistance. How is the Beattie government helping these people on the waiting list? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for his ongoing interest in this subject, something that he has carried forth from the day he first came into this parliament. So I thank him for his support. I also thank him in particular with regard to public housing being created in his electorate where people do not want to have public housing in their areas. He is one person who stands up and delivers in that regard, unlike some members opposite, I have to say. The reality is that there is a lot of confusion—deliberate or otherwise—generated from the other side of the House about public housing waiting lists. Public housing waiting lists are not a measure of homelessness. What they are a measure of in many ways is the demand that people have for a quality product, which we have on the market. Increasingly, this government adds to the stock of public housing and the quality. But what is being ignored of course in those lists is the fact that in the Brisbane Housing Co. we have a new product. We have 120 new homes. We have increasingly gone to the private sector in leasing arrangements and now have 1,800 there. We have bond loans that assist people. In fact, out of the 35,000-odd people on our waiting list, 20,000 of those people receive some direct support from this government, and that is something that is ignored. The real villain in all of this of course is the business of rent assistance that has continued to be the pathway that is being trod out by the federal government with the support of the opposition in this state. The reality is that the constituents of very few of those who sit opposite ever get rent assistance. They get very little support from the federal government. The $4 billion that has come into Queensland in my time as the minister has by and large gone into metropolitan Brisbane. That is where it goes to. It does not go west of the Great Divide, because there is no private rental market past there. I am waiting for the day when those who sit opposite start to recognise that fact. The reality is that we on this side of the House are trying every single way we can to get into that rent assistance stream. The Brisbane Housing Co. is one such way, and the other way to do it is through the Community Rent Scheme. As people put their names on the waiting list, they go through a community housing group. As a result of that, they go through the Community Rent Scheme and stay there until they can get into public housing tenancies. Indeed, we also have the reverse—that is, people who are difficult to manage in public housing who fall behind in their rent and all the rest of it. We actually keep those people in their tenancies and we remove the public housing status of it and hand it over to community housing to manage them. When members opposite ask about the number of public housing units out there, what they are actually showing is their abject ignorance of the realities of the products that we have on the market in Queensland to provide for people who are in dire straits in terms of their housing. But the grim fact is that our waiting lists are going to continue to blow out as the rental market in the private sector continues to fail people in this state. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Hinchinbrook, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Payne Road State School in the electorate of Ashgrove. 24 May 2005 Questions Without Notice 1513

Queensland Ambulance Service, Rosters Mr ROWELL: My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Why is the minister threatening to fine ambulance officers $3,000 if they dare to speak out about the new roster system? Is this not just another example of the culture of bullying and intimidation that has developed under the Beattie Labor government? Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for the question. The answer is simply, no, I have not threatened ambulance paramedics. I have not threatened anyone. The member is well out of line. That has actually come from the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. With regard to the paramedics that we speak of, those on the other side of the House would be happy to have them working 14 hours a day. They do not celebrate Labour Day. They do not celebrate shorter working hours for staff. If a paramedic starts at, say, 6 o’clock at night and has a 14-hour night shift, he or she may finish— Mr Rowell interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, you have asked your question. Mr CUMMINS: They are going to finish at approximately 8 o’clock the next morning. Mr Rowell: They don’t like it! Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I warn you under 253. Mr CUMMINS: Who in their right mind would think that anyone working in a very stressful job is going to be at their optimum after 14 hours of work? I have spoken to paramedics. Opposition members interjected. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: The member for Lockyer has been very subtly interjecting all morning with his hand over his mouth. I am hearing you, but I suggest you stop it. Mr CUMMINS: Not only are paramedics telling me that they are aware that driving a high-speed vehicle at that hour when all sorts of people are taking their families to school and similar is dangerous; they have also told me that they are worried about making a life-saving decision after a 14-hour shift. Mr Schwarten: Fatigue. Mr CUMMINS: Exactly. I take the member’s interjection. They are not only physically fatigued but also mentally fatigued. We as a government took a brave stance and introduced community ambulance cover, something that all members on this side of the House should be very proud of. What will the community ambulance cover deliver? It will deliver 350 extra paramedics over a four-year period. It will deliver 22 new or refurbished ambulance stations up and down the length and breadth of Queensland. A government member interjected. Mr CUMMINS: And that, too. It will deliver 200 new or refurbished ambulance vehicles. We are seeing close to 60,000 or more people migrate to the Sunshine State every year—the Smart State. What does that mean? It means an increase of 5,000 code 1 cases in this financial year compared to the previous financial year. That is a 10 per cent increase—a 10 per cent increase that we are coping with. We are improving response times. How are we doing it? We are doing it by roster reform. Not only does roster reform assist the paramedics; it delivers better services. If members on the other side of the House had their way, they would have kids down the mines. They do not care for the workers. They never have. That is why this government proudly stands up for the workers. Street Parties Mr BRISKEY: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. Minister, there have been recent reports in the media of incidents where young people have been involved in street parties that have got out of control due to violence and alcohol induced behaviour. Can the minister please explain what steps she is taking to address this matter? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Cleveland for the question, because I know that he is a father of four teenagers and like other Queensland parents— Mr Briskey: Three teenagers. Ms SPENCE: Three teenagers. Many Queensland parents, including me, are very concerned about this growing phenomenon of young people gathering together in their hundreds and gate crashing parties at people’s private homes and also in public places. This has been occurring throughout the state. We have had incidents in the last 12 months in Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton. There have been a number of incidents on the Gold Coast and here in Brisbane. Of course it is not a phenomenon that is unique to Queensland; other states in Australia and indeed other countries of the world are also experiencing this problem. But I think it is a recent phenomenon made worse by the ease of communication which young people can indulge in these days. They SMS each other. They talk to each 1514 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005 other with ease through the internet and use these methods of communication to communicate false information to one another. Two weeks ago in Scarborough we had the problem of a party being advertised to hundreds of young people. False invitations were issued in which people were offered free alcohol. Hundreds of people turned up. In fact, there was no party at this private home. Obviously, members of the community are fearful of these parties occurring and become distressed when they do occur. Sometimes these parties have tragic consequences. They get out of control. Fighting and drunkenness occurs and young people are hurt. I am concerned about this phenomenon. I am very pleased that a task force comprised of members of parliament has been established to look at this problem. I would like to thank Julie Attwood, the member for Mount Ommaney, for volunteering to chair this task force. I would also like to thank the members for Springwood, Burleigh, Broadwater, Redlands, Keppel and Glass House for volunteering to look at this problem over the next six months. The committee will examine the extent of the problem. It will research how other jurisdictions have approached the problem. It will look at the appropriateness of the current laws, police powers, education and programs. It will look at the roles and responsibilities of parents. It will also look to the people of Queensland for their input. I thank the members of the committee for volunteering to undertake this task. It is an important issue that requires some creative solutions. We will all be looking forward to the committee's ultimate report. Queensland Health, Performance Bonuses Dr FLEGG: My question is directed to the Premier. Given that he has maintained that the payment of performance bonuses to directors-general was solely a matter between the relevant director-general and himself, I ask: did the Premier not approve the performance bonus to the previous director-general of Queensland Health for successfully implementing his policies, including the deeming of overseas trained doctors as specialists to cover work force shortages caused by the mismanagement of professional staff? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Moggill for his question. He well knows that for a period a system of bonuses applied. Yes, the previous director-general of Queensland Health was paid bonuses. I phased out the bonus system. I do not have the figures with me, but a handful of directors-general still have some residual rights. But, by and large, the giving of performance bonuses has been phased out. So the answer to the member’s question is yes. There was a period when the directors-general of all departments, including Queensland Health, were paid bonuses depending on their performance. I will need to double-check this, but I do not recall anyone getting 100 per cent. Therefore, I judged on their performance whether they were paid. Because there were all sorts of politics played in relation to bonuses, I simply got rid of them. As contracts came up for renewal I phased them out. The answer to the member’s question is yes in terms of the payment of bonuses. I do not accept the thrust of the member’s question as to why bonuses were to be paid. I set a criteria for each director-general to perform. Let us talk frankly. The member is a health professional. He understands this. We have an enormous health system. As I said in my blueprint statement this morning, we have a large area— 1.74 million square kilometres—and a small population. It does not matter which party is in power; the provision of health services across Queensland is challenging for any government. We have tried to improve the system. We know that we have a world-class system, but there are aspects of it that can be improved. The member has raised some of those issues. Today I am saying to the member—as I am saying to any other member of parliament—that we cannot change the past but we can improve the future. Very shortly the member will be receiving a letter containing the statement that I addressed the House with this morning. I expect to receive a submission from every member in this House who has a genuine interest in health. I am particularly looking forward to the member's submission, because I know that he will have some constructive and positive ideas. Dr Flegg: I’ve been trying to tell you. Mr Springborg: We’ll send ours to Morris. Mr BEATTIE: When it arrives, Gordon and I will sit down and discuss it. Mr Seeney: We’ve been trying to tell you for years. Mr BEATTIE: I say to the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Callide that, with respect, the question was actually asked by a Liberal member. It was not asked by a member of the National Party. I would be grateful if the members gave the member for Moggill some respect and courtesy, which is what I am tying to do. Mr Seeney interjected. 24 May 2005 Questions Without Notice 1515

Mr BEATTIE: The member does not like the Liberals. I am going to ignore the National Party nonsense and take this question seriously, because it is a fair question. I want to make this point, though: if we are serious about getting a better outcome, then it is important that everyone who has a contribution to make does so. This morning I made a number of suggestions, some of which members will agree with and some of which they will not. But I am keen to hear members' positive ideas as well. Local Government Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women to the Local Government Association of Queensland’s Size, Shape and Sustainability conference, which will focus on ways in which councils can better collaborate regionally to ensure a strong future, to be held on 31 May. Can the minister advise the House what the state government can do to assist councils in this program? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for the question. I was pleased to see him recently in Yeppoon at the Urban Local Government Association conference and to discuss these matters with him. There has never been a more exciting, a more dynamic or a more challenging time in local government in the state of Queensland. There are tremendous calls upon local government to change to ensure that they are meeting the diverse demands of their communities. There are stricter accountability requirements than there have ever been before and there are higher environmental standards. At the same time, we need to recognise that the local government sector of Queensland is tremendously diverse. There are 157 councils. They vary greatly in terms of the area they administer and the population they serve—ranging from serving hundreds of people through to serving a quarter of a million people and covering areas as small as 100 square kilometres and as large as hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. The councils vary also in terms of the climate and remoteness of the areas they govern and their proximity to Brisbane and other urban concentrations of people. With all of that, I congratulate the Local Government Association of Queensland, which has recognised that, in this dynamic time and in terms of considering the future of local government in Queensland, it is wise to have a discussion about the size, the shape and the sustainability of local government in the years to come. I absolutely support the association in its initiative. The association will hold a conference in Brisbane on 31 May and 1 June at which local government will talk about its long-term future and how it can best deliver local government services to the people of Queensland in those dramatically diverse situations in 10 years time and 20 years time. I support the Local Government Association in that endeavour. Further, the Beattie government supports local government with substantial funding. Recently we announced $700 million in infrastructure funding for local government for the next five years. Much of that funding will be spent on water and sewerage infrastructure, but it will also be spent on the new $25 million regional collaboration and capacity building program. Each year $5 million will be spent to help those councils that want to examine their boundaries, their regional service delivery or even possible amalgamations to make sure that the structure of local government is in the optimal model for long-term local governance in Queensland. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the honourable member for Nanango I acknowledge in the public gallery teachers, parents and students from Palm Beach State School in the electorate of Burleigh. Dairy Industry Mrs PRATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. The federal government is finally acknowledging that farmers are on the endangered species list. To confirm this, there are graphs showing Queensland milk sales rising while milk production is plummeting. It has been predicted by dairy industry advisers that, owing to the continuation of dairy farmers exiting the industry, there will be a shortage of fresh milk in Queensland within months. Will the government be relying on the southern states to make up the predicted shortfall in fresh milk supplies in Queensland? If so, what contingency plans does the government have to ensure adequate supplies of fresh milk to Queenslanders if the southern states are not able to supply our needs, based on the fact that they are also in the grip of drought and that they are also losing dairy farmers? How much will the government’s plan cost the consumer? Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There has been a propensity for members to make a speech when asking their questions. We have a 250-word limit for motions. I think that question would have passed the word limit for a motion. I suggest that members be more succinct while asking their questions; otherwise I will ask them to ask the question very quickly. Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, the honourable member is correct: with the ongoing drought, milk production in Queensland has certainly been slashed. That is one of the reasons Dairy Farmers has closed down its own processing facility in Toowoomba. Another reason is that we cannot have the supply of milk in Queensland that we had previously. Since 1516 Questions Without Notice 24 May 2005 deregulation occurred in July 2000, the number of dairy farmers in Queensland has been reduced from just over 1,600 to about 900. However, when we did have good rains milk production was maintained at a steady rate. My understanding is that milk production in Queensland has unfortunately dropped by around 10 per cent. Under deregulation, milk can freely be transported between states according to what the processing companies actually decide to do. If we look at the Toowoomba situation we see that milk from near the Victorian border was being transported to Toowoomba for processing. The costs of transportation over that distance were too exorbitant for that situation to continue. Unfortunately, under dairy deregulation industry is in control and industry works on contracts with dairy farmers. Governments unfortunately cannot control the weather. We are in the grip of a dreadful drought now. We have been in the grip of this drought for years—almost since dairy deregulation occurred. If we have a milk shortage and milk is required to come from south of the border then that milk should come, but I do not believe that to be the case right now.

Leukaemia Foundation, Fundraising Walk Mr LAWLOR: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Some ambulance paramedics have taken part in a fundraising walk for the Leukaemia Foundation from Gladstone to Brisbane. Can the minister please advise the House of their success in raising funds for the fight against leukaemia? Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for the question and I acknowledge his great love of walking. Today I will host a special lunch here at Parliament House for the Leukaemia Foundation’s ‘Walk of Hope’ team, which includes Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics who walked from Gladstone to Brisbane to raise funds to fight leukaemia. Last week on both Thursday and Saturday I joined the group in the last stages of their 530-kilometre marathon effort. The group set out from a breakfast launch in Gladstone on 8 May. I had the honour of officially seeing them off in their quest to raise $100,000 for the Leukaemia Foundation. They look set to raise close to that target, so well done to everyone involved. Many of them are here today in the gallery, including the ring leaders Russell Thomas, who is a paramedic, and his parents; Councillor Chris Trevor from the Gladstone City Council; Renee, who is an honorary from the Queensland Ambulance Service; Queensland’s best dietician, Ben Ghee; and Senior Sergeant Stephen Embleton and Adrian Collins from the Leukaemia Foundation. Leukaemia tragically touches many families each year. All six walkers have had cancer touch their lives and this was the motivation for them to undertake this massive walk. Covering between 40 and 50 kilometres per day was a huge effort. Last Thursday I joined the walkers outside Woodford and spent a few hours paving the bitumen with them as they made their way towards Brisbane. It was an uplifting experience and I cannot thank them enough for their extraordinary efforts. Then on Saturday I joined the walkers again as they hit the outskirts of Brisbane and I walked with them to the finish line at the emergency services headquarters at Kedron Park. We were hosted at the Gabba by the Lions for which we are very grateful, and the Deputy Premier and Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth, welcomed the tired group to watch the Lions and Richmond match. We were not too happy with the outcome but it was a lovely night. The group, with helpers from the Leukaemia Foundation, collected donations from the crowd at the match to boost this marvellous fundraising drive. I urge anyone who has not donated to this worthy cause to please consider doing so and to do so immediately to help the team meet the $100,000 target that they are trying to achieve. To all those involved with the ‘Walk of Hope’—those who did the walk itself and of course the behind-the-scenes crew—I extend my heartfelt congratulations on a job well done. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from the Sacred Heart Primary School in the electorate of Toowoomba North.

Capital Works Projects, Transport and Main Roads Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. I again refer the minister to question on notice No. 342 of 23 March 2005 with regard to capital works projects which were running behind schedule in the minister’s portfolio. Why is it that the member for Glass House has been unable to inform her local media that the Icebox road project between Maleny and Landsborough has escalated in cost from $2.6 million to well over $11 million and that completion of the project has been delayed until late July this year, when the minister was either unaware of the delays or deliberately omitted this project from the answer he provided in writing to this House? Mr LUCAS: I do not speak for the member for Glass House in this place. 24 May 2005 Privilege 1517

Food Exports, Asia Mr HAYWARD: My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries. I refer the minister to the government’s drive to boost exports to Asia. Is the minister aware of any dynamic small to medium sized Queensland companies that are embracing the export culture and making inroads into Asian markets? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the honourable member for the question. Of course Queensland’s reputation as a safe, clean and reliable food supplier has certainly helped reap great dividends for the 26 small and medium sized Queensland businesses who showcased their goods at the international hospitality and food expo held in Hong Kong recently. Most of the companies reported strong interest from Hong Kong businesses who were very keen to channel Queensland food into their local market. On 13 May I visited the stalls of all seven Queensland exhibitors who were personally attending HOFEX 2005, and everyone I spoke to had a positive story to tell. Some of our businesses were absolutely ecstatic at the response to their products, with Queensland companies exhibiting at the expo confidently predicting sales totalling $4.5 million over the next 12 months as a direct result. These are all innovative companies with a strong export culture which are embracing the opportunities open to them in Asia, and they have many great stories to tell. Geoff Orpin from Barramundi Blue near Ingham could hardly believe the level of interest in his fresh farmed barramundi. As a matter of fact, he is guaranteed sales of all his fish for the next two years. Bundaberg Brewed Drinks CEO, Gavin Paton, was also upbeat about marketing his ginger beer in Hong Kong. He market tested his products with local distributors and he will be making the marketing and labelling changes that have been recommended to him. Another Queensland company, Trisco Foods, expects to finalise an agency agreement with a major baking ingredient importer, JP Inglis, to distribute its product to the Hong Kong market—and the stories keep coming. Every exhibitor was complimentary of the support they received from Queensland Government Trade and Investment Offices, which has done so much to help those businesses showcase their goods. Irrespective of which country I visited, the reputation of Queensland’s clean, safe, reliable produce was always at the forefront. Queensland produce is probably the most desired by suppliers in all countries around the world. We have an enviable reputation. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! The time allotted for questions has now expired.

PRIVILEGE

Member for Noosa Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (11.31 am): Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. It is a privilege enjoyed by all members of this House to rise and ask questions without impediment or harassment. This morning we saw the member for Noosa harassed by members opposite with smutty remarks as she attempted to ask a question in this House. I understand it is not the first time that the member for Noosa has experienced dirty little asides from some of the members on the other side of this chamber. It should never happen. Women in this parliament are entitled to rise on any matter without being subject to schoolboy sniggering or ongoing harassment. Smutty remarks are simply out of place in this chamber. I view their continued existence here as a failure of leadership and, in light of your comments this morning about the conduct of members, Mr Acting Speaker, I call on the Leader of the Opposition to discipline his members and make these sorts of smutty, dirty asides a thing of the past. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: I will give the member for Beaudesert an opportunity to speak, but I would like to make a comment. It is fundamentally clear in practice under standing orders that the chair cannot respond to a statement that they did not hear. All I heard was the member for Noosa saying, ‘It is disgusting,’ and I was not going to allow her to say that because I did not hear the other comment. If I had heard it, it would have been my responsibility to act. The chair cannot rule on statements that the chair does not hear, but if the member for Beaudesert would like to comment on this issue he is entitled to. Mr LINGARD: Quite obviously the government is concerned this morning about its own performance and two things that it is trying to hide—firstly, its own performance on health and, secondly, its performance— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member under standing order 254. Resume your seat. I am on my feet. This is not going to be a debate. Mr LINGARD: Mr Acting Speaker— Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I have warned you under standing order 254. If you rise to your feet on this matter again, I will name you under standing order 254. 1518 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005

Mr Lingard: I can stand here on a matter of privilege. Mr ACTING SPEAKER: Order! There is no matter of privilege. You write to me about it. That is the standing orders.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.33 am): What we have seen in this place from the government and the Premier this morning is nothing short of high farce, to be frank. The Premier came into this place earlier today and sought to cover himself in some sort of glory. He sought the adulation and admiration of the electorate at large, of the people of Queensland, for the decay of the health system in this state. This is a man who previously held the position of health minister in this state. This is a man who has sat by for the last six years whilst two of his health ministers—Gordon Nuttall and Wendy Edmond—presided over the destruction of the health system in this state. The common denominator is Peter Beattie. He is the person who sat idly by as nothing was done to ensure that the people of Queensland received surgery on time. People were killed or maimed by our hospitals and people continue to be killed and maimed by our hospitals. He is the common denominator. He is not the victim that he would seek to make out. No amount of crocodile tears, no amount of self- congratulations, no amount of promises and no amount of words will fix the problems for those people in Bundaberg and elsewhere who have been left dead or injured as a consequence of his health system. Members should look at this farce that we all received a moment ago. It was marked ‘urgent’ from the Premier. It is a compilation of what he said in this place this morning. It is a great pity that he did not show the same amount of urgency when his health system was killing up to 67 people at the Bundaberg Base Hospital and leaving potentially hundreds of people injured and maimed up there. Where was the urgency from the Premier? There was no urgency whatsoever, but he comes into this place attempting to exercise some sort of image management, some sort of damage control process this morning, by marking his own little public relations exercise ‘urgent’. It is only urgent in Queensland when his own political life is at stake and when the political life of his health minister is at stake. It is never urgent when people are dying in his hospitals. It is urgent only when he is under political threat. That is what is happening in this state under this Premier and that is an insult. That is a gross, pathetic insult from a gross and pathetic person. We will not be a part of this showman’s games. We will not be a part of sending something to him so he can further obfuscate, so he can go out there in some form of public relations campaign. Our submissions will be made to the Morris royal commission. The commissioner is the only person who has the capacity in this state to get to the bottom of this. We will not have our submissions further sanitised by Peter Beattie in any way whatsoever. This is the man who sat idly by when Rob Messenger raised issues in this parliament about Dr Patel killing people. He was not urgently concerned at that particular stage. He is the person who, when Dr Patel had been identified, sat idly by for a week while his own government gave him a golden handshake and a golden parachute to get him out of this country. He sat idly by while that was going on. Where was Peter Beattie with his urgent concerns when Wendy Erglis was being castigated, bullied and intimidated by the Queensland health system? He was nowhere to be seen. He joined the culture of bullying and marginalisation. He sat in this place, as did the previous health minister, Wendy Edmond, and castigated, marginalised and maligned Wendy Erglis. Peter Beattie was not concerned about whistleblowers. Where was Peter Beattie when Toni Hoffman was driven to absolute despair in trying to expose the problems of Bundaberg Hospital—going to health authorities and raising these issues right at the very top? He was nowhere to be seen. Where was Peter Beattie when Con Aroney came out last year and said that cardiac patients were dying all around Queensland while waiting for surgery and while waiting to be seen by specialists? Where was Peter Beattie when Gordon Nuttall was out there saying that Con Aroney was a liar? Where was Peter Beattie standing up saying, ‘I am sorry’, to Professor Con Aroney when he was exonerated by specialists from interstate in South Australia who were part of an inquiry to look at cardiac services? They said that Professor Con Aroney was absolutely right. Where was Peter Beattie then? He was nowhere to be seen. His urgency is as false as his false face in this place this morning when he put on his morbid face and his hangdog look. He is not concerned with these patients. He is concerned only with his government’s own political survival. He should have come in here and he should have apologised. There should have been some contrition from him but, no, we have more excuses. We have pre- emption as to what would happen with the Morris inquiry. We have pre-emption as to what would happen with the Peter Forster inquiry. We have pre-emption because we got Peter Beattie’s version of what he wanted to see. 24 May 2005 Matters of Public Interest 1519

If this grand plan that he outlined here today was so grand, then why has he not implemented it in the last almost seven years that he has been in government in Queensland? If this grand plan was so great, why did he not implement it before to save potentially 67 people who died at Bundaberg Base Hospital and hundreds of other people who were maimed? We have had a public relations response from a public relations premier. If members want to see these public relations responses, they should look at this piece of rubbish that came out from this government two years ago. This was the official state of Health report. It was a compilation—for those members who were not here two years ago—of the Premier’s own press releases. It mentioned, by way of attacking, me and the Leader of the Liberal Party more times than it mentioned his own health minister, who was mentioned twice. I think I was mentioned on more than 30 occasions. It was a compilation of the Premier’s own press releases and his own self-congratulations and self-adulation. It was prepared by two doctors Beattie—Dr and Dr Beattie—and Dr Bishop, who is basically out the back as the Premier’s official spin doctor. The report was ridiculed at the time, and it deserves to be ridiculed. If any member wants to know why we have dysfunctionality in our health system in Queensland— whether it is in hospitals in Bundaberg or Hervey Bay or in other hospitals—it is because of this sort of rubbish, which is a public relations response to serious problems in our health system in Queensland. The signals are ominous for the people in regional Queensland. The member for Hervey Bay has sat idly by while his hospital has deteriorated into dysfunctionality. The same problem is in Bundaberg. We have seen the problem to an extent in Mackay. Other issues have previously existed in Cairns, and still exist, with regard to semiurgent surgery. They would have to be of concern to the Minister for Health, who was on radio yesterday saying that regional services were going to be reduced. The Premier’s own Minister for Health was on the radio yesterday inevitability predicting the Labor Party’s proposed reduction in regional services and the fact that these patients would have to come to Brisbane to have their surgery. What we have seen from this government is some sort of self-justification as to why this is necessary. How come Joh and the Nationals, how come the former National-Liberal governments and how come Wayne Goss were able to maintain these services in rural and regional areas? How come the Borbidge-Sheldon government was able to maintain these services in rural and regional areas and this government cannot? It is proposing to cut services in our regional hospitals right across Queensland. What will happen is that hospitals the size of Bundaberg will be the base template. That is a hospital that services possibly up to 100,000 people in that region. By and large patients are going to have to travel to Brisbane for their surgery. What does that mean for the people of Mount Isa? What does it mean for the people of Toowoomba and the Darling Downs? What does it mean for the people of Hervey Bay and the Fraser Coast? What does it mean for the people of Mackay? What does it mean for the people of Townsville? What does it mean for the people of Cairns? If Bundaberg is too small to be able to justify having surgery done there, then I say look at the captured population in those other areas and the patients that are seen in those areas. This is ominous. This just goes to prove that this government is more interested in the destruction of services in our regions than it is in building services in our regions. It is not interested in cutting bureaucracy and fixing the system; it is actually interested in cutting services. What is this plan going to do to our already overwhelmed public hospital waiting lists in Brisbane? We will have a hospital system that will become completely and absolutely dysfunctional. I just say to the Premier: be serious, stop playing games, do your stuff right and do it through the Morris inquiry. Do not be pre-emptive. We want a proper outcome; we do not want a public relations outcome. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): The honourable member for Kurwongbah. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Deputy Speaker, you may not have heard. Given the— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Kurwongbah. Mr SPRINGBORG:—comments from the member for Clayfield about, ‘Oh, shut up’ and those sorts of things— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You will resume your seat. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I call the member for Kurwongbah. Mr Springborg: There are two sets of standards in this place. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Is that a reflection on the chair? Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Deputy Speaker, if it is I withdraw it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will resume your seat. The honourable member for Kurwongbah. 1520 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005

National Sorry Day Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (11.43 am): This Thursday is National Sorry Day or, as the organisers of Sorry Day have decided, this year it will be celebrated as a national day of healing. This year marks eight years since the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission released its Bringing them home report. This report finally brought to public attention an issue that too few non- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians were aware of—the forced removal of Indigenous children from their parents. This practice operated from the earliest years of European settlement right up to the mid-1970s. It was so widespread that between 1910 and 1970 it is estimated that up to 50,000 young Aboriginal people were taken away, representing five generations. All states and territories were guilty of tearing Aboriginal families apart, including Queensland. In our state the practice was made all the worse by the dormitory system that operated on reserves. This system isolated children from their parents and Indigenous brothers from their sisters. Since its release, some commentators closely aligned to the federal government have sought to downplay the findings of the Bringing them home report, with a few even questioning the very existence of the stolen generations. The Beattie government rejects totally this view and the political agenda that lies behind it. We stand by the apology that Peter Beattie made to Queensland’s Aboriginal people in this parliament when he first became Premier in 1998. We continue to be appalled that the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their family occurred and that previous Queensland governments— Labor and conservative alike—carried it out. We are determined to never let this thing happen in Queensland again. There would scarcely be an Aboriginal family in Queensland who is not directly affected. Almost every Aboriginal person has relatives who were among the stolen generations. Every Aboriginal family remembers, every Aboriginal family still grieves for loved ones taken away and every Aboriginal family still suffers as a result of the lost hope and opportunities. Every Aboriginal family has a story similar to one told to the Bringing them home inquiry. It is a story of five young Aboriginal brothers and sisters all aged 11 or under—Penny, Trevor, Murray, Judy and baby Olive. In 1958 all were taken away from their mother in Cairns and made wards of the state. As Penny told the inquiry— It was as though someone had turned the lights out—a regimented existence replacing our childhood innocence and frolics. Baby Olive was removed from the others, who were told that she had died of meningitis. In fact, this had never happened. Instead she was fostered out and her name was changed. It was not until 1984 that she was reunited with her sisters and brothers thanks to Link-Up. Judy was fostered out, and Trevor, Penny and Murray were sent to Palm Island. The children all suffered beatings and abuse on Palm Island that would haunt them into adulthood. Penny’s submission to the inquiry went on to say that Judy, Murray and Trevor were all receiving psychiatric care. When Trevor gets suicidal he phones Penny and tells her that he wants to kill himself. ‘Don’t let your life pass into nothingness,’ she pleads with him. Their story is a window into the history of Palm Island and how the past still shapes the present in so many Aboriginal communities. Sorry Day is when all Queenslanders have the opportunity to come together to acknowledge this aspect of our past. It is when we non-Indigenous Queenslanders think about how we might have ended up if this sort of thing had been done to our families. As a mother, how could I have coped if my children were taken away? How would we have felt if we were taken from our parents? How would we have coped with no parental role models? Would we have been able to find the strength to survive years of institutionalised physical, sexual and emotional abuse? But, more importantly, how can we today work to makes things right between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in this state? As a member of parliament, Sorry Day reminds me of the great responsibilities that come with this job. It was previous generations of parliamentarians—many no doubt well meaning—who developed and implemented those policies. They thought they knew what was best. Today we no longer consider that government has all the answers, but government does have an important role to play. We know that the only way forward is to work in genuine and respectful partnerships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Our priority is to try new ways of delivering services to build the capacities of communities like Palm Island. The organisers of Sorry Day want Thursday to be seen as a national day of healing. Health System Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (11.48 am): The suspension of orthopaedic surgery at Hervey Bay has put our local health service back a number of years. Regretfully, the Leader of the Opposition just rose in this place and said that the Hervey Bay Hospital has fallen into disrepair. I reject that utterly. Just last Friday I met with the senior medical officers at the hospital, and I know how very concerned they are at the continuing attacks on the credibility of the service being delivered at the hospital and on their own credibility. They are deeply concerned at the growing racism that is a part of their everyday working life and which is intolerable. They are also deeply concerned at the pillorying of their service and their standards that is going on, for which people such as the Leader of the Opposition need to take a good, hard look at themselves. 24 May 2005 Matters of Public Interest 1521

Since my election I have fought hard to see services improve and expand in one of the fastest growing regions in the state. It is important to understand that the suspension of orthopaedic surgery in the Fraser Coast district may have ramifications well beyond the Orthopaedic Association’s report. All services in the Fraser Coast district may well be impacted. We must recognise this and look for ways to consolidate the services we have available at our hospital and to ensure that Hervey Bay does not lose through the suspension of other valuable services. Last week I called for community input into any future planning for our health services, and I commend Queensland Health for the announcement on Friday of a planning initiative that delivers this. I would also like to publicly thank the member for Maryborough, Chris Foley, for his support of this initiative. To ensure that the best health service is available we need bold ideas and robust debate. Without this exchange of ideas any community consultation will never achieve its full potential. Members of this place are here not only as representatives of their communities but also as leaders. Part of our responsibility is advocating ideas and solutions to the problems that face us. In this spirit I rise today to start this process of community debate in my region. The Fraser Coast has two acute hospitals only half an hour apart. Over the last number of years we have seen services slowly change to take advantage of this, with services being offered either in Hervey Bay or in Maryborough. If we are to continue to have two facilities this process must be completed. I stress that not for one moment am I arguing that Maryborough should close for the benefit of Hervey Bay, but we must look at new ways of delivering services to both communities. One of the major contributing factors in the current state of health services on the Fraser Coast is the availability of the medical work force. In 2004 in Queensland 226 students graduated in medicine— the same number as graduated in 1976. Over the same time our population has more than doubled. To fix the problems facing the Fraser Coast we need to fix the medical work force issues facing this country. The Commonwealth must act to dramatically increase the number of training places for medical students in our universities. However, the state government should not simply rely on the Commonwealth to act in isolation. We should be looking at what assistance we can offer to fix the doctor shortfall. The Fraser Coast is a perfect example of how the state and Commonwealth governments can work together. The University of Southern Queensland is based at Hervey Bay and provides important access to further education for the young people of the Fraser Coast. I ask today: why can we not establish a medical school at the University of Southern Queensland and use the Maryborough Hospital as a teaching facility for this excellent university? This would allow more of the acute services to be offered through Hervey Bay while maintaining the Maryborough Hospital as a campus of the university. This would assist in training doctors who would have a connection to the area, building services across the region and ensuring a valuable role for the Maryborough Hospital in particular. By basing students and medical staff at Maryborough for training, the ability to provide a number of services at Maryborough is also maintained and enhanced. Is this the only way to improve our health services? Certainly not. Is this the best way forward? I suggest strongly that training more doctors is the only way forward in trying to solve the medical work force crisis facing this nation. I am not trying to answer these questions fully and certainly not on my own. They will be considered in the context of the consultation process established by Queensland Health for the Fraser Coast. It is, however, an idea worthy of debate and consideration and quite possibly a way to fix health services delivered on the Fraser Coast in the long term. I look forward to the consultation process beginning next week. We anticipate something in the order of 100 health professionals and community leaders being engaged in a forum process with an independent facilitator. Doctors from the public and private health sectors, private GPs, allied health workers and community leaders will be brought together to try to deliver Fraser Coast-specific initiatives to ensure that our health service goes ahead. I hope that as part of the suite of suggestions that comes out of that consultation we can include the provision for the Maryborough Hospital to become a campus of the University of Southern Queensland to begin training medical students on the Fraser Coast.

Vegetation Management Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.53 am): Once again, the approach of the Beattie Labor government to native vegetation management in Queensland has been shown to be a dishonest farce. On Wednesday, 21 April I asked the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines a question on notice regarding the alleged illegal tree-clearing figures in Queensland. Members in this House will remember that this particular set of figures was used to justify the introduction in March 2003 of an amendment bill dealing with land-clearing offences, the Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. That particular piece of legislation drastically increased the penalties for alleged illegal clearing and introduced a wide-ranging, draconian set of powers for departmental authorised officers which have led to them being referred to as the tree police and becoming probably the most hated people in Queensland as they have misused those extensive powers. 1522 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005

I asked the minister—over two years down the track—how many of those alleged offences at the time were proven to be valid. At the time the minister and the Premier made the accusation that 2,150 instances of suspected illegal clearing were detected between 1999 and 2001 covering 61,000 hectares. Of those 2,150 accusations that were made against Queensland land-holders, two years down the track we find that only 19 were found to be valid by the department—19 out of 2,150. That illustrates, if any further illustration is necessary, the extent to which the government’s approach has been based on falsehood, lies, and a deliberate attempt to make this a big issue, to overstate the problem and to generate some political heat for political advantage. The answer to this question is particularly important in the consideration of the whole issue of vegetation management in Queensland because it was the very basis for the piece of legislation that was introduced in March 2003. The Premier, in his press release of 22 January 2003, said— These cowboys cleared 8,000 hectares of endangered vegetation. In his second reading speech, the minister said that SLATS had identified ‘61,000 hectares of land that have been potentially illegally cleared’. He also said— ... the current enforcement provisions of the Vegetation Management Act and the Land Act are simply not enough to deter illegal clearing. He went on to say that that was why amendments to the acts were needed—to provide greater powers to investigate and prosecute tree-clearing offences. Those accusations that were made against Queensland land-holders have been found to be false. They have been found to be part of a deliberate political campaign that has been waged by the Beattie Labor government to demonise Queensland land-holders—to justify, first of all, the introduction of the Vegetation Management Act and, subsequently, the giving of quite draconian powers and authorities to authorised officers within the department. It is dreadfully regrettable that the Beattie Labor government continues to attack Queensland land-holders in this way. It is part of an approach that has been consistent since the introduction of the Vegetation Management Act—that is, there is no reliance on science or on figures that can be proven. There is instead a reliance on emotive political statements that are used to justify the government’s position. Unfortunately, it takes some time to determine the figures and the facts behind those emotive political statements. As we have done in this particular instance, we will continue to illustrate just how false the government’s approach is and just how many lies the people of Queensland have been told by the Beattie Labor government in relation to the introduction of natural resources management. It continues to cause enormous anger across rural and regional Queensland. Just last weekend I was at a meeting in my electorate to which 600 land-holders turned up to express their growing anger and frustration at the activities of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and its hated tree police. The hatred and the anger that is directed towards the attitude that is being adopted by that department and those people were very palpable and were the reason those 600 people were there. Time expired. Back to Work Parents and Carers Program Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (11.58 am): The Beattie government has created more than 86,000 jobs across the state since 1998 under the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative. Last week I launched another program under this scheme, the Back to Work Parents and Carers Program, to assist parents and carers back into the work force. The Community Support Agency, an arm of Kings Christian College in Reedy Creek which has been funded to run the program, is just one of the many organisations which realises that there are very real challenges to employment faced by job seekers, particularly those who are older or have been out of the work force for some time such as parents and carers and people with disabilities. They know that what these job seekers need is support and encouragement, guidance and monitoring, training or retraining. They need to boost confidence and self-esteem as well as their skills and their job readiness. They do not need to be put down or singled out and they certainly do not need to be told that their contribution as parents is of no value if they happen to carry the added burden of being single. The contrast between the approach of the Beattie government to improving work force participation and that of the federal government could not be more stark. We are about helping people return to work, when they are ready, and return to real jobs with real support. The Howard-Costello federal government is about forcing people to look for jobs that do not exist with little or no support. It seeks only to blame, punish and vilify the disadvantaged and the marginalised. The federal government would have us believe that single parents and the disabled do not want to work, that they would not rather have the dignity, social connection and financial security of a job over a pension. Nothing could be further from the truth. But having the will to work will not secure child care when none is available. It will not overcome the challenges of shift work, weekend and public holiday work even if child care or after school care can be found. It will not put a person on an even footing with a 24 May 2005 Matters of Public Interest 1523 single, childless, youthful, unencumbered job seeker who will not need time off when their kids are sick. It will not provide a person with the skills or computer literacy employers now expect when they are not as up to date as they may have been six years ago. It will not overcome the very real discrimination these people experience when applying for jobs. The federal government’s Welfare to Work package released in this year’s budget is woefully inadequate and misguided. There are 1.4 million existing welfare recipients in this country. The federal government is offering only 136,000 new training and support places. Some 600,000 people are receiving the parenting payment. Costello’s budget offers only 84,000 additional job network places— places for which these single parents will have to fight other job seekers, including the mature aged. It is not hard to do the maths and see that more people will miss out than receive help. All the Howard government is doing is moving people from one welfare payment to a lower welfare payment. The centrepiece of the package is a cut of $44 a fortnight for low-income families on welfare. That means that instead of planning a birthday party for their six-year-old, like I am, many parents will be having to explain why there is no cake, no presents, no lollies and certainly no party. Far from providing better incentives to work, parents who are forced onto the lower Newstart allowance will face even higher effective marginal rates of taxation than before, robbing them of any incentive to increase their work force participation. Sole mothers will be penalised for not working yet they will not be able to work because they will have no child care. They will then suffer breaches and loss of payments which will push them further into poverty and ultimately into homelessness. Some 158,900 sole parents who will be forced to work under the Howard government’s new rules, and needing child care, will be competing for only 84,300 new out-of-school-hours care places. Those already on the waiting list because of the chronic shortage will be the first ones to snap them up. Single mothers will not even get a look in. Almost half the places will not be available until 2008-09, yet mothers with six-year-olds will be moved to Newstart by 2006. What does John Howard want these women to do? Why does he want to punish these children—the children who have only one parent in the home? Why does he want to take their only parent away? Has Peter Costello ever met a single mother? What about the woman I am helping at the moment? She is a divorced mother of four. Her two youngest are twins turning six this year. Her older two are only eight and 11. They cannot get after- school care because it is not available to children after grade 2. She wants to look for work but there are no jobs for her in tourism and hospitality on the Gold Coast because people have to work shift work and after hours. Child-care centres are not open at night or on public holidays. What does she do when the kids are sick? These children need her at home caring for them, taking them to school and looking after them. They should not be given the key and told, ‘Let yourself in, make your own dinner, clean the house and read your own bedtime story.’ What about mothers who have escaped domestic violence? Are their children not traumatised enough without John Howard saying, ‘Now your kid is six he can go off to school and look after himself.’ The federal government has taken a very narrow and short-term view to funding its tax cuts for the wealthy. It is a callous and draconian approach that will cost society and governments more in the long term because we will see more children with behavioural problems, more poverty and increased homelessness. It smacks of Thatcherism but with less compassion. I invite employers on the Gold Coast to contact me if they want to employ a single mother or a person with disability. I want all the single mothers on the Gold Coast to tell me their stories because I will take their fight to the federal government for them. Education Funding Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (12.03 pm): I was very interested to read this morning’s paper. As I sat there over a glass of orange juice and a bowl of cereal I was surprised while reading the QConfidential section of the Courier-Mail for in that section today there is a little piece entitled ‘Map for Captain Bligh’. The piece tells us that the luminaries at the department of education have set up a working group called MAP or Make Anna Premier. The article goes on to say— MAP issues are feel-good initiatives identified by EQ bureaucrats to help elevate Bligh to the top job. I think this is a fantastic idea. In fact, I am prepared to sign up to the MAP program just so that I can get down to the nitty-gritty, roll up my sleeves and tell the people on this working group why the task of making Anna Premier is going to be so difficult. First and foremost, MAP is going to have to be very tricky in overcoming the minister’s neglect for her current portfolio of education. Neglect is a very good word to use. One need only look at the way the very important issue of cleaning asbestos out of schools has been dealt with. We had the incidents at Moggill State School that were brought to the public’s attention by my colleague the member for Moggill. At the time the accusations were dismissed as scaremongering and it was claimed that Dr Flegg was simply trying to look good for his own constituency. This problem affects 1,171 out of 1,300 schools in Queensland. This 1524 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005 is not an isolated problem. The fact that a Liberal member uncovered it at a school in his electorate should not surprise anyone considering 90 per cent of the schools in the state are facing similar problems. Let us look at correspondence brought to our attention by a parent whose child attends the Wynnum North State School in the electorate of Lytton. Children at that school received a letter for their parents stating— Towards the end of last year there was a minor incident involving the release of a very small amount of dust during drilling work. Here we have a letter that is not on official letterhead, does not have a signature and was given to children and not directly to parents; a letter that looks no more official than a notice of school sports times and it is saying to parents that children at the school their children attend have been present in areas where dust from an asbestos roof was released. This along with incidents at Moggill Primary School, where children had dust actually fall on them, shows the scant regard for children's safety that has been plainly evident in the handling of this matter. For Anna ‘would-be Premier’ Bligh’s part, she had this to say as to why she had not lobbied for more money for this issue in the budget: ‘The government has to prioritise government spending.’ I suppose this is the reason there are no compulsory safety switches in most of Queensland’s classrooms while children have been reported to have been injured after putting thumb tacks through wires. The Department of Industrial Relations has a page on its web site explaining the need for safety switches in the workplace, yet the education department does not think children are worth protecting against that risk. There are ads on TV telling us to put safety switches in our homes for our kids, but principals are told by the education department that they can take a decision to prioritise minor works funding for matters such as this. Maybe this is the reason there is no soap in some schools or schools in hot places do not have airconditioning. It may be easy to say we cannot provide all of these things. Some of them would be nice, though, for the sake of our children. I also wonder whether the same people on the MAP committee in the education department are those described as political operatives threatening school principals with ruined careers should they cooperate with federal government schemes. I must congratulate the federal education minister for putting on the record concerns that have come to him after three principals approached a Queensland federal MP with bullying claims. This is not one isolated case that may be brushed off as a misunderstanding. Three principals were so concerned that the powers that be in Education House were trying to strip their schools of funding that they felt the need to go to their local federal member. Bullying of school principals in any form cannot be tolerated. Here we have principals trying to do what is best for their schools, trying to secure the most resources for their students and they are having their careers threatened because they are seeking that money through federal government schemes. The minister should not sweep this issue under the carpet like she does so many others. She should take these issues seriously and reprimand the people involved. Trying to duck the issue and change the topic like she did in question time this morning is reprehensible. This is the ideology of an arrogant and out of touch government and the political pawns they strategically position in their government departments. I commend Dr Nelson for vowing to slash through this entrenched bureaucratic red tape and to continue to provide millions of dollars in grants to P&Cs. I also urge Queensland principals to encourage their P&Cs to apply for grants under the federal scheme regardless of the threats. It is important that schools accept as much federal money as they can to make up for the shockingly low level of resources schools receive from the state government. In fact, Minister Bligh said this morning that federal money supplements state money. This is a cute way of saying that federal money plugs the gaping holes that are left by state government inaction. For the minister to stand up here this morning and skirt around the issue by linking it to federal Liberal Party leadership shows just how badly she is missing the very real signs of arrogance that are arising inside the government of which she is a part. I am happy to join the Make Anna Premier working group. It will be tough to hide the things that I have just outlined. If I can continue to make a positive contribution that will lift her performance— Time expired. Child Safety Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (12.09 pm): As a member of parliament and as a parent, one of the issues which concerns me is the safety of children—their safety in public, their safety at school and, most importantly, their safety at home. Most children are conceived as a result of their parent’s love, but sometimes love is not enough to keep children safe. The lack of parenting skills, selfishness and an inability to control anger are some of the things that lead parents to harm their children. The risk to children increases in single parent families when a new partner becomes involved in the family. Child abuse takes many forms and includes physical and emotional abuse and neglect and sexual abuse and exploitation. In accordance with Queensland’s Child Protection Act 1999, it is immaterial how harm to a child is caused, but the Department of Child Safety will become involved if the 24 May 2005 Matters of Public Interest 1525 child does not have a parent or carer able and willing to protect the child from harm. Its role is to investigate allegations and ensure an ongoing provision of services to children who have been assessed as experiencing, or being at risk of experiencing, significant harm in the future. The Department of Child Safety was officially created last year to drive the Beattie Labor government reforms to the state’s child protection system, which encompasses the way the entire child protection sector responds to vulnerable children in need of care and support. Last month it was my pleasure to again welcome the Hon. Mike Reynolds MP, Minister for Child Safety, to Caboolture—this time to launch the Department of Child Safety’s first strategic plan. The Caboolture and Sunshine Coast areas are very busy for the department. It should be noted that prior to the blueprint the Caboolture office had 22.2 permanent funded positions, which was increased to 24.3 funded positions this year and will rise to 27.8 next year. This equates to a 25 per cent increase. Pre the blueprint, the permanent staffing for the Sunshine Coast was 31 staff. This financial year, 43 permanent positions were funded and funding will be available to increase this number to 48 next financial year. Permanent staffing levels will have been increased by 55 per cent on the Sunshine Coast by the 2005-06 financial year and a second office will be opened at Caloundra next year to improve responses to cases of child abuse and neglect. These staff are our frontline workers who, unfortunately, have to see the worst side of humanity. Their dedication to their jobs and to the children who come to their notice is inspiring. I take this opportunity to thank them and let them know that I am willing to support them in any way I can. These staff and the wider community from our local area and across Queensland have had input into the strategic plan. This plan documents how the Department of Child Safety intends to maintain the reform momentum over the next five years. In the minister’s words, the strategic plan details how the government intends to fulfil its promise to Queensland children to provide them with a world-class child safety system. The strategic plan is based on the government’s commitment to implement all 110 of the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s recommendations arising from its inquiry into foster care. It should be noted that 30 of the recommendations have been implemented to date. The strategic plan is a critical tool to help staff and community partners to understand what we have set out to achieve and how their work will contribute to these goals. It will also be a dynamic tool, formally reviewed and reissued annually, to ensure it continues to meet the needs of a continuously developing child safety system. The plan will guide the department’s operational and tactical planning processes and the allocation of resources within the department. It also addresses several specific challenges facing the Queensland child protection system, including population growth and population distribution, changing service models and technology, the importance of partnerships, and the capacity of the child protection system. An ongoing Treasury funding commitment, an approach that encompasses whole-of-government actions and close collaboration with non-government organisations, will ensure the Department of Child Safety will succeed in major, sustainable reform. Child protection offers great challenges in Queensland and elsewhere and success will come through constant vigilance, sustained effort and the courage to critically and continually examine all aspects of child protection work. Whilst the department and partner organisations work closely to implement child safety reforms, it is also up to the wider community to do its part in keeping children safe. If anyone in the community suspects a child is experiencing harm, I would encourage them to contact the Department of Child Safety. It is responsible for the administration and implementation of the Child Protection Act 1999. Its job is to protect children. The Queensland Police Service has a number of dedicated units across Queensland to investigate matters relating to children and young people, and people can report incidents to their local police. When a person makes a report to the Department of Child Safety or the Queensland Police Service, their details are kept confidential and their identity is strictly protected. The child's family will not be told who provided the information upon which the officers are acting. Our children are our future. It is up to each and every one of us to give them a safe and happy upbringing so that they can grow and develop into a happy and productive adulthood. It is also our responsibility to take action when this is not happening, and this government is committed to the safety of children and young people. I commend the minister for his work in child safety and the ongoing reforms that he has implemented and once again thank the departmental staff for their dedication and commitment to their job.

Road Infrastructure Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.14 pm): I rise to speak today on a very contentious issue and one that I believe has been overlooked by both the state and federal governments, and that is the issue of road funding in cases of natural disaster which are currently being experienced not only in western Queensland but right throughout Queensland and other parts of the Commonwealth. In raising this issue, I refer to the differentiation between flood damage, fire damage and drought damage. On numerous occasions there is flooding in different parts of Queensland through the wet season, although 1526 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005 that has not happened for a couple of years now. The wet season happens in not only the western areas of the state but also the whole of the state. As a result, we are now seeing large lifts of cattle from western areas in type 2 configurations— that is, three-trailer road trains—to markets and agistment in eastern areas and southern areas of the nation. That has certainly had an impact on our road infrastructure. Boulia, Diamantina, Barcoo, Bulloo, Quilpie and Winton shires are on the fringe or in the heart of some of this country. In particular, the Boulia shire is adjacent to the Northern Territory border where at this very moment there is a lift of 400 decks of cattle from Tobermorey Station on the border through to Rolleston in central Queensland. When one works that out, that is some 66 configurations of type 2 road trains or six-deck configurations on the road from Tobermorey to Boulia, which is 250 kilometres of dirt road. The rest I will leave to members' imaginations. Not only that, there is also a situation with cattle coming in from the Territory over that road. Some of those people are now using the road back through Urandangie through to Dajarra back on to the bitumen through Mount Isa. It is also applicable to the Diamantina, Barcoo and Bulloo shires where cattle is coming out of those shires in large numbers and the roads are in a very poor state of disrepair. The situation is beyond the shires to do anything about it. On Friday of last week the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister visited those drought ravaged areas of New South Wales. I invited them to look first-hand at the drought ravaged areas of western Queensland, because it is a different situation in western Queensland to the rest of Queensland in that most times the rest of Queensland has sealed roads. A government member: What did they say? Mr JOHNSON: I have not heard the outcome yet. I take that interjection, which I believe is a very valuable one. It is not only the rural people who are affected; it is rural businesses, rural tourism and the whole caboodle. The situation has to be addressed on its merits right across the board. This is an issue where the federal government has to work with the state agencies in getting positive outcomes so that we can see some credibility put back into the argument. We cannot go and do up huge expanses of gravel roads in western Queensland unless there is that one primary factor—that is, water. With the haul component of that road infrastructure, we need a huge amount of money to fix that problem and we just have not had the rain to do it. This is a natural disaster of monumental proportions. I draw the House’s attention to the state and federal government’s disaster financial arrangements, national disaster relief arrangements and also the NDRA objective. It states— Following severe natural disaster events, Local, State and Commonwealth Governments respond through a coordinated range of counter disaster management arrangements to address both physical and financial needs of affected communities. It goes on to state— Drought is not an eligible NDRA event. Commonwealth drought assistance is funded under the Rural Adjustment Scheme. The Queensland Rural Authority administers this scheme. State drought subsidies are administered by the Department of Primary Industries. That just goes to show how out of touch some of these government departments are—both federal and state—in relation to natural disaster. The road problems in western and northern Queensland are no exception to the rule. I urge the Premier and the Prime Minister to revisit the natural disaster relief strategy at this time and change it so that roads can be a part of this component. Time expired. Vietnam War; Iraq War Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (12.19 pm): Recently I returned from leading an Australian Political Exchange Council delegation to Vietnam, where I was struck by the shocking similarities between Australia’s involvement in the war in Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq. The date of 30 April marked 30 years since the fall of Saigon—the day the world was beamed stark black-and-white images of communist tanks breaking through the gates of South Vietnam’s presidential palace as the last Americans fled in helicopters from the roof. Three million Vietnamese, 58,000 Americans and 500 Australians died in that war, which America justified with the line that American security would be threatened if Asia fell like dominos to communism. But a decade after the war ended the Vietnamese government abandoned much of communism, opening up the economy to spectacular growth and beginning to liberalise the political system. The big issue on Vietnam’s agenda today is the quest to enter the World Trade Organisation. One cannot go to Vietnam today and see its rampant capitalism without thinking that this war of ideology was a grave mistake. One cannot read the history of American and Australian involvement in Vietnam without seeing that Iraq really is Vietnam all over again. The most poignant history of the war in Vietnam is In Retrospect, the book written by Robert McNamara, the American secretary of defence who took America to war. In his book, McNamara bravely acknowledges that by going into Vietnam ‘we were wrong, terribly wrong’. Firstly, he argues that in the Cold War’s climate of fear the real threat to the West posed by Vietnamese communism was 24 May 2005 Matters of Public Interest 1527 never properly assessed. Secondly, he says that in the lead-up to the war President Kennedy accepted CIA advice about the military situation in Vietnam that turned out to be wrong. Thirdly, he says that the Americans did not really ask if it was possible to apply democracy in the Vietnamese political vacuum. McNamara wrote all of this before Iraq was even a twinkle in George W Bush’s eye, but the parallels are simply shocking. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the US went into a war believing that a new international force, in this case terrorism, was a real and ongoing threat to American security. America did that after September 11—in a political environment where any meaningful questioning of that threat was considered tantamount to treason. The CIA advice about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was wrong. The arrogant American assumption that it could just plonk democracy into the Iraqi political vacuum looks awfully shaky now as the Iraqi factions struggle to form government months after the election. Just as in Vietnam, the American administration is now reporting nothing but good news out of Iraq while the whole world can see as plain as day that the Americans and the Australians are bogged down and do not know how to get out. Iraq is not Vietnam. The casualties are not as great and the Australian public are not as patient. But all over again Australia’s involvement is not in our foreign policy interest. It is based on lies and it is immoral. Having just come home from Vietnam, I can tell members that, as an Australian leading a political delegation, it is awfully hard to visit that country, to look people in the eye and to tell them that we, the Australian people, have learned from our mistakes when 30 years after the fall of Saigon Australia is again with America all the way. Mareeba Hospital, Maternity Services Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (12.22 pm): Despite this morning’s announcement, this government has just torn the heart out of one of the bigger towns on the Atherton Tablelands and the minister responsible should resign. Queensland Health slammed shut the door of the Mareeba Hospital’s maternity unit and has thrown every expectant mum out onto the highway, forcing them to travel as long as several hours so that they can deliver their babies. Where is Queensland’s Health duty of care? Mr Livingstone interjected. Ms LEE LONG: It cuts both ways. The closest option now is the Atherton Hospital, which has been reduced to just six beds. It cannot cope with its own community's demands and is already sending expectant mums to Cairns Base Hospital. Cairns Base Hospital is our closest major hospital and the only other choice for expectant mums. But even Cairns Base Hospital is struggling. Already it is turning mums out just hours after giving birth. The reality of childbirth under Queensland Health is that it seems as likely to take place somewhere on the side of a lonely highway as it is in a safe, secure birthing suite or hospital. The Mareeba and tablelands community is incensed. They are outraged that this maternity unit has gone and they are incensed that this is happening just a few weeks after the minister came to Mareeba and said that everything would stay. It was the same thing he said in this place in answer to me last year—that the Mareeba maternity service was safe. It was not true then and it was not true when he said it in Mareeba recently. Every new mum, who at best has to give birth in a strange town separated from family, knows which minister is to blame. Rebirthing, the report that the minister himself tabled during the last sittings, tells the true story. In the past 10 years, nearly half of this state’s maternity wards have vanished. Now Mareeba Hospital’s maternity ward is on that list. It is a bitter irony that the way in which midwifery services were managed at Mareeba Hospital has been highlighted in that same report as a model for the future. It is a pity that the minister has just shut down the birthing operations at that hospital. Rebirthing is a report that every member in this place should read, because it lays bare the faults and flaws in the way in which Queensland Health handles maternity services. Queensland Health puts patients last and it puts number crunching first, closely followed by avoiding responsibility. Queensland Health even lacks consistency in how it goes about doing that. This is the result of nearly 16 years of ALP government and the supposedly wise and learned input of a raft of very highly paid bureaucrats. I have no idea what their annual performance reviews are like, but every mum who has to leave behind her home, her family, her friends, medical support and her entire community to relocate elsewhere just so that she can give birth knows the real truth about how badly this grossly incompetent department is working. I am not criticising Queensland Health workers—those dedicated men and women at the grassroots who deliver professional, skilled and caring help to the sick, the injured, the aged, the pregnant and others—but those at the top of the tree who have presided for years over a system that puts mums in labour on the side of the road are absolutely shameful. The explanation for the closure of the Mareeba Hospital maternity ward is the tired old twaddle about there being a shortage of doctors. Let us look at that. In terms of Mareeba Hospital, this problem appeared on the horizon last year when the long-serving medical superintendent gave very long notice 1528 Matters of Public Interest 24 May 2005 of his intention to leave. He was replaced by another very competent doctor in an acting role. It was her departure, again with significant notice to Queensland Health, that the department now says led to the closure of Mareeba Hospital’s maternity ward. The minister, in his flailing about ‘don’t blame me, it’s someone else’s fault’ response has said publicly that the blame rests with the local GPs who, he said, will not support the hospital. Yet the doctors have gone public and proven that that is another lie. I refer to a letter from a local GP which appeared in the local press. It states— Health Minister Gordon Nuttall is attempting to shift the anger of the Mareeba community on to the private doctors. We have become scapegoats for Queensland Health's inability to adequately plan and deal with maternity challenges. I have written to the Minister and the Northern Zone manager saying I will continue to support the Mareeba hospital as I have done for 15 years. I am willing to support a midwifery model of care. He is lying to indicate otherwise and cleverly turning the anger of the community on to those doctors who have chosen to make their homes in the town. Dr Lesley Clark interjected. Ms LEE LONG: That is what the doctor said, not what I am saying. What a wise minister! By his own account we do not have enough doctors. When the heat is on what does he do? He blames the doctors that we do have. When the abysmal performance of the department of families became evident, the department was gutted and a new one was built from scratch. I think it is time for another dose of strong medicine. The minister should go and so should his crippled, deadly excuse of a department. The only thing Queensland Health can deliver is fifth-world standards to Queenslanders. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (12.21 pm): Two weeks ago, during consideration of the condolence motion passed by this parliament, we heard many comments about how Sir Joh Bjelke- Petersen was a wonderful family man, a loyal friend and a hard worker. It is good to acknowledge those qualities of the former premier and the economic benefits he brought to certain industries and to his selected friends. There were other things that could have been said about the former premier at that time but, out of respect for the family and to give them time to mourn the loss of a loved one, many MPs on this side of the chamber allowed the motion to pass without comment and supported the motion unanimously. However, there is the need to place on the record Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s other legacy—that of corruption, nepotism, division and contempt for this parliament and the people of Queensland. In his public and parliamentary career, Joh Bjelke-Petersen created divisions within Queensland that were deeper and more bitter than those of any other state leader. This discord was noted in the local metropolitan papers immediately after Joh’s death. The Sunday-Mail’s first article stated— Revered by his admirers and reviled by his critics in equal measure, Sir Joh is credited with turning the state into an economic powerhouse—and blamed for riding roughshod over civil rights. The Courier-Mail’s page 1 headline the next day read— Death of a political giant—community divided over Sir Joh legacy. It is axiomatic that strong leaders generate strong responses in those over whom they wield power. This is no more clearly seen than in Sir Joh’s case. Those who supported Joh did so with a fervour and passion that was matched only by the intensity and vehemence of those who opposed him. No person is totally good or totally bad and I can see why some supporters claim that Queenslanders were advantaged under Joh’s reign. Under Joh, there were some obvious developments in certain industries and projects. But alongside those who personally profited under Joh there were many others who lost out badly. Joh’s supporters have chosen to highlight the winners under Joh’s administration. I wish to put on record my concerns for some of those people who suffered under Bjelke-Petersen’s often corrupt and sometimes brutal regime. I refer, for example, to those hundreds of honest police officers who were driven out of the police force or who were denied their rightful promotion because they would not join in the corrupt practices instituted by Terry Lewis, the police commissioner personally selected by Bjelke- Petersen to carry out his political commands. I think of those police officers and their families who, because Joh entrenched dishonesty in the highest ranks of the police force, struggled to uphold the law according to their oath of office. Honest coppers suffered personally and professionally as they saw their ranks systematically and deliberately corrupted by what Joh’s crooked underlings called ‘the joke’. Those police officers suffered under Joh and lost out. I think of those honest businesspeople who suffered because they would not be part of the Bjelke- Petersen and Russ Hinze tendering system—the brown paper bag inducement. These honest businesspeople did not get government contracts and grow their businesses. They suffered under Joh 24 May 2005 Wild Rivers Bill 1529 and lost out. I think of the hundreds of loyal public servants who were denied rightful promotion and participation in the decision-making processes of the government because they would not play Joh’s game of patronage and cronyism. Because they would not carry a green National Party card in their wallet, those public servants suffered under Joh and lost out. Mention has been made of those whom Joh unashamedly detested—workers and unionists and those who held views different from his bigoted, narrow-minded, insular outlook on life. Workers lost their jobs, their marriages, their livelihoods because of Bjelke-Petersen’s intolerance and hatred. Those Queenslanders suffered under Joh and lost out. I remember those dairy farmers from the Gympie area who had their small milk quotas stripped from them by the three National Party Hs—Hinze, Holm and Hollingdale. Those small dairy farmers suffered under Joh and lost out. Any Queenslander who was part of a minority social group counted for nothing in Joh’s eyes. Those people suffered under Bjelke- Petersen and lost out. Finally, we should remember the majority of Queenslanders who did not vote for Joh but who had to endure his rule because of his fraudulent electoral gerrymander. The majority of Queenslanders saw the Westminster system deliberately soiled by Bjelke-Petersen’s craving for power in this state. By ignoring the parliament, his Liberal coalition partners and the press, Bjelke-Petersen created a society that lost its civility and its fairness. In this respect, under Joh Bjelke-Petersen, all Queenslanders suffered and lost out. Queenslanders must never forget the price that our state paid in the loss of our community and social values by having Joh Bjelke-Petersen as premier. His corruption, nepotism and draconian attacks on civil liberties gnawed like a cancer at the very soul of this state. It should come as no surprise that the former premier, who so deeply divided this state during his lifetime, continues to do so after his passing.

WILD RIVERS BILL

First Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.32 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for the preservation of the natural values of wild rivers, and for related purposes. I present explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.32 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. As honourable members would be aware, at the last election the Beattie government made an election promise to protect Queensland’s remaining wild free-flowing rivers. The introduction of the Wild Rivers Bill represents a major milestone in our government’s commitment to the protection of Queensland’s natural heritage. It is an achievement of significance in visionary policy making for this country. It is an achievement of significance because wild rivers are rare and irreplaceable, and their value cannot be calculated. Very few of the world’s rivers can be classified as wild. For the Queensland government to introduce legislation to protect what remains of our wild rivers signifies a commitment to some of the rarest of treasures—both for Australia and for the world. For the first time in the history of this nation, a government will enshrine in legislation the protection of our remaining valuable wild rivers. For the first time in the history of this nation, a government will recognise that Australia’s rivers have been not only the lifeblood of our rural and other industries but also the lifeblood of our unique environment—and must therefore be protected as a precious, living cornerstone of our way of life. The Wild Rivers Bill is one of the most significant achievements of the Beattie government. It will be a symbol of the Beattie government’s determination to protect, preserve and sustainably manage what remains of Queensland’s priceless natural heritage. The Wild Rivers Bill provides, for the first time in Queensland, a framework for the preservation of these wild rivers for the benefit of current and future generations. A wild river is one that is in, or as close to, its natural state. Queensland is one of the last places on earth fortunate enough to have a number of rivers in this category. I want to stress that this bill does not automatically declare or list any rivers. Rather, it provides a legislative framework for the nomination and declaration of wild river status for individual rivers. The nomination and declaration of any wild river in Queensland will be done with full community consultation. 1530 Wild Rivers Bill 24 May 2005

This bill honours part of the National Water Initiative agreement to identify and acknowledge surface and groundwater systems of high conservation value and manage these systems to protect and enhance those values. The bill recognises the essential link between a river and its catchment. This bill ensures that Queensland’s wild rivers will be preserved for now and forever. Our children, grandchildren and generations to come will benefit from our foresight. I want to assure communities that protecting these rivers will not mean that they will be locked up against all opportunities for economic development. In fact, we may well see enhanced opportunities for ecotourism and the fishing and grazing industries which rely on a ‘clean and green’ marketing edge. In any case, protecting the natural values of a wild river may also protect existing economic activities which depend on those values. As a result, we may well make communities more economically viable while protecting the ecological viability of our wild rivers. In doing so, we will continue to provide valuable scientific, recreational and cultural heritage benefits to all Queenslanders. This bill represents an investment in Queensland’s future. The Wild Rivers Bill provides safeguards to ensure that any future development in these rivers and their catchments will be limited to those compatible with preservation of the rivers’ natural values. Very few activities will be permitted in the waterway itself or in the ‘high preservation’ area, including a buffer up to one kilometre wide on each side of the river. Nor will damaging activities be permitted in its major tributaries, estuaries or within any special areas such as a wetland. New developments in the rest of the river catchment will continue to be assessed under existing laws. The fundamental link between a river and its catchment is widely accepted by policy makers and scientists around the world. One cannot be effectively managed without the other. That is why we have taken a holistic approach to the regulation of our wild rivers. This is indeed a great day for the environment, for the people of Queensland and, in fact, for all Australians. I will now address a number of issues that have arisen during the development of this bill. The scope of this bill is limited to those rivers that have all, or almost all, of their natural biophysical values intact. It is likely that many of the proposed wild rivers will be located in Cape York and the Gulf of Carpentaria. Many Indigenous communities live in these areas and will benefit from rivers preserved in their country. This legislation further develops the groundwork previously done by my department in cultural heritage and native title. I would like to stress at this point that traditional Indigenous rights are not affected by this bill. While certain types of economic development such as aquaculture and animal husbandry will be limited, it will open the way for more environmentally sensitive opportunities such as ecotourism. Wild river status is likely to have a high economic value. The economic value of protecting our natural heritage, in some instances, far outweighs the benefits gained from activities such as mining or grazing. The Wild Rivers Bill 2005 honours all commitments and undertakings given by the Queensland government, such as the Aurukun and Papua New Guinea pipeline projects. However, these projects will follow best practice procedures and will be constructed to minimise damage to the natural environment. The bill specifically provides for the continuance of existing rights and lawful activities, including rights under the special agreement acts. Before any formal nominations for wild river classification are made, all relevant ministers will be consulted so that any conflicting plans and proposals can be identified up front. Extensive community consultation is also a necessary ingredient in declaring wild river status in the proposed catchment. A wild river proposal will be drafted and made available to affected communities for comment. The proposal will include details of the wild river and its catchment, the values to be preserved, various management areas, development and resource limits and development codes. Special attention will be given to ensure remote communities understand the issues and have adequate time to make submissions. I am also considering the merits of establishing an independent advisory panel to assist me with formally considering public submissions received on wild river proposals. After public submissions on a wild river proposal have been analysed, and it has been ascertained that Queensland will benefit from having the river declared, the approval of the declaration will be sought from the Governor in Council which will be a statutory instrument. This flexible approach will allow rules to be set for each wild river based on its specific natural values and community views. This bill allows for moratoriums to be imposed at the time of public notification of the intention to declare a wild river. This is necessary to avoid panic development while the declaration process runs and community consultation is undertaken. Moratoriums will apply to taking and interfering with water in the proposed wild river area, clearing vegetation and granting mining tenements in high preservation areas. Applications for these types of activities will not be accepted. The natural values of a wild river will be preserved by controlling new development in the wild river and its catchment. The bill will use existing legislative controls rather than create new ones, with agriculture and animal husbandry activities now being regulated under these existing controls. 24 May 2005 Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1531

To allow existing legislation to specifically control development activities in wild river catchments, it is necessary to amend 13 other acts. These amendments set more rigorous conditions for any development in the vicinity of wild rivers to ensure natural heritage values are preserved at their current level. Applications for certain activities having an immediate or substantial impact on the more sensitive high preservation area of a wild river will not be accepted. These include mining, agriculture, animal husbandry, vegetation clearing, riverine disturbance, dams and weirs. Roads, railways, and pipelines will be permitted but will have to be constructed in an appropriate manner. To streamline administrative procedures, other legislation will continue to regulate the activities and resource allocations in these areas including existing third party appeal processes within that legislation. At its heart, this bill protects and preserves the natural values of our wild rivers. This bill ensures these precious assets do not die, only to be remembered in stories and images. This bill enables present and future Queenslanders to continue enjoying the unique, wonderful natural heritage of this great state. This is one of the great milestones in protecting Queensland’s unique and precious environment and one that I am proud to be associated with. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Lingard, adjourned. Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): I acknowledge in the public gallery students, staff and parents from the Sacred Heart Primary School in the electorate of Toowoomba North.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.42 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Vegetation Management Act 1999, and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (12.42 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. A key re-election pledge of the Queensland government in the 2004 election was a promise to end broadscale tree clearing with or without federal government support, and to ensure a fair package for affected land-holders. The Queensland government met this election commitment with historic legislation—the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004, which, as honourable members will recall, was the first bill introduced into this House last year. The scientific arguments supporting the end of broadscale clearing have been overwhelming. They have clearly shown that inappropriate land clearing poses a threat to Australia’s environment through its contribution to species extinction, salinity, declining water quality, land degradation, damage to coastal marine zones and greenhouse gas emissions. That act, which commenced on 21 May 2004, provided a framework for regulating vegetation clearing in a reasonable and rational manner. It also provided a framework for the phasing out of broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation by 31 December 2006 under a ballot and assessment process. Departmental staff, along with the Business Advisory Committee for Vegetation Management that was set up by the department, have been working diligently since May last year to implement the new vegetation management arrangements. The advisory committee has representatives from AgForce, the Queensland Farmers Federation, the Wilderness Society and the Queensland Conservation Council. It provides two-way communication between my department and key stakeholder groups in the community to identify and address implementation issues in a timely manner and with the consensual agreement of interested parties. However, as with all major reform programs, a small number of issues have arisen since May 2004 that can only be addressed through further legislative change. The bill I am introducing today, the Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, proposes amendments that are both appropriate and practical responses to four key issues that have arisen. The first proposed amendment concerns clearing in state watercourses or lakes. The Water Act and other acts such as the River Improvement Trust Act 1940 regulate or impose rights and obligations on various agencies to conduct activities in watercourses. Since the legislative changes made last year, approvals have also been required under the Vegetation Management Act. The overlapping jurisdiction and duplication of these acts with the Vegetation Management Act is undesirable. As a government, we want to reduce regulatory burden while still protecting state interests. 1532 Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

There are 17 river improvement trusts in Queensland that work to protect and improve the beds and banks of rivers. These trusts also work to prevent or mitigate damage caused by floodwaters in river improvement trust areas. The requirement for clearing permits under the Vegetation Management Act for work carried out by the river improvement trusts is not expected to impact on their work programs unduly nor delay or stop important preventative or remedial work which at times needs to be attended to quickly to address urgent situations. In many instances, the river improvement trusts remove non-native species not regulated by the Vegetation Management Act before attending to other restoration work and then revegetates the area with native trees and plants. This bill addresses the overlap between the Vegetation Management Act and the Water Act. In simple terms, no permit will be needed under the Vegetation Management Act where an activity has been approved under other legislation where the associated clearing is less than 0.125 or one-eighth of a hectare and where the vegetation type is a ‘not of-concern’ regional ecosystem or is not remnant. This also will mean that, where a land-holder or other entity has an approval to construct works in a watercourse or lake to take or interfere with water, conduct works for taking quarry material, or undertake stream bank stabilisation or flood mitigation work, a clearing permit will not be needed if the necessary associated clearing is below that threshold. The second proposed amendment extends the right to clear for a single residence to self- assessable building work and public housing. Last year, the conditions for clearing without a clearing permit to establish a single residence on a lot were amended. This means a building permit is now required to be in place before any clearing commences to prevent pre-emptive clearing of a site before all other necessary approvals are issued. An unintended consequence of this change is that housing constructed by the state and other public sector entities, including local governments, is no longer subject to the exemption. This means public sector entities currently do not have the same rights to clear vegetation for establishing housing as private land-holders and private developers. This bill extends the exemption to public housing and housing that is self-assessable building work. Amendments have also been proposed to provisions for ‘special facilities zones’. A clearing permit is not needed for clearing native vegetation on freehold land if the land was zoned under a planning scheme as a ‘special facilities zone’ when the Vegetation Management Act came into effect on 15 September 2000. The intent of this transitional provision was to not have a retrospective effect on developments that had received a certain level of approval by way of the special facilities designation. The special facilities designation was a feature of planning schemes made before the commencement of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and was commonly used to recognise large-scale complex developments that would have been difficult to denote under other use categories—for example, a tourist development catering for a mix of uses. However, in a recent case before the Planning and Environment Court, the court found that the exemption continued to apply despite a subsequent planning scheme amendment to rezone a special facilities area as rural. The potential implications of this court decision are that all areas zoned special facilities as at 15 September 2000 are exempt from clearing regulation for all time, despite deliberative decisions made by local governments to remove development rights through planning scheme changes. As such, the ruling effectively nullifies local governments’ jurisdiction over planning and development within their areas. For example, if a council decided to rezone a special facilities area for conservation and wilderness purposes, the court ruling would undermine that decision, thereby giving no protection to the vegetation on the site. This bill clarifies the intent of the legislation by providing that the exemption applies only if the land was zoned special facilities as at 15 September 2000 and continues to be thus zoned or, if a planning scheme change is made, the exemption continues to apply if the development rights given under the special facilities designation are carried forward into the new planning scheme. The final proposed amendment addresses my department’s jurisdiction over commercial timber. When the tree-clearing provisions of the Land Act were incorporated into the Vegetation Management Act, it became unclear if my department’s chief executive had the jurisdiction to consider the existence of commercial timber in assessing clearing applications. Commercial timber is state owned timber on leasehold land and other state tenures which are of a certain species and size and is suitable for harvesting commercially through Forestry Queensland, a commercial business unit of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. My department is responsible for protecting commercial timber resources. The uncertainty of whether my department’s chief executive has the jurisdiction to counter the existence of commercial timber may give rise to legal challenges where clearing is refused due to its impact on commercial timber, thus jeopardising the state’s timber resources and royalties that would otherwise be paid to the state under the Forestry Act. This bill addresses this issue by clarifying that my department’s chief executive officer has the jurisdiction to consider the existence of commercial timber on land that is the subject of a clearing application. This will ensure the continuity of the state’s interest in harvesting the timber commercially. This bill makes small but practical and appropriate changes to the 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1533 vegetation management framework. The amendments will improve clarity, reduce regulatory burden and streamline processes both within my department and in its interactions with the community. Through these amendments this bill further strengthens the Vegetation Management Act and its vital role in protecting biodiversity, preventing further land degradation from overclearing and providing significant greenhouse gas savings. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Seeney, adjourned.

TOURISM, FAIR TRADING AND WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill Resumed from p.1214). Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (12.51 pm): This legislation, the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, contains three sections. The first section is the amendments to the Queensland classifications legislation. The Queensland classifications legislation is to be amended to reflect recent legislative changes to the classification types in the Commonwealth classification act 1995. They are the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classifications of Computer Games and Images Act 1995. The Office of Film and Literature Classification is the Australian government agency that administers the national classification scheme. Classification decisions are made by members of the Classification Board who are representatives of the Australian community. Quite obviously, every film, every video and every computer game legally available in Australia, whether produced locally or overseas, has to be classified by the Classification Board before it can be made available to the public. Because Queensland, like the other states and territories, has its own classification legislation to complement the Commonwealth act, this legislation sets out how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each state and territory. The amendments aim to create a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games. Renaming the computer games classifications to mirror the well-known film classifications will assist parents in choosing games for their children. The opposition supports the amendments to reflect changes made to the Commonwealth legislation. The second part of this bill addresses a specific consumer protection issue—namely; the delay between the date when a purchaser enters into a contract to purchase a building lot and the date when that purchaser is available to have their interest in that lot registered. Recently I travelled to the Whitsundays and I was quite amazed to see some real problems being experienced on Hamilton Island simply because the developer could not produce the goods by January of this particular year. The investors were also concerned. Their purchases, originally for $1 million off the plan, had increased to $1.8 million, and of course the developer was asking for $1.4 million. So there was a complete stand-off, to the extent that the development had gone down; obviously, people were hurt and Hamilton Island was hurt. There is no doubt that we as a government and this department need to monitor this problem all the time. In the Land Sales Act 1984, if a purchaser invests money to purchase an off-the-plan unit and the vendor does not give the purchaser a registrable instrument of transfer within 3½ years of the date of contract the purchaser may avoid the contract and recover the money paid under the contract together with interest earned, if any, on that money. This was extended to 4½ years. The amendment to this legislation provides for the extension period to be increased from 4½ years to 5½ years. Quite obviously, this is being considered because of the concerns experienced by Vision and Auscorp group receiving, in early March this year, development approval from the Brisbane City Council for a mixed use development within three separate buildings in Brisbane city. This development will comprise residential, commercial, retail and tourist components. To ensure the protection of the rights of purchasers it should be noted that the granting of such an extension is at the discretion of the minister, with each request for an extension to be considered in the light of the individual circumstances. Whilst this is unusual, as I say, from witnessing what was happening in many of the developing areas of north Queensland—and I have no doubt that exactly the same thing happens down here— there is obviously a need for us to continually monitor what is happening between developers and purchasers in relation to off-the-plan projects. There is considerable concern in the industry about purchasing off the plan, especially when the date of construction goes beyond the stated date. The department of fair trading needs to monitor this closely. However, certainly at this stage the opposition supports the second part of the legislation, which we believe is being implemented with the correct intent. 1534 Ministerial Statement 24 May 2005

The third part of the legislation is the part which I believe is the most controversial, and the opposition has concerns about the amendments to the Tourism Queensland Act. Under section 13 of the Tourism Queensland Act 1979, Tourism Queensland’s primary objectives are to promote, market, develop and arrange tourism and travel to and within Queensland. The role of the commercial division of Tourism Queensland is to provide access to and distribution of Queensland tourism products through Sunlover Holidays and the Queensland travel centres. Since the commercial division's creation in the early 1980s, the market for tourism services and travel advice has changed dramatically due to the rise of the internet, airline deregulation and the increasing numbers of tourism wholesalers. The commercial division’s market share has also decreased during that time from somewhere near 30 per cent in the mid-1990s to around 11 per cent. As the minister says, Tourism Queensland is considering arrangements to license the operations of the commercial division to a private tourism operator which will allow Tourism Queensland to concentrate its resources in particular on primary marketing and destination management activities for Queensland. The opposition has no concerns about those statements by the minister. However, what the opposition is concerned about is that we believe the government needs to advise whether there has been a secret deal with the Melbourne based company Australian Outback Tourism for the sale. If it is the case that this legislation is being brought in to retrospectively help with this particular decision, then we believe that this parliament and the community needs to know. If so, has this sale been by a secret tender that has not been open to the public? If that has happened, we completely disagree with the process that has occurred. We ask the minister: what process was followed? Was it a public tender? Was it in the public interest? Was it done in a secret way? Quite obviously, the business has more than 600 Queensland operators and over $200 million in turnover. If the AOT group is going to take over Sunlover Holidays on a licence fee basis for 10 years, was the deal done in 2004? Did that conflict with the statement by the Premier: ‘We will not be selling Sunlover’—a statement that has been made continually by this government and specifically by the Premier himself? It is not good enough to simply say that AOT will move to Queensland if it is the case that the tender process is not open. It is only natural that local tourist operators will have concerns that a takeover of Sunlover by private concerns will cause distribution prices to increase and create unfair competition. This government has to prove why financial institutions should have public sector ownership. Quite obviously, the rise in discount airline tickets and last-minute holiday packages has contributed to the difficulties experienced by Sunlover. It appears that the government has compromised by proposing a new licensing arrangement with AOT and allowing Sunlover to continue in name. Probably this will involve licensing Queensland travel centres as well. Unless the minister can assure this House that there has been an open tender process with no secret deals, the opposition will oppose this legislation. Sitting suspended from 1 pm to 2.30 pm. Debate, on motion of Mr Beattie, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Morris Inquiry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (2.30 pm), by leave: Last night the Morris commission of inquiry was told the latest information available to the health minister and myself in relation to the ongoing review of services that Dr Jayant Patel provided at the Bundaberg Hospital. I made the commitment when this started that when information was available to me, my minister or the department, and proven to be accurate, we would make it available publicly as well as provide it to the commission. I am absolutely determined that nothing will be kept secret. Last night, within just over an hour of having been told of the changed numbers of patients Dr Patel dealt with, I had a letter sent to commissioner Tony Morris to inform him of the changes. In other words, I responded immediately. The initial information provided to the Bundaberg commission of inquiry identified patients admitted or discharged by Dr Patel and patients where Dr Patel was the principal surgeon. The initial information provided identified 110 deaths or transfers of patients admitted, discharged all with Dr Patel as the primary surgeon. A further review of the information has now identified 40 additional patients, 20 deceased and 20 transferred, in which Dr Patel was involved in the patients’ care. Last night’s information of the additional patients was made publicly available as a result of further investigation by the clinical review team. Gordon Nuttall, the Minister for Health, and I promised that that work would be done to ensure that the information was correct. What we now have is the result of that work. While I have sought to continue to be informed, there can be no guarantee that as more research 24 May 2005 Ministerial Statement 1535 is undertaken there will not be more adverse information. If I become aware of any information I will continue to release it, as will the health minister, Gordon Nuttall. A further 20 patients in which Dr Patel was involved in their care have been identified as deceased and a further 20 patients transferred to other facilities. The latest data includes all patients who are known to have been coded as being treated by Dr Patel at any stage—I emphasise that: at any stage—during their admission or episode of care. The additional queries have been cross referenced against all outpatient appointments for Dr Patel in 2003-2005 and the latest patient liaison data. Queensland Health will continue to refine data queries to identify patients in which Dr Patel was involved in care. The Medical Board of Queensland has advised me that they definitely have not issued a certificate of good standing. The Medical Board of Queensland subsequently advised the Oregon Medical Board of the situation in Queensland and it has cancelled his licence—which was the only place in the United States where he was licensed to practice. The Medical Board of Queensland is not aware of any other jurisdiction in which Dr Patel may be registered. I am advised by Queensland Health that it is not aware of any bonus having been paid to Dr Patel from the documentation provided and reviewed to date. At this time, further searches covering a range of matters before the inquiry are continuing. At 8 pm yesterday evening I sent a letter to commissioner Tony Morris QC. In fact, the letter was faxed and emailed to Tony Morris last night. It said— I have promised to keep you informed of any developments affecting your inquiry that I learn of. As you know, I have instructed that Queensland Health should keep searching their records to ensure that you are provided with all relevant information. Shortly before 7 pm this evening my Department forwarded to my Office an email which it had received shortly before from the office of the Director-General of Queensland Health. It read: ‘Information has just been received which would seem to indicate there are potentially 40 more cases that require review. Of these, 20 are deceased and have Dr Patel listed as being involved (in) their care. The remaining 20 are listed as being transferred to other facilities for ongoing care. Likewise, Dr Patel is listed as also being involved in their care. Since the original search was conducted, staff have continued to refine and run their queries in order to exhaust all possible linkages to Dr Patel. Some of the linkages are rather obscure but the review team will now assess all of these patients’ charts in a similar manner to all other identified cases I am told that this information arose as a result of the original searches at Bundaberg Base Hospital being checked for accuracy. I am also told that this latest information needs to be collated and checked to ensure that it is accurate. I have directed that this information should be made available as early as possible and forwarded to you as a matter of urgency. I have sent copies of this letter to the Minister for Health, Gordon Nuttall, and to the Director-General of Queensland Health, Dr Steve Buckland. Yours sincerely, Peter Beattie MP, Premier and Minister for Trade.’ I table a copy of that letter for the information of the House. I also table a memorandum to the Hon. Gordon Nuttall from Jim O’Dempsey, executive officer of the Medical Board, which clearly states that the Medical Board of Queensland has not issued a certificate of good standing for or to Dr Jayant Patel. It says— Should any request be received for a Certificate of Good Standing the Board will advise the requesting regulatory authority or entity that Dr Patel is not in good standing in Queensland. That memo contains further material, and I table that for the information of the House. I might conclude my remarks by saying that this is clearly a difficult time for Queensland Health, it is a difficult time for the government, but it is an even worse time for the patients and the victims of Dr Patel. As I have done in the past, I apologise to them for what has happened and I indicate to them very clearly today that these inquiries will get to the bottom of what happened here and out of those inquiries will come recommendations to improve the system. This morning I spelt out to the House some of the considerations in the blueprint that we are considering to improve health. One thing that the government is absolutely determined to do is end up with a better system. We have a world-class health system, but there are aspects of it that need improving. Let me assure Queenslanders that that is exactly what we are going to do. 1536 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

TOURISM, FAIR TRADING AND WINE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill Resumed from p.1534. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (2.37 pm): Perfect one day; Melbourne the next! The opposition’s concern in relation to this legislation is that the state government is not only going to flog off Sunlover Holidays to the private sector but to the private sector in southern states. This is a major concern given that Queensland’s iconic tourism industry requires the involvement of people who have a passionate interest in Queensland’s economy. The opposition is concerned that the rumours that were flagged last year about what would happen with Sunlover Holidays seem to be materialising in this legislation. Our shadow minister has outlined some of those concerns. But let us revisit the stories from last year. In November last year, when the concerns were raised that a Melbourne company could take over the commercial arm of the department that runs tourism in Queensland, it was revealed that there had been a company that had come forward with an offer. When members read the wording of the legislation before the House they will see that it does not explicitly state that there is a proposal to flog off Sunlover Holidays to a southern company, but the provisions of this legislation make it possible. Given that there has previously been documentation alluding to a deal with a southern company, it is now of great concern that this Beattie Labor government would take this body, which has been responsible for promoting Queensland and which has had a primary focus on Queensland holidays, and sell it off to the private sector and potentially to the private sector based in a southern state. This is not on; it is concerning. Our tourism industry in Queensland has been a flagship industry. The industry is a major employment booster. It requires people who have a passion to see our state promoted and promoted strongly. As a member of parliament from an area which strongly relies on the tourism industry—that is, the Sunshine Coast—I know that people are keen to see this industry expand and not go backwards. I am concerned that in recent years government spending on tourism in real terms has in fact retreated. We do not want to see this industry lose the support of government whether by selling off companies to southern companies or by whittling away the support which is available through consolidated revenue. We do not want it to lose the attention and focus of government. Tourism is a major economic spinner for the Sunshine Coast and many other regions—the Gold Coast, for example—up and down the state. It has a significant multiplier impact in our community. That is increasingly being acknowledged at the local government level and broader community level. They realise that not only do the benefits go to the people who directly sell accommodation and other products to tourists but that they permeate the community. We cannot take our attention away from this industry. We should never apologise for promoting a strong tourism industry in Queensland. This industry is the lifeblood of many areas of this state. It certainly supplements a number of other very important industries. In some areas it has become the primary income source. That is why we should never take our focus off promoting Queensland holidays and Queensland tourism. We have to make sure that the role of government is not one of retreat and sell off to other states. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (2.41 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to support the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I congratulate the minister and all those who have played a role in bringing this amendment bill to the House. As has already been outlined, the bill actually addresses three areas—that is, the Classification of Publications Act and other related acts, the Land Sales Act and the Tourism Queensland Act. I want to speak briefly to the issue of classifications. This is an important and growing issue for many families who have young children who are particularly interested in game machines. I do not know what they are called. I am so old now that I have no idea what is out there. I think there is the Xbox and things like that. I do not know how to use them. This is important to me as a parent. When my children were growing up we were just being introduced to the plethora of games on the market. One really cannot tell what the content of a game is just by looking at the cover. It is a bit of a lucky dip, I think. All these games are classified. There is a body responsible for actually looking at these games to see how much violence and other things there is in them and deciding which age they are suitable for. It is important that we have a good idea what those classifications mean. There has been some confusion because there were different classifications for films and computer games. This legislation will bring us into line with the recently amended Commonwealth legislation. I understand that other states will soon be coming into line with the Commonwealth’s legislation. It will add some consistency in this area, which is particularly important for parents trying to decide what may or may not be suitable for their children's entertainment, depending on their ages. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1537

I want to now turn my attention to the amendments in this bill to the Tourism Queensland Act. I am disappointed to hear the member for Maroochydore being so negative about the content of this amendment bill. Ms Nelson-Carr: So what’s new. Ms JARRATT: I take the interjection—so what is new. I think she has just done a superficial evaluation and does not really understand the modern tourism industry and the role of Tourism Queensland in advancing our tourism industry in what is a competitive global environment. Sunlover Holidays was set up some time ago to actually market Queensland tourism products. It did a great job. It played a fundamental role in getting Queensland on the map. Nobody would argue about that. The thing is that the world has moved on and changed. This is a really competitive market. Tourism Queensland has to focus on its core business, which really is promoting Queensland on the international stage. A lot of time and effort is being expended in the commercial division of Tourism Queensland. I think the amendments in this bill may result in us being better served and free up Tourism Queensland to again focus on its core business and take us to the world. We have a great product. Anyone who has been to the Whitsundays would know the absolutely world-class destinations that we have to offer. They are not only up and down the coast of this state but through the inland as well. Tourism Queensland is about marketing that to the world. We need to free it up from the commercial operations to add some flexibility and allow it to focus on its core business. I think the changes included in this bill will facilitate opportunities for change in the way that Tourism Queensland achieves its objectives if such changes are considered appropriate at the time. Of course, not all of those decisions have been taken at this point in time. Such decisions will always be made on a case-by-case basis having regard to the interests of Tourism Queensland, the state and Queensland’s tourism industry. With that short but fairly enthusiastic endorsement, I commend the bill to the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (2.46 pm): I beg the House’s forgiveness. I was in a car accident last Wednesday and I am suffering whiplash. So if I slur my words it is not due to anything I have swallowed, that is for sure. I ask for some consideration, please. As the Liberal spokesperson for this portfolio, I state from the outset that the Liberal Party will be supporting two of the three main aims of the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. This bill seeks to amend several acts that are recorded by the minister as having three main aims. These include amending Queensland’s classifications legislation, amending subsection 28(1) of the Land Sales Act 1984 and amending the Tourism Queensland Act 1979. It is the latter that the Liberal Party will not be supporting in its current form. The first aim is to amend Queensland’s classifications legislation to reflect recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. In 2004 the Commonwealth amended its legislation so the popular, well-known film classifications were also used for computer games. The intent of the Commonwealth legislation was so that parents could better understand the different ratings given to each computer game. I am pleased to see the Queensland government taking a leaf from the federal government’s strengthening of these film classifications. These film classifications have been around for decades and the majority of adults are familiar with the common terminology G, PG and M. These are of an advisory nature only and differ from the legally enforceable restrictions that apply to MA15+, R18+ and X18+ which are also commonly viewed as part of movie classifications. Currently, computer games can be labelled as G(8+), M(15+), MA and MA(15+). This can become confusing for parents who are used to referring to G, PG or M when choosing videos for their children. This legislation allows uniformity between film and computer games and gives parents more peace of mind that their children will not be exposed to unsuitable material. The second aim of this bill is to amend subsection 28(1) of the Land Sales Act 1984. Currently, if a purchaser invests money to purchase an off-the-plan unit, the vendor must give the purchaser a registrable instrument of transfer within three and a half years. Section 28(1) provides for an extension for a further 12 months to four and a half years at the discretion of the minister. Modern city living requirements due to their size and complexity have created the need for that discretionary extension to be increased. These amendments will further extend the time frame to 5½ years before a vendor needs to give a registrable instrument of transfer once approval has been received from the minister. While this time frame may seem excessive in today’s building scheme, it is becoming more common that developments are so large that they are built in stages, such as Vision (Brisbane) Pty Ltd’s mixed-use development in the Brisbane CBD, or so tall, such as Q1 on the Gold Coast, that the complexity of building such a structure may take more than the average time to construct. The protection of purchasers must remain the minister’s top priority, and it is my hope that each request for extension will be considered very carefully to ensure that all circumstances are taken into account. 1538 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

It is also important that all purchasers receive written notice regarding the granting of the extension before any money is invested into the project. If consumers know that they are unlikely to receive the instrument of transfer within the 3½-year period and that it may be 5½ years before they can fully appreciate their investment, then they are going in with full knowledge of the situation and have the option not to invest in that particular development. The granting of the extension should only be in extreme cases when the development is beneficial for the community, not just for the pockets of the developer. The Liberal Party supports this amendment trusting that it will become the norm. The third aim of this legislation is to alter the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to allow for arrangements to license the operations of the commercial division of Sunlover Holidays to a private operator. The Liberal Party does not support these amendments in their current form. Sunlover Holidays has been a major domestic wholesaler of Queensland holiday products since the mid1980s. Like many honourable members in this House, my family and I have enjoyed Sunlover holidays. This division of Tourism Queensland has been a great supporter of the full range of Queensland industry representing well-established destinations such as the Gold Coast, Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef as well as continually developing destinations such as Hervey Bay, Townsville and the Whitsundays to name a few. I was therefore very surprised by the comments from the member for Whitsunday, who has no knowledge obviously of all of the jobs that are going to be lost in this important industry if this bill is amended. Sunlover provides an extensive range of holiday programs and is very active within the Australian retail network. Sunlover Holidays has been a success story with both the products and the industry, and the focus over the years has been more on providing a lead role in exposing existing and new products to markets than on making pure profits. In reality, Sunlover has not been a success financially. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including the advent of low-cost airlines but primarily this government’s bad management of staffing levels and inflated wages. Over recent years there have been attempts by various parties to take the Sunlover product overseas. This has been strenuously rejected by overseas wholesalers, retailers and inbound tour operators as a major conflict of interest predicted to cause enormous friction and infighting within the industry. Also during this period there has been speculation and consideration of efforts to sell or commercialise Sunlover Holidays. The minister stated in her second reading speech that this bill seeks to amend the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way it performs its functions. Following on from that, the minister acknowledges that tourism contributes $6.3 million to the Queensland economy each year and employs nine per cent of our work force. She also said that Tourism Queensland is considering arrangements to license operations of the commercial division to a private tourism operator and that negotiations for the licensing arrangements are continuing. The minister also said in her second reading speech that there are a number of key objectives underpinning these negotiations, including ensuring a favourable outcome for the government and Tourism Queensland, growing the Queensland tourism industry and protecting the interests of Tourism Queensland staff. The minister went on to say that, as part of this, Tourism Queensland has put in place a robust—I repeat, robust—consultation and liaison process with a range of interested parties, including the Queensland Tourism Industry Council and the tourism industry more broadly, the Queensland Public Sector Union and Tourism Queensland staff. She said that this process is an important element of the negotiations and will continue throughout. I have to say to the minister that after speaking with several industry stakeholders it became apparent to me that there is a genuine level of anxiety and doubt about the future for inbound tourism operators should this legislation proceed as it would seal the deal between Tourism Queensland and Australian Outback Travel, a Melbourne based company. May I state here that in naming AOT I wish to place on record that I am in no way questioning its credibility. It is a well-known player in the tourism industry and is respected. These inbound operators, many of whom are small family businesses—mum, dad and the kids—question the minister’s understanding of this issue and disagree vehemently on the degree of consultation allowed. Quite the opposite of the minister’s own words, sources tell me that there has been very narrow industry consultation, which has created a great deal of unease about the lack of transparency of this process. This is all about guaranteeing a favourable outcome for the government—offloading a government owned corporation to private enterprise. It has all of the hallmarks of a secret tender, a mate’s deal. Using the word ‘licence’ is semantic in order to conduct transactions in a closed manner. Industry persons ask: why is the term ‘licence’ used and not ‘sale’? Perhaps the minister could clarify this as well as other questions that these amendments raise. Industry sources advise me that Australian Outback Travel Group, or AOT as I will refer to it, has been conducting a review of Sunlover Holidays and speculation suggests the lease will proceed on 1 July. It is understood that AOT will reimburse TQ $3 million per year or thereabouts for the lease. Whilst these funds may seem initially attractive and will be used by TQ to support marketing efforts, a closed tender for the lease may have generated significantly more income—hence the real motive behind this deal. The travel and tourism industry considers that the privatising of Sunlover Holidays will inevitably 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1539 lead to the following challenges: a significant reduction in the number of properties listed; in some cases a reduction in programs for less popular destinations; heavier payments of commission making business viability more fragile; reduction of staff causing unnecessary job losses; and the introduction of Sunlover Holidays to international markets. This raises the following questions from these businesses which I hope the minister will address fully in her reply. What type and extent of industry consultation took place about this issue prior to TQ’s announcement? What was the tender process? When did it take place? Where was it advertised? They have also asked me to ask: what are the future plans under the licence for Sunlover Holidays to compete against existing Queensland based inbound tour operators and other suppliers? Indeed, what are the terms of the licence? What protection is there for small mum-and-dad operators under the new licence? Does the minister condone the six months of favouritism shown towards AOT and not offered to other industry groups in the market? Another inbound operator very concerned about the impact on hundreds of small inbound tourism operators asked: what is to stop Sunlover/AOT outsourcing telemarketing aspects to a low-cost overseas location like India? What is to stop existing companies having to buy through Sunlover whilst now they can buy through the supplier—that is, the hotel, the day tour operators et cetera? What is to stop Sunlover/AOT in the future entering the international market and competing with existing travel companies? Why does TQ say that it is wanting to spend money on marketing internationally when the Commonwealth government, which has shown a strong commitment to the tourism industry, already does so? Due to the industry’s concern of victimisation by either TQ and/or AOT, industry members have been very hesitant in speaking out on the move. It appears that the state government is accepting the first offer that has come along. If the House agrees that the commercial operations of Sunlover Holidays should be leased to a private company, then an open tendering process really should have taken place. While I am not doubting the Australian Outback Travel Group's ability as a tourism operator, it is unthinkable to make this type of decision without allowing other interested parties to express an interest. On 11 November 2004 correspondence from Mr Terry Jackman, Chair of Tourism Queensland, to a concerned industry stakeholder acknowledged that the Premier had announced an agreement to enter formal negotiations with AOT. In notes taken by one of the 40 or so in attendance at a QTIC forum on 25 November, Mr Jackman opened the meeting by saying that the decision for the transfer was not open for debate and that any questions would be ruled out of order. That is not exactly a definition of an open forum. In answering the ensuing 25-plus questions from the floor, little was done to assuage participants’ fears. When the question was asked whether the 10 per cent commission online offer would remain, the answer was, ‘For the moment, yes. Later it cannot be predicted.’ In answer to another question regarding the fact that operators are frightened to come forward and raise grievances and wish to know what processes will be put in place, they were told, ‘The licensing agreement should give clarity. We cannot tie down commercial operation in complicated arbitration processes.’ It is no wonder this group of tourism workers are anxious. But there is more. As they say, there is more. I refer to the minister’s opening statements with regard to this bill. She stated— These amendments are facilitative only and decisions about the best way to achieve Tourism Queensland's objectives will always be made on a case-by-case basis, giving proper consideration to the interest of all relevant parties. This statement is misleading when one reads a letter from the minister to a concerned industry stakeholder in response to his request for the minister’s comments on this issue. I might add that the letter from this stakeholder was dated 11 January 2005. A reply was not sent until 3 March, which seems to be an inexcusable length of time for a situation that has the potential to deleteriously affect a certain industry. I seek leave to table this letter from the minister’s office to Mr Bob Wood, an inbound travel operator, dated 3 March. Leave granted. Mrs STUCKEY: The letter states— Australian Outback Tours presented the Government with an offer that met its objectives for Tourism Queensland Commercial at a very attractive price. For that reason, the Government has decided to deal exclusively with AOT for a maximum of six months to pursue the achievement of these objectives. The six months is up and it looks as though the government has stitched up another cloaked deal with no regard for all the small operators that it may force out of business. Operators of the inbound tourism industry are pleading for some support from this government—a government that boasts of its commitment to the tourism industry. They are angry at this bandaid, quick-fix solution. They acknowledge that Sunlover has never made a big profit, but reject the fast-flick, non-transparent disposal and secret tendering of this well-known Queensland brand. A large portion of the blame must be apportioned to the Beattie government. This government has shamefully crippled its own company by paying huge wages and not cutting ineffective staff numbers. Lots of companies would have liked the opportunity to join together to make a bid for Sunlover, but they were not permitted to do so. That is absolutely disgraceful. 1540 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

Such monopolistic approaches are deadly for our tourism industry. For thousands upon thousands of Queenslanders, the name Sunlover will now mean ‘Sunloser’. Although the Liberal Party supports the first two amendments in this bill, unless the minister reviews the amendments that relate to tourism, we will not be supporting the bill. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (3.01 pm): Although this bill amends several acts, I will confine my remarks to the amendments that it makes to the Queensland classifications legislation. The honourable member for Whitsunday said that she had no idea about these games that children now play. I want to assist her by saying that she can come to my place at any time and my four children will show her how to work the Xbox, PS2 and PC games. I have a daughter who has karaoke on her PS2. I know that the member would love to come to my place and sing some songs with my daughter. The Queensland classifications legislation and the Commonwealth act form the National Classification Scheme, which commenced on 1 January 1996. The National Classification Scheme is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories under which a Classification Board classifies films, computer games and publications on behalf of the states and territories. The National Classification Scheme is overseen by Australian government, state and territory censorship ministers who meet regularly to discuss the operation of the scheme, its legislation and other issues such as topical research and guidelines reviews. Censorship ministers are not involved in Classification Board decisions. Classification decisions are made by members of the Classification Board who are representative of the wider Australian community. Decisions may be reviewed by the classification review board. In making classification decisions, both boards are bound by the Commonwealth act and classification guidelines. Every film, video and computer game that is legally available in Australia, whether it is produced locally or comes from overseas, has to be classified by the Classification Board before it can be made available to the public. Some publications are also required to be classified. The amendments to the classification types contained in the Queensland classifications legislation, which are introduced by this bill, aim to create a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games. Research by the Office of Film and Literature Classification indicates that less than half of the population is aware of the computer games classification scheme and that consumers are very confused about the existing MA classification. For example, the existing film classification type is MA (Mature Accompanied), while the existing computer games classification type is MA (15+) (Mature Restricted). After the introduction of these amendments, the new film and computer games classification type will be MA (15+) (Mature Restricted). Renaming the computer games classifications to mirror the well- known film classifications will assist parents in choosing games for their children. With four children who often obtain games either from the local store or by renting them, I know that it is very important for parents to understand and know what their children are playing. That is why these amendments are so very important. This bill also amends the definition of ‘publication’ in the Classification of Publications Act 1991 to make it the same as the definition of ‘publication’ in the Commonwealth act. Currently, the Queensland legislation defines ‘publication’ as a book, paper, magazine or other written or pictorial matter. The bill amends this definition to mirror the Commonwealth definition of ‘publication’, namely that ‘publication’ means any written or pictorial matter but does not include a film, a computer game or an advertisement for a publication, a film or a computer game. This technical amendment will ensure the definition’s consistency within the National Classification Scheme. Although the changes to the Commonwealth act, which are introduced into Queensland legislation by this bill, are largely technical in nature, they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the National Classification Scheme in Queensland. Similar amendments are being made to classification legislation in the other states and territories. It gives me great pleasure to support the bill. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (3.05 pm): I rise to make a short contribution to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The Nationals shadow minister, the member for Beaudesert, outlined the opposition’s position on this legislation. Tourism has been quoted as being a $73 billion industry and about 48 cents in every tourism dollar is spent in regional Queensland. I am proud to say that Toowoomba and its surrounding areas play a big part in Queensland’s regional tourism market. During the last parliamentary term, I was contacted by one of my constituents who had had some concerns regarding Sunlover Holidays and the fact that Sunlover Holidays did not promote any holidays in Toowoomba, the Darling Downs or, I think from memory, any area in south-west Queensland. I received correspondence from the previous minister, Merri Rose, regarding this fact. I recall that at the time the reason given for that was that motels on the Darling Downs could not guarantee room numbers so that package deals could be put together. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1541

Although Toowoomba and its surrounding area is a very attractive destination and has a major role to play in regional Queensland’s tourism industry, it does not have any product being promoted by Sunlover Holidays. I would like to see that situation change, if it has not already. I have to say that I am not aware of the situation changing since that time, but I certainly hope that it does change in the future. I thought it might be pertinent to raise some attributes that Toowoomba has to offer. Although I know that many members have visited Toowoomba, I and my fellow colleagues representing the area around Toowoomba and the Darling Downs are very proud of that city. Toowoomba sits on the Great Dividing Range, 800 metres above sea level. It is renowned for its gardens, its parks, its architecture and its open spaces. It has more than 150 public parks and gardens and is often referred to as the garden city. Perhaps the most well-known annual event on Toowoomba’s calendar is the Carnival of Flowers, which is held in springtime in September. This year, the carnival will be presented with challenges. I know that there has been significant discussion in Toowoomba about how successful the carnival will be this year given that there are severe drought conditions existing in Toowoomba and on the downs. Already in Toowoomba severe water restrictions are in place and it faces even more severe water restrictions in the near future. That is going to present grave challenges for the public gardens, but more particularly for the individual gardeners who take part in the competitions and present display gardens for which the Carnival of Flowers is so famous. I know that this year those gardeners will still go to great efforts for the 55th Carnival of Flowers, which will be held from 16 September to 25 September. It will still be a very successful and a very attractive event. The Carnival of Flowers is Australia’s longest running floral event and it is steeped in history. Literally thousands of gardeners lend a hand to transform the city into a real extravaganza of colour. It is estimated that in 2004 around 130 entries were received for the home garden competition. Those entries really make the city a very attractive place to be during the carnival. Very large crowds from all over Australia and even overseas are drawn to the event each year. Approximately 100,000 visitors come to the city and the Darling Downs to experience the Carnival of Flowers. Many gardeners who compete in the Carnival of Flowers will be planting their bulbs now for their springtime displays. I certainly hope that some rain will come to help them in that endeavour. There are many other attractions in our city and our region. There is the growing wine tourism market on the Darling Downs, which also extends to Stanthorpe and the South Burnett. That area is becoming a very significant player in the market. For example, we have had a number of functions and events at Preston Peaks. Although it is not quite in my electorate—it falls in the electorate of Lockyer—I claim it as being in my electorate as it is situated just across the road from my electorate boundary and we have been regular visitors to Preston Peaks. It is a fantastic facility that has combined well with its attractive location. Ashley Smith and Kim Thumkin, who are the owners, have done a terrific job. It has been a very big investment for them. Sharon, their manager, does a great job as well. But that is not the only winery. It will only be when we get a significant number of wineries that are able to form a path—I guess one could call it—that we will be able to attract the critical mass that we see in places like the Hunter Valley or the Clare Valley or the Barossa Valley where there are large numbers of wineries in close proximity that make those areas so successful. As I said, we have all the wineries at Stanthorpe. Close to Toowoomba we have Gowrie Mountain vineyard, which has done a fantastic job just west of the city. We have Preston Peaks, as I have already said. We also have Rimfire and Jimbour Station—all very significant investments within a very easy drive of Toowoomba—as well as those wineries in the South Burnett. Toowoomba and the downs is obviously a very popular day trip market from the south-east corner. There are the drives, the antique stores, the B&Bs and the food industry, which is growing. Just last weekend was the Hampton Food Fair, which was a very successful event held to the north of Toowoomba. There is a whole range of other country interests around Toowoomba and the downs. The history has been preserved quite well in buildings and landmarks such as the National Trust Royal Bulls Head Inn at Drayton in my electorate. The Cobb and Co museum has done a fantastic job expanding its facilities and displays. I am amazed every time I go there. When I moved back to Toowoomba some years ago I had not been to Cobb and Co for some time. It really has developed into a fantastic museum. Deborah Tranter and her team have done a really good job there. There is the Empire Theatre, which I think all Labor members of parliament have been to. We had a Labor Party function up there once. It is a fantastic facility and really is proving to be a major drawcard for internationally renowned acts. We are able to draw them to Toowoomba because of the facilities at the Empire Theatre. It has just gone through an expansion as well of the attached restaurant—Encore’s Restaurant—and also the upgrade of the Empire Church Theatre, which is an old church attached to the theatre. That is another fantastic venue. That has expanded the Empire Theatre's ability to host a whole range of events, functions and conferences. 1542 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

There is Steele Rudd’s Shingle Hut. Steele Rudd was from Cambooya and is a very famous predecessor of mine, I guess one could say, who was involved in politics. He is very famous in that area. Cecil Plains Homestead was also a very famous stepping off point for the Leichhardt expeditions. It has done a great job in promoting that area in my electorate. There is also the Pioneer Historial Village at Pittsworth and the Jondaryan Woolshed. All of those major facilities have been developed over time and are contributing to a wide area of interest for people wanting to come to our region. There is a lot to visit. Ms Keech: The international tourists enjoy it as well. Mr COPELAND: That is exactly right, Minister. They really do enjoy it. Ned Winter has done a fantastic job at Cecil Plains. This area really does have a special attraction for overseas visitors who, within an easy drive of Brisbane, can see our heritage and something peculiarly Queensland or peculiarly Australian. I think that is a really good thing. Ms Keech: And enjoy the wineries. Mr COPELAND: Yes, and enjoy the wineries on the way. Seasonal marketing campaigns have included outdoor signage, and television and print advertisements are all helping to establish Toowoomba and the surrounding areas as attractive tourist destinations. Golden West Tourism is doing a good job working with Tourism Queensland in the implementation of the regional tourism activity monitor to track occupancy levels and daily, weekly and monthly levels. This will allow councils to monitor the impact of events and tourism campaigns on occupancy levels. That is important for Toowoomba because a lot of our tourism is events based tourism, even though we do have a wide appeal. A government member: What about the Weetwood Race Day? Mr COPELAND: The Weetwood Race Day, in conjunction with the Toowoomba show, is in one of the biggest weeks of the year in Toowoomba. The Weetwood Race Day is held on the public holiday of the Toowoomba show, and very large numbers of people come to Toowoomba for that week. We get a spike in visitor levels that week. There is also the Ag Show, FarmFest and the Carnival of Flowers and any number of other events. Weetwood is certainly a very big event as anyone who has been will know. It attracts a lot of people from all over Queensland. From a study undertaken for Tourism Queensland and the Toowoomba City Council in August 2002, the Darling Downs had a $326 million visitor spend in 1999. That is a significant amount. Direct takings from accommodation was $11.7 million per annum and the number of day trippers totalled 1.4 million, resulting in $108 million in spending. Tourism is on the rise in Toowoomba and on the downs and the market is well positioned for the future. I think the area has a lot of appealing attributes, but it is going to take continued work to develop the area to its full potential. I certainly hope that will happen. I pay tribute to all of those people who have been working to play their part in what is an important industry for our area. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (3.16 pm): I rise to make a contribution to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. There are three very distinct parts to this bill: (1) that which deals with the classification of films, computer games and publications; (2) that which deals with off-the-plan purchases; and (3) that which deals with freeing up the way Tourism Queensland can operate. While there is a degree of community unrest about the kind of material that is gaining classification for public access, at whatever rating, there is no doubt in my mind that we certainly do need a way to assess whether films, games and publications should be publicly available. I am absolutely opposed to the twisted logic that suggests anything claiming to be ‘artistic’ should be free from classification. We saw a provision in relation to child abuse which allows its portrayal on artistic grounds—disgusting and shameful but passed by this government. I certainly do not agree with the kind of material that is sometimes screened in our cinemas or that is available in local video stores, especially the kind of gratuitous violence that is often depicted. There are more than a few computer games that I do not think have any place in a caring society, let alone being played regularly by children. While I have reservations about some of the decisions taken with regard to classifying these kinds of products and publications, I am nonetheless glad that we at least have these protections in place. There is a clear argument about how good the protection is, but we are far better having some protections rather than having none. In that vein, I am pleased to see that this legislation brings Queensland into accord with national amendments designed to bring some coherence to film and computer game classifications. It could have been better. Given the way children gravitate towards computer games today, I believe there is an argument that some really strict provisions should apply. The second part of the bill deals with amendments to the Land Sales Act 1984 to meet the development needs of a particular project in Brisbane. In passing, I cannot let the statistics attached to this project go unmentioned—an estimated value of $650 million and a total work force expected to be near 3,000. What a development! Should the financiers strike any problems in Brisbane I am sure that the tablelands would welcome this project and, dare I suggest, offer better views than the grey towers of 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1543 central Brisbane. Given the size of the project, and no doubt there will be others of similar size, the longer than normal extension provisions appear reasonable. The final area covered by this bill is the way Tourism Queensland operates. The amendments here will allow Tourism Queensland to bring in a private operator for its Sunlover Holidays and Queensland Travel Centre operations. I do not agree with this. Tourism is touted repeatedly as our industry of the future, supposedly destined to replace primary production and provide an income for all of us. I do not agree that tourism can ever replace our great primary production sector, but tourism is a growing industry and therefore I do not believe that it makes sense to hive off vital parts of its structure to private enterprise. Time and again the introduction of private operators simply means that the plans and goals developed by industry representatives and professionals are replaced by the profit motive. As one of the few growing industries in rural and regional areas, tourism deserves continued government support and careful and focused support and development. That is not going to happen with important parts of its structure being given over to profit-driven companies. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.19 pm): I am pleased to rise to contribute briefly to the debate on the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Tourism is a very important aspect of my Surfers Paradise electorate, the Gold Coast and indeed Queensland. In fact, I will take this opportunity to comment on an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin today which discusses a new publication titled ‘Australian traveller’ that ranks the Gold Coast as the 10th ugliest city in Australia. I can tell the House—and those who know me will not be surprised to hear me say this—that I do not take kindly to this criticism of the Gold Coast. I do not know if the publishers of this magazine came to the Gold Coast or if they have ever been. However, if they did, they would know that this is not the way the Gold Coast really is. I take this opportunity, with the Gold Coast minister present, to criticise this article and encourage the minister to do what she can to promote the Gold Coast, as I know she does, so that articles like this receive no traction because people will have seen the Gold Coast themselves and experienced all that it has to offer. Ms Keech: I am as disappointed as you are with the article. Mr LANGBROEK: I take that interjection. I support the comments of the Liberal shadow spokesman for tourism in relation to this bill. The comments regarding the anxiety in the industry are most worrying. Everything the member for Currumbin said is true and thoroughly researched. It is always concerning when provisions are brought in that may affect the industry in an adverse way. I am very concerned that there are some destinations—smaller destinations—that may be overlooked in the new structure. I ask the minister to ensure that this is not the case. I am also concerned that the government sees the need to overlook the tender process and possibly overlook what may have been a better offer had they opened it up to tender. There are a couple of concerns that the Liberal Party has with this bill which have been cited in depth by the Liberal shadow spokesperson. I support all of these and will be looking closely at further moves on this front, as I will any moves on tourism, to ensure that all members in the industry receive a fair deal. With these submissions to the House, I conclude my contribution. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (3.21 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. There are three principal aspects of the bill which are of concern, all of which have been covered by the shadow minister. Certainly the classification of films and computer games is of great concern. It is absolutely essential that we ensure in the future there is some consistency with the Commonwealth legislation. Certainly a very tight reign needs to be kept on a range of these games. The second issue of concern relates to an amendment to subsection 21 of the Land Sales Act 1984 to facilitate major property development in Queensland. This is quite an important issue and sometimes very contentious because, as we see development cruising along in Queensland at a rapid rate—and I suppose there is a variation to what I am saying there—we are seeing tourism become extremely important. Certainly development is one of the issues that relates very closely to tourism, with the establishment and building of all types of residential development. The third issue of concern is the amendment to the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide for greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way that it may perform its functions. It is this section in particular that I wish to speak to. I would like to draw the attention of members to the important contribution that the federal coalition government is making to develop the tourism industry in north Queensland through almost $6 million in funding for the Great Green Way due to be implemented in the coming months. The project steering committee for the Great Green Way will meet later this week to start discussions about the distribution of $5.9 million in funding. I understand that is to be distributed over the next three years. The program is a joint venture between Tourism Tropical North Queensland and Townsville Enterprise, with the support of local government authorities and local tourism operators 1544 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 within the region. I would like to report to the House that, even though there are very difficult circumstances in the Hinchinbrook, Cardwell and Johnstone shires at present because of issues in an industry which is certainly not in the best shape—and I speak of the sugar industry, which is probably one of the most predominant industries in north Queensland—the shires have found something like $20,000 each to contribute to this Great Green Way project. I would really like to commend them for that because it is a step in the right direction. While times are tight they are willing to look for other industries, and that is really what it is all about. It is about diversification with additional industries, and they see tourism as one of them. Although the Great Green Way encompasses those areas which I have mentioned before, this program will create a coordinated approach to the marketing and promotion of a much wider area from the tip of Cape York south to Townsville and west to Charters Towers. The program will also encompass the outstanding Atherton Tablelands area, which offers so much in the way of natural and cultural attractions. Certainly this program will also have a component of its funding committed to raising awareness of the important Indigenous tourist attractions in the region, and there are many. One of the big issues is the walking tracks, and I will speak about them a little later. The driving force behind the Great Green Way project is to encourage visitors to north Queensland to enjoy a much wider range of experiences that are available to them in this very beautiful part of our state. Although we are known best for our fantastic rainforests and brilliant coral reefs, the Great Green Way offers much more. I would like to talk now about a number of areas within the Great Green Way and the marvellous tourism features that it offers. It would be remiss of me, however, not to briefly mention the big drawcards that pull thousands of people to north Queensland every year. The Great Green Way is an area of outstanding natural beauty spanning from Cairns to Townsville in tropical north Queensland. The area includes two World Heritage listings of the Wet Tropics rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef. It has over 25 tropical islands off its coast and over 12 mainland national parks. It encompasses the shires of Cairns city, Johnstone, Cardwell, Hinchinbrook, Thuringowa and Townsville. The area from Gordonvale in the north to Cardwell in the south—and we go further south into Ingham—is one of the wettest in Australia. Consequently, it is also the greenest. The high rainfall means that the rainforests are lush in the true sense of wet tropics. The mountain streams are clear, cool and inviting and the air is clean. The best part of the World Heritage rainforests in this region is its easy accessibility. People do not necessarily need four-wheel drives, as the Mulgrave Valley, the Boulders, Josephine Falls, Mount Bartle Frere, Palmerston National Park, Mission Beach, the Tully River, Murray Falls and Cardwell’s Forest Drive are all brilliant natural attractions with good roads for standard vehicles. The golden sandy beaches overlooking the magnificent Coral Sea in the far north are conveniently located close to the highway. Bramston Beach, Ella Bay, Flying Fish Point, Etty Bay, Cowley Beach, Kurrimine Beach, Bingil Bay, Mission Beach, Tully Heads and Cardwell boast long stretches of clean golden sand with, in most places, the rainforest literally fringing the pristine beaches. When people think of the tropics they invariably think of the islands of the Great Barrier Reef, the most famous of these being the resort islands of Dunk Island, Bedarra and one of the world’s largest island national parks, Hinchinbrook. The islands offer everything from idyllic isolation to a full resort experience. Access to them is varied with commercial cruise operations and water taxis servicing a number of islands. In addition to these attractions, the Great Green Way boasts many other outstanding features and services that should rightly be part of the experience of every visitor to north Queensland. The area boasts some of the best recreational and sports fishing in the world. The ocean and local rivers teem with mud crabs and endless varieties of fish, from the much sought after barramundi to the plentiful species of exotic reef fish. Nowhere is the fishing better than in Cardwell, which is also the gateway to Hinchinbrook Island, Australia’s largest island national park. Situated halfway between Townsville and Cairns at the mainland township of Cardwell, Port Hinchinbrook is the culmination of a decade of intensive planning and development in accordance with the best environmental practices. Port Hinchinbrook is Australia’s finest and most fully integrated township. On Hinchinbrook Island itself the Thorsborne Trail, along the island’s east side, is a world- renowned four- to five-day hiking track. The less energetic or those pressed for time can see the island on a day cruise or on a scenic flight. Hinchinbrook Island is one of the world’s most diversely beautiful wilderness areas. The island has a rich Aboriginal history and was first seen by Europeans in 1770, when Captain Cook sailed past it. I raise the issue of scenic tours. There has been some considerable interest by developers in the region with regard to getting between the mainland and the island. There has been considerable interest in relation to the level of boating that can be provided. If we are to enhance those areas and allow people to see them, it is extremely concerning that very great restrictions are being placed on those who are prepared to spend millions of dollars in providing facilities. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1545

There are also restrictions on air travel. Planes are using that area both for commercial flights and for tourist flights, for people who want to see what the island is all about. There are different levels at which planes can operate. A commercial flight can fly at 500 feet. On the Hinchinbrook Channel there are often impediments. For instance, on cloudy days planes have to get underneath the cloud cover. Planes operating commercial flights can fly as low as 500 feet, but planes operating commercial flights for tourism purposes have to stay up at 1,500 feet. I think this is absolutely ludicrous. If somebody was going to police the situation, at the end of the flight it would have to be determined whether that flight was actually a commercial flight involving looking around— Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I have been really very, very generous and have enjoyed the travelogue, but I would ask you to return at some stage to the content of the bill. Mr ROWELL: I think it is quite important that I talk about tourism. I think a large part of this bill is actually dedicated to tourism. There is some concern out there. In an article that appeared in the Australian— Ms Nelson-Carr interjected. Mr ROWELL: No, I am talking about an article that appeared in the Australian. The member should not be interjecting, either, because that is not supposed to happen here anymore. We were told in the Australian on 9 November 2004— Hundreds of jobs and small family-run travel agencies are at risk because of a secret deal being put to the Beattie Government by a Melbourne company to take over the commercial arm of the department that runs tourism in Queensland. As we understand it, this is Australian Outback Tourism, AOT. When we look at what happened in August and at this report, it seems that this was a done deal that the Premier was involved in. The documents obtained by the Australian show that AOT’s Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Burnes, wrote to Tourism Queensland on 23 June proposing that his company ‘take over the management, under licence, for the wholesale and retail operations of TQ, namely Sunlover Holidays and the retail Travel Centres’. Mr Burnes went on to say that he proposed taking over the operation for 10 years. The article states— AOT offered a licence fee of 1.5 per cent of the total annual revenue, with a guaranteed payment of $3 million a year, but that would reduce to 1 per cent when the turnover grew. ...

An internal Tourism Queensland report on the offer prepared for the TQ board in August warned that any ‘privatisation' of Sunlover should be done by ‘open tender'. It is quite apparent that that did not happen. A report in the Cairns Post highlights the great concern of Mr Bill Calderwood, the Chief Executive of Tourism Tropical North Queensland. It looks as if what has been proposed is certainly not in the best interests of either Tourism Queensland or that aspect of the organisation. There is a great deal of concern about what is proposed in the legislation that is before us. We have seen $5.9 million put up by the federal government for the two segments of tourism in Queensland and the 14 regions of tourism. I am also talking about those regions that relate to Tourism Tropical North Queensland. Certainly at the southern end, where Townsville Enterprise is involved, something like $2 million will be provided each year by the federal government. In the past the government has offered something like $3.11 million over a year. That compares fairly unfavourably with what has been proposed by the federal government. I can only hope that in the future the government will at least match that figure or go beyond it, because increasingly we are seeing tourists coming through north Queensland. It is important that we carry out promotion. The money being put up at present is ostensibly for promotion. I would be very interested to hear the minister comment about this in her reply to the second reading debate, because there is a substantial amount of investment going into north Queensland at present. There is a lot of interest in that area. It is seen as a mechanism for diversification. It is seen as a mechanism to overcome some of the shortcomings that we have seen in some of the primary industries, but it is extremely important that the promotion continues. The federal government is prepared to put up substantial amounts of money for the promotion of the region. As I understand it, it is not for individual areas but for the region. I believe that other parts of Queensland will also receive substantial benefits from promotion. I can only hope that the state government is prepared to do something very similar because we are looking for opportunities. The opportunities are there. The bill refers to building and investment, but I think promotion is also essential. If we are going down the track of privatising a body—Tourism Queensland—to the extent that this legislation provides, what else is the government prepared to do to offset what would be a government type of operation as against a commercial entity that the government is evidently prepared to sell off? I do not know how much the government is selling it off for because that is not clear at present, but it is evident that there is a group that will take it over. I believe that at the end of the day—there was some 1546 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 government support for identifying essential areas—that may not occur in the future. I would like the minister to respond to that, because her response will certainly set the scene in relation to what the government is prepared to do. We are seeing councils that are very short of cash being prepared to invest. Whilst they are prepared to help themselves, certainly all levels of government—federal, state and local—have to address the essential ingredients involved in promotion. I would like some comment on that from the minister. I would like to turn now to the wine industry, if the deputy speaker would allow me a little latitude. A number of people have spoken in relation to the wine industry. The wine industry is very important to this section of north Queensland. There are two wineries that are producing tropical wines in my electorate and they need promotion. Very often people will come to the north for tourism and they want to take something back with them and there is a golden opportunity for them to take back some of the tropical wines. They are fledgling industries at this present time. They are struggling in some instances. Mr Lingard: Are they Sunlover people? Mr ROWELL: I don’t think they are really Sunlover people at all. They love the sun, there is no question about that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jarratt): Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, I am struggling with this a little bit. Could the honourable member return to the bill for the last couple of minutes. Mr ROWELL: I would like to return to the bill for the last few minutes. I can assure honourable members that the wine industry is part of this bill. If honourable members would like me to read the title of the bill I will certainly do that. Would the Deputy Speaker allow me to speak for the last minute I have in relation to this legislation? There are two families who are doing a great deal of work in the wine industry in north Queensland. One is Mary Lankester at Mission Beach who is producing a banana wine and then there is the Berryman family on the Murdering Point Road going to Kurrimine Beach. These people are promoting their wines. The tourism issue is very important to them. Without tourism they certainly would not get the road sales. Inevitably road sales lead to the broader spectrum of those people taking wines back with them and then ordering them. That in itself is enhancing many of our primary industries. Wine is just another developing, fledgling industry that is important. Time expired. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (3.41 pm): I rise to support the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The bill amends a number of acts administered by the minister. In particular it amends Queensland classifications legislation to reflect the recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth legislation, which is the Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. The bill also amends subsection 28(1) of the Land Sales Act 1984 to facilitate major property development in Queensland and, finally, amends the Tourism Act 1979 to provide for greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way that it may perform its functions. I would like to specifically address those amendments. Queensland’s economic and population growth continues unabated. In particular in the last few years the Brisbane CBD has experienced major inner-city mixed-use developments. For example, the Riparian and Aurora projects. In fact, a recent media report stated that Brisbane’s CBD had recorded a staggering 17.2 per cent increase in the population each year for the last 13 years and that there was no sign of it waning. The introduction of an amendment to the Land Sales Act allows for a possible extension of the period within which a registrable instrument of transfer must be provided to purchasers of off-the-plan developments and it recognises the situation I have just described above. As unit developments continue to increase in scope and sophistication, it becomes more and more difficult for construction to be completed to a level that allows developers to provide off-the-plan purchasers with registrable instruments of transfer within the three and a half year statutory period. The possibility of a development gaining an extension of that period to five and a half years will assist in ensuring the act is able to accommodate large scale project opportunities that may arise in Queensland from time to time. I note, however, that the consumer protection aspects of the act will not be compromised by this amendment, with the granting of such extensions remaining at the minister’s discretion, with each request for an extension to be considered in light of the individual circumstances. In addition, all other protection for purchasers encompassed in the act will remain unaltered. This includes, in particular, the requirement for developers who are granted an extension to give written notice of this extension to purchasers before any money is invested in the project. Also there is a requirement that any money invested by a purchaser is held in trust until the expiration of the relevant period, whether the standard three and a half years or, for very large developments, up to five and a half years under the amended Land Sales Act. I would like to congratulate the minister in maintaining the balance between the need to promote such development in Queensland and the protection of investors in those developments. With respect to the classification of publications and other acts, the Queensland classifications legislation and the Commonwealth act form the national classification scheme which commenced on 1 January 1996. The scheme is a cooperative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the states 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1547 and territories under which the Classification Board classifies films, computer games and publications on behalf of the states and territories. The scheme is overseen by the Australian government state and territory censorship ministers who regularly meet to discuss the operation of its scheme, its legislation and other such issues. Censorship ministers are not involved in Classification Board decisions. Such decisions are made by members of the Classification Board who are representative of the wider Australian community. Decisions may be reviewed by the Classification Review Board and in making classification decisions both boards are bound by the Commonwealth act and the classification guidelines. Every film, video and computer game that is legally available in Australia, whether it is produced locally or comes from overseas, has to be classified by the Classification Board before it can be made available to the public. Some publications also need to be classified. Whilst the Commonwealth act changes introduced by this bill are largely technical they are necessary to maintain the integrity of the scheme in Queensland and similar amendments are being made to classification legislation in other states and territories. Finally I would like to address the changes to the Tourism Queensland Act 1979. Tourism Queensland’s primary responsibilities are to promote, market, develop and arrange tourism and travel to and within Queensland. Although providing travel services direct to the public and the tourism industry through such things as Sunlover Holidays and the Queensland travel centres has been an important function at the time that Queensland’s commercial division was created, its significance has decreased over time. Continuing to be involved directly in such activities impacts upon Tourism Queensland’s ability to focus on more strategic and important activities for growing Queensland’s industry. In fact, contrary to the claims made by the opposition, licensing of these functions would mean that Tourism Queensland could concentrate its resources on primary marketing and destination management activities ensuring that the destination of Queensland, which is beautiful one day and perfect the next, continues to grow. Amongst the government’s key objectives is ensuring that Queensland’s tourism industry and visitation to Queensland continues to grow and that Queensland operators have an opportunity for their products to be distributed internationally. In creating a greater marketing capacity for Tourism Queensland, an important part will be that those proceeds received as a result of the licensing arrangements will be used for international marketing efforts. The prime objective of the focus on marketing will be building destination demand and visitation from key overseas markets, which will help grow the market for all operators and distributors. The changes to be made by the bill are necessary to support the implementation of a transaction such as this and are to be commended. I commend the minister and the department for their efforts and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (3.47 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The aim of this bill is to amend several acts, specifically to amend the Queensland classification legislation to bring Queensland into line with the recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth Classification Act 1995. It also includes an amendment to the Land Sales Act 1984 to assist property development in Queensland and, of course, amendments to the Tourism Queensland Act 1979, which provide Tourism Queensland with the ability to enter into certain arrangements to facilitate the performance of its functions. Firstly, I would like to speak to the amendments to the Queensland classification legislation. As shadow minister for child safety, I am very aware of the dangers that inappropriate material can pose to young children. The classification of films and computer games is a subject that I do follow very closely. I commend the minister for the proposed changes. Censorship is always a contentious issue and one that should not be undertaken lightly or without considerable forethought. There is a vast difference between that which is appropriate for consenting adults and that which is appropriate for immature and developing minds. The role of the Classification Board is of increasing relevance to families and carers, particularly as film makers today seem to push the boundaries to the limits. The vast majority of adults responsible for children's welfare are concerned about what they see and what may be contained in computer games. Ascertaining what is contained in those products is of major concern to them. We are all aware of how easy it can be for young people to buy, hire or access computer games that are entirely inappropriate for them. We are all concerned with how to determine what is okay and what is not. What is suitable for a seven-year-old and what is suitable for a 17-year-old are entirely different things. With the increasing access that children have to the internet, the proliferation of computer games and other media, it is no wonder that determining what is suitable for children is becoming increasingly difficult. There is also the problem of restricting children's access to unsuitable material where supervision may be less than satisfactory. In such situations a readily understood classification, identical to existing ones, will benefit parents, guardians and children. I am pleased to see that these amendments will 1548 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 reflect already known and understood classifications used for films. We have all seen in the past how changes, supposedly introduced to make things clearer or more easily understood, have actually further confused issues. I agree that mirroring film classifications will better enable parents and others responsible for what children play to determine what is suitable for their particular age group. It is particularly pleasing that this bill reflects the agreement of the censorship ministers in that an R classification will not be introduced for computer games. As computer games are accessed by a majority of juvenile consumers, this is a very sensible decision and will certainly be applauded by parents. I would like to now refer to the amendments to the Tourism Queensland Act 1979. I am concerned about some of the changes in this legislation that will allow Tourism Queensland to outsource one of its primary functions. The minister in her second reading speech detailed reasons for the introduction of the amendments. She stated— The market for tourism services and travel advice has changed dramatically due to the rise of the internet, airline deregulation and the increasing numbers of tourism wholesalers. The minister went on to say— The commercial division's market share had also decreased from somewhere near 30 per cent in the mid 1990s to around 11 per cent. I hope the minister is not keen to get rid of the responsibility for a badly performing division rather than take responsibility for improving it. To say that one of the key divisions of Tourism Queensland is not doing all that well so let us give the job to someone else is a worry and does look a bit like buck passing. The importance of the tourism industry is certainly well understood in regional Queensland. Two examples in my electorate of Burdekin serve to highlight the real importance of tourism and effective promotion. I am sure that all members would have recently read and heard about the very successful Ayr ‘One night stand’ concert run by Triple J in the Burdekin. Ayr was chosen to host this event as the winner of a national competition run by the Triple J network to get major musical acts out to regional centres. A great young team of locals led by Adam McLaughlin and including Eliza Zanella, Brooke Davies and Tony Vaccaro from the Burdekin Shire Council put together the winning entry that won Ayr the right to host this event. This involved not only some very clever marketing but also gaining the support of the local council, many business houses and the wider community in the Burdekin and the neighbouring shire councils. It was attended by over 10,000 people ranging in age from seven to 70 and attracted massive publicity nationally. Bearing in mind that the population of Ayr is only about 8,000, members can imagine that this was an enormous crowd for this district. The fact that this event was advertised Australia-wide has certainly put Ayr on the map. The flow-on effects cannot be measured but certainly will be substantial. This is a great example of what can be done by a dedicated team with fresh, innovative ideas and a passion for what they do. It is a credit to the organisers and their supporters that this was such a resounding success. Rock concerts are normally seen to be the domain of youth, but I would like to applaud one magnificent Burdekin grandmother, retired primary school teacher Mrs Fay Clarke. Mrs Clarke took her chair and her ear plugs and sat next to the moshe pit and enjoyed every bit of the evening. As she said, she usually prefers Handel to the Hilltop Hoods, but she wanted to extend her parameters. She is a music teacher and just wanted to experience something different. Is that not what tourism is all about? It is about giving people the opportunity to experience things that they would not otherwise be able to experience. The second event in the Burdekin electorate that stands out as an example of innovation in tourism, marketing and promotion is the Burdekin Grower Race Day which will be held in Home Hill on 28 May. I have spoken previously about this event in the House, but it highlights what can be done to increase visitor numbers. This particular event has grown from a small local annual race meeting to one of the premier events on the north Queensland racing and social calendar. It attracts increasing visitor numbers from throughout Queensland and interstate and it is acknowledged as an event not to be missed. Again, the success of this day is dependent on a dedicated local group of volunteers who have not been afraid to try something new. Very early on they realised the potential and acted on it. Like the Ayr ‘One night stand’ concert, it depends heavily on support from a wide range of contributors. Local fruit and vegetable growers contribute, giving away thousands of dollars of produce on the day. Sponsors ranging from local newspapers, boutiques and businesses to national companies have contributed to making this now annual event one of Queensland’s richest regional race meetings. Both of these events contribute hugely to the economies of the local towns and regions. Hotels, motels, bus companies, food outlets, fashion houses and more benefit directly. But the flow-on effects to the community are immeasurable both in dollar terms as well as via increased profile and recognition. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1549

They are great examples of what can be achieved with a professional approach to tourism, marketing and promotion. I must mention, though, that it seems to have happened without a lot of assistance from Tourism Queensland, as I can find no reference to this day on its web site where I note it calls itself the most progressive destination management organisation in Australia. However, the Burdekin still has much to develop in terms of tourism. It is home to one of north Queensland’s finest wetlands yet to be developed and opened to the public, which I am sure in time it will be. These wetlands are one of the best kept secrets of the Burdekin. It is a haven that attracts many bird watching enthusiasts. The question I do have to ask is: why does the minister think it is necessary to divest Tourism Queensland of one of its core activities—namely, the provision of access to and distribution of Tourism Queensland products? Surely this fits within and is an intrinsic part of Tourism Queensland’s objective to—and I quote directly from the minister’s second reading speech—‘promote, market and develop tourism and travel to and within Queensland’. I do see that Tourism Queensland is only considering arrangements to licence operations to a private operator. What concerns me is that this will be a licence for Tourism Queensland to avoid responsibilities. I also reflect the opposition’s concern about this provision in the bill. Why is a firm from Melbourne being considered? What guarantees will we have that it will perform any better than the commercial division? Who will it be answerable to and where will the direction come from? Why is only one option being considered when I would have thought that there would have been a number of Queensland businesses that could fill the role? In short, is this a good move? The minister also states that proceeds from the licensing of the commercial division will benefit Queensland tourism and build on the fine work already done. Is this the same fine work that saw the commercial division’s market share fall in the face of record tourist numbers from interstate and overseas? Tourism is a very important part of Queensland’s economy and development, and its future is a very serious consideration. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.59 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. In so doing, I want to put on the record some comments made to me by constituents not only in my electorate but also around Queensland. In particular, I want to speak on the changes to the Queensland classification legislation. The Commonwealth’s contribution to the National Classification Scheme stands on the Commonwealth act, which establishes the Classification Board and sets out procedures the Classification Board follows in making its classification decisions. It has a number of mechanisms which it uses to determine, after viewing films or games and the like, how those classifications will be applied. Under that National Classification Scheme, the states and territories take on the responsibility of enforcement of the classification decisions. We have our own set of classification legislation, but in terms of consistency it must complement the Commonwealth act. It is my understanding that these changes came about because the Commonwealth changed its classification system a year or so ago. This legislation sets out how films, publications and computer games can be sold, hired, exhibited, advertised and demonstrated in each state or territory. A number of constituents—and I add my support to their comments—have commended the Queensland government on changes that have been made and additional protection that has been given to children through the government’s various pieces of legislation in terms of the child safety department and Criminal Code changes. However, some of the recent decisions by the Classification Board have been contradictory and have undermined the hard work that has been done by the Queensland government in that regard. One person who contacted my office stated— The OFLC has given an MA rating to the new Nicole Kidman film ‘Birth'. This film concerns a widow, and a 10 year old boy who claims to be the reincarnation of her late husband. At one point, the film portrays the two in a bath together, naked, and while there they share a kiss ... One can imagine the delight of every paedophile at this portrayal of child pornography. About this scene, one reviewer said— and these are people used to seeing movies of all classifications— ‘What is shown on-screen is a bold and clear representation of the double standard held between the sexes in Hollywood. Women are seldom thought of as paedophiles or molesters. It's generally not in the nature of a female human being. Imagine Robert De Niro sitting naked in a bathtub. Dakota Fanning walks in, looks at him ... and then strips ... to crawl into the tub with him. ...

The message is clear: sexual relationships between adults and 10 year olds, as long as consent is there, is OK. The film has received mixed reviews, but as the star is seen as an acceptable role model for our young people, it is likely to have wide viewing. The film was given an MA tag. This writer and others have said that it should have received a much higher classification. The letter continues— ... it will be seen by children, and eventually it will be available for home use on video. Our impressionable youth will therefore be thinking that this is acceptable: paedophiles and child-porn producers will be thinking up more ways to get child pornography accepted. Again, the writer and others commended the Labor government on its strengthening of protection for children but see these sorts of classifications by the Office of Film and Literature Classification as undermining the very strong moves that the government has made in an attempt to protect our children. The guidelines for the classification of films and computer games state that a film should be refused 1550 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 classification if it includes depictions of child sexual abuse or any other exploitative or offensive depictions involving a person who is or looks like a child under 16. It is the contention of this and other writers that the film Birth gives that intention. I believe that people have written to the minister with those concerns. A further letter that I received related to a film called Mysterious Skin. It has been classified as R18+ by the Classification Board, but a minority of the board considers that it contravenes the classification guidelines for the R category so that classification should have been refused. This film was directed in the US. It deals with the experiences of two young boys who are sexually abused at the age of eight by their baseball coach. The concern that was expressed to me was that, even though there are some very explicit scenes and prolonged explicit scenes in this film, the Classification Board in Australia in this instance has given it a classification. Under the guidelines it should have been refused classification altogether. The reason I bring these concerns to the minister is that, whilst this legislation is being amended to reflect the federal legislation—and that is necessary for consistency—there are concerns in the community, and very valid concerns, about the work of the Classification Board itself. I would request that, if she has an opportunity to have input into that process, the minister raise these concerns of members of our community in relation to the undermining of the good work that is being done by the government here in terms of child protection by these sorts of decisions. Quite often matters are brought to our attention by constituents, particularly parents, concerned about materials that are released and accessible by children. It is only a fairly recent thing that video games have been classified at all. Some of them are brutal. Some of them are extensively explicit and must have an effect on the psyche of children developing their values and attitudes. With regard to anything that we as a parliament can do to reinforce the work that we have been doing over the past few years, particularly in highlighting the value of our children—the value of the information that they have unfettered access to, a recognition of the fact that not all parents are vigilant and therefore some children do access material that they otherwise should not that perhaps in some homes would be put out of their reach and, one would hope, in many homes would not even be included in the home environment—and to bolster the minister’s work and the work of other ministers in this government to reinforce the protection of children, I am sure that we would be there right behind her supporting her. There have been comments in relation to the changes to Tourism Queensland, and I will be interested in the minister’s response to the issues in relation to the suspicion of privatisation. As other speakers have said, tourism has been one of our growth industries right across Australia for a long time. For Queensland it is a growing industry, and one can only expect that it will continue to grow and be a big part of our economy. As others have done, I want to touch on a couple of issues in my electorate. It is a heavily industrialised electorate, but there are quite a number of organisations that work tirelessly towards promoting the region in terms of tourism. On the May long weekend there is a small group of people in the Boyne Valley—the Ubobo Progress Association—who every year put on the Mount Robert Challenge. Mount Robert is one of the tallest climbs in my area. These people run up it and down again. It is an endurance race of some sort, and that association has done a brilliant job marketing it. I do not know that it has got to Tourism Queensland’s web site—I have not checked—but contestants come from interstate as well as from the south-east corner and elsewhere. We have the Harbour Festival at Easter time, which is very well known. It provides a very suitable event for the end of the Brisbane to Gladstone Yacht Race as well as an event for families to come and enjoy shows as well as other entertainment once a year. The same group that organised the Harbour Festival, Gladstone Festival and Events, and its officer, Judy Whicker, work tirelessly to promote Gladstone. Another event they promote is the Seafood Festival. Changes to the seafood industry are undermining that festival—not because of the fishermen but because of the changes to government legislation. But that festival continues to be very important. In June we have the Boyne Tannum Hookup. Again, a voluntary committee works tirelessly all year to organise that event. This year is its 10th anniversary. It is quite an event. Fifteen boats of various sizes and styles will be won by participants. Tourism is a very important rung in the economic ladder of my region and, in fact, in other regions across the state. I will be interested in any changes that the minister is proposing to make to Tourism Queensland that could in any way undermine its success and its ability to promote Queensland in an holistic manner. I look forward to the minister’s response to those concerns and again offer support to the minister in relation to the classification issues. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.11 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. At the outset, I know that this bill proposes an amendment to the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1992, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Publications Act 1991. When I read the bill and the minister’s explanatory notes, it seemed to me that this is just another example of Queensland legislation being amended to reflect changes to Commonwealth legislation made by the Commonwealth parliament. I understand that the amendments are aimed at creating a uniform and more easily understood classification system for films and computer games. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1551

In the minister’s second reading speech she stated— In 2004 the Commonwealth amended its legislation to introduce new standard classification types for films and computer games. It is now May 2005 and we in the Queensland parliament are now debating amendments to our own legislation. To me this is simply another example of the duplication of resources. We have the federal government holding committee meetings, then debating amendments to legislation and then passing legislation. Then 12 months later, another parliament somewhere else in Australia—this time the 51st Parliament of Queensland—is debating amendments to legislation that other members sitting in committee rooms have already discussed and debated. In my mind we are simply debating legislation that has already been passed somewhere else to ensure that we are consistent with national scheme legislation in Australia. This is not the first time that we in this parliament have justified making amendments to our legislation on the basis of complying with national scheme legislation. This has made me ponder the future of state parliaments. As I walked down the corridor, I looked at the honour board for the Queensland Legislative Council. I note that that council was abolished on 23 March 1922. While we debate so passionately the need for national scheme legislation, perhaps we also need to consider improving the standard of government in Australia by doing away with state governments. I know that is a debate for another time, but I really think that it is timely to consider such an issue when we are debating the introduction of amendments into our legislation to comply with national scheme legislation and to comply with legislation that has been passed in the federal parliament. This issue also prompted me to undertake some research on the amount of federal tax money that is used to prop up state governments. I note that in 2003-04 the proportion of the state budget that received— Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Will the member for Nicklin return to the context of the bill. Mr WELLINGTON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, during the debate on this bill other deputy speakers have allowed other members to digress to a certain extent. They have not enforced a strict interpretation of keeping the debate relevant to the bill. So Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I urge you to allow me a tolerance similar to that allowed to other members. Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have given the member some leeway, as I have to other speakers. Please return to the bill Mr WELLINGTON: I will return to the bill. This bill makes amendments to Queensland legislation to make it consistent with national scheme legislation. It is interesting to note in the current budget that 49 per cent of our funding has come from the federal government. In the 2003-04 budget the percentage of funding from the federal government was 45¼ per cent. Those are significant figures for us to ponder. I turn now to the second part of this bill, which makes amendments to the Tourism Queensland Act. In the minister’s second reading speech she stated— The bill seeks to amend the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide greater flexibility to Tourism Queensland in the way that it may perform its functions. These amendments are facilitative only and decisions about the best way to achieve Tourism Queensland’s objectives will always be made on a case-by-case basis, giving proper consideration to the interests of all relevant parties. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, again I urge you to reflect on the willingness of other deputy speakers to allow members to digress from the narrow interpretation of relevance to the bill so that I can refer to some matters that impact on tourism. While talking about this bill and its relevance to tourism in Queensland, I wish to refer to the whale watching tourism industry that takes place along the Queensland coast and in other areas of Australia. Whale watching is a very important tourism industry. I think it is important that this government stands up to the Japanese government and sends a very clear message to them that whale watching is a tourism industry that we want to support, encourage and enhance. I think it is time that we said ‘enough is enough’. In the past we have seen the Queensland government very quickly and easily close down the state’s small fishers industry. I challenge the minister and I challenge the Premier and Minister for Trade to use that enthusiasm to say to the Japanese government ‘enough is enough’. We want to see whales survive and their numbers grow in our waters.’ We certainly do not support in any shape or form the killing of whales, which is what I understand the Japanese government is proposing. I also want to put on the record my appreciation to the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, for taking the lead on this issue. John Howard sent a strongly worded letter to the Japanese Prime Minister setting out very clearly that he does not support the killing of whales and that he believes Australians do not support the killing of whales. I urge the Premier and Minister for Trade and the minister for tourism to follow that lead and send a very clear message that we in Australia believe very strongly and passionately about this issue. We do not want to see the killing of whales. More importantly, we should be supporting and encouraging the protection of whales. 1552 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.17 pm): I wish to speak briefly in support of the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Unlike the member for Nicklin, lots of parents have come to me and told me how much they want to see classifications on computer games and the consistency of classifications. That is what this bill has done. The amendments that this bill makes to classifications will help not only parents but all of us to make decisions about what we watch or play on our computer screens. I have a friend who is a member of the Classification Board. That board does an outstanding job. Often during work hours, my friend has to leave the workplace and travel interstate to make decisions on classifications. So the members of this board give up a lot of their time to look at things—which are probably not very pleasant, and which I and other members do not get to view—and make choices on behalf of the community. I think they have a hard job. They have to be broad-minded and take into account the opinions of the whole community, not just their own opinions. As I said, the consistent classification of images will help parents understand what the classifications represent when they choose games, images or other material for their children. I am really pleased that this legislation will also help grandparents. I know that when I go shopping with my grandmother to select computer games or CDs for my nephew, to see the look on her face when she sees some of the covers is quite interesting. So I am sure that grandparents will be very pleased with this bill as it will certainly allow them to understand the classifications better when they are choosing gifts for their grandchildren. Online computer games seem to be all the rage now. I am a little concerned about those. I think they are the next chapter in waiting with regard to how paedophiles get in touch with children. To date I have not heard of any such instances but, then again, it was not that long ago that we were talking about the incidents that occur with chat rooms around the world. I think parents need to be vigilant not only with chat rooms and what classifications of games they buy for their children but also in talking to their children about online computer games—watching the games and seeing what their children are doing— because online computer games are another avenue through which people can get in touch with one another. With that brief contribution, I support the bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.20 pm): The Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is a very important piece of legislation. I know that parallels have been drawn with the national classification system for home computer games and films. I believe that we have to take a long, hard look at our society today in relation to the classification system. I know that the minister is passionate about this issue, too. I think we share a common view about what is happening. Some of these exhibitions, whether they be movies or computer games—and I want to particularly talk about movies—leave a lot to be desired. Late last night, at about 10 or 11 o’clock, I turned on the TV to SBS. What I saw on SBS was absolute filth. That is what it was—absolute filth. I am no prude, but a little kid could be up at that hour—we know kids are up at that hour—and could see that sort of exhibition. What hope have we got? I draw the parliament's attention to that today. We have review mechanisms in place in this legislation. I know there are review mechanisms in place, but at the same time I think some of the responsibility should rest with the people who put these programs to air. They should be showing leadership and responsibility in relation to what is shown on our screens. I know there are adult shops around the place and I know that people can buy adult films, but at the end of the day we have to protect our young people. There is a table in the explanatory notes that lists existing film and computer games classification types. There is G, which is general; G8+, which is general for age eight and over; and M15+, which is mature for those aged 15 and over. What is the difference between a seven-year-old and an eight- or nine-year-old? I know that this is the old classification system, but this is where there needs to be closer scrutiny. I know that members on both sides of the House have canvassed these issues in the past, but it comes back to one thing: there is violence on the square box—there is no doubt about it—and the violence is unacceptable in many cases. We should be taking a long, hard look at some of these films in question. If I see a violent movie or see something violent even on the news, I turn the TV off and walk away. I do not like it and there are probably a lot of people who think that way. When a young person sees that sort of thing, they must think that people condone that. That is how their little minds become warped. I hope that the measures in this legislation will address that. At the end of the day, it is up to the parents. A lot of parents and guardians work different hours. But what price can you put on our young people? We cannot put a price on them and they are not negotiable. I think we have to closely scrutinise how this is policed in the future because, when it comes to crime, these films and computer games can be the root of evil. The police are trying to do a job and when they ask juveniles, ‘Where did you see that?’ they answer, ‘I saw it on TV.’ They think it must be okay because they saw it on the TV. We live in a permissive society today. There is a different set of values today from the set of values that the 89 members of this parliament were brought up with. I think we have to be hard and fast about making some changes. I hope that the minister can keep her hands on the wheel and that we will see outcomes of better viewing for our young people and hopefully more enjoyment and entertainment. When I was a child we did not have TV. In latter years some good movies came out and we can still watch those movies today. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1553

They are wonderful movies. My granddaughters like to watch them now. That is the precisely the type of art our young people should be exposed to. I also want to talk about the Tourism Queensland Act 1979. The explanatory notes state— Tourism Queensland is considering arrangements to licence the operations of the Commercial Division to a private tourism operator, which will allow Tourism Queensland to concentrate its resources in particular on primary marketing and destinational management activities for Queensland. The shadow minister, the member for Beaudesert, raised that issue here today. A very important question is: are we going to see parts of Tourism Queensland privatised and sold off—maybe ending up interstate—for financial gain? I draw the minister’s attention to the explanatory notes, where reference is made to the promotion and marketing of tourism and travel, the development of the tourist and travel industry, the making of tourism and travel arrangements, and the provision of tourism and travel information services. I do not know whether the minister has ever been to the Northern Territory, but I believe it provides the best service to the travelling public of anywhere I have been in Australia. The people who work in tourism in the Territory are so obliging and go out of their way to make certain that tourists know what is happening. The good part about them—and it is a marketing strategy—is that if a person is not interested in Uluru but is interested in Kakadu they can tell that person something about Kakadu. They are well versed and well trained. The minister is on a winner with Ian Mitchell from Tourism Queensland. Ms Keech: You know he came from the Northern Territory. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. He is a wonderful man. He is a true professional and a man who has Tourism Queensland in his heart. I believe that we are going to see some big things happening in Tourism Queensland under his stewardship. Ian Mitchell is one of those fellows who does get out of Brisbane and covers the state and is always looking for new ideas not only in Queensland but also in other parts of the country that he can implement. I know that Richard Brennan is looking after the western area of the state for Tourism Queensland and is doing a very able job in conjunction with his responsibilities on the Gold Coast. It is important to remember that we all should be ambassadors for tourism in this state. If somebody asked me, ‘What can I see in Queensland?’ I would ask them, ‘What part of Queensland do you want to see?’ If they said they wanted to go to Cairns, then I would tell them about the Great Barrier Reef and the tableland. They would probably ask, ‘What is the tableland?’ A lot of people have never heard of the Atherton Tableland. I would tell them where it is—that beautiful part of Queensland that a lot of people do not even know about. It is a paradise in the far north. Mr Shine: It’s where the Premier came from. Mr JOHNSON: I take that interjection. A lot of other people come from up there, too. It is a place I would like to visit because I think it is a beautiful place. Even in the western part of Queensland where I come from we have famous tourist icons like— Ms Keech: The Cosmos Centre at Charleville. Mr JOHNSON: The Cosmos Centre at Charleville is a beauty, Minister. Ms Keech: The whole cabinet went there. Mr JOHNSON: Very good. I could not be there at the time, but the Cosmos Centre at Charleville is certainly an attraction in its own right. There is the Blackall Wool Scour, the Workers Heritage Centre at Barcaldine, the Hall of Fame of the Qantas founders at Longreach, the outback centre in Winton and John Flynn Place in Cloncurry. At Mount Isa there is the fossil trail and all the byways, too. People should go to Richmond to see some of the magnificent things they have there. The point I am making is that, when I say we should all be ambassadors for Tourism Queensland, I believe that in all sincerity. In Longreach the other day I saw some people walking down the street and they were holding a little map in their hand. I said, ‘Are you lost?’ They said, ‘We are looking for the main street.’ I pulled up and talked to them for a minute and they asked me about something else. I said, ‘Do you know about this?’ and they said no. But that is what it is all about. We have to take an interest in people and make people feel important so they do come back and spend their dollars regardless of whether it is in the west, here on the coast or in Brisbane. I cannot emphasise enough how much we have here in Queensland that goes begging because people do not pay enough attention to it. As I said about those centres in the territory, those people are impeccably dressed, they are all in uniform and they look a million dollars. They look the part. They have purpose about them. They look like they are there for a reason. I believe we can generate some enthusiasm about these things in Queensland to give us some thrust and initiative in relation to tourism. We have to make this state great in tourism. I believe we are in a position to make it great. If we take those western icons like the Hall of Fame, only about two per cent of the population from the south ever go there. I know that the season is starting now and we have people moving. I made mention in an MPI here in the House this morning about the state of some of our western roads. That is something else I want to ask the minister to follow through on. We need upgrades of tourist maps in Queensland so they are accurate and precise in 1554 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 relation to where the sealed road is, where the gravel is, whether a caravan can be pulled over a piece of road, whether it is a four-wheel drive track only or whether a conventional car can go over it. I believe they are all important issues. In relation to road safety, I hope I will be able to draw the attention of the minister to this issue. As a person who has travelled western Queensland, she understands fully the situation of road trains on narrow bitumen. Type 2 road trains pulling three trailers are icons in their own right. A lot of people do not understand those configurations and do not understand how to negotiate them on narrow bitumen. A lot of times people in caravans think they have a right to the road, too, which they have, but they have to understand the safety aspects. The unwritten law in the back country is that if you see a road train on the road you get right off and let them have it. They have an unwritten law themselves. The loaded bloke stays on; the empty bloke gets off. They are very courteous people. They are very understanding people. I think that is something else that should be put into our tourism guides and onto tourism maps so that people who do not come from our state can understand how to negotiate those trucks. The drivers are courteous people. I know a lot of tourists have UHF radio and they can call up a truckie—most of them are on channel 40—and say, ‘Listen, old mate, I have to pass you.’ I have passed them on the left- hand side in the dust when the dust is blowing across the road. They will let you pass on the left. Whilst all these things are unwritten rules, there are safe ways of negotiating heavy transport and it is a safe way of making certain everyone gets from point A to point B and we do not have mishaps. They are just little things. I believe we should all promote tourism together and make certain that we can make our tourism industry in Queensland even greater than it is now. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (4.34 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill. In speaking to this bill, I would like to place on record the important contribution to Queensland’s tourism economy by all the businesses in the Charters Towers electorate. In particular, I recognise the contribution of small businesses in my electorate. Small business owners contribute in their own way to the fabric of our local community. Many freely donate their time, money, goods and services to assist charities and fundraisers on a regular basis. Our communities would not be the same place without the contribution of many of these small business men and women. I stand in the House today to place on record my thanks to the business community of Charters Towers and the electorate as a whole for the efforts that they make in my electorate. This bill seeks to amend several acts to achieve three main aims—in particular, the bill amends the Queensland classifications legislation to reflect recent legislative changes to classification types in the Commonwealth’s Classification (Publication, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995; it contains an amendment to subsection 28 of the Land Sales Act 1984 to facilitate major property development in Queensland; and it amends the Tourism Queensland Act 1979 to provide greater flexibility to Queensland in the way it may perform its functions. A strong tourist industry which protects the rights of consumers is important for Queensland’s economic wellbeing. The electorate of Charters Towers has 32 towns and 10 shires. A lot of these towns need the tourist industry to stay alive. In towns such as Hughenden where there were 1,200 people there are now 1,000 people. At the same time the south-east corner is expanding. These 32 towns need power stations and water infrastructure, but if we cannot get that we need some form of protection that helps provide for and assist the tourist industry. I will use the Kennedy Development Road as an example. Nine buses of backpackers would use that road each week and that provided economic benefits to towns like Hughenden and Richmond, but that road is virtually unusable for buses at this present moment. These towns need tourism to stay alive. We need to relieve that traffic congestion from the coast. We need to relieve congestion from places like the south-east corner. Sealing just one inland road would reap great benefits for towns in rural and regional areas. On the Kennedy Development Road there were nine accidents within two weeks and three of the people injured in those accidents were tourists. There is bulldust nine inches deep. If we are to promote tourism, we need to ensure that these roads are upgraded and sealed. I would also like to mention the importance of tourism within my electorate and Richmond with the Kronosaurus museum and the recreational lake. We thank the state government for its support and contribution to that recreational lake. I believe it gave in excess of $200,000 and towns like Richmond are reaping great benefits from this support. It is very welcome. The township of Charters Towers is booming. It has been booming for the last five years and it is due to the contribution of tourism, the local councils, the Dalrymple shire and the efforts they put in with the local community. We have seen major events such as the Country Music Festival and the Goldfield Ashes. During the Goldfield Ashes each year we have up to 130 teams come into Charters Towers. There are 32 cricket pitches. You can see all the cricket pitches virtually every time you fly into Charters Towers. The motels are filled. Millions of dollars are injected into that economy each year by that event. It is very important that the support and assistance from the state government is well used. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1555

I would also like to mention the country music festival, which is one of the town’s big events. These are the things that keep rural towns alive, including tourism. We need special events like that. The support, assistance and help would be greatly appreciated. I wanted to bring this to the House's attention. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (4.40 pm): I rise to speak to the Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Tourism is one of the final avenues left for many rural communities after deregulation, and much legislation has been brought into the House about this. As most people around here would know, I am pretty passionate about the South Burnett and the Brisbane Valley area. I would like to encourage every avenue they pursue themselves to promote their towns. The Woodford Folk Festival was actually spoken about this morning, as was the cultural festival, which will soon be realised. No-one can doubt that Bill Hauritz has put his heart and soul into any function that he takes on board. He seems to do it extremely well. In mentioning that I must also recognise that there have been residents who live around the site who have concerns with regard to those festivals and the noise and inconvenience it causes them over periods of time. They do not worry about a one-off yearly event. They can live with a two-off event. They start to get a bit concerned about a three-off event, and one can understand that to a degree. In saying that, I would hope that everybody involved in these festivals takes on board the concerns of the residents around them. The races have always been a major event in our area, in particular the Burrandowan races. We all had grave concerns that it would close down a few years ago. It struggles, through community help, to keep going, but the races still make a terrific day. If people could not get out to Birdsville, they will have to wait now until the next Burrandowan race because it has just recently occurred. It was supported tremendously well. As I have stated before, there are always buses coming from all over the country. They do get to drive down some dirt roads and everything, but for the city people that seems to be part of the fun. Every town has worked together to try to adopt a badge for their town, a theme for their town. In Kingaroy the food and wine festival is held every year. Most people in this House should know by now that we have quite a number of wineries in the area. If anybody feels like a nice weekend, why not come up our way and do the triangle, which is up round through Gympie, back down through Murgon and Wondai, down through Kingaroy, Woodford and Kilcoy right back down to the coast. It is a great weekend. We call it the golden triangle because there are a wealth of experiences because it is so diverse. People can stop at Cherbourg and see some Aboriginal heritage. They can go to the mines at Kilkivin and Gympie and continue down to the Wondai and Murgon areas where there are lots of antiques and what not. As I said, Kingaroy has the food and wine festival. You can spend a week there tasting wines and the cheeses and everything else. Just mentioning the cheeses, I received a notice today that Kingaroy Cheese, which is based in Kingaroy—as the name states—has won gold at the Australian Speciality Cheesemaker’s Show held in Sydney for the company’s Stuart River Triple Cream Brie. I would suggest that everybody come up there and try that one because it is absolutely wonderful. It is a positive when we hear so many negatives about what is happening in the dairy industry. To see those cheeses promoted and win gold is just fabulous. After you have partaken of the cheese and wine et cetera, at night people could duck out to Maidenwell, which is the tiniest community you will probably find in many areas. It has an observatory that is becoming well known. People are travelling right across the state to see that. It is one of the darkest skies that people will find in the south-east corner. We do class ourselves as being in the south- east corner even though a lot of the money does not seem to get over the range. So if the ministers would like to keep that in mind when they come to dishing out a few bucks, we would greatly receive any money. People can do Maidenwell in the night and then travel down to Nanango—which is a real country and western theme kind of town—and then travel on to Yarraman and Blackbutt and they would find themselves in an arty sort of place. Members can see that all the towns are working together so that they do not tread on each other's toes and they maximise the benefits for all the people in the area. Benarkin and Blackbutt are very close sisters. They work well together, too. One thing we must all realise, and the member for Gregory stated this, is that we should all be ambassadors for Queensland tourism. I think it will be found that all the towns in the South Burnett and the Brisbane Valley do exactly that. They do promote each other. There is a wine trail that comes right up through the Brisbane Valley through our area as well. On the way down here I noticed the number of caravans on the roads. There are an enormous number of caravans on the road. I must admit that the majority of them were from Victoria. I noticed on the number plate it said ‘state on the move’. I think that if we were really honest about it we would realise that the whole country is on the move, especially as people get older and retire, although that is being put off a bit later nowadays. But people are getting in those caravans and they are heading out west. 1556 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

They are heading north and south right around the country so we could say that the entire country is on the move. We do have an opportunity to capitalise on that. One thing that I have to agree with the member for Gregory on is the courtesy on the roads out west. It is something that people should be aware of. They do not have the sign posts and they do not have the law right there on the doorstep making sure that everybody is doing the right thing. But what will be found is that country people are the most courteous people on the road. They do have their own way of overcoming problems. Bulldust and the like are major things to overcome. People who are not aware of those conditions could suffer amazingly. While I am on tourism, I would like to recognise all the groups in all the towns who work to benefit— Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! I have given the member seven minutes worth of leeway for her travelogue. Please come back to the bill. Mrs PRATT: Thank you for that. I am getting back to that. Without those groups we could not function. I wish to recognise all these groups and what they do to promote tourism in our towns. I know you did not realise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was actually praising these people, and I am sure you would not be adverse to me doing that. I will go on to another part of the bill that amends the Queensland classifications register which amends the Classification of Publications Act 1991, the Classification of Films Act 1991 and the Classification of Computer Games and Images Act 1995. This is mainly to reflect the recent legislative changes to classification markers in the Commonwealth and to make other changes. The bill also amends the definition of publication in the Classification of Publications Act 1991. With regard to the classification of things, I think this is really quite timely especially with films and computer games. Most of us did not grow up with computer games, but as a grandmother I have actually seen some of the computer games that my grandchildren have got their hands on. To be quite honest, I was shocked at the goriness of some of these things. My eldest grandson turned six recently. He was given a computer game that basically said, ‘Well, go out there and kill as many people as you can’, which I found rather offensive. This is in New South Wales. I was quite disturbed by that. It brought home to me just how innocently anyone who is not familiar with these games or really aware of what they contain could be caught in the trap of buying something that is totally inappropriate for a child. I must admit that if a person knows anything about these sorts of games, they will trial it first. However, nobody did that. It was quite horrifying to see. Of course, at that age, the kids did not pick up on it. They just thought that it was part of the fun and games, and carried on. An example that another member alluded to related to films and particularly to the film Birth. Personally, I was not comfortable with the character played by Nicole Kidman sitting in a bath with a child and then kissing that child on the lips inappropriately. Now, that child's character may have been older, but it would perhaps come across to some people as child abuse. It was mentioned earlier that perhaps a paedophile would see some hypocrisy in that. Perhaps each and every one of us would view that situation in a different manner. Some might see it as an artistic film. Some might see it as a natural thing that occurs within society; some might not. Quite frankly, film classifications must be strict enough to ensure that children do not inadvertently see this type of thing and consider it to be a natural part of everyday life. My concern about the classification of entertainment materials is this: what was considered offensive 15 or 20 years ago is now accepted by most people as normal. We are not offended very easily by most things anymore. That worries me. Consider, for example, bad language. In my household, I do not allow swearing and I never have. Recently I was talking with my son, who is aged 30, and he started to use words which I find offensive. I pulled him up. He said, ‘But mum, everybody uses it’, and I said, ‘Not everybody uses it, sweetheart. I don’t.’ He said, ‘Oh, sorry.’ It is just a matter of each and every one of us deciding what is and what is not acceptable. Whether our standards have dropped or we have become more accepting of once unacceptable things is up to each person to judge for themselves. However, I believe that we have become desensitised to a lot of these things. That is a situation that we need to watch and which the classification people need to watch. Quite frankly, the easier it is to understand the classifications the better for people who are not familiar with games or anything else that might come in the future. I think this is a necessary move. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (4.52 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions and, particularly, for the broad support for two out of the three amendments contained in the bill before the House. I particularly thank the members for Whitsunday, Cleveland, Aspley and Springwood for their significant contributions, particularly their comments with regard to classifications. I also acknowledge their support of the Queensland tourism industry. 24 May 2005 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 1557

Before turning to some issues of contention, I will reply to the comments made by the members for Gladstone and Nanango regarding the amendments in the bill to the Classification of Publications Act, and so on. As has been indicated, this bill seeks to mirror the Commonwealth’s classification act and is simply complementary. Quite rightly, the members for Gladstone and Nanango have raised certain issues. The member for Gladstone has written to me with respect to her concerns about some of the decisions made by the Commonwealth Classification Board. I understand that these are considered to be very serious issues by some parts of the community and particularly by some special groups. As I said, Queensland seeks to mirror the decisions made by the Classification Board. If honourable members have concerns about classifications, particularly the criteria used by the Commonwealth Classification Board to make decisions, I encourage them to write to their federal members and to the federal minister with respect to their concerns. The member for Gladstone, in particular, raised this matter when she asked if there is anything that she can do with respect to recent classification decisions. I turn now to the Tourism Queensland Amendment Bill 2005. I thank honourable members for their comments. As tourism minister, I am very pleased indeed to hear of the great passion that all honourable members have for their local tourism industries and their recognition of the tremendous contribution of the tourism industry to Queensland’s economy. In fact, I am advised that in the last financial year $18.3 billion was spent by both domestic and international visitors to Queensland. It is very important indeed that the government makes decisions which ensure the continued viability and strength of the tourism industry. In fact, because tourism is such a competitive industry globally, it is of absolute importance that we seek to be innovative, entrepreneurial and constantly in the lead. In the 1980s, when Sunlover Holidays was established, the Queensland tourism industry was very different indeed. Many members will remember delightful holidays at beachside resorts and so on for which our parents would have relied on brochures from Sunlover. However, things have changed. It is recognised by the Beattie government, through its Smart State agenda, that if Queensland is to grow and develop beyond mining, agriculture and traditional tourism, we must be innovative. We must look at other ways to grow our industries. In fact, this evening the Premier will host a large reception for businesspeople from the tourism and aviation industries to recognise their contribution to Queensland’s economy. For this reason, when the AOT group approached Tourism Queensland last year with the suggestion of a licensing agreement with Sunlover Holidays, the offer was seriously considered by the Queensland government. I believe that we had to consider this offer, given that the function of Tourism Queensland is to grow the economy. Certain comments have been made by both opposition and Liberal Party members. I want to make it perfectly clear to them that the bill before the House regarding Tourism Queensland is not about privatising the commercial division of Tourism Queensland. In fact, it is about licensing of its operations. We certainly do not propose to sell off Sunlover. We are proposing a licensing arrangement. Honourable members have raised other issues, particularly with respect to industry concerns. As a former small business operator myself, I can certainly understand that when tourism operators have worked with the same scheme since the 1980s—more than 20 years—there can be a sense of anxiety and reluctance to change. In recognition of this, Tourism Queensland has had extensive discussions not only with the Queensland Tourism Industry Council but also with people from the broader tourism industry. In those discussions there has been some recognition of these concerns. In fact, the agreements recognise that there will be a two-year moratorium on change to commission levels and also to the Sunlover brochure content. Change will only be allowed with the approval of Tourism Queensland. That means that operators who are linked with the Sunlover Holidays brochures can rely on consistency over the two-year period. Performance indicators will require a set level of annual business growth and maintenance of the number of Sunlover tourist products and suppliers. There will certainly be reason for AOT to ensure the growth of Sunlover operators.Tourism wholesaling is very competitive. There are a number of wholesaler and direct distribution agencies. There will be tremendous competition in the marketplace to ensure that the industry grows over the next two years. I am pleased that the issue of jobs has been raised because it is something that is very dear to my heart. I can assure honourable members that the agreement will protect current Tourism Queensland commercial employees. All commercial staff will be offered employment on terms no less favourable than those offered by Tourism Queensland. In addition, the AOT Group intends to establish a new subsidiary company based in Brisbane to run the national operation of the wholesaler. Once again, this will be good for jobs in Queensland. This deal is very good for Queensland. If it were not, the Queensland government would not be interested in it. It is very good for the tourism industry. It will deliver continued growth for Queensland’s tourism industry and increase domestic and international visitation. It will lead to job security for TQ 1558 Tourism, Fair Trading & Wine Industry Development Legislation A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 commercial employees. There will be wider distribution channels for Queensland tourism product. It certainly will be value for money in terms of the government’s investment. As I have said earlier, tourism operators in Queensland will have the benefit of knowing that their products will have wider exposure through the AOT Group. In commending the bill, in particular the amendments to Tourism Queensland, to the House, can I say that as tourism minister I am very proud to bring this bill to this House because we are selling Queensland and Queensland holidays to the world. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 42, as read, agreed to. Clause 43— Mr LINGARD (5.03 pm): The opposition accepts the minister’s statement that this bill is not about privatising. However, there is no doubt that the government has been under pressure to sell the company because of a dwindling market share. Would the minister agree that this is really a compromise by proposing a new licensing agreement with Melbourne based Australian Outback Travel Group to allow Sunlover Holidays to live on in name? Is it true that this deal has to be finalised by May and that that will also involve licensing the other part of Tourism Queensland’s commercial arm, Queensland Travel Centres? Ms KEECH: I thank the member for the question. I will reiterate what I said earlier, which is that the agreement being worked through with AOT is a licensing agreement and not the sale of Sunlover Holidays. With respect to the timing, when the Premier made the public announcement in this House in November last year regarding the negotiations with AOT he indicated that there would be a six-month period within which Tourism Queensland and the government would work with AOT. He said that after that period if negotiations were not successful the agreement would go to open tender. As we come to the end of the six-month period, I can report to the honourable member that negotiations have been successful and that is why they are continuing. Mr LINGARD: I heard the minister’s statement that AOT had approached the government, but still there has been criticism about the fact that there has been no tender process. What guarantee has this government and everyone got that the government has received the best deal given that it has not gone to open tender? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question. As I said earlier, AOT approached Tourism Queensland and the government with an offer regarding a licensing agreement for Sunlover Holidays. A very extensive consultation and due diligence process was entered into. That process indicated to the government that it was appropriate to enter into negotiations with AOT. Clause 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr LINGARD (5.06 pm): The comments about privatisation and the tender system are very important if we are to accept this bill. Even though we might accept it, we certainly have reservations. Only time will tell whether what the minister is saying is what happens. Does the minister believe that there will be a loss of jobs in the future as a result of this decision? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for this very important question. I am very pleased that he has raised it. This was one of the main issues during negotiations and one of the key issues that I raised with Tourism Queensland. The advice I have received is that existing jobs, particularly in the Sunlover call centre, will continue. There have been extensive negotiations and discussions not only with staff in the Sunlover Holidays call centre but also with the union, the QPSU. There have also been negotiations in the industrial commission. I can certainly give a guarantee that the negotiations have included the continuation of employment in the Sunlover call centre. That is an area where I have played a very important role and it is something that I have placed a lot of emphasis on. With respect to jobs in the tourism industry overall, I believe that with AOT able to take the Sunlover product to the world there are opportunities for jobs growth in the tourism industry. Mr LINGARD: Earlier comments were that the government would be guaranteed $3 million each year and that the money would be used by Tourism Queensland to focus on promotions in the international industry. I would like to hear the minister’s comments about what she believes will happen. Earlier statements were that Tourism Queensland would still have input in the running of Sunlover Holidays. Is that still the minister’s belief when the deal goes through? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for the question. With respect to the dollar value, I would have to say that that information, besides what the member has, is commercial-in-confidence. At this stage I would not be making any particular comments with regard to that. In relation to the member's second question regarding additional funding, I point out that one of the assurances that we have been 24 May 2005 Debits Tax Repeal Bill 1559 given—and in fact the Premier commented on this in his November statement to the House—is that any profits made and income gained through the licensing agreement will be put into international marketing to ensure that more visitors come to Queensland which, at the end of the day, means more jobs for Queenslanders. Mr LINGARD: Minister, will Tourism Queensland still have input into the running of Sunlover Holidays? Ms KEECH: Yes, it will. Mrs STUCKEY: I note that the minister is very keen to keep jobs in TQ, the union and the industrial commission, but she really does not seem very worried about the mums and dads who are inbound tourism operators. We are talking about some 200 small businesses here. She has already admitted that this is a competitive market. I do not think that operators having the knowledge that the product is going to a broader market is any reassurance at all for their future. To me, a two-year moratorium on commission certainly is not enough, and I know that it will not be to them. They have some very serious questions about their future. Would the minister please address those? Ms KEECH: In particular, what questions? Just generally about the concerns? Is that what the member is talking about? Mrs STUCKEY: I am speaking about the specific group of inbound travel operators. These are private operators, and there are a couple of hundred of those. Ms KEECH: I thank the member for the question. I am not too sure if the member was here during my reply, when I said that I can certainly understand these concerns given that Sunlover has been around since the 1980s and, as the member indicated in her contribution to the second reading debate, there are a lot of operators who have become very familiar. It has been a great working partnership, and I do recognise that. I also recognise with a lot of the small businesses that any suggestion of a new operator coming in can lead to angst, can lead to anxiety and can lead to questions and reservations. I certainly recognise that. I believe that there will need to be ongoing discussions with the operators, as the member has mentioned, to finetune the issues as the agreement proceeds. Through discussions not only with industry but also through QTIC we have made a number of concessions after listening to the concerns that the member has raised, and they are the issues that she spoke about earlier. Question—That clause 44, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the House divided— AYES, 55—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Cummins, Fenlon, Finn, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Poole, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 26—Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Foley, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Pratt, Quinn, Rickuss, E Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

DEBITS TAX REPEAL BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 May (see p. 1222). Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.19 pm): As the Treasurer indicates, we certainly all agree with this bill and it should not take long for the House to approve it. The bill before the House is the Debits Tax Repeal Bill and it obviously repeals the debits tax. The repeal of any tax is something that most Queenslanders would support, and certainly the opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill and the repeal of the debits tax. This bill, as the Treasurer indicated, delivers on a commitment that was given in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, often referred to as the IGA. This, in layman's terms, was when the GST regime was put in place. A number of state taxes were earmarked for abolition, and this bill delivers on one of those. It was a commitment given when that agreement was entered into that by 1 July 2005 the debits tax would be repealed, and this bill delivers on that commitment. It is certainly welcome. There was also in that agreement the abolition of stamp duties on marketable securities, which Queensland has already abolished. There was the abolition of financial institutions duties, which Queensland did not have at the time, and there was the abolition of bed taxes, which once again we do not have. There are also a 1560 Debits Tax Repeal Bill 24 May 2005 number of other taxes which the state government has given a commitment to look at in the future, and we will certainly be prepared and more than willing to support the abolition of those. The only pertinent point to be made in the consideration of this bill is to observe once again how successful the GST regime has been and how successful the concept of a broad based consumption tax has been in terms of providing revenue for state governments across Australia and more particularly for the Queensland government. Despite the political games that are played from time to time, on any reading of Queensland’s financial situation it is fair to say that the goods and services tax has provided a sound economic base for Queensland and a sound revenue stream that will grow in the future. Irrespective of the colour of the government in power in Queensland, the goods and services tax will provide a solid revenue stream for that government to provide services to the people of Queensland. In the time since the goods and services tax was introduced, it has proven itself. I well remember the disquiet, the discomfort and the outright opposition to the goods and services tax when it was proposed. I think John Howard will be remembered for having the courage to proceed with what initially was a very unpopular proposition and what many thought was an impossible proposition—to go to the people of Australia with a proposal to introduce a broad based consumption tax. John Howard was courageous enough to argue for that proposition against the populist line that was run by those who opposed him at the time. Time has proven that that broad based consumption tax has been a solid contributor to state economies across Australia, especially in Queensland, and it will continue to be so. We should recognise the political courage and the foresight that was displayed at the time to put the goods and services tax into place. This bill is part of delivering on the state’s commitments to repeal a state based tax as a trade-off for the receipt of that goods and services tax revenue. In that respect, it certainly should not take long to deal with. It should meet with the approval of every member of this House and everyone in Queensland. I certainly support the bill and I commend it to the House. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (5.24 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Debits Tax Repeal Bill. This bill proposes the abolition of a tax on withdrawals from accounts with a chequebook facility. The advent of BPAY, internet banking, pay by phone and other advances has meant that those of us who have a humble cheque account are becoming less and less numerous. Nevertheless, the abolition of this tax comes at a cost of $190 million in the immediately projected financial year, as was noted by the Treasurer when he brought down the budget last year. This bill is about honouring in full and completely the Intergovernmental Agreement of the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. This bill is the last legislative step required by the IGA. The first half of this year has seen an unedifying and disingenuous set-piece drama with the federal Treasurer in the lead role. Members should forget the hyperbole that surrounds the federal government’s claims and let the record of the House once again show that the IGA required of the signatory state governments the following: from 1 July the abolition of bed taxes, which Queensland did not impose; from 1 July 2001 the abolition of financial institutions duty, which Queensland did not impose; from 1 July 2001 the abolition of stamp duties on marketable securities, which Queensland abolished on time; and from 1 July 2005 the abolition of debits tax, which we will abolish today in time to meet that commitment. The IGA set that out in black and white in part 2, section 5, clause 6. It required no more and certainly no less. This bill squares the ledger on the deal signed by the Premier with the current Prime Minister. But few would ever accuse the Prime Minister of being a man of his word. Thus we witnessed this year the fiscal bullying of the states by a federal government swimming in its own revenue, daily making the practice of cost-shifting an art form. For the sake of agendas not necessarily related to good public policy and more readily comprehended through the prism of individual ambition, for the most part the federal government has forced the states into making further changes. Many of those changes have merit and I am keen to support them, but I question at a fundamental level the legitimacy of this action by the Australian government. For me, the fact that this bill precedes a raft of bills that this and future parliaments are now obligated to pass raises questions about the sovereignty of this parliament. Why is it that parliament is being jockeyed by Commonwealth executive fiat into a position that impedes axiomatically our ability to address more fully taxation reform for residential property and land tax? It affects that ability to the tune of $1.6 billion over the next six years. As it happens, that is the life of the next two parliaments. Depressingly, the answer lies in the basest of short-term political motives. This cannot be the force that drives our legislative agenda, lest we deny the sovereignty of our own election and that of this state. For without economic sovereignty, states—the building blocks of our uniquely fortunate nation— are being eroded. As a state we collect around 28 per cent of budget revenue from our own state taxation streams. It is a similar story across Australia. Nationally, the figure is around 33 per cent. As we move to decrease further the range of revenue streams we are, in fact, decreasing our ultimate economic 24 May 2005 Debits Tax Repeal Bill 1561 sovereignty. The time for a more fulsome debate about how that fits with an Australian federation facing an ageing population, higher service demands and a growing fiscal gap is now. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.27 pm): I am sure that this legislation will be welcomed by many Queenslanders. Its intention is to remove stamp duty on non-quotable marketable securities; stamp duty on leases; stamp duty on mortgages, bonds, debentures and other loan securities; stamp duty on credit arrangements, instalment purchase arrangements and rental arrangements; stamp duty on cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes; and stamp duty on business conveyances other than real property such as goodwill, the supply rights of a business and intellectual property. That is to be commended. However, a stamp duty that is not to be removed is a double-dipping stamp duty. On behalf of quite a number of my constituents I have written to the Treasurer about this matter and to date without success. But I raise it in this debate because it is a duty that is imposed as a tax on a tax; that is, stamp duty on insurance. There is a double jeopardy involved in this particular stamp duty in that it is calculated after the GST is added to the insurance premium. So people are not just paying stamp duty on the body of the premium; they are paying stamp duty on the GST component as well. That makes it increasingly unpalatable for those people who take the time to examine their insurance bill. The removal of the taxes outlined in this bill is welcome. It is acknowledged that Queensland did not impose a bed tax when other states imposed it, and rightly so. I believe that is a tax on tourism. Queensland also did not impose financial institutions duty. However, the fact that stamp duty is levied on insurance premiums after the GST is calculated is unacceptable to the community. This situation should be reviewed. If stamp duty on insurance cannot be removed altogether, it should at least be removed from the GST component of an insurance account. Otherwise, as I said, I am sure that the people of Queensland welcome this legislation. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (5.30 pm): I am pleased to support the Debits Tax Repeal Bill 2005. As the Deputy Premier and Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech, this bill delivers on a commitment given in last year’s budget and marks another instalment of the government’s commitment to meet its obligations under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, otherwise known as the GST agreement. Many of the obligations under this agreement are not applicable to Queensland because we do not apply many of the additional taxes common in other states. For example, we do not have a financial institutions duty or a bed tax or stamp duty on cheques. By abolishing the bank debits tax, Queensland maintains its position of being a low-tax state. Under the GST agreement, Queensland was also required to review a number of other stamp duties. That review has now been undertaken. The Treasurer has written to the Commonwealth government to outline Queensland’s proposals to reduce and remove certain duties over the next six years. These tax reductions deliver further good news to Queenslanders who are already reaping the benefits of a buoyant state economy underpinned by the sound economic management of the Beattie Labor government. Our sound economic performance, also indicated by record low unemployment levels, is fuelling increasing interest in Queensland from residents of the southern states. Over 1,000 people a week are moving north to take advantage of our lifestyle and the economic and employment opportunities which are on offer. As a contrast, it is interesting to reflect on just a few snippets of the Liberal-National Party’s record on economic management when they were in power just a few short years ago. Under the Borbidge-Sheldon government, unemployment was at an all-time high, more than double what it is under Labor. Government coffers were propped up with short-term measures such as the sale of Suncorp Metway and the infamous $850 million raid on the electricity GOCs. When Labor returned to power in 1998, we inherited programs and projects which were devoid of sustainable revenue sources, particularly in the out years of the budget cycle. The first few years of our government were spent making hard decisions to restructure the budget on sound economic principles. It is that hard work and budget discipline which are now paying dividends for Queenslanders and our economy. Under the Beattie government’s management, the economy is now firmly established on growth, the creation of new industries and innovation in traditional industries. That strength has enabled us to sustain the abolition of the debits tax and will also allow for further tax relief to be announced in the forthcoming state budget. I commend the bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.32 pm): We also support the Debits Tax Repeal Bill before the House. A government member interjected. Dr FLEGG: You will get more than one or two sentences from me tonight. I was only going to make a short speech, but the previous speaker reminded me of a few issues about the GST and other matters. Queensland is in a very strong financial position because of the huge influx of GST into the state. There is no doubt that this state is the greatest beneficiary of GST. On the other side of the House, 1562 Debits Tax Repeal Bill 24 May 2005 we see many converts on the road to Damascus, bearing in mind that they opposed the introduction of the GST so vigorously when it was first mooted by John Howard and the federal coalition. As a result of the huge windfall in GST payments, Queensland is in a position to abolish a whole raft of taxes and charges that are an impost on the business community—the debits tax being one of them. We support the repeal of the debits tax. The previous speaker rewrote history when he mentioned the raids on GOCs. I place on record that the biggest and most devastating raids on the GOCs were the recent raids on Energex. It is a bit rich for anyone on the other side of the House to mention raids on GOCs. The most important point to remember is that when we took the dividends from the corporations they did not collapse: the standard of service remained the same. That is not what happened under this government when it raided Energex and Ergon: the standard of service fell apart. In fact, we had to have an independent investigation into Energex to find out what was going on because the government would not tell us or be honest with the people of Queensland about why the reliability of electricity supply in Queensland fell apart. As I said, I did not intend to speak long. But those points ought to be made quite plain to the House. The influx of the GST is the primary reason we are seeing the reduction in these sorts of taxes in Queensland. On the issue of the GOCs, nothing more needs to be said because the record of those on the other side of the House is plainly in view for everyone to see. They should be the last people raising the issue of GOCs in this House. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (5.35 pm): It is a pleasure to speak on the Debits Tax Repeal Bill 2005. This is a continuing saga in the low-taxing state of Queensland of this government removing taxes— An opposition member: Well done. Sit down. Mr PURCELL: I would not do that, no—and making Queensland a better place for people to do business. If businesses want to employ people, they should do so in Queensland where payroll tax is a low-taxing regime. There are other lower taxes for business employing people in Queensland. For example, workers can be insured under the workers compensation scheme. Queensland is the only state in the Commonwealth that has credit in the workers compensation scheme and will continue to have under this administration. Queensland does not charge stamp duty on cheques, bills of exchange and promissory notes, and it has already abolished credit card duty. Under this proposal Queensland will forego tax revenue starting from an estimated $42 million this financial year and the next up to $558 million in 2010-11. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.36 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Debits Tax Repeal Bill 2005. I note that the minister, in introducing this bill, announced that he delivered on a commitment in the 2004-05 state budget to abolish debits tax from 1 July 2005. I also note that in Queensland, while we are seeing the abolition of the debits tax, we have seen this government introduce a number of new taxes and charges. Some people might say that from the government’s perspective they are not new taxes, but in my mind and in the minds of many Queenslanders we have seen this government lead the way in introducing new charges and levies. Only recently we saw the ambulance levy and many other levies introduced, which set a precedent. It is disappointing that on the one hand these new taxes are camouflaged by using a different name. They are referred to as a charge or levy when in actual fact, to me and to many Queenslanders, they are effectively a tax. It is disappointing that, when the government is trying to get a lot of kudos by claiming that it is abolishing the debits tax, we have seen more indirect fees and charges introduced by this government than many other governments in the history of Queensland. That is my view, but I repeat that that is also the view of many Queenslanders. When we talk about the abolition of debits tax, my research indicates that we receive significant dollars from the federal government. For the 2004-05 Queensland government state budget, the federal government’s payments to Queensland are estimated to be $11.774 billion. I understand that the total Queensland general government revenue is estimated to be $24.009 billion. The proportion of federal funding is approximately 49 per cent. I repeat: the proportion of federal funding to Queensland is approximately 49 per cent. I also note that in 2003-04 the figures were a little different. The federal government’s payments to Queensland were $11.062 billion and the total Queensland general government revenue was $24.506 billion. In that year the proportion of federal government funding given to the Queensland coffers was approximately 45.14 per cent. I commend the bill to the House. I look forward to the Treasurer bringing down the next budget in a few weeks time. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.39 pm): The Debits Tax Repeal Bill 2005 is a credit to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer and the Beattie Labor government for its sensible and effective administration of the Queensland economy. This administration has enabled the government to abolish this tax and still have enough capacity to fund the government’s election promises and priorities with ease. 24 May 2005 Debits Tax Repeal Bill 1563

As the Treasurer pointed out, this bill will abolish the tax which applies to bank accounts with cheque-drawing facilities and will come into effect on 1 July this year. It fulfils our commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations. In recent weeks the Treasurer has also alluded to the further tax cuts that Queensland is willing to undertake as part of the agreement. The Deputy Premier has advised that if the Commonwealth accepts the state government’s proposal to abolish further taxes this will mean Queensland will forgo an estimated $1.6 billion in revenue. No doubt Queenslanders will welcome the repeal of the debits tax as well as the other tax reductions. I am sure that the major banks will also welcome the passing of this bill, because it will decrease their workload in collection, remittance and reporting on this tax, and it will improve the marketability of some of their services. This brings us to an issue with the major banks and also a rather large admission. That admission is that I actually agree with something that federal Treasurer Peter Costello said on the weekend. He said that as state governments were cutting banks’ taxes, which is the case in this bill, it was time for the banks to cut fees and charges. Bank fees and charges account for $9 billion per annum and families account for $3.5 billion of those fees and charges. It is a phenomenal windfall for the banks at a time when their profits are going through the roof. It is no wonder that people are turning to credit unions, which have a smaller fees and charges regime. Surely it makes good business sense for banks to increase their market share by having less fees and charges than their competitors, or does the ACCC need to take another close look at the banks to see if there is some illegal pact between them which they use to maintain the fees and charges? For example, there is the ridiculous charge on using the ATM of a rival bank. If the banks have established ATMs in sufficient numbers and locations relevant to their proportion of the market, the laws of probability dictate that there is an equal chance that a customer will use a rival bank’s ATM as much as their own. Therefore, the cost is evenly spread across all banks and can be borne by all banks without the need to pass it on to customers. In my electorate—and I am sure that this occurs in many other electorates as well—banks are reducing services and removing ATMs in some cases. In other cases, they are removing parts of the ATM functions. For example, in the main street of Caboolture the ANZ Bank removed the deposit facility from its ATM but left the withdrawal facility. Those sorts of things do not make sense. This is just one of the many bank fees that can be abolished. I urge the banks to follow the state government’s lead and cut fees and charges where they can and make it more affordable for people to do their banking. The other organisation which should follow the Beattie government’s lead is the federal government itself. I do not mean that the federal government should just increase its phoney income tax cuts. I say ‘phoney’ because in a year’s time the proposed tax cuts will mean virtually nothing because, through income tax bracket creep, most of the tax cuts will be recouped by the federal government as taxpayers move into the higher brackets. I say 'phoney' also because the cuts are not targeted at those people who need them most—that is, those on lower incomes. The other question that needs to be answered by the federal government is why Australia’s income tax levels are almost double those in other comparable OECD countries. I know that part of the reason is our small tax base and large infrastructure and service needs, but that does not fully explain the reason for our world-record high tax levels. As I have said, the federal government should follow the example of the Beattie government and not only reduce taxes, as we are doing in this bill, but also completely overhaul the income tax system. It is a matter that is well noted. The Howard government gave us the growth tax and the GST but did not reform the tax system as promised. As I have said before, this bill means that the Beattie Labor government is meeting its commitments to the Commonwealth. It demonstrates our commitment to tax reform and it also demonstrates that Queensland, under the stewardship of the Treasurer and the Premier, has a strong economy and can deliver infrastructure and services where they are needed. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (5.43 pm): The Debits Tax Repeal Bill abolishes one of the Queensland government’s primary sources of revenue—debits tax—in accordance with commitments made by the Queensland government in 2000 as part of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations—that is, the GST deal. The bill is fundamentally uncontroversial. Nobody will complain about the abolition of a tax. However, with debits tax having brought in $190 million in 2003-04 and being the state’s sixth biggest provider of own-source tax revenue, I do not think that its passing should go entirely unremarked. While the Commonwealth has claimed that the introduction of the GST has provided a revenue bonanza in the states, we are now seeing the clear political impacts of this change, and they are impacts that, if the Commonwealth does not cease its fiscal bullying, fundamentally threaten the Australian federation. Australia is not like other federations. The Constitution and the World War II High Court decision to cede the power to collect income tax to the Commonwealth create a structure of vertical fiscal imbalance whereby each level of government is reliant on the level above it for much of its revenue. 1564 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

Last year 49 per cent of the state’s revenue came from the Commonwealth and around half of this was GST. Members here will remember that when the Prime Minister announced the GST package replacing financial assistance grants with supposedly untied GST grants he clearly said that this would give the states a growth tax and secure their financial future. However, typically of the Howard government, this has turned out at best to be a half-truth and at worst an outright lie. The GST lies began early, when federal Treasurer Peter Costello started the myth that Queensland was the first to sign up to the GST deal. The truth of the matter was that at the time Queensland did not sign up and instead walked out of the COAG meeting on the basis that the GST was a bad deal for Queenslanders, making them pay more tax but taking years to see more revenue in return. The second big GST lie was that perpetuated in late March of this year when Peter Costello began claiming that the states had breached the GST agreement by failing to remove stamp duty on a range of transactions by midyear. John Howard backed his Treasurer all the way on this one, saying that he was ‘speaking for the whole government’. Costello talked up this alleged breach, threatening the states with dire retribution if those stamp duties that he was talking about did not go. The only problem with Costello’s claim was that it was simply not true. The GST agreement, which I have here and which I table for members to see, says only that the stamp duties to which the federal Treasurer referred were to be reviewed—something that the states are in fact doing. The commitments by the states to abolish bed taxes, which Queensland never had, financial institutions duty, stamp duty on quotable marketable securities and debits tax, which we are doing today, have all unequivocally been met. Members will recall that in March Costello’s threat to pay back the states for reneging on the GST ran on all the TV news, but it was never anything more than an outright bald-faced lie. The third and ultimately most significant lie is the one that we are seeing right now, as the Commonwealth feels less and less comfortable with delivering the GST revenue to the states with no strings attached, as was very clearly promised. Yes, the states do get the GST, but the Commonwealth is actively taking with the other hand, cutting money from specific purpose payments in areas like disability services, housing and—infamously now in Australian politics—health, and bullying the states by quite absurdly trying to tie industrial relations conditions to all SPPs. While I am sure that to the average man in the street this seems like quite meaningless political wrangling, the fact is that for a generation in Australia there has been a cooperative approach to federalism in which the Commonwealth funded the states in accordance with the Constitution but acknowledged the legitimacy of state governments as democratically elected bodies. The Howard government, though, are a bunch of liars and bullies, and the current broken promise to deliver the GST with no strings attached undermines our federal system and ultimately leaves us without a workable federation. No-one seems to like talking much about tax and, frankly, not that many commentators understand it. However, that is a not sufficient excuse to let the Howard government off the hook for its perpetual dishonesty in the distribution of the GST—a dishonesty that is now starting to threaten the very basis of federal governance in Australia. Hon. TM MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (5.48 pm), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (5.39 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Child Protection Act 1999 and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. 24 May 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 1565

Second Reading Hon. MF REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (5.39 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. This bill represents the third stage of the legislative reform program for implementing the Crime and Misconduct Commission’s report Protecting children: an inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. The blueprint for implementing the commission’s recommendations was delivered to the government on 22 March 2004. It proposed a staged approach for legislative change. Stage 1, the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2004, was introduced into this parliament in May 2004 and passed in June 2004. It amended the Commission for Children and Young People Act 2000 to establish the functions and powers of the Child Guardian. It also provided for the review of deaths of children known to the Department of Child Safety and enabled the department to respond to notifications made prior to a child’s birth about the risk of harm to that child after birth. All provisions of the stage 1 act have commenced and been operationalised. The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian has commenced monitoring the Department of Child Safety and all children in care. Child safety directors have been appointed in all departments that provide services to children. The Child Death Case Review Committee has been established to review each case where a child has died who was known to the Department of Child Safety within the last three years. The second stage of the legislative reform process, the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2004, was introduced into this parliament in September 2004 and passed in October 2004. The majority of the stage 2 act provisions have now commenced. Those provisions yet to commence amend the Health Act 1937 to mandate doctors and registered nurses to report suspected harm or risk of harm to a child to the Department of Child Safety. These provisions will commence on 31 August 2005. The focus of the second stage was to improve assessment and planning for children in need of protection. The department is now required to develop and review case plans for children who require the department’s support. A key process in carrying out case planning is the family group meeting where children, parents, relatives and agencies, such as a recognised Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency, participate by considering the child’s protection and care needs and formulate an agreed plan to meet these needs. Regular reviews of case plans are now required at least every six months. The case plan must be submitted to the Children’s Court before a child protection order can be finalised. A new chapter 5A was inserted into the Child Protection Act 1999. It provides for information exchange between agencies that provide services to children and families while ensuring confidentiality and the coordination of service delivery. Individuals who share information under this chapter are now protected from liability. Stage 2 also extended the scope of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian’s monitoring powers and functions to cover various government agencies involved with protecting and providing services to children. The commissioner now has the power to monitor, audit and review systems, policies and practices that affect children in the child safety system. This third stage of legislative reform, the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, is focused on addressing gaps in the Child Protection Act 1999 which concern four major areas— 1. regulating voluntary placements; 2. regulating all carers; 3. consultation with Indigenous recognised entities; and 4. refining the Indigenous child placement principle. Firstly, the bill provides a legal framework to regulate the work the department does with families and children on a voluntary basis—that is, without a child protection order. This work can include the referral of a family to another agency for assistance in meeting a child’s protective needs. It can be the provision of brief supportive intervention. It can be arranging for a child to be cared for by another person with the parents’ agreement until they are in a position to resume caring for their child. The CMC recommended that the Child Protection Act 1999 be amended to ensure that it regulates the assessment and approval of all carers, including those carers who have children placed with them by parental agreement. The Child Protection Act 1999 does not currently regulate such intervention or require departmental approval of kin who care for children under such arrangements. The demand for and use of voluntary placements is an important component of the department’s work in protecting vulnerable children. Approximately 30 per cent of the cases commenced by the department are on a voluntary basis. The CMC noted that the act does not regulate placements of children that take place with the consent of parents. It was concluded that— The failure to regulate voluntary placements has serious consequences which reduce the protection provided to children in voluntary care in comparison with children in foster care. 1566 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

The bill will insert a new part 3B in chapter 2 of the Child Protection Act 1999. This part will regulate voluntary intervention. This part recognises that in some cases a child or young person may be in need of protection and his or her protective needs may be adequately met without taking the step of applying for a court order. It will be required that the department give priority to working with a child and their parents, with their agreement, to meet the child’s protection and care needs. The participation of both the child and his or her parents must be encouraged and facilitated in deciding the most appropriate intervention and carrying it out. The parents’ continuing involvement with the child’s life and care during the intervention must also be encouraged and facilitated. If it is appropriate, having regard to the child’s age or ability to understand, the child’s views and wishes must also be ascertained. In some cases the appropriate intervention will include temporarily placing the child in the care of someone other than the parents. This will require the parents to enter into a care agreement with the chief executive. The bill provides the matters to be considered in determining whether a care agreement is appropriate. These include— • The child’s parents are willing and able to work with the department to meet the child’s protection and care needs; • It is likely that at the end of the proposed agreement the parents will be able to meet these needs; and • The child will not be placed at risk if the parents end the agreement. In line with the CMC’s observations, various specific requirements are set down for inclusion in a care agreement. For example, the agreement must be in the approved form, signed by all the parties to it and it must specify arrangements for the child's contact with parents. Currently, chapter 2 of part 6 of the Child Protection Act 1999 sets out obligations and rights under orders. These include the department’s obligations under child protection orders, the rights of a child in care, the obligations of the parents of a child under a supervision order and the obligations of other parties who have been granted custody or guardianship of a child. In accordance with the CMC’s recommendations, the bill will amend this part to include care agreements. As a result, a child under a care agreement will be afforded the same rights as a child who is the subject of a child protection order, and the persons caring for a child or making decisions affecting his or her care will be subject to the same obligations. The bill includes various provisions that will guide all child placements and provide appropriate standards to ensure that all out-of-home carers are assessed and approved by the department. The CMC identified that the act focuses mainly on the regulation of approved foster carers, and entitlements and obligations relating to children in the care of the chief executive. The act does not address the placement of children with relatives, kin or—in an urgent interim placement—with another person known to them. It is important that these placements are provided for and regulated by legislation as they are becoming increasingly relied on as a preferred option in all Australian jurisdictions and internationally. The CMC identified the benefits of care provided by a child's relatives to include increased stability and permanence, and less trauma relating to removal from parents. The CMC inquiry was presented with evidence that many children at risk in the parental home are well cared for by committed relatives. However, the CMC report states the several disadvantages noted in the research literature. In particular— The same patterns undermining the parents' capacity to provide a safe and nurturing environment may be present in other family members. The same abuse may result. Children stay longer with relatives. It is less likely they will be reunified with their parents or adopted. There is less protection from abusive parents. Relatives often provide a lower standard of living than non-related foster carers. The bill formally recognises approved kinship carers and provisionally approved carers as placement options, and provides a framework to ensure all carers are assessed for approval and that the care they provide meets required standards. The new concepts of ‘kin’ and ‘kinship care’ are introduced in preference to ‘relative care’. It is considered that these terms are wider and more culturally inclusive. ‘Kin’ is defined as a child’s relative or someone else who is significant to the child. Section 5 of the Child Protection Act 1999 will be amended to include the principle that placing a child with kin must be given proper consideration as a first option. It will be required that all carers apply for a certificate of approval. An approved carer will mean an approved foster carer, kinship carer or provisionally approved carer. The application must be in the approved form, which may require the disclosure of the criminal history, domestic violence history and traffic history of the applicant and each member of his or her household. It is proposed that a kinship carer certificate must relate only to the care of one particular child for a particular period of time. A kinship carer will be able to hold more than one certificate. This will enable siblings to be placed together. Approvals will be able to be amended, suspended or cancelled if the 24 May 2005 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 1567 relevant circumstances change. These decisions and refusals to approve foster and kinship carers will be reviewable by the Children’s Services Tribunal. The bill recognises that in some cases it is neither possible nor in a child’s best interests to place that child with an approved foster carer, kinship carer or licensed care service. It provides, in these circumstances, for the chief executive to provisionally approve a carer who has applied but not yet been approved as a foster carer or kinship carer. The chief executive is to be satisfied regarding the suitability of the applicant and all members of his or her household. A provisional certificate of approval will relate to a particular child for a limited period of up to 60 days from the day of issue. A carer may hold more than one provisional certificate but will need to be assessed, trained and approved fully as a foster carer or kinship carer before the provisional certificate expires. Decisions to issue, amend, suspend or cancel provisional certificates will not be reviewable by the Children’s Services Tribunal because of their limited time frame and because the carer’s application for approval as a foster carer or kinship carer will be reviewable when it is ultimately decided. The bill will extend the scope of powers necessary to improve suitability screening of carers. Section 95 will be amended so that the chief executive can obtain criminal histories of kinship carers and provisionally approved carers, as well as foster carers. Section 142 will be omitted and replaced with a new division 7. The new provisions will allow for screening of applicants to be foster or kinship carers and adult members of their households, as well as persons associated with licensed care services. Their personal histories, including criminal, domestic violence and traffic histories, will be obtained. Chapter 4 of the act deals with the regulation of care. A new division 6 will be included to oblige managers, directors and employees of licensed care services, as well as approved and provisionally approved carers, to advise of a change in their personal history. Additionally, carers will be required to advise of any change in the personal history of the members of their household that they become aware of and any change in the membership of the household. New provisions will be included to enable daily monitoring by the police commissioner for changes in personal histories and the disclosure of this information to the chief executive. The act requires that a person living with his or her spouse must hold a certificate of approval as a carer jointly with that spouse. The bill creates a duty for carers to notify the department of any change in their living arrangements and provides for reapplication, surrender or cancellation of certificates as appropriate. Departmental officers regularly provide the courts with information relevant to their decisions concerning children that the department is involved with. In order to ensure these officers have the appropriate right to so appear, the bill includes a new section 108A, which provides that a departmental officer, duly authorised by the chief executive, may appear in a court proceeding. There is currently an obligation for employees of the department or licensed care services to immediately report harm or suspected harm to a child in residential care. The bill will extend this to harm or suspected harm to a child in any licensed care service. The CMC report examines particular issues that impact on indigenous children and families in the child protection system in Queensland. According to figures provided to the CMC, as at 30 June 2003 approximately 23 per cent of the children on guardianship and custody orders were identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The CMC found that the consequences of colonisation and socioeconomic disadvantage were that Indigenous communities were being plagued by alcohol and substance abuse and high levels of family violence. The report states that these communities have unacceptably high numbers of children at risk of abuse or neglect. Particular obstacles that affect the delivery of services and appropriate intervention in the case of Indigenous children include an ongoing distrust of government agencies as a legacy of the stolen generation. The report identifies that recognised Indigenous agencies or equivalent community based organisations should play a pivotal role in Queensland’s child protection system. Their involvement is considered essential so that the department can deliver services to vulnerable Indigenous children in a way that is culturally sensitive and recognises the legitimate reservations that Indigenous communities will have concerning government agencies. Section 6 of the Child Protection Act 1999 currently requires that a departmental decision about an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child must only be made after consultation with the recognised Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander agency for the child. The bill responds to the findings of the CMC by strengthening this requirement. The amended section 6 will provide that, if the department is making a significant decision about an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child, it must give the recognised entity for that child an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The purpose of this amendment is to acknowledge the importance of Indigenous collaboration in decision making in order to ensure Indigenous children receive protection services in a culturally sensitive and inclusive manner. The bill will introduce a new section 246I that enables the chief executive to keep a list of recognised entities. A recognised entity can be either an individual who is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander with appropriate knowledge or expertise in child protection who is not employed by the 1568 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005 department, or an entity that includes these individuals that has a function of providing services to Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. This amendment clarifies that input from recognised agencies is to obtain advice about child protection issues affecting Indigenous children and families. There is provision for listing an individual as a recognised entity. The CMC report identified a shortfall in the number of available agencies. If no organisation is available in a particular region, the only option may be to consult an individual who meets the appropriate criteria. The Indigenous child placement principle is set out in section 83 of the Child Protection Act 1999. Its essence is that placements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children must be culturally appropriate and maintain the child’s cultural identity. Section 83 requires a consultation with the recognised agency for a child before a decision is made regarding where and with whom the child will live. It also sets down a hierarchy of placement options. In order of priority, these are as follows: a member of the child’s family; a member of the child’s community or language group; another Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander who is compatible with the child’s community or language group; and another Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander. The CMC noted that, despite these provisions, a relatively high number of Indigenous children are placed outside of their family and community. As at June 2003, approximately 34 per cent of Indigenous children in out-of-home care were placed with non-Indigenous carers. The bill refines the Indigenous child placement principle by recognising that placement, in accordance with the hierarchy, is not always possible and provides guidance when non-Indigenous carers must be considered. In such cases, the department will be required to consider a person who lives near the child’s family as a first option and next a person who lives near their community or language group. This is subject to the additional stipulation that placement with a non-Indigenous carer must not occur unless the department is satisfied he or she is committed to facilitating and maintaining contact with the child’s family, community or language group and preserving and enhancing the child’s sense of cultural identity. The bill will require that the recognised agency for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child must be given the opportunity to participate in the process for making a placement decision for the child. It must be remembered that section 83 is to be read subject to the fundamental principles set out in section 5: foremost, that the welfare and best interests of a child are paramount. The bill will introduce a provision which will enable the chief executive or an authorised officer to release confidential information, subject to specific child focused criteria. Disclosure of information about a child will be permitted, but is restricted to a member of the child’s family group and will occur only after taking into account matters such as the views and interests of the child and any adverse effect to the child’s family or anyone else. The person receiving the information will be prohibited, by the other confidentiality provisions in the act, from using or disclosing it to anyone else. In conclusion, this important bill represents the third stage of the government’s legislative reform agenda for Queensland’s child protection system and provides a legislative framework for the resolution of complex ethical, legal and practice issues through the consideration of what is in the best interests of the child. These third-stage legislative changes are yet another significant achievement in the process of introducing major sustainable reforms in child protection in Queensland. We have implemented 37 of the CMC’s recommendations and the remaining 73 are on track for implementation within the required time frame. These measures, like the others we have already introduced, highlight our strong determination to create a world-class child safety system that is child focused, accountable and responsive to the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Malone, adjourned.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Debate resumed from 19 April (see p. 900). Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (6.13 pm): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak in the debate on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The Nationals will be supporting the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The intent of the bill is to, firstly, insert in the Local Government Act 1993 a framework for councillor codes of conduct and their enforcement; secondly, insert in the act provisions requiring councils to establish a general complaints process; thirdly, amend the act to allow councillors to salary sacrifice for superannuation purposes—that has been a longstanding issue; and, fourthly, make miscellaneous amendments to the City of Brisbane Act 1924 and the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act 2004. These measures are necessary for the continued improvement of legislation that local government operates under as well as increasing public confidence in our local governments. The most 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1569 talked about set of amendments in this bill relate to the introduction of a framework of councillor codes of conduct and their enforcement. In her second reading speech the minister commented— Councillor codes of conduct will be an important step forward for local government in Queensland. They will make clear the behaviours that communities expect of their elected representatives. Hopefully too they will encourage councillors to perform at the highest level, weighing each action and each decision against the standards expressed not only by the law but also by the ethics principles for local governments. I agree with the minister’s summation of what these amendments mean for the standards rightly expected of local governments. I think it is important to acknowledge at the outset that the majority of our local councillors do a terrific job as representatives of our local communities and the closest people to our communities. I would imagine that only a few councillors will have to be brought into line with the code of conduct. This view has been reinforced by the president of LGAQ, Paul Bell, when he said— I am confident that the vast majority of the 125 councils across Queensland will never have to apply the legislation to breaches of their Code of Conduct for Councillors. Nevertheless, it is still important to have a compulsory code in place to ensure that these standards remain clear to the existing and future councillors. As members would be aware, currently there is no legislative requirement for Queensland local governments to adopt a code of conduct for their councillors, although some have voluntary codes of conduct that are not enforceable. The issue has been on the agenda for quite a period of time and has been discussed over many years at local government conferences. However, in relation to local governments this had to wait until a code was put in place for members of parliament. In September 2001 conduct requirements for members of parliament were consolidated in the Code of Ethical Standards. They were updated in 2003. A discussion paper was released in October 2003 as the basis for commencing consultation on the issue. Responses to this consultation process supported the development of a code of conduct framework—one that would be consistent with the elements of the code of ethical standards for members of Queensland parliament. The response to the draft bill was released in January 2005. It was clear that there was strong support for an enforceable framework for a councillor’s code of conduct. As the minister noted in her second reading speech, several changes, in consultation with LGAQ and the Brisbane City Council, have been made following the release of the draft bill. It is important that councils themselves and the body representing our councils, the LGAQ, are happy with the framework that has been arrived at in the bill. The minister noted the positive remarks of the president of the LGAQ in relation to the code of conduct legislation. The bill requires that councils adopt the code by 1 March 2006, which is based on ethic principles adapted from the Code of Ethical Standards which applies to members of parliament. If councils fail to develop their own code the local government’s code will automatically apply. In terms of what are considered to be breaches of each council’s framework—they take in public statements that include both their statutory obligations and additional ethical and behavioural obligations—the bill provides four possible breaches. These include meeting breaches, minor breaches, statutory breaches and repeat breaches. I do not intend to go through all the examples of breaches as they have been sufficiently outlined by the minister in her second reading speech. I support the view of the minister that each council will have levels of discretion in terms of what they may consider to be a breach. In terms of other processes applicable to the code, the bill sets out a number of procedures that will apply when the councillors have breached or are alleged to have breached the council’s code. Once a breach has been determined, the bill institutes two penalties—written reprimand and meeting suspension for up to two council or council committee meetings. The statutory breaches can impose penalties after referral to the independent review panel. For example, each council will appoint its own independent review panel and the bill sets out the qualifications required for those panel members. Groups of councils may or may not look at providing a joint panel from a pool of suitable persons. The Crime and Misconduct Commission can make referrals to the independent review panel. To ensure that the code of conduct framework is operating as intended, I note that the minister will be monitoring these and each council will also be required to report annually on any breaches of its code of conduct. As this is new legislation, from time to time I would imagine that the legislation will have to be reviewed. If there are any impediments to the smooth operation of the legislation, I would expect the minister to reiterate that. The next objective that this bill introduces is that of requiring local governments to introduce a general complaints process by 1 March 2006. The last review of the Ombudsman’s office recommended that state agencies and local governments be required to have a general complaints process. This process is an important aspect in the successful operation of each council’s code of conduct framework by dealing with alleged minor breaches and council administrative actions that may be brought to the attention of the council. This framework for dealing with general complaints as well as the code of conduct will apply to all councils that fall under the Local Government Act, including Aboriginal councils. However, as the minister has highlighted, these measures are still being considered in their application, particularly to the Torres Strait councils. 1570 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

The other significant issue that this bill addresses is that of salary sacrificing for councillors. The LGAQ and individual councils have had this as a high priority for quite a period of time now, as indicated earlier. Salary sacrificing today is a common part of remuneration packages and is permitted for Queensland public servants, council employees and Commonwealth members of parliament and will be in line with the provisions under QSuper, which new Queensland parliamentarians will be joining. It is good to see that this incentive for planning for the future has also been extended to local councillors. I am sure that all councillors will be pleased with this move. In terms of the process, councillors will be able to enter into an arrangement with local councils to salary sacrifice for superannuation. Arrangements are limited to 50 per cent of a councillor’s remuneration entitlement, as is consistent with the employees I mentioned earlier. In the interests of time, I will not dwell too much more, but I reiterate that the Nationals will be supporting these changes to the bill. We believe that this is good legislation. There will obviously be areas in the legislation that will have to be ironed out over time. Once that happens, I would expect that the minister will bring changes in fairly quickly. The overall intent of the bill is good and certainly is in line with expectations of local communities and of local governments. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (6.23 pm): It gives me pleasure to stand here and support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill encompasses what the community expects of local government and councillors, both legally and ethically. The CMC is empowered to investigate matters where councillors may have breached legal obligations that can result in dismissal from office, and this bill complements this process. Councils will now have to document acceptable standards of behaviour for their members and provide mechanisms to deal with code breaches. There is no doubt that the community expects this from their elected local government, as I have had this said to me on many occasions. The bill specifies some possible breaches including publicly misrepresenting council policy and disclosing confidential information in contravention of section 250 of the Local Government Act. Elected representatives have been given a responsibility that needs to be carried out with integrity. The types of behaviour that I have just described is not what the community expects from their elected representatives, and if they occur the community expects the appropriate action to be taken. Councils will have some discretion in defining what behaviours might be considered breaches. I believe as an elected government they should be responsible for appropriate procedures to deal with these matters. To the community, it is extremely important to see that councils are acting appropriately. With regard to a general complaints process, all complaints processes will deal with complaints by persons affected by an administrative action of council and alleged minor breaches of the councillor code of conduct. Councils can use their complaints process also to deal with complaints about the quality of service, traffic problems or neighbourhood noise, for example. The bill also allows an opportunity for councils to broaden this area to include other matters as they want. I know that my office receives quite a number of council complaints, and this process will be an important part of gaining the community’s confidence. Frivolous and vexatious complaints are discouraged by penalties. While there are benefits for the public, there are also some for the councillors—changes to superannuation provisions for councillors and salary sacrifice for superannuation purposes. Councillors will now be able to forego up to 50 per cent of their salary in salary sacrificing for superannuation. This bill sets out very clearly the statutory and ethical obligations for the role of a local government councillor. It is a bill that encourages better performance, councillors being made accountable for what they do and giving increased community confidence. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (6.25 pm): I rise to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I note that its key aims are the institution of a compulsory code of conduct for councillors and local governments and enforcement of its terms, that each local government is to establish a general complaints process, and the establishment for councillors of salary sacrifice for superannuation purposes. I note that the Local Government Association of Queensland in its media release of 20 April 2005 endorses the bill. With respect to the compulsory code of conduct being established, part 3A, division 1 of the bill establishes the requirement to adopt a code of conduct whether by the council initiating its own code of conduct or using the model code established by the minister. In addition, by reference to a future section, the bill establishes the life of the code of conduct and the method by which it is renewed. Division 2 of part 3A deals with the content of the code of conduct, whilst division 3 provides a procedure by which the public must be informed of the content of the code and their comments sought on its contents before the council adopts it. Division 4 deals with the categories of code of conduct breaches, the penalties for breaches and the conduct of what is termed in the bill the review panel, amongst other matters. In addition, in part 2 of the bill I will refer to the amended section 119(3), which deals with the reporting and the annual report of full details of breaches of the council’s code of conduct during the year. It is to those terms in particular that I will address some remarks shortly. 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1571

The bill imposes an obligation on each councillor in their declaration of office to declare that they agree to comply with the council’s code of conduct. The bill finally deals with what is commonly called salary sacrifice and allows councillors to enter into a salary sacrifice arrangement for superannuation purposes. The bill rightly provides for a code of conduct and provides for councillors to salary sacrifice. Both proposals are to be applauded and will bring councillors in line with the bulk of the population. The code of conduct is a long overdue document, and I commend the minister for introducing it. I do, however, want to make a number of comments in relation to the provisions dealing with breaches of the code of conduct and procedures flowing therefrom, together with the reporting of such breaches in the annual report of the council wherein the name of the councillor, how they breached the code and any penalties imposed are inserted. In addition, details of complaints other than frivolous or vexatious complaints are also to be inserted in the annual report. The bill by producing four different types of breaches—meeting, minor, repeat and statutory—puts in place a very convoluted process both with regard to the resolution and ultimately the imposition of any penalty if the councillor is found guilty of a particular breach. I am concerned that this process, due to the number and types of breaches that can occur and the process involved, will add significantly to the administration costs of councils in a way that councils may not at this point in time fully comprehend. I wonder whether it would not have been more appropriate to set up a regime similar to that which occurs in this House in relation to complaints against members of parliament. It seems that that simplicity of approach is lacking in this bill and will add to the confusion with regard to the way councils are perceived by the public. In particular, meeting breaches are of concern in that more often than not an allegation of a meeting breach will be dealt with at the meeting of the local government at which it is alleged to have arisen. In fact, the councillor can be dealt with then and there, including a penalty or suspension from the remainder of that local government meeting. My concern is that there does not seem or appear to be in place a due process to ensure that natural justice occurs through a review mechanism whereby the councillor who feels aggrieved can seek a determination or a review of the decision. Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Mr McARDLE: It is of concern that a councillor, in fact, could be ousted without proper recourse to the principles of equity and justice. In regard to what are called minor breaches, these concerns arose from the general complaints process as detailed in part 5 of the bill. The general complaints process must be established by each council on the date on which it adopts its first code of conduct process or 1 March 2006. The idea of a general complaints process itself is to be commended. However, in combining it with the other provisions of the bill, it is one more imposition on local government. I am again concerned that there are long-term impacts associated with the bill not as yet recognised. Surely, it would have been in the interests of all concerned if flexibility in the bill existed for a council to regulate councillor conduct within the framework of an ethics committee of the individual council. In effect, the bill in its current form may see council resolutions viewed by a complaints officer or panel. As such, there is the real potential for the supplanting of the council’s function as an elected decision maker. However, if an ethics committee procedure was put in place akin to that which exists in this House, that could possibly overcome many concerns and problems which I have raised and which will arise in time as a consequence of the bill's implementation. Clause 6 deals with the reporting of breaches of the council’s code of conduct by councillors. Of course, this includes meeting breaches, minor breaches, repeat breaches and statutory breaches. The reporting must incorporate the name of each councillor, how the councillor breached the code and details of any penalty imposed by the council. It goes on to detail significant other requirements to be incorporated into the annual report, including the number of complaints about code of conduct breaches by councillors that are referred to the conduct review panel during the year by the council or its executive officer under the Local Government Act. I ask: is this not overkill? Who benefits from this sort of reporting? Make no mistake: misconduct or maladministration is condemned by my party, but in my opinion this clause exceeds reason. After reviewing the bill, the Liberal Party will be opposing clause 6. Owing to the contents of new section 250O and 250Q as contained in clause 16, we will be opposing that clause as well. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (7.33 pm): I rise to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Along with the shadow minister, my colleague the member for Mirani, I will be supporting the legislation. At the outset it would be remiss of me to not make reference to the role and responsibilities of local government. This bill amends the Local Government Act to insert a framework for councillor codes of conduct and their enforcement, to establish a general complaints process, to allow councillors to salary sacrifice for superannuation purposes and to make miscellaneous amendments to the Local Government Act. This legislation is long overdue, but in some ways it does not go far enough. Tonight I heard the member for Mirani say that we may revisit this legislation down the track. But I have to say that I think this legislation is a start in the right direction. 1572 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

The minister stated the following in her second reading speech— This bill amends the Local Government Act to establish such a statutory framework to allow councils to deal with misconduct that falls outside the scope of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, or Ombudsman, but is nonetheless unacceptable to the council and its community. In this modern day and age when responsible, disciplined people are elected to federal parliament, state parliament, or local government, they become elected representatives of the people. The code of conduct is going to be a very important and integral part of making certain that those people uphold the traditions of democracy and responsibility to their constituencies. As I said earlier, the legislation probably does not go far enough. Councils will have to consult with their communities when developing a code of conduct for their councillors. I would have thought that the Local Government Association, in conjunction with the minister, would have worked out some type of framework for that code of conduct. But the important point to note is that that code of conduct will apply to all local government—ranging from the city councils to the small shire councils. This code of conduct will include breaches such as meeting breaches. Each council will have to make a public statement about the standard of behaviour that is expected of its members. I think that goes without saying. We expect that. When I was a kid we had a great old chairman in Quilpie named John Waugh. He was a beautiful man and a wonderful orator. He was a man of great decency, great integrity and great honour. He was just truly exemplary of what citizenship is all about. We have such people in local government who are respected by their communities. When I was a child, I watched those people. I think that is probably applicable to many of us. We watch people and think about how decent they are and what a great job they are doing for their communities. I know that a lot of these people are criticised. That brings me to the other side of the equation. We have to make certain that chief executive officers complement the councils. At the moment in the west we have had a series of resignations of chief executive officers. That has occurred through no fault of local government. From time to time these people choose to move on—whether it is for family reasons, personal reasons or career reasons. I wish them well and I thank them for their endeavours while they resided in those communities. It is very important that the right people are appointed as CEOs to these councils. They hold very, very important, responsible jobs. Local government now has accrual accounting processes. It also has to be transparent and accountable. It is not as though local government was never transparent or accountable, but today local communities have a greater focus on local government. There is a heightened interest in the productivity of local government. It is absolutely paramount that the CEOs of those councils work hand in hand with their councils and not against them so that they can implement policies that are for the benefit of the wider community. From time to time some council CEOs become little Hitlers and the community can find them unapproachable. That can make it very, very difficult for some of the other councillors. That situation does not need to arise. The same could be said when a minister and a director-general cannot work together. That is an unworkable situation. Government policy might not be implemented, there might not be total satisfaction in the workplace and the productivity and the outcomes desired may not be achieved. I know councils have had recent problems getting CEOs, but there is always the right person there. While CEOs are being paid some fairly substantial salaries to work in some areas—and I am talking about some of the western shires that I represent—the other side of the equation that I want to reflect on is the remuneration packages for councillors themselves. Here again we are seeing people not wanting to stand for council. The Local Government Act was changed under the stewardship of Terry Mackenroth, when he was the minister responsible for local government. Members of state parliament could not be members of a local authority—and there were a few of them at the time—and members of a local authority could not stand for state parliament and they had to resign their tenure. In some of these smaller country areas—I will take Diamantina shire in the far west as an example—where there is a very small population base, some councillors have to travel up to 350 kilometres or 400 kilometres to get to a council meeting. They are busy people too—the same as people in other local authorities—and they have huge distances to travel and they give up their time. Businesspeople are now saying, ‘No, I am not going to go into local government because it costs my business too much. I am away from my business too much.’ Often we are not getting the right people or people whom we hope will stand. Somebody usually stands just to fill the void, to their credit—and I appreciate that. But after a while they find that they are too busy and they resign their commission. Again, this puts the burden back on council. I think it is an embarrassment. I say to the minister that I believe we have to look at the issue of remuneration for councillors. Mayoralship is a very responsible position today. A lot of mayors have to travel to conferences, whether they be in Brisbane or other parts of the state, and attend deputations with ministers in different parts of the state. Again, that is a huge impost on their own businesses. I know that their councils remunerate them for their travel and accommodation when they are away, but unless somebody is retired or semiretired it is a terrific expense for their business. We have to look very closely at this issue 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1573 of remuneration. I talked to one of my colleagues about this tonight. As he said, a lot of smaller shires cannot afford it. We can pay the right money for CEOs and some of the executive staff but we cannot pay the right money to compensate mayors, deputy mayors and councillors and to attract people to stand for local government. In all honesty and sincerity, I think we have to look at this issue. These people do an exemplary job. In a small shire councillors might get a $150 sitting fee but it has probably cost them $300 to run their business in their absence. A lot of times they have to put somebody else on and make follow-up phone calls. Mr Schwarten: Councils can pay them what they like—whatever the ratepayers want to pay them. Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection from the honourable minister for public works. That is a point. After the last local authority election, one of my councils revisited its remuneration package for its councillors. The mayor asked me, ‘What do you think of this?’ I said, ‘I think you have to put it up.’ I totally agree, because at the end of the day, if these people cannot work in that environment and be compensated accordingly, as I say, there will be resignations and we will not get the right people to stand for council. In all fairness, that is the fact of the matter. Others have expressed the same fears. I was a young councillor once in the Quilpie shire. In this day and age they have schools for councillors and they are taught about accrual accounting, about state grants from departments such as Queensland Transport, about federal grants and about local government grants and what can be done with those moneys. This has opened up local government and people now realise just what an important role councillors play in our local communities. Regardless of whether it is the Brisbane City Council or the Mount Isa City Council or the Diamantina Shire Council, we have to have the right support base for those people so that we can get those outcomes. There is nothing worse than hearing in this place—or anywhere else, for that matter—that the Auditor-General has found discrepancies in the annual reports of local governments. That causes embarrassment to a lot of councillors who, out of the goodness of their own hearts, are trying to do the right thing. That is why we have to have the right guidelines in place so that we can assist those people in the transition stage, from when they are first elected to council and during the first 12 months, to get a grasp of what local government is all about so that they can progress from there. I pay tribute to Greg Hallam, the Chief Executive Officer of the Local Government Association of Queensland. Greg Hallam is one of those people who is passionate about the purpose and the fruits of local government. He is there at all times for the councils around Queensland that he is responsible for. Under his stewardship and that of Councillor Paul Bell from Emerald, I know that local councils are in good hands. These people are passionate about making local councils work. We as legislators have to make certain that we are abreast of any anomalies that may arise within the Local Government Act that may be impediments to councils so that we can ensure that they can get the outcomes that they deserve. In the House this morning during the MPI debate I made reference to the issue of roads and the unsatisfactory situation of deteriorating road surfaces in some western areas, but that is applicable across the land. I made mention earlier of grants and the moneys that come from federal, state and local bodies and the roles and responsibilities of local councillors. I hope we see local government grow from strength to strength and that we see a resurgence in interest in local government. I know that the minister went to Birdsville the other day where she was very well received and she got a first-hand understanding of the issues confronting some of those remote councils. Mr Schwarten: I’ve been there. Mr JOHNSON: I know you have, old mate. It is important—and I say this to all ministers, whether they are responsible for local government, public works and housing or police—that they visit those areas. The point is that those councillors are doing a great job. Regardless of where the councils are in Queensland, we have to be observant to make certain that there are no elements in the act that retard their growth or progress, and if there are then they have to be addressed. I say to the minister that, whilst I support the legislation, we have to look closely at some of these other aspects so that we can make certain that councils progress and that they get the right people on the councils all the time. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (7.50 pm): I rise to support the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill, which will, for the first time, introduce compulsory ethical standards to local councils. While I acknowledge the opposition’s support, I want to refer to a point made by the member for Gregory. He digressed a little from the bill when he spoke of the hardship faced by some councillors with regard to what he referred to as small remuneration. I am not sure about the councillors in his area or out further west, but certainly where I come from the councillors are well paid. Some would argue that they are too well paid. Currently there is a debate within the Caboolture shire about remuneration packages. However, I do know that individual councillors determine their own remuneration packages and it is not up to the state government. Following a discussion paper released in 2003 by the state government, councils throughout Queensland made it quite clear that they were ready to implement a proper compulsory code of conduct and that they wanted the power to enforce it. The community also overwhelmingly supported the need 1574 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005 for this reform. The government has now drafted legislation which, for the first time, will require all councils to have both an enforceable code of conduct for councillors and a complaints management process. This is consistent with other elected representatives. For example, in September 2001 conduct requirements for members of parliament were consolidated in the Code of Ethical Standards and updated in 2003. Therefore, I was surprised to read in an LGA council’s news brief that LGAQ President Paul Bell was reported as saying— We've drawn a line in the sand. We're not going to accept rules for Councillors which don't apply equally to State MPs. In fact, councils’ codes of conduct will be based on the state government’s ethical standards. A model code will apply automatically for any councils that do not make a code of their own by 1 March 2006. However, councils will have to publicly consult while developing a code of conduct for their councillors. The bill is designed to deliver a no-frills, cost-effective system that will reinforce the need for transparency, accountability and better governance in local government, and includes the following objectives: firstly, insert in the Local Government Act 1993 a framework for councillors’ conduct and their enforcement and, secondly, insert in the LGA provisions requiring councils to establish a general complaints process. Amendments also cover the LGAQ to allow councillors to salary sacrifice as much as 50 per cent for superannuation purposes. This is consistent with provisions for federal members of parliament and proposed provisions for Queensland members of parliament and is something that the LGAQ has consistently called for—that is, equity of salary sacrificing opportunities for elected members with that of council employees. Other members have pointed out that some councils have already got voluntary codes of conduct for their elected representatives. However, it must also be noted that they are not enforceable; they are voluntary. Therefore, in the current situation there is a gap between behaviour that is clearly not acceptable but falls short of official misconduct. Inappropriate conduct has been highlighted in newspaper articles outlining the way some elected representatives behave towards the public, towards council staff and also towards each other. Councils will have some discretions in outlining what behaviours may be considered breaches. Once a breach has occurred or been alleged, the council will have to follow a number of procedures. Meeting breaches will need to be dealt with by council directly, but minor breaches will first be investigated by the council’s complaints officer who will prepare a report for the council. After talking with some of the elected councillors, I did raise a number of concerns with the minister, the Hon. Desley Boyle. I thank her for taking those comments on board. The concerns primarily related to the extent of an implementation of the code of conduct and meeting breaches, and an individual councillor’s right to natural justice. Certainly some of those issues raised will be addressed in the process of developing and implementing codes of conduct which will be the responsibility of individual councils. The extent to which a code of conduct deals with councillor interaction with the public, council staff and each other is up to each council to determine. With regard to meeting breaches, it is anticipated that councils will be guided by their local laws on meeting procedures to decide what type of behaviour is inappropriate. This bill is quite specific in requiring that councils exercise natural justice in making decisions on alleged code breaches. Strength of evidence is a distinct factor that will have to be considered by the individual councils’ selected complaints officer investigating an alleged minor breach or the conduct review panel considering an alleged statutory breach or repeat breach. Natural justice also requires a council to provide a councillor with the opportunity to respond before any decisions about code breaches are made. I thank the minister and her staff for all of the work that has been put into this bill. I commend it to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (7.55 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. There can be no doubt that in Queensland local councils are major businesses employing thousands of people and managing large budgets for the good of their respective communities. Over recent years local councils have certainly come of age. Time and time again the state government has passed on new responsibilities and duties to our local councils. Even this 51st Parliament has passed on many new duties, powers and responsibilities to local councils. Tonight we are debating a bill that proposes to require all councils to comply with a code of conduct. In speaking to this bill, I table two letters that I have received from my local council, the Maroochy Shire Council. The first is dated 3 March 2005 and is addressed to the General Manager of Local Government Services, Department of Local Government and Planning, Sport and Recreation. The second is dated 31 March 2005 and is addressed to the Local Government Association of Queensland. In her second reading speech the minister referred to the extensive consultation undertaken with the Queensland Local Government Association in relation to the preparation of this bill. She also said that Queensland has had no legislative requirement for local governments to adopt a code of conduct for their councillors, as has been recommended by numerous reports on the conduct of public officials at both state and local levels of government. She referred to how this parliament now has a Code of Ethical Standards and that, therefore, it is timely that similar provisions are introduced to local governments. 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1575

On the first page of the minister’s second reading speech, she said that there was a very close similarity between the level of services and duties of both state government and local councils. Further, throughout the speech she referred to how the bill will require councils to adopt a code of conduct for their councillors based on the ethics principles of the Code of Ethical Standards that applies to members of this House. She indicated that this is to be undertaken by 1 March 2006. Also on the first page of the second reading speech the minister referred to the similarity between the running of local councils and what is expected of members of the Queensland state parliament. She explained how councils will be assisted in undertaking the code of conduct. She then indicated that the model code will apply automatically for any councils that do not make a code of their own by 1 March 2006. There is no doubt that the minister and this government have sent a very clear message that there is a requirement for local councils in Queensland to meet a very strict and very onerous standard that the government believes state members of parliament also have to meet. Towards the end of the minister’s second reading speech she referred to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 as evidence of a continuing commitment to modernisation and the improvement of the legislative framework for local governments in Queensland. She said that, in particular, it strengthens the provisions for accountability in our councils and, in turn, this should increase the confidence that the public has in our local government in Queensland. I have referred to certain parts of the minister’s speech because it seems that, on the one hand, time and time again the state government—and this parliament is no different—is passing on more responsibilities to local councils. We are now debating a bill that will require local councils to be more like the state parliament and councillors to be more like state politicians by requiring them to comply with the same requirements that we are required to comply with. On the other hand, state parliament is passing legislation because of national scheme legislation. Only earlier this evening we debated other legislation that referred to national scheme legislation. I really wonder what the future model of government will be in Australia. On the one hand, the federal government and all states and territories are sitting down and working together to pass national scheme legislation so that we all have the same laws. On the other hand, the state government is delegating more responsibilities to the local councils. Perhaps one day the state government will no longer be required because we will have passed on so many duties and responsibilities to local councils. There is no doubt that this is a matter for debate on another day, but I use this opportunity to raise the issue and ask all members of the 51st Parliament to consider and think through the future of the state parliament in Queensland. I certainly believe that our days are numbered. I would like to reflect back on 23 March 1922, when the Queensland Legislative Council was abolished. Perhaps one day members will come into a future state parliament and talk about a new vision for a new model of government in Queensland as a result of the increasing duties and responsibilities the state government has passed on to local councils and also the increasing resourcing by the federal government. There is no doubt at all that there is a very clear duplication of resources in Australia. We see state government duplicating legislation that has been passed by the federal government. We see the state government passing legislation that is identical to legislation in other states. We see the Queensland government passing legislation to catch up with other states and we see the Queensland parliament passing legislation that other states will adopt. I certainly commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to the debate on the clauses. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (8.00 pm): I rise tonight to speak on this important bill. First, I need to put on the public record the important role that councils perform in our local communities. Previously, in another debate, the member for Nicklin commented about his desire to see the abolition of state governments. I certainly cannot support that. Some people in Australia say that we are overgoverned. Again I disagree. However, this is not the forum to go into a lengthy debate about the three levels of government. I do wish to put on the public record my appreciation for the important work done by local councils around the state. I have the pleasure of dealing with both the Logan City Council and the Redland Shire Council. Logan City Council, led by Mayor John Freeman, and Redland Shire Council, led by Mayor Don Seccombe, are doing fantastic work. Traditionally councils were designed to look after roads, rates and rubbish. However, their role has expanded significantly in recent years. They are now providing a lot more social infrastructure than they traditionally did. Councils, as the level of government closest to the people, are supposed to be most responsive to the needs of the people and the local community. Having said that, however, one of the most common areas of complaint in my electorate office relates to my local councils. These complaints vary from the decisions they have made to the way they make their decisions to, in some cases, the personal behaviour of councillors. In some cases those matters are referred on to the CMC and in some cases they are referred on to the Ombudsman. I do not see it as my role to get involved in those investigations because we have organisations to investigate and to arbitrate in these matters. I certainly do not intend to score political points by putting my nose in where it is not wanted. However, I do need to say that complaints against councils are an extremely common occurrence in my electorate. 1576 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

I believe that the codes of conduct contained in the bill will provide clear guidance on what is expected and acceptable behaviour for councillors. They are modelled on the code of conduct for state members. I see that code as an important part of the way that I do business. It provides me guidance in dealing with a range of issues. I think for too long councils have not been prepared to make hard decisions about the conduct of some of their own who have stepped outside what some members of the community believe is acceptable. I think this will motivate councils to be somewhat more forceful and transparent in assessing the behaviour of the councillors that they are responsible for. I would like to raise with the minister two concerns that are quite often mentioned to me. I would like to compare and contrast the recording of our state parliament with the recording of council meetings. The Hansard reporters here do fantastic work. We have a verbatim record of everything that happens in this chamber. Unfortunately, only minutes are made of council meetings and quite often those minutes are subject to a vagueness, shall we say. The council might be discussing some particular application and the minutes will just say ‘discussion ensued’. It does not say who said what, so at times it is difficult to see whether a councillor who may have had a conflict of interest was speaking in favour or against the application. The standard of record keeping in council meetings is a real problem. Members of my local community have also raised concerns that so much council business is now taking place in committee meetings, outside the public forum of the general council meeting. Some of my constituents are saying that a lot of the deals are being done and a lot of the key decisions are being made in closed committee meetings—out of sight and out of mind—and that by the time it comes to the general meeting of the council the outcome is a fait accompli. Again, the level of scrutiny is not as high as it should be. I know that Brian Hurst, the editor of the Bayside Bulletin, recently wrote an editorial commenting on what he perceived as the increasing secrecy of the local council by its conducting a lot of business in committee meetings. I ask the minister to look at those issues because, as I said, while councils do a fantastic and important job, I would like to see the level of transparency in some cases improved. I think all councillors should be happy with the salary sacrifice provisions included in this legislation to improve, if they wish, their level of service to the community by allowing them to offset assets that will help them improve the response that they provide to their constituents. I commend the minister and her department for the work they have put into this bill. I know that they have consulted widely, and I would like to think that not only will the councillors endorse this bill but also the members of the Queensland community will endorse this greater degree of scrutiny and guidance given to local councillors. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.06 pm): I rise to speak to the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill. I note that in her second reading speech the minister stated that the LGAQ has no major concerns with or objections to the legislation. I have not heard anything from the LGAQ, but I assume that it then had some concerns with parts of the legislation. The legislation sets out a code of conduct that will include meeting breaches, minor breaches, statutory breaches and repeat breaches. I want to raise a few concerns that I have with the procedures that are proposed. Much of the assessment of the conduct of councillors will be done by the council itself. I do not have an objection to that principle. However, I do have some concerns that I bring to the attention of the minister. An example of a meeting breach is abusing a councillor during a council debate or a council committee meeting. The previous speaker talked about community concerns that more and more council business is being conducted in committees. Some councils have a very superficial way of confirming the minutes of their committee meetings. They will not refer to an issue; they will refer to a minute number. Therefore, people in the public gallery who get to a general meeting often only hear that the council moves the confirmation of decision No. 256 of whatever committee it happens to be. Without any other reference material, many times the constituents find it difficult to follow what is actually being debated. This conduct in committee meetings can also occur to the detriment of a councillor who may have a valid alternative view to that of the majority of the council. I will give an example of this. This is perhaps not so much the case now—I have been out of local government for 10 years or so—but it is possible for a council to be made up of the same members over a period of time. That may not be the case so much now, because I think all elections are much more dynamic, but there are councils in which the councillors have remained unchanged for three or four elections. When there is a change, it is quite possible—and it is a reality, believe me—that one or two new councillors may hold a view quite different from that of the established councillors. A new councillor may have been elected on a tide of resentment or anger within the community about an action of council, and that councillor will then effectively be regarded by the older, more established councillors as a rather hostile member. It appears that much of the assessment in relation to breaches is subjective. What is abuse? Somebody might speak to me in a way that I might regard as abusive whereas another person might describe it as robust debate, and vice versa. What controls will there be on a council to ensure that a fair process occurs at all times? If the majority of councillors hold a differing view to an outspoken 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1577 councillor—albeit that the councillor may have a valid point of view—what protection will there be for that councillor in terms of allegations of misbehaviour, a meeting breach or a minor breach, when the breach will be dealt with internally? I have had a quick read through it. If the councillor felt they were badly dealt with, I guess they could refer the matter to the independent panel, perhaps through the processes that currently occur with the CMC. What protections are there in circumstances where a person holds a minority view? That view could involve a contentious matter such as rate rises or the introduction of the tiered water payment system—which was contentious. It could be a contentious view in relation to rating. A minor breach is publicly misrepresenting council policy. I guess there will have to be a learnt response to that to ensure that councillors who hold a contrary view have a very clear line of demarcation for their discussions in a public forum. I telegraph that concern because while some councils are harmonious and get along well, other councils—and it is not unique—have one or two outspoken councillors who hold contrary points of view. They are articulate and keen for their community to understand that they hold a different view from that held by the council. How will those councillors be protected when they will have a minority vote if a disciplinary matter is brought up within the council? I apply the same cautionary comment to statutory breaches in relation to disclosing confidential information. I hope there will be a clear line in the sand so that councillors will know what information is confidential, and I hope that confidentiality tag is not abused by councils in terms of volatile or sensitive decisions. A previous speaker was talking about a council which voted in substantial salary package increases for themselves straight after an election. Whilst councils are supposed to be open and transparent, it is possible for councils to discuss that information in committee and therefore confidentiality would attach, yet a councillor might feel that it should be out in the public arena. I wonder how that process will be approached to ensure that gags, effectively, are not put on individual councillors who, quite rightly, should be discussing issues of concern with their community. The council will deal with meeting breaches. The statutory breaches and repeat breaches will be referred to an independent panel. However, the decision of that independent panel will not necessarily have teeth. It will be referred back to the council, as I read the legislation, for final adjudication. It states that in all cases councils will be the final decision maker, applying the principles of natural justice. I hope that natural justice will always occur and be transparent, but I raise those concerns. I turn to the designation by councillors of frivolous or vexatious complaints. A local government may give notice to a person that a complaint made by the person about a breach of the local government’s code of conduct by a councillor will not be dealt with because it appears to concern frivolous matters or to have been made vexatiously. I will provide an allied example to a situation like that. When the CJC was reasonably new, all councillors had and still have an obligation to refer it on, if an allegation of misconduct or corruption is made. When I was mayor, I had no discretion but to refer the matter to the CJC. I have no problem with that obligation. At that time, a constituent came to me with the complaint that a particular senior officer in the council had accepted a carton of beer from a contractor. The complainant regarded that as a serious breach. I spoke to the senior officer to advise them of the concern and that I had to refer the matter to the CMC. Many councils deal with people, such as equipment suppliers, who at the end of the year will offer the workers a carton of beer, or whatever. It is usually put into the social club and is consumed at the end of the year. There is nothing corrupt intended. It is a very open and transparent. No favours are purchased as a result. However, the nature of the complaint was such that the senior officer was put through quite an extensive investigation. At the end of that time—wrongly, I think—the CJC wrote back and stated that there was no case to answer at that time. The particular officer is a very competent local government officer and we were within a hair’s-breadth of losing him because he felt that a cloud was left over his name. That was a frivolous complaint; actually, it was a vexatious complaint because there was a bit of history involved. I am also concerned about the reverse situation. A council could have a difficult constituent who raises some fairly prickly issues. Many councils dislike rate and taxpayers associations because they are always in councillors’ faces. How transparent will the process be for a council to designate a complainant as frivolous or vexatious? That power needs to be exercised very carefully. I am interested in the minister’s view as to how that will be monitored. There could be complainants who are repeat complainants, but the matter about which they complain could be quite valid and deserving of attention by the council. However, the council may feel that it can get around responding to that individual with an argument about repetition and claiming that their complaints are frivolous or vexatious. I am very fortunate to have two local authorities in my electorate—the Gladstone City Council and the Calliope Shire Council. The elected members and staff are very good to deal with. I would not say that I agree with their point of view on everything. I defy any member here to say that they agree with all of the decision-making processes of their councils. I know, because of my involvement with them, that the Calliope Shire Council has endeavoured to be responsive to the community. As state members, we hear complaints from time to time from constituents who are dissatisfied with their councils, and we take 1578 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005 the person through the appropriate process. However, local governments have provided an extremely important service to the community of Queensland. Generally, they are very responsive and very sensitive to the needs and wishes of the community. I would like to see local government continue in that responsive form for a long time to come. The member for Nicklin discussed the probability of state government becoming redundant and disappearing. If ever that decision were made, I hope that it would be made by the community. In the same way, if the federal government structure were to change or local council structure were to change, I hope that the genesis of that change would come from the community, because that is the basis of democracy. Whilst I respect the member for Nicklin’s opinion—I have had constituents say the same thing to me—such a quantum shift in the way this country is administered must come as a groundswell from the community; it must be factually based, not emotionally based, and the end result should be a structure that serves the Queensland community and the Australian community well, fairly, transparently and honestly. If that were the outcome then the structure would be immaterial. I look forward to the minister’s response to those matters. I congratulate her on any legislation that will enhance local government service provision to the community. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (8.20 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I fully support the provisions in relation to codes of conduct. If ever legislation were needed for a code of conduct that is fully accountable to the people of a local government area, it is certainly needed in Ipswich. I refer in particular to the disappearing-like-magic code of conduct of the Ipswich City Council. It appears like magic and it disappears like magic. Sometimes we can find it and sometimes we cannot. In October and November last year several of my constituents who wished to complain about a councillor could not obtain a copy of the code of conduct from the council or its web site. They were advised by council officers: firstly, that it was not available; secondly, that it was not a public document; thirdly, that if they wanted a copy they could access it through the freedom of information processes and then pay for it; and, fourthly, that if they would like to ring up and ask the mayor nicely for it he may give it to them but it was certainly up to him. My constituents complained to me that a veil of secrecy hung over the Ipswich City Council. I in turn complained to Minister Boyle because my job is to represent the people in my area. The code of conduct was previously available on the council’s web site and then it disappeared. That is why this legislation is so important. The Ipswich City Council Clayton’s code of conduct will disappear as the council must abide by this legislation. No more can complaints be hidden and ignored and complaints not accepted. I am particularly grateful for schedule 1, ‘Ethics principles for local government councillors’, especially subsection 1(2), which reads— Councillors must conduct themselves in a way that promotes and maintains the public's trust and confidence in the local government and the good rule and government of its area. Mr Poole: Like they do on the Gold Coast. Mrs MILLER: Yes, like they do on the Gold Coast. Councillors should not swear at constituents nor behave aggressively towards their constituents. I have actually seen documents in which a councillor admitted, ‘I told him he was a ...’ and the next word was ‘hole’. I could hardly believe what I was reading. I was in complete shock. This councillor admitted his disgraceful conduct. Yet, without the constituent being able to access the then code of conduct, he felt that his rights as a citizen were greatly diminished and that democracy in the city had been destroyed. Thank God for this legislation. There will be ethical principles and higher standards in local government. I would like to add, however, that in the case of Ipswich City Council I am not referring to councillors who are card-carrying members of the Australian Labor Party. That is because they know better and have higher ethics generally than the other councillors. I put on record that Ipswich City Council generally does a good job in our local community in providing services. This legislation will make the council better as there will be an enforceable code of conduct, clear for all to access and clear for all of my constituents to use. No more will the magic code of conduct disappear. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (8.23 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill, which is currently before the House. I will speak to two of its provisions. The requirement for all Queensland councils to adopt a code of conduct is welcome. The Cairns City Council adopted a code of conduct for councillors while I was member of that council last term. It drew on many of the principles raised in the bill. The difficulties that will arise in the enforcement of breaches of the code of conduct will be due to the two roles that a councillor has. A councillor basically has two responsibilities. The first is a duty to represent their constituents. The second is a duty to the corporation—that is, the council—of which they are a member. Councils are not just corporations of themselves; they own businesses and statutory authorities. The Cairns City Council owns the water supply and is able to derive income from that. We corporatised the water supply in the Cairns City Council. There are corporate responsibilities. Councillors can be on the boards of those corporations or the boards of those corporations have to 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1579 report to councillors. Councillors have the responsibility to make sure that the corporations are operating profitably, are reporting in a accountable manner and are audited properly, amongst other things. I think that sometimes there is a conflict between the duties that councillors have. For example, in Cairns we have the Bedminster waste management system. It is a cocomposting system that was designed to deal with the waste stream from Cairns residents, Mareeba residents and Douglas shire residents. It was a $30 million asset. Quite a complicated contract arrangement goes with the management of the waste and the asset over time. Unfortunately, at this stage that $30 million asset has failed. Currently it is not operational and the waste stream from Cairns City Council, the Mareeba Shire Council and the Douglas Shire Council is being diverted to landfill—the very thing that the Bedminster system was meant to prevent. The difficulty I had as a councillor was that we were privy to information about the failure of the asset, the contractual problems and the difficulties with the management of asset but a lot of that information came to councillors in closed session. A code of conduct could prevent a person from releasing that information to the public. There must come a point in time when it is obviously in the public’s interest to know that the $30 million asset that they have a financial obligation to meet over time has failed and the way that their waste stream is going to be treated may not be in fact be happening as councillors previously reported or indeed hoped. At what stage does a councillor have a responsibility to report that information to the public? To what point is that information kept confidential so that council can develop a strategy to move forward to deal with what is obviously a very legally and financially technical issue? It is a very hard line to draw and a grey area. While I think that the conduct review panel which will be established by the provisions of the bill has the capacity to deal with those issues, ultimately the answer to that question is a political one and not a legal one and not one that can be reviewed by either the conduct review panel or councillors themselves when they receive the report from the conduct review panel. Ultimately councillors are responsible to their constituents. Their constituents will determine whether they have done the right thing by releasing or not releasing that information. They will be subject to the normal accountability procedures at election time. I do see some difficulty with how the provisions of this bill may operate and operate now, even before this legislation hopefully is passed this evening. Ultimately these decisions are political. I would hate to see the code of conduct used as a tool of executive power to stymie debate both within the council and within the wider community. I would hate to see voting blocs exist within councils. Most councils within Queensland do not operate along strict party lines. It is fair to say that along the eastern seaboard there are some councils that have a prodevelopment bloc, a community representatives bloc, an independents bloc, a Labor bloc, a green bloc or in some cases odd bods that string together to oppose essentially councils that are conservative and have a prodevelopment stand. I would hate to see a power bloc within that council use the provisions of the code of conduct to stymie other councillors from raising with the public genuine matters of concern about the operations of council. The second issue that I briefly want to speak about deals with the provisions of the bill which allow Aboriginal councils continued flexibility in the operation of their commercial activities. The bill exempts these enterprises from the provisions of the Local Government Act except when there is a joint venture with the private sector. This is an entirely appropriate provision at this time. Many of these enterprises in Indigenous communities are quite embryonic and need the flexibility that the bill provides to ensure that they are able to establish themselves on a firm footing. Over time, eventually these provisions will be removed as these enterprises get on a much firmer financial footing and not only improve the economic activity in communities outside of the public sector but also increase the overall capacity and leadership within communities. With those few comments and few concerns, I commend the bill to the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (8.30 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. I must say that in some of my more desperate and disillusioned dealings with local government I have been known to utter the words that local government perhaps is too important for local government—that is, we do not have one single quality of government within local government in Queensland historically and certainly not in the present day. The level of expertise and coherence in those local government authorities is quite diverse. We can reflect on various reports of the Auditor-General alone in the past to see that, let alone any other anecdotal experience each of us in this place may have. Let us look at it historically to try to establish the reasons for that. One of the key reasons historically has been the lack of political involvement by political parties in some local governments. That has resulted in a diverse group of people who might have a complete diversity in views and orientations to their task which results in an incoherent strategic approach to government in that particular domain. The advent of political parties—whatever political party might be dominant—is indeed usually a very positive force in local government. At least it gives some coherence of policy to that particular administration, some clarity in direction and, indeed, at the end of the day in terms of what is relevant to this bill, some sense of accountability to the public. Without that political accountability that we are used to in this parliament and other parliaments, we are really left with an individual contract between the electors and the person who is elected. 1580 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

Hence, the area of local government is a domain which lends itself even more to the need for this form of legislation. This form of legislation is extremely important in the area of local government to bring about new standards of accountability. It is important that we do have some unanimity and similarity between the standards expected of councillors and the standards that parliamentarians here and around Australia are now expected to comply with. One only has to look at the sophistication of decisions that local governments now have to make. It has been quoted recently that the Brisbane City Council is the largest municipality in Australia, the Gold Coast is the second largest in Australia and many others in Queensland are not far behind that, even in terms of a national standard. Councils are major enterprises. These are major undertakings with enormous budgets and responsibilities—responsibilities that go to many facets of the quality of life, the welfare and the safety of the populations. They are now facing major planning decisions that will impact on the future of many generations to come. Most importantly, they also deal with development applications at the very front line. I regularly detect that this is an area where there is incredible frustration within the development sector. In terms of the general anecdotal commentary, it is a frustration that is borne out of a view that there is not a coherent position within many local governments to respond to applications. There is often an ad hoc policy—a policy on the run—in local government areas in responding to particular development applications. Even more disconcerting, there are anecdotal suggestions that developments are being held up for other mischievous or unethical reasons. This is a disconcerting matter because development is incredibly important to this state. Development is important in a very concrete way in that it produces houses for the ordinary working people whom we represent in our electorates. Development is incredibly important also for job creation, and it is still a major motor in this state. One of the most important elements of providing housing through development for the people whom we represent is also to keep costs down. When there are delays, for whatever reason, through local government processes, costs increase simply because people have borrowed money. Every day that a development is under way, those costs are increasing and, ultimately, our constituents who are buying houses pay those extra costs. That is a tragedy. There are major increases in population in Queensland in terms of the number of people coming to this state and there are major problems in terms of housing provision in relation to low-income people. Every cent that is added through delays in developments is something that those people at the lower income bracket will ultimately pay. Anything we do in making local authorities more accountable in terms of being ethical, direct and expeditious in their decision making is a positive step forward, if only for the reason that it allows proper development processes to proceed and allows people in demand of housing and other resources and services to obtain those resources and services and housing in a timely and reasonable manner with appropriate costing. This is a bill that provides the various mechanisms in a way that is commensurate with the state government. It is important also that there is reference in this to the undesirability of vexatious and frivolous complaints, because they can be as obnoxious in terms of holding up the due processes of local government as well. That should be taken great cognisance of in the practise of implementing this bill. This is important legislation. It will bring that very important domain of government in this state into line with other sound standards of government and practice. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.39 pm): The Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill makes a number of amendments, but particularly it inserts into the act a framework for councillor codes of conduct and enforcement. It also inserts into the act provisions requiring councils to establish a general complaints process. It amends the act to allow for councillors to salary sacrifice for superannuation and also makes a number of other miscellaneous amendments to the Local Government Act, the City of Brisbane Act and the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Act. Over the years councils have increasingly had to accept a lot of extra responsibilities. It has often been a complaint of local government that state parliament passes legislation and then passes on the responsibility of administering it to councils. Councils are trying to maintain their business operations within a very reasonable rate structure, but state government responsibility, and in some cases federal government responsibility, gets passed on to the councils without a commensurate provision of grant or funds to administer this extra responsibility. The running of a council has become a very, very big business. The days of councils being concerned with only rates, roads and rubbish have passed. Sometimes people wonder whether councils should be involved in some issues, but in many cases councillors are very close to what is happening in their own town or shire. Unlike state and federal members of parliament, who have to go away to attend parliament or sometimes have to deal with statewide or national issues as ministers or shadow ministers, local government councillors have the opportunity to concentrate on local issues. They sit on the council in their own patch, so to speak. 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1581

I believe that councillors have a great responsibility to not only provide basic services but also these days manage some social issues. In recent times Toowoomba has been very fortunate in terms of the make-up of its councils. My predecessor, Clive Berghofer, was the mayor of Toowoomba and the member for Toowoomba South at the same time. He was the mayor for a long period and before that a councillor. He was a very practical person and changed Toowoomba's infrastructure—the drainage, the roads and the sewerage. At the same time he organised the planting of thousands of trees. Ross Miller did unbelievable things in his term as mayor of Toowoomba. He provided Toowoomba with things that it desperately needed apart from the roads, the drainage and the sewerage. For example, Clive Berghofer put in place the Cressbrook Dam—we are so lucky to have it—but Ross Miller organised the refurbishment of the Empire Theatre, provided the major information centre in James Street for tourists and also organised the refurbishment of city hall, the library, the Milne Bay pool and the art gallery—many of those things that every city needs. Mayor Di Thorley is currently looking at some very important issues, for which I congratulate her. At the moment nearly every councillor has a background in small business, the church or radio in the city. They all have a great feel for the city and bring that experience and knowledge of Toowoomba to their position within the council. I mention the issue of water. Toowoomba is the biggest inland city in Australia other than Canberra. It sits 2,000 feet up on top of the Great Dividing Range. Unlike other cities that generally pump water from a higher level to a lower level, Toowoomba has to lift its water the equivalent of 400 metres vertically from Cressbrook Dam. Three dams supply the city with water. They are all located to the north of Toowoomba and outside of Toowoomba's municipal area. The Cooby Dam is a relatively small dam. It is located on the western fall of the range. Perseverance Dam and the bigger one, Cressbrook Dam, are located well down on the eastern fall of the range. The water has to be lifted by a series of 600 horsepower motors at various stages to get to the top of the range to be treated and then pumped into the city. Also, Toowoomba is located inland and not in a high rainfall area. It is not only very difficult to find additional catchment areas but also very difficult to get adequate rainfall to fill that catchment. They are the two prerequisites for the planning of any dam. Toowoomba is growing rapidly. It is located on the edge of the south-east Queensland growth area. People are discovering the beauty and the convenience of living in a city such as Toowoomba. It is the premier education city of Queensland, with 15 secondary schools and the university, and it also has a range of industries. Therefore, the provision of water is a challenging issue for the council and one of the most challenging issues that any council in Australia would face. I want to tell the parliament briefly about what the council has to do— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! I am allowing some leniency tonight, but I ask the member to address the bill before the House. Mr HORAN: I understand that. Toowoomba faces a unique problem. We are putting out water that has been treated for the Murray Darling system. But how do we find water and conserve it? I think that is an issue that is faced by most councils at the moment. A code of conduct for councillors is important. Other levels of government have codes of conduct. We in this parliament are subject to various codes of conduct—ministerial codes of conduct and the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee—in an endeavour to provide honest and accurate decision making. Likewise, through this bill councillors will have a code of conduct. Although the greatest measure of success lies in the integrity of the people themselves, this bill sets out the guidelines, the level of behaviour that everyone should aspire to and the responsibility that everyone has. Recently in Toowoomba a very contentious and moral issue has arisen. It stemmed from the CMC outlining certain proposals and recommendations for adult entertainment. That has caused controversy in the city. It is a very difficult decision for councillors to make. I want to say in this parliament that Councillor Lyle Shelton has been put in a very difficult position. He has taken a strong moral position on the recommendations that were made by the CMC in relation to adult entertainment. This gets back to what I said about councils having to accept all of these new-found responsibilities. They are very close to the people and they have to make decisions as to what is best for their town. I think it is rather unfortunate that the CMC has made these proposals. I have always viewed the CMC as an organisation that exists primarily to stop corruption, to stop official misconduct and to be an avenue through which matters can be reported and dealt with so that our system of government remains honest and correct and so that people have confidence in it. I know that the CMC has a role to examine some matters that are set down in legislation, but the CMC recommended to the government that it accept increased levels of immorality into our cities on top of what exists in terms of prostitution and so forth. All of that is going to flow back to the town planning principles of councils. This issue has arisen in Toowoomba. Councillor Lyle Shelton has had to stand up and has been put in a very difficult, and at times embarrassing, situation. The point I am trying to make is that it is very easy for governments to pass on responsibilities to councils. I cannot understand why the CMC made such a recommendation. It will only decrease morality 1582 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005 levels in any city in Queensland. I do not think the CMC has a right to do that. The responsibility has been placed on the councils, but is it a state government responsibility or is it a town planning issue? The minister might be able to clear up this matter as there has been great disagreement over it. Is it the responsibility of the council to do the planning, or is it just simply going to be imposed upon the city if the government was to accept what I would regard as very bad recommendations by the CMC? I do not think that many members appreciate what the CMC has recommended or would want it introduced into their city or their area. As I said, councils have these additional responsibilities of ensuring that a complaints process is put in place. If there is a moral issue about something that the silent majority in the community do not want to see brought into their town, what will be the process for complaints to be brought forward? Will they be dealt with in the same way through the normal complaints process? I want to make the point that I know each and every one of the Toowoomba councillors personally and I think they are doing a very good job for our city. The big issue for us is what will happen if these CMC recommendations are accepted by the council. It is a shame that the CMC ever made such recommendations. What will a city such as Toowoomba do about recycling water? The mayor has very innovative plans, which he will announce shortly, for recycling like no other city in Australia has seen— sharing artesian water with recycled water, introducing a purple pipe system, storing water in small dams that no long serve a function for catching water and so on. We probably face the greatest challenge of any city in Australia when it comes to water simply because of our physical location. The other issue that our council has to take on is that of the airport. We need improved air services to our city. I know that the council is working on it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Member for Toowoomba, I am allowing some leniency tonight because I think the minister is enjoying your comments, but you should come back to the bill. Mr HORAN: I appreciate the licence you have given me, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to mention that the airport is a major issue for us. I thank you for the time given to talk about these issues. We have heard in the debate tonight a recognition of the enormous responsibility that councils have. They are so close to what is happening and it is important that, as with our level of government, good systems and guidelines are put in place for the well-meaning, good people who put their hand up to stand for council. That will ensure that councils are accountable and everyone can have confidence in that level of government. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (8.52 pm), in reply: I thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate on the Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. This bill enhances the accountability framework for local government in Queensland in the Local Government Act 1993 and the City of Brisbane Act 1924. The most notable enhancement, as members of the House have noted tonight, is the introduction of a requirement for councils to adopt a code of conduct for councillors. The code of conduct provisions in the bill include several important features which have been well outlined tonight. For the first time councils will have a statutory basis for taking disciplinary action against councillors who have committed minor acts of misconduct or inappropriate behaviour. In addition to the code of conduct provisions, some honourable members have noted that the bill introduces a requirement for councils to establish a general complaints process—and, I might say, not before time. I was surprised to discover that a number of councils in Queensland have not of their own choice established a general complaints process. In 2005 it is incumbent on all private and public sector organisations that they much better manage complaints than has been done in decades past. While I am pleased to have that requirement in this legislation, I encourage councils to get on with it in any case. The complaints process will be only as effective, however, as the attitude of councils to the complaints process. Unfortunately, there has been too often in the public sector—I suppose at all levels: Commonwealth government, state government as well as local government—an attitude on the part of at least some staff that complaints are a nuisance, an interruption to their work day that should not be tolerated more than is absolutely necessary, and there has been a disregard and a brushing aside of complaints, even complaints properly made. Instead, we in this House, and certainly I as a minister of this government, stand by the view that complaints can be the very basis on which we can learn better about the system, the department and how it can be improved. The complaints should be reasonably welcomed and certainly dealt with in a fair and transparent fashion. Some complaints, even the majority, may well be found to be misunderstandings as a result of poor communication and clarifying matters may well lead to the complaint being withdrawn. Sometimes the complaints will lead to system reform to improve services and sometimes the complaints will be found to be unreasonable. In any case, at least we will now require councils to establish a general complaints process. This process will deal with complaints about alleged minor breaches of the councillor code of conduct, but primarily its purpose will be to deal with complaints about council administrative actions. The general complaints process, as defined in the bill, sets minimum standards for councils, such as requirements that the investigating officer be impartial and that the complainant receive feedback on the 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1583 investigation—two very important elements. It is no good having a staff member, for example, make a complaint to his or her boss about his or her boss. It is not credible that the person in the hierarchy would give fair consideration, impartial consideration, to that complaint. So the designation of the appropriate complaints officer is, indeed, an important element of that. So, too, is the feedback. If a person goes to the trouble of making a complaint—often with some anxiety, some real concern, not only about the complaint itself but also about whether there may be some payback action for daring to criticise the system—they are at the very least entitled to receive a reasonable explanation of what was considered and get genuine and sincere feedback on the matters that they raised. Importantly, too, this bill encourages a speedier resolution of complaints by providing an opportunity for them to be resolved by the council rather than going straight to the Ombudsman. I know that in the last couple of years the Ombudsman’s office has improved the timeliness of its response. Nonetheless, the very seriousness of the investigation of complaints perforce results in a lengthier period in which the complaints are investigated and therefore a delay in the response. For more minor matters, this bill will allow the council itself to take up the responsibility of investigating the complaint in, we would hope, a quick and honest fashion and respond to it therefore in a more timely fashion. The provisions for both the codes of conduct and the general complaints process have been designed to reinforce accountability of councils to the community. The bill ensures that the community will have the opportunity to comment on proposed new codes of conduct. The community will also be informed about any code breaches through council annual reports. Similarly, there are strong accountability requirements in the complaints management framework that this bill provides. I particularly draw the attention of honourable members to the reason for the decision to require that code breaches be reported annually in the council reports. This is not a decision that I and the department took lightly, and it is one that has been put before the local government sector for their own comments. There were suggestions, once we indicated that there would be enforcement provisions for the councillor code of conduct, for any breaches thereof that we may exact a financial penalty. There are many difficulties in doing so and instead it seemed to me that, as it is for elected councillors as much as it is for members of this House a matter that bears upon one’s very reputation and integrity and therefore the likelihood of being re-elected, a far more serious penalty for a councillor than maybe a fine of $100 or $200 would be to report one’s breach on the public record in front of one’s constituents. That had seemed to us to be a more serious penalty and one more likely to be avoided by some councillors to whom $100 may not in itself be much of a disincentive. Amongst the other amendments made by the bill, the most noteworthy is the introduction of salary sacrificing for councillors. Salary sacrificing is an important component of modern remuneration arrangements and, of course, it is already available to many, including local government employees. Therefore, it is appropriate that councillors have access to the same benefit. Local government is a large and complex sector that is constantly undergoing improvement and change. Therefore, it is no surprise that the supporting legislation itself should be subject to constant improvement and change. The bill before the House makes a significant contribution to this process. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has raised several issues on the code of conduct provisions. I will provide an interim reply now and a detailed written reply later. Firstly, the committee asks whether consideration was given to implementing the code provisions at the time of the next local government elections rather than midterm. It is suggested that imposing a code of conduct with a penalties regime now might have an element of inequity because councillors who stood for office last year may not have known beforehand that they would be subject to such a code. The answer is that the proposal has been in the public arena since well before the last local government election. A departmental discussion paper released in October 2003 foreshadowed that legislation could be introduced following the 2004 elections. Waiting until the next local government election in 2008 would be too long a delay. In any case, currently serving councillors will have input into the development of their own codes, so there is little room to argue that they might be disadvantaged by commencing the requirements in the current term. Secondly, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee asks why making frivolous or vexatious complaints, which it describes as a relatively harmless if irritating behaviour, is to be an offence. In reply, the code of conduct framework has been developed to minimise the risk of it being used as a basis for vexatious or frivolous complaints against councillors as an extension of local political conflict. The penalty provision for frivolous or vexatious complaints is not new to Queensland law. It is consistent with the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001. Thirdly, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee asks why a councillor whose case is under consideration by a conduct review panel should be prohibited from accessing relevant panel documents. This question is made in the context of the need for consistency with the principles of natural justice. The answer lies in the nature of the conduct review panel’s role. The panel has an investigatory role only, similar to that of other bodies such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission which investigate and advise but do not make final determinations. Access to the relevant information will occur at the time that the matter is considered by the council and the council must apply the principles of natural justice. Natural justice is not denied. 1584 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005

Fourthly, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee seeks an assurance as to the constitutional validity of the provision that disqualifies a candidate for election to the Commonwealth parliament from appointment to a conduct review panel. This question has arisen because of a 2001 Queensland Court of Appeal decision that it was unconstitutional for section 224A(b) of the Local Government Act to provide that a councillor’s office becomes vacant on becoming a candidate for election to the Commonwealth parliament. Crown law has considered the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for proposed section 250ZA and has advised that the better view is that the Court of Appeal decision is not applicable to section 250ZA and, therefore, section 250ZA is constitutionally valid. Finally, the committee notes that someone giving information to a conduct review panel might have immunity from prosecution even if the information is defamatory. This would appear to disadvantage a councillor who is the subject of false allegations. However, the immunity is not absolute. It would only apply if the person giving the information has acted honestly and without negligence. Also, civil liability may still rest with the local government and, therefore, the right of a councillor to prosecute remains. In other words, the bill does not prevent a person who is defamed from seeking redress. I now turn to the issues raised by members during the debate. I thank the member for Mirani and shadow spokesperson for local government and planning for his support for the bill. I will respond to his request for my commitment that a review will take place if problems do arise and that that review should lead to a speedy response should any aspects of the bill prove problematic. I support absolutely his views that the great majority of councillors elected to local government in the state of Queensland— there are 157 councils in the state of Queensland—are excellent people whose performance is now and has always been fine; that in the majority of councils there will not be much call on the code of conduct or the breaches provisions; and that, in fact, this legislation is aimed at the few councillors who draw a lot of media attention and who call the reputations of other councillors into question. I thank the member for Springwood for her support for the bill. She noted that of course councillors should be responsible for their actions and that through having codes of conduct that are publicly known and enforceable there may well be an increase in public confidence in the local government system. I thank the member for Caloundra for his general support for the bill. However, I note that he referred to the four different kinds of breaches as convoluted, which I think reflects his need for further briefings from our department. Local governments themselves do not find them convoluted. During the remainder of the debate tonight and even after the bill has been voted on, we will be pleased to explain the provisions further. Nonetheless, the member has raised some good issues. One is the level of costs for councils when implementing the code of conduct. Let us consider what the member for Mirani said, which I also believe—that the great majority of councillors will not activate the enforceable system because there will be no substantive complaints. First and foremost, the likelihood of complaints arising is at the bottom end of the spectrum. A council dealing with a meeting breach incurs no cost at all. Councils should already have complaints procedures in place, but if they do not then the establishment of such procedures will not incur further costs. A minor breach being referred to the complaints process will not raise other than trivial costs. One of the major reasons we moved towards the idea of an independent panel to review repeated breaches or statutory breaches is that the localised panel will be made up of several good people who will not expect remuneration. Some in local government have suggested that all breaches should be dealt with by a tribunal based in Brisbane and, of course, financed entirely by the state government. Air fares, legal advice and delays would have meant much greater costs in terms of stress as well as dollars than the localised system that has been developed and which I have no doubt will have very limited if any cost impacts on the councils. The member for Caloundra and others expressed concerns about the process that will occur if a councillor is determined to have made a minor breach. In order for this to be determined by the council, the matter will be debated by the council and the councillor will have a right of reply. It is not a matter that can be determined by the mayor alone but must be voted on in open council by the full council. That provides some protections to any temptation by a mayor who may be accused of intimidatory tactics or a mayor keen only to have the majority view expressed at a council meeting. Further, of course, it will take place in front of media and therefore it will be a reportable matter of considerable interest in the local paper and potentially through other media. Further, I reassure honourable members that if the councillor believed the decision of the meeting to be unreasonable and unfair, that he or she then has recourse to the Ombudsman. That is reasonable recourse. The member for Gregory spoke in support of the bill, and I thank him for his comments. I endorse his concerns, particularly about those geographically huge councils in western Queensland where councillors travel long distances to meetings and are often not remunerated as well as they should be, and could be, under the Local Government Act. In fact, too often it is their own humility and self-effacing style that leads to insufficient remuneration, particularly of their costs in attending meetings. In fact, I met with the member for Gregory when I was at the central west Local Government Association conference in Birdsville recently. I met with many of the mayors including mayors from Diamantina and more recently during my trip through Isisford, Blackall, Ilfracombe and Longreach. I endorse what the member said about the particular differences for local government in western Queensland. Nonetheless, as he 24 May 2005 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 1585 and other members noted, this code of conduct and the beneficial provisions of salary sacrificing and the complaints procedures will apply equally to the large councils and the small councils and the urban councils and the rural councils. I thank the member for Pumicestone for her support for the bill tonight and also for her yet again enthusiastic action on the part of several of her constituents, particularly councillors who had discussed this legislation with her. In fact, the comments that she brought to me were very helpful to the department in making adjustments to our draft legislation. I thank the member for Nicklin for his contribution tonight. He raises that very vital issue to local governments, and that is about their increasing roles and responsibilities. It is easy for local governments, in their understandable frustrations sometimes, to perceive that to be a shifting of responsibilities from state government to local government with the implication that these are duties that we as a state government have previously been carrying out and have decided to devolve. In fact, the great majority of the responsibilities that are increased, as new responsibilities or increased in terms of the standards of service required, are peculiar to the local government sector. I would say to the honourable member that as much as local government is expected to do more and better these days so, too, is the state government expected to do much more and much better than the state governments of 20 or 30 years ago. That is similarly the case at the Commonwealth level as well. The layers of accountability, the levels of service and the expectations of people to complain and to receive variations are problems, you might say, for all levels of government and not the local government alone. Whether the growing strength, nonetheless, of local governments with their extra roles and responsibilities will lead to them being of sufficient standing and capacity to take over the roles and responsibilities that are core state government responsibilities is a debate for another night and, in fact, I think for many years ahead of us. I might mention to the honourable member, however, that these concerns, and particularly the future of local government with the increasing imperatives upon it, are behind the Local Government Association of Queensland’s conference on size, shape and sustainability to be held later this month. There is a great awareness amongst local governments that their existing arrangements and their structure may well not be suited to perform the sophistication of the services that will be required 10 years from now or 20 years from now. That will be an important conference, the outcomes of which may well bear on the future of local government in the state of Queensland. I thank the member for Redlands for his comments in support of the bill, his recording of the complaints he has received about councils, and his recognition that it is quite properly the right and the responsibility of councils to deal with those complaints directly. I thank the member for Gladstone for her incisive comments on the bill. As we expect in this House, she has got down to some of the difficult detail. In particular, she raises issues related to meeting breaches and the protections that there might be for new councillors or councillors not part of the majority grouping. She has expressed concerns in various ways about whether frivolous or vexation provisions could result in some councillors in some way not being allowed to perform their duties, being intimidated or unable to express their views or, worse than that, found guilty of breaches that in fact they did not commit. I say to the honourable member that the provisions in the bill are such that the full council will deal with these matters and will deal with these matters by debate in open council in front of the media; that they are reportable matters and matters that will be under the observation of the Ombudsman. Should the Ombudsman not be satisfied that the council is properly dealing with complaints, then further action can take place. There is, of course, support for the member for Gladstone's final plea that all councils should be moving in the direction of being responsive to their community in a fair, transparent and honest fashion. I thank the member for Bundamba for her contribution. She reports a code of conduct at Ipswich City Council that sometimes appears and sometimes disappears. I have no doubt that after tonight the Ipswich City Council will be at pains to have its code of conduct provided openly and publicly for scrutiny to all interested persons, as will other councils around the state. That is, in fact, a provision of the bill, and so certainly by 1 March next year all councils in Queensland will have a code of conduct adopted and that will be available for scrutiny to members of the public. I thank the member for Cook for his well—considered contribution to the debate tonight. It was obviously based on experience. The decision that must be made by councillors, as well as by state members from time to time between the public interest and the corporate interest, as it were—that decision as to what is properly a matter for consideration in committee, and about which confidentiality should be maintained—does, as he says in the end, come down to a matter of judgment, and political judgment at that. I do remind him, however, that there is the possibility of judicial review and that in the end the decision is up to that individual. I thank the member for Greenslopes for his contribution. He mentioned many Ds in his contribution. He said that he has had many ‘desperate and disillusioned dealings’ with local government. I have to admit that the word ‘depression’ came to mind, and I wondered whether stress management or counselling might be appropriate. Nonetheless, he is quite right that the sophistication, the expectations and the demands upon local governments these days are a pressure in terms of their timeliness in the development area, as much as they are in the matter of service provision. He, too, therefore is encouraged to view the debate further in the local government sector on size, shape and 1586 Local Government Legislation Amendment Bill 24 May 2005 sustainability. As for the long term, these structural changes may well be the key way in which his concerns can be addressed. The member for Toowoomba South supported the bill, and I thank him for that. In fact, he used his time to extol the virtues of Toowoomba, and I do not entirely blame him for that. It is a growing city. There is no doubt that it is not just the coastal regions of Queensland that are growing but that there is an increasing move to the west, particularly to Toowoomba, Crows Nest, Laidley and Rosalie. I accept his concerns, therefore, about other issues such as water, the airport and CMC. I will not address those issues tonight as this is not the place for those issues to be further argued or discussed. I believe that this is a good bill. It is well supported by the Local Government Association of Queensland and it is well supported by local government. I thank all of the councils that participated in the consultation process. Some of them offered very forthright views in very blunt language. Although none of them used language that would constitute a minor breach, some of them certainly skated close to the line. Nonetheless, we have heeded their views and made amendments to the draft legislation. I particularly thank Mr Geoff Baker, the manager of the legislation and policy division of Local Government Services. He has managed to pull together legislation that is sound from the point of view of the legislative process. It takes account of the realities of local service provision and also of the politics of the local government sector. I thank him and his staff. I thank my policy and media staff, who have put in many hours in order to deliver this bill to the House. I do indeed commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr McARDLE (9.21 pm): Clause 6 imposes a regime on the council whereby the annual report is required to provide details of breaches and other matters. My concern is that there are different types of breaches contained within the act, in particular the meeting and minor breaches as opposed to the repeat and statutory breaches. There is the potential for this reporting exercise in the annual report to be abused. A group of councillors could, in fact, manipulate in particular meeting breaches where determination of the breach takes place within the local government meeting at which it is raised. Would it not be more appropriate for those breaches that are determined by an independent body—that is, the review panel—to be incorporated into the annual report and for breaches of a minor nature to be left out so as to eradicate concerns in relation to stacking or manipulation of numbers within the chamber? Ms BOYLE: I thank the member for his questions. The answers are that it was very deliberately determined that all breaches should be reported on in the annual report. There are two reasons. The first reason is for the council to demonstrate to their community that it has a code of conduct, that it is taking account of the legislation and that it is taking the responsible action. It was decided that breaches should be reported on by number and quite specifically to form the primary penalty, rather than there being a financial penalty, for failure to behave appropriately at all levels. I stand by the provisions of the bill. They are deliberate and I think they are appropriate. Mr McARDLE: I am concerned about the comment by the minister that the insertion in the annual report is in fact the primary penalty for a breach when, in fact, the act imposes potential significant breaches. Is the minister stating in the House that this is a further penalty, in addition to the provisions contained within the clauses? Ms BOYLE: I am pleased to clarify those remarks. The primary penalty is public censure to one who is elected on the basis of reputation and integrity. Therefore, the penalty will be at the meeting—to be censured by the majority of the members of their own council, despite debate, in a public meeting in front of the media. Further, it will be published in the annual report as having been confirmed as a breach. It is the council that makes the decisions. The independent panel will provide some recommendations for statutory breaches but, in the end, we are deliberately saying to the council that this is their government—albeit a very small government—and they are responsible for order in their house, both in meetings and in the conduct of their business. Therefore, they will determine the penalties which will not so much be monetary but will bear on their reputations as councillors and form part of the public record for all time. Question—That clause 6, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Poole, Pratt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 19—Copeland, E Cunningham, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone 24 May 2005 Days and Hours; Order of Business 1587

Resolved in the affirmative. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 15, as read, agreed to. Clause 16— Mr McARDLE (9.32 pm): Proposed section 250O(1)(a) refers to a complaint made about a meeting breach at a local government meeting. If the minister then goes to proposed section 250P(1)(a) she will find that it says that that particular breach needs to be dealt with at the meeting at which the breach occurred. If she then goes to proposed section 250Q(3) she will then find that the local government can then decide at that meeting to impose a penalty under proposed subsection (5). That penalty under proposed section 250X(2)(b) can include suspension from the balance of that particular meeting. My concern with that procedure is that there is no review process contained within this bill. It is a potential risk that a meeting conducts its own review process on the day that the breach occurs. My concern is basically that the meeting itself determines whether the breach has occurred. There is nothing in the bill that allows the councillor to seek redress or seek some form of review process. The local government meeting can in fact suspend the member then and there. That removes a fundamental right, I would argue, in relation to the procedure whereby a penalty can be imposed. A councillor’s rights of due process have been taken away. Ms BOYLE: The member for Caloundra is making this much more elaborate. If a kid plays up in class the teacher deals with it on the spot. That is really the principle. Let us not turn this into an unnecessary circus for a minor breach. Let us imagine for a moment that a councillor gets a bit hot under the collar and uses a word that is inappropriate and refuses to withdraw it and maybe uses it a second time. The council is at liberty to move a motion on the spot that the councillor be suspended from the meeting. The councillor has the right to speak on that motion and therefore put his or her case. That is part of natural justice. The rules of natural justice do apply and that is mentioned in the act. Let us say that the majority of the council found the councillor’s language to be have been in some way abhorrent and the councillor is ejected from the meeting. Should the councillor be unhappy with the decision which was made in open meeting by a majority of councillors who were all witness to whatever words were used that were found to be abhorrent then that councillor still has the right to go to the Ombudsman. That is very reasonable natural justice. Mr McARDLE: I am concerned that the minister draws the analogy between this particular meeting breach and a child being smacked. Under clause 6 the reporting in the annual report is also a consequence of the meeting breach being substantiated. I find it difficult to comprehend how the comparison can be made when the consequences here flow significantly further than a child being disciplined, particularly when there is a reporting procedure in place as a further sting in the tail. Ms BOYLE: For the record, I said nothing about smacking a child. The member disagrees that this is an appropriate penalty. I stand by the bill. I think it is an appropriate penalty with the reporting provision. I have answered the question. That is the government’s position. Question—That clause 16, as read, stand part of the bill—put; and the House divided— AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, E Clark, L Clark, Cummins, E Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Poole, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, N Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, C Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 17—Copeland, Flegg, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Stuckey. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 17 to 27, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

DAYS AND HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.45 pm), by leave, without notice: I move— That, notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders for this day's sitting, the House can continue to meet past 10 pm to consider government business until the adjournment is moved to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Motion agreed to. 1588 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (9.45 pm): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos 4 and 5 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (PORTABLE LONG SERVICE LEAVE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill Resumed from 10 May (see p. 1212). Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (9.46 pm): I rise to support the intent of the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill. This bill has been brought into the House with the intent of improving the situation with regard to training. For that reason, I am fully supportive of the intent of carrying out those processes. If we look throughout the state there is a definite need for trained personnel. We are very much aware of the massive increase in the building industry at the current time. It is extremely important that we address the shortages for those involved in the industry trying to find skilled and able-bodied people to carry out a range of duties within the industry. For that reason, I am supportive of what this bill is all about. When we look at this great state of ours and see the buoyant state of the economy throughout Australia, it is imperative that we deal with issues that come to our notice from time to time that are essential to accelerate programs and not leave the building industry in the doldrums because the industry is unable to get skilled personnel. By doing small things in different areas, we can certainly achieve quite a lot. There will always be a cost for training, and I am absolutely certain that the industry is well aware of that. I understand that there is agreement between employers and employees within the industry in terms of the aspects spelt out in the bill that are so essential if we are going to increase our capacity to have trained people. The situation that has prevailed to date is that there was a levy with regard to the the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund. That consisted of 0.05 per cent of the project costs. I might go back a little, because it was 0.175 per cent of the project costs. Out of that, 0.05 per cent was for the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund. What this legislation intends to do with the administration of QLeave is increase that levy, but it is going to quarantine it from 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent. That is doubling the levy but quarantining that out of the actual deduction that was taken from the previous 0.175 per cent. So it will now be 0.125 per cent of the project cost of a building. I have spoken to the minister about this matter. I think that is a prudent way to do it. I am well aware that some states have a training levy for the construction industry of 0.2 per cent. We can adjust this as time goes on. If there is a requirement to increase the training fund, that can be done. I believe that, provided we can show clearly that there is an accountability mechanism, which this bill is introducing, if there is a requirement for an increase in that training fund any sensible opposition or anybody who is aware of the needs of the industry would be supportive of it. But let us take it one step at a time. I think that is the intent of this legislation. I understand from the minister’s second reading speech that this amendment will create a fund of an additional $24.3 million over the 2005-06 period. That will be a substantial increase. At present I understand the fund has $80,000. The levy is extremely important to Queensland. I understand that there is not to be any additional cost to the government or QLeave, which is the authority that administers the fund. That is very appropriate, because at the end of the day someone has to pay the additional costs. If the government introduces legislation that will add a burden to the person or the company that constructs buildings, or is paying for the construction of buildings through the portable long service leave levy, then I do not think that is in their best interests. I would like the minister to explain whether there will be an additional cost overall in increasing the training levy to 0.1 per cent and then adjusting the portable long service leave levy to 0.125 per cent of the cost of building work. I think what the minister is doing is prudent. I am fully supportive of it. The green paper indicated clearly that there is support for it from the employers and the employees. But, of course, there is always a third party who has to pay for the construction work. I ask the minister to advise whether there will be any additional costs to the cost of building work. I would appreciate that, because by reducing the portable long service leave levy from 0.175 per cent to 0.125 per cent and increasing the training levy from 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent, if we quarantine that 0.1 per cent there is no doubt that there will be accountability. It is important that we get a clear indication that we are not just taking a percentage of a bulk amount; we are actually taking out 0.1 per cent of the cost of building work and then taking 0.125 per cent out of the cost of the building. 24 May 2005 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 1589

I have read the bill and, as I see it, I think it will be of benefit to the industry. We need more trained people in the building industry. It is an industry that is growing like Topsy. An enormous amount of development is going on not only in Queensland but also right across Australia. A lot of that has to do with the buoyancy of the economy. We have very stable interest rates. When interest rates are stable, people are prepared to spend money. Of course, bricks and mortar are always a good investment irrespective of whether it is investment in a home or into premises that can be used to provide an income in some way, shape or form. In this great country of ours we are seeing a great emphasis on the building and construction industry. If we do not increase the skill level in the industry then we will inevitably get into trouble. I support the bill. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (9.55 pm): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill 2005. This bill will reform the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund. It introduces a new levy and doubles the amount of money generated and disbursed by the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund to assist in the employment of apprentices and the training of existing workers in the building and construction industry. As the previous speaker said—and I know that every other member in this place would agree—it is imperative that we keep up with the growth of this industry. At the moment, not only in Queensland but also throughout Australia there is a shortage of trained workers. This fund will be used to keep up with the training needs of the industry. This industry is growing very fast. It is the backbone of this state and one of the barometers of the economy. When the building industry is firing, the economy is doing pretty well. It used to be that, when primary industries were doing well and we did not have droughts, the economy was booming. At the moment we are booming because the building industry is up on its toes. Not only the housing construction industry but also the commercial and development industries are doing well. The state government has set aside funds for the development of south-east Queensland. We are going to need every tradesman that we can possibly get. These funds will provide much needed financing for the training of these people. The bill also sets out that the new structure will commence on 1 July. It cannot start soon enough. As soon as we start generating funds, we will spend it on the people we need to train. The bill also outlines who is an ‘eligible worker’ and who will qualify to be trained. We will train and retrain people who work in the industry who are employees. The bill also makes amendments to the notification of building and construction work and puts in place penalties for noncompliance. If a person is undertaking construction work, is trying to get out of paying a levy by underestimating the construction costs and does not give notification of the need to pay the levy when the construction costs run well over, there are some penalties attached. I would like to stress that many people were involved in discussions with the minister and his department in the formulation of this bill. It is not very often that both sides of an industry and all stakeholders agree. The Australian Workers Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, and the Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation—my old union—agree with this legislation. The Australian Building Construction Employees and Builders Labourers Federation is one of the largest trainers of non-trade labour anywhere in Queensland and possibly Australia. It has a great set- up in Rocklea which previous governments have assisted. It also puts in money to keep it running. Also, the Australian Industry Group, the Queensland Master Builders Association, the Housing Industry Association, the Master Plumbers Association of Queensland and the Civil Contractors Federation have indicated their support for the bill and the proposal to double the levy. With that level of support, there would be very few people in this place and outside of it who would not agree that it is a good bill. I would like to congratulate the minister and his staff on introducing this bill so that it can start on 1 July. I support the bill. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (9.59 pm): I am very pleased to speak in support of the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill. This bill will significantly increase employment and training outcomes for the building and construction industry. The range of amendments outlined in the bill form only part of the proposed reforms to the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund. I also support the reforms to the government’s arrangements which will allow the organisation to develop a stronger linkage between industry and government to better align the training priorities for the Smart State with the industry’s training needs. This partnership will improve the coordination of building and construction training across all sectors of the industry and will increase the capacity of the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund to positively impact on the skills base in Queensland. Industry representation on the board will also be expanded to ensure equity of fund allocation across all sectors of the industry and will provide for an even stronger foundation for the future of the state’s building and construction industry. Not only does the new Building and Construction Industry Training Fund allow for expanded sectoral representation and an increased regional perspective; it also combines the elements of autonomy, innovation and high standards of accountability. The government 1590 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 24 May 2005 has developed these reforms in collaboration with the industry, with the overwhelming majority of industry supporting the principles behind an increase to the quantum of the fund and the allocation of these funds towards activities that increase entry level participation and the upskilling of existing workers in the industry. Employment and training are key factors in building a sound and prosperous economy, and young Queenslanders seeking employment and mature-age workers remaining in the building and construction industry will be the beneficiaries. Those comments address the current situation that we are reforming through this legislation, but it is important to understand the significance of what we are doing tonight against an important historical backdrop. There are two particular dates—one in 1991 and one in 1999. The origins of this training levy go back as far as 1990, when a submission was first put by all but one or two stakeholders in the building and construction industry to the then government for a training levy of 0.2 per cent. This was in alignment essentially with initiatives that had taken place in some of the other states to establish a training levy within the building and construction industry in those states because it was recognised that the building and construction industry, as my good friend and colleague the member for Bulimba indicated, is a key to a vibrant and robust state economy. Whilst there was widespread agreement at that time, there was not complete industry agreement and, in the absence of consensus, the view was taken that it was not appropriate at that time to proceed. In the interim, Construction Training Queensland, which is the formal name for the Building and Construction Industry Training Council, pressed ahead with lobbying other industry stakeholders to try to generate over a period of time that broad based consensus. It should be remembered that in about 1991 a fund was set up called the Queensland Construction Training Fund. That fund was set up to establish training for tradespeople particularly in the building and construction industry. That fund drew its money not from government and not from the industry in terms of consumers paying through housing construction costs but from the interest generated from the Building Employees Redundancy Trust moneys that were invested by a joint employer-trade union board to secure the financial viability of those redundancy funds. The interest generated from that fund was paid into training. So even then the major players, although not everyone, were united in their objective of trying to generate training in the construction industry. Over 10 years about $9 million went into the training fund in that way. When the Beattie government was elected in 1998, legislation was first passed introducing a 0.05 per cent levy. Minister Barton has done a tremendous job, with the support of his staff in the department, in introducing this present bill, which builds on the work that Paul Braddy undertook in 1998. Since the inception of the Building and Construction Industry Training Fund, which was a government established fund in 1999, about 5,000 additional apprentices have been employed and supported in the industry and over 2,000 existing workers have received additional training. An important point to bear in mind by those not familiar with the historical origins of an initiative such as we have before us tonight is that it did not fall out of the sky. Not only has an enormous amount of work been done by the minister and his department; the stakeholders over a long period of time have put a lot of work into the whole issue of establishing a training fund. What it illustrates—and we should not easily forget this—is that in this area of training, like in a lot of other areas in the industrial relations environment, there is widespread unity and consensus for the approach that the industry stakeholders want to take to solving industry problems. If it were not for that bipartisanship, that collaboration and that consensus building between employers, unions and government over 15 years, it would not be possible for this government to act in the way in which it has acted tonight. We have decided that the best way to act in an area such as this is solidly based upon industry consensus. I want to conclude with some personal acknowledgments, having personally been involved with the Construction Training Queensland Board and its civil construction stream since about 1990 through to my election in this place in 1998. I was the CFMEU representative on CTQ. A number of people within the industry should be acknowledged. There are many who need to be acknowledged but I want to name just a few. Firstly, I acknowledge the member for Bulimba, who has identified the whole range of organisations that have come together to enable us to do what we are doing tonight. I acknowledge Lester Davies, who was the chair of the civil construction stream of Construction Training Queensland and who worked with Thiess Contractors. I acknowledge Keith McIlwain of McIlwain Civil contractors, who is now the chair of Construction Training Queensland. I acknowledge Greg Shannon, who is the General Manager of Construction Training Queensland and who has worked very effectively over many years with the various training funds, with the BERT fund and across the whole spectrum of industry stakeholders to ensure that we are doing the best that we can for young workers and mature-age workers in this industry. I also acknowledge a fellow by the name of Bluey O’Shea, who was a warrant officer in the Army and a plant operator trainer. He was instrumental as a training liaison officer for the CFMEU in putting together, in conjunction with a number of people including me, the first apprenticeship for plant operators in Australia. That was done in 1994-95. I acknowledge the role of Mr Tim Maloney and Mr Graham Wilson, who were departmental advisers to the minister in those days. It is good to see the faces of old friends here still actively involved in supporting training in this industry. 24 May 2005 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 1591

I acknowledge Wallace Trohear, the CFMEU secretary, and Chris Price, the CFMEU assistant secretary, who are now on the CTQ Board. Wallace has been on the board for many years. They have played key roles, along with Greg Simcoe, the secretary of the BLF. I acknowledge Walter Sommer of Sommer and Staff Constructions, who when I was on the CTQ and we were working on training played a key role. I acknowledge Ian Barclay of Barclay brothers, who was chair of CTQ for quite a number of years. All these people understood and recognised—and it might have been an unconventional position for them to be in, particularly as employers, from the point of view of many of their other colleagues— that they were developing unity and consensus with trade union officials and government officials to develop training programs. I will finish with this observation: where would workers be without trade unions? This legislation would not have been introduced into the House today by the Beattie Labor government if it was not for the workers and the trade unions that represented them working together over the past 15 years, as I have just illustrated. I acknowledge that employers have come on side with the training initiative developed by the trade union movement, and we could not have achieved this without them. However, the trade union movement, working on behalf of the workers, was the key driving force and the initiator of industry based training within the building industry. Without the trade unions, this would not have happened. The Beattie government’s initiatives of 1999 and this year, which have been supervised and led by Minister Barton on behalf of the government, are a direct result of the hard work, lobbying, campaigning and agitation of the building trade unions. I commend them for that work. I commend this bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.10 pm): I rise to support this legislation. The previous speaker named a lot of people, and like him I thank Greg Shannon for putting forward his perspective on the legislation, obviously in support of it. In my electorate and in most parts of Queensland, apprenticeships and traineeships in the building and construction industry have been vital. Recently, we have seen a period of quite exponential growth in the building industry, which has put an even sharper focus on the dearth of qualified people that is becoming increasingly more serious as mature building industry workers retire. Therefore, over the past few years a much greater focus has been placed on additional training. This initiative is a good one. However, we must balance the new initiatives that the legislation will provide against the fact that an extra cost will be involved. I would be interested to know if the minister has worked out what will be the average additional cost to a home builder. I know it is $80,000 and up, but I would be interested in knowing what the average increases might be, albeit that the initiative reinvests the money back into training. Apprenticeships and traineeships are a very important part of skills improvement, not only for our youth but also for the mature apprentices in our work force. The previous speaker commended the unions and the workers, and I do so too. I also commend the companies that are prepared to recognise the importance of apprenticeships and have actually increased their apprenticeship uptakes. Only the other night I was at a QAL sign-on. It was really refreshing to see young men, in this case, taking up apprenticeships and looking forward to an exciting time of training. They are also looking forward to a time when their hard work and the hard work of their employer will pay off through opportunities for secure employment. As I have said, quite a bit of construction has been happening in my electorate as a result of population increases. The additional opportunities for training that these funds will provide will be welcome. I am sure that the community across Queensland will benefit from the training that will result from this legislation. For many years to come we will all experience the benefits of that. I certainly commend the bill to the House. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (10.14 pm): I rise in support of the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill 2005. While the bill provides for a significant increase to the current Building and Construction Industry Training Fund arrangements, it also allows the fund to encourage new entry level commencements into the building and construction trades through the provision of incentives to employers to engage additional apprentices and trainees. Based on current levels of activity within the industry, the revised levy will generate approximately $24.3 million for Building and Construction Industry Training Fund purposes. This will provide support for some 2,000 new entry level apprenticeship and traineeship commencements and additional training to over 1,000 existing workers who are not fully qualified to gain trade qualifications. With the aim to develop innovative and flexible training strategies, the restructured building construction training fund will fund the recognition of prior learning of eligible workers in the industry to identify their skills gaps and provide additional funding to support training in the identified skill gap areas. This upskilling of the existing work force will result in a more efficient and productive system of training for the building and construction industry and better outcomes for industry generally. These amendments clearly demonstrate our Beattie Labor government’s commitment to meeting the needs of the building and construction industry. The increase to the quantum of the funds secures the future sustainability of training in the building and construction industry which, in turn, underpins Queensland’s strong economic position. Further, the bill will maximise the legislative intent of the 1592 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 24 May 2005

Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 1991 and it simplifies the collection arrangements through the establishment of two separate levies. As members of this House know, I am a very strong supporter of training and the initiatives within Minister Barton’s portfolio. I urge all members of the House to support the bill as it creates significant benefits for Queensland’s building and construction industry. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.16 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Building and Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Amendment Bill 2005. I have received submissions both for and against the bill, but I indicate at this stage that I will be supporting the bill. I note that this is the second bill that we have debated this evening that is about ensuring that Queensland legislation is consistent with legislation in other states. In his second reading speech, the minister said— The increase would also serve to bring our arrangements into line with other states and territories that have similar fund arrangements to address the skilling needs of the industry. In four other jurisdictions, for instance, levies range from 0.18 per cent to 0.25 per cent, up to five times that of Queensland. There is no doubt that people are travelling more rapidly around Australia. No longer is it the case that someone is born in one state and does not move out of their local community. More than ever people are travelling not only around Queensland but also interstate and overseas. Now more than ever there is a need to ensure that the laws in Queensland are consistent with the laws in other states. I also note that clause 11 of the bill requires a person to comply with any court order imposed under section 46A(5) and provides a penalty for failure to comply. The explanatory notes state— The amendment of section 46(A)(1) gives power to the authority to obtain information from a person who has been an employer not only those currently engaging workers. The explanatory notes go on— This will assist compliance as there have been instances where persons have relied on the difficulty of enforcement through the absence of a penalty for a breach of the requirement. Only last week I received a deputation of three people whose situation is a little bit different to this. The issue was that their employer had failed to pay them a significant amount of money—it was in the thousands. The state government department took the employer, which was a company, to court and an order was made. The employees came back to me and inquired about the outcome. I said, ‘Well, the government has taken the employer to court and you have got your order.’ They said, ‘But the company has gone bankrupt.’ It turned out that the company had actually gone bankrupt on a number of occasions. From memory, there were three occasions when the company had changed its name but in substance the managers and the directors of the company, a husband and wife team, remained the same. That prompted me to contact the department and ask why it was that the company was taken to court but not the directors. I was advised that, at that stage, the staff in the department had no knowledge that the company had not complied with the orders that had been made by the court. I suppose the issue I am trying to get at is that it is important that if we are going to require employers, companies or individuals to meet their legal obligations, we need to ensure that we have the legal skills and the capacity in our legislation to enforce that compliance. To conclude the story in relation to those employees who have been unable to obtain payment of arrears of salary—I understand that because time has expired, because it is now more than six months from when they were first aware of the previous employer’s failure to pay, the state government is now no longer able to take action against their former employer; on the advice of the department, it is statute barred or out of time. I certainly have concerns with that short time limit, which I intend to raise with the minister at a later date. I also note that clause 18 adds a provision—section 68A(6)—which requires a person to comply with any court order imposed under section 68A(5) unless they have a reasonable excuse. A penalty is prescribed for failing to comply with that. Again, I just raise that section because I really do believe it is important that if we are going to pass these new laws in Queensland we need to ensure that we have the legal capacity to have our enforcement officers take prosecution action or enforcement action against people who try to avoid their legal responsibilities. The last issue I would like to raise is that we need to ensure that we have the appropriate staffing levels available in Queensland to follow through on the spirit and the intent of the legislation that we pass. It is easy to come into this House, introduce legislation and pass what we believe are great laws but, unfortunately, not see those great laws come to fruition—not because the intent is not there but simply because the public servants responsible for the enforcement are so overworked that they simply do not have the time or the resources to take enforcement action and to follow up on the complaints that have been received from members of the public. I realise that there are further matters to debate this evening, so I commend the bill to the House. Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.21 pm), in reply: Let me thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, particularly the people from my committee who worked with my staff and my department in preparing this legislation. I thank them for their work. 24 May 2005 Building & Construction Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) A’ment Bill 1593

I thank the opposition for its indication of support for this bill. In a discussion we had earlier tonight the opposition shadow minister indicated that he had spoken to the key players involved who had indicated to him their support for this legislation. I think this is one of those unique situations where all of the people affected by the legislation—both from the employer's position and the union’s position on behalf of their employees and the government—all agree. It is heartening to hear the members opposite indicate that they will support this bill. I thank the member for Gladstone for her comments, and I also thank the member for Nicklin for his comments. There were a few brief questions that were raised by the members who spoke. I will try to answer those questions quickly so that we can hopefully dispense with them. If I understood the shadow minister’s question correctly, it was: are there to be any additional costs over and above what is clearly the cost of the levy? The levy is being changed from 0.05 per cent to 0.1 per cent. That, of course, is in fact an increase. If the employers involved pass that on to the people who are paying for the building then, yes, there will be an increase, but there will not be an increase in the administration costs. I think that was what the member was getting at. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr BARTON: Yes. A similar question was asked by the member for Gladstone about what is the cost per house or per building. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr BARTON: Let me say that obviously it is a mathematical calculation. If we are talking in terms of a $200,000 house or a unit, which is about the mean average currently, that would amount to an increase. If as a result of this legislation being passed the cost is passed on to the person for whom the house is being built—from the current $100 to $200—it is a potential $100 increase to the person who is having a home or building or, for that matter, commercial building being built to that cost. It would vary, of course, depending on the actual value because there is a floor under which no levy is paid; I think that is $80,000. Then the calculation would change. To give the member an exact amount we would have to know the exact cost of the building, but if we use the mean average of a $200,000 home or unit then we are talking in terms of an increase to the people who are having it built of $100. Mr Rowell: So there is a threshold of $80,000 before you actually pay. Mr BARTON: Yes, before you pay any levy at all. If it is small amounts of building that are being done, you do not get caught up in the payment of this levy. In terms of the matters that were raised by the member for Nicklin, very clearly we do wish to make sure that our legislation is enforceable. That is what clause 11 of this bill—which contains the amendments to section 46 of the act—is designed to do. We in the Department of Industrial Relations believe that we have a good record in terms of enforcement of our legislation, but that is designed to make sure that if people are not paying it then in fact we should be able to enforce that and force those people to pay the levy. It is a simple fact that you cannot have legislation unless it can be enforced in some way. Also, in terms of our staffing, out of last year’s budget there were quite significant improvements to the numbers of industrial inspectors and also workplace health and safety inspectors who would not necessarily be directly involved with this. But, yes, we are fairly confident that we can enforce this legislation appropriately with the staffing levels that we have and the additional funding that is already going to be committed for that. On the other matter that was raised—it is pretty hard to give a specific answer to that, but if the member gives me the details in due course I will look at that for him. I will sum up. In the government’s view, this is very important legislation in assisting us to work with the building and construction industry and its employees, through their unions, to literally meet a crucial skill shortage that is out there. One of the industries where the skill shortages are the highest at this point in time is the building and construction industry. As I said in my second reading speech, this will dramatically improve the amount of funds available to train people in these crucial skill shortages at this point in time. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 29, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Bill read a third time. 1594 Adjournment 24 May 2005

ADJOURNMENT Hon. TA BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.27 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Alderdice, Mr S Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (10.28 pm): The person who helped me discover my passion for theatre is the head of drama at the University of Southern Queensland, Scott Alderdice, at the Toowoomba campus. I first met Scott in the late eighties just after he graduated from VCA and he was appointed the artistic director of the Riverina Theatre Company, one of Australia’s oldest professional regional theatre companies. Scott had the policy of supplementing his productions with amateur actors from the community, so amateur actors had the unique experience of working side by side with professionals who trained in NIDA and VCA. After seeing a few of Scott’s recent productions, I have to say that he has not lost any ability to extract the absolute best out of a group of actors, and he never fails to deliver value for money for an audience. I must congratulate him and his troupe of former students from the USQ on their latest offering, Clown Verona. It is a very entertaining retelling of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet which was staged at the Metro Arts Theatre in Brisbane recently. There are many pitfalls and mistakes that an inexperienced actor can make when they are first before an audience. According to Scott, the classic mistake is ‘not to treat what is real’. If, for example, something unexpected happened or went wrong while you are on stage before an audience—say, for example, a door fell off on the set—then the worst thing you could do would be to ignore it. You must acknowledge the unexpected event, incorporate it into your act and then continue to tell the scripted story. If you do not, the audience will hate you for it. That is just a rule of theatre. The longer you ignore the door, the greater the anxiety level of the audience. However, the moment that you, the actor, acknowledge the unexpected event, the door falling off, you can almost feel the joy and relief from the audience. Since I have been in this place I have witnessed probably one of Australia’s greatest actors on the stage of state politics. Whenever something unexpected has happened to the Premier—for example, the child safety crisis, the electricity crisis or, more recently, the Bundaberg health debacle—I have seen the same stage technique applied. The Premier acknowledges the unexpected. ‘Oh, I am absolutely mad about this.’ Eighty-seven deaths in Bundaberg? He incorporates this unexpected event into his act. ‘Let’s have an inquiry.’ He then continues with his scripted story. ‘Let’s not dwell on the past. Let’s move forward. Here is my vision for Queensland Health. We will divide it into two and make more bureaucrats.’ When will the people of Queensland realise that they are being gulled and conned by an actor who cares only for his political life instead of for the lives of Queensland constituents? He is an actor who was dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commission. It was not his idea. He was forced into it. Time expired. Bloomfield, Ms E Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (10.31 pm): Every electorate has their cast of colourful residents, those people who stand out in a crowd not only because of their clothing but also because of their bright, outgoing personalities. Edith Bloomfield is one of those characters. Edith has lived in the Bulimba electorate for over 50 years. Edith is a ‘stand out’ character because of her bright red hair and colourful clothing and jewellery. I am sure she will forgive me for saying that, at 72 years young, Edith has chosen to officially retire as a lollipop lady at one of our local schools, Saints Peter and Paul’s. She has had that job for the last 12 years. Edith has had a huge impact on the students. This was reflected in the school’s farewell to her. They paid tribute to her on the school’s outdoor message board and highlighted her retirement in the school newsletter. Over the years Edith has watched over the young students on their first day of school, then supervised them crossing busy Riding Road, right through to their last day of primary school in year 7. She has always had a friendly word or smile for each child. The children have responded by telling her all their news. I can tell members this: I mean all their news. Edith always knew which child had had a visit from the tooth fairy the previous night, who was getting close to a visit from the tooth fairy due to a wobbly tooth and lots of other information that I will not talk about here. Our local paper, the South-East Advertiser, could not resist featuring a colour photograph of Edith on the front page, complete with a story inside the paper. Edith is well known and loved throughout the area, dating back to the days when she worked as a bar attendant at the Balmoral Hotel, which is now 24 May 2005 Adjournment 1595 the very trendy Oxford 152, and the Morningside Aussie Rules Football Club. There is no doubt that she has many interesting and, if I may use the word again, colourful stories from those days, particularly when the Balmoral Hotel was the venue of choice for the painters and dockers and waterside workers. In the midst of working and raising her family, Edith has always been involved in charitable work, particularly Meals on Wheels and the Anglican Church jumble every Friday morning. Edith maintains her high profile throughout the area by preferring to travel the old-fashioned way, by ‘shank’s pony’ or—for members who are not familiar with that term—by foot. She is often to be seen miles from home, striding along the footpath but, unlike other walkers, dressed to the nines in one of her very colourful outfits. As I said, Edith and her husband Stanley have lived in the Bulimba electorate for over 50 years. Somehow, in the midst of her very busy schedule, Edith finds time to indulge another of her passions— her garden. She has a beautifully kept garden with one of the most beautiful displays of roses in the area. Quite often Edith is called upon as the only source of supply for the Easter flowers at services held at St Peter and St Paul. I hope that Edith thoroughly enjoys her well-deserved retirement and that she and Stanley have many happy and healthy years ahead of them. Caloundra, Police Resources Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.34 pm): For many months I have been raising the concern of Caloundra residents that there are insufficient police to deal with the issues that they confront on a daily basis. There are now serious concerns with regard to the events of Friday and Saturday nights. The situation is becoming quite desperate for the residents of Shelly, Kings and Moffat beaches. They simply repeat that the number of police within Caloundra is insufficient to cope with the problems that they face each weekend. Their concerns relate predominantly to speeding and hooning. The residents’ concerns are very real. It will not be long before someone is seriously injured or killed as a consequence of this behaviour. There is a real need for an increase in police numbers in Caloundra—officers who have the knowledge to deal with these problems. We need a police presence that is significant and is able to deal with the problems we increasingly face. When I talk to people across Caloundra, they will often tell me that they are very concerned about the lack of police presence, the inability of police to deal with speeding and hooning and, equally, the necessity for action to be taken to arrest this desperate situation. In the past, I have called on the police minister to increase police numbers on the coast to no avail. This is an ongoing matter and it will not be resolved by a band-aid solution. I accept that the police can bring in the tactical crime squad, the traffic branch, the Dog Squad, the traffic safety response team or the state traffic task force as and when required. However, that is merely a band-aid solution to a major problem. The simple fact is that there are not enough police patrolling the streets of Caloundra at night. It comes back to this government having the strength and the will to do something about it. Time is now up. The people are demanding that this government take action and that the minister not hide behind figures but get out there and do something to alleviate the problem. Unless this occurs, there will be a tragedy—one that could easily have been avoided if more resources and more police officers were put at the disposal of the community. In that regard, I table a non-complying petition signed by a number of people from the Shelly Beach, Kings Beach and Moffat Beach areas. I again ask the minister to consider its terms on an urgent basis. Federal Government, Industrial Relations Reforms Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (10.36 pm): The tried and true adage ‘You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone’ will become a commonplace barbecue lament if the Howard government gets its way on industrial relations reforms. Australians, particularly those living in Queensland, are about to experience the most dramatic and sustained attack on basic working conditions and the institutions which protect them since Federation. Our system of industrial relations is built on the notion of fairness, expressed in colloquial terms as ‘a fair go’. In establishing our industrial relations system, our nation’s founders recognised and addressed one of the most fundamental facts of industrial relations—an inherent imbalance in favour of employers when it comes to bargaining power. To address this imbalance, our founders put in place a system of conciliation and arbitration, a system which has served this country well for over two centuries. Through two world wars, the Depression, the dot com era and the burgeoning internationalisation of our economy, it has delivered the flexibility and the outcomes needed for our economy to grow and for our businesses and industries to successfully compete on the national and international stage. At the same time, it has delivered reasonable and fair wages and conditions to workers. 1596 Adjournment 24 May 2005

That system had at its core some fundamental concepts: arbitration by an independent umpire in cases where agreement could not be reached; minimum wages and conditions established by a system of awards and negotiated agreements; unfair dismissal laws to protect workers from exploitation; and, recognition of the role and rights of representative unions to advocate on behalf of employees and employers. These concepts have been under sustained attack by the coalition government since its re- election in 1996. Now, with control of the Senate looming, the government is embarking on its most ambitious assault on our industrial relations laws. It proposes changes which will strip bare the industrial relations system and rock it to its foundations. All of the basic and fundamental tenets of a fair and just system are under attack. Foremost is a move toward a single federal industrial relations system, which will effectively neuter the state based systems. In Queensland, it provides protection to over 80 per cent of our workers. Additionally—and this goes to the core of the Howard government reforms—the system is intended to be based on individual contracts and on individual negotiations between an employee and an employer at the expense of fair and reasonable minimum wages and conditions negotiated and determined with the active involvement of the trade union movement. The Howard government’s proposals strike at the very heart and fairness of our current industrial relations system. Given the time constraints, I want to record a brief summary of the Howard government’s proposals to dismantle our current employment arrangements. They propose to: one, remove many basic employment conditions from awards; two, change the way in which minimum wages are set to make them lower; three, move to individual contracts that undercut existing rights and conditions; four, make it harder for unions to protect and represent working people; five, abolish redundancy pay and protection from unfair dismissals. Time expired. Disability Services, Funding; Ambulance Service, Rostering Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (10.39 pm): I rise tonight to call on the government to allocate additional funding in the forthcoming budget for children with disabilities. We are all aware of the great benefits of early intervention and the profound impact that early support can have in later life. Children are often neglected in the funding maze or lost amongst the desperate bids for resources within the disability sector. Sadly, this means that some children are not able to receive the appropriate treatment and support that they desperately need. Currently, funding allocated by the state government to services for children with disabilities makes up 26 per cent of the Disability Services budget. Many service providers receive only marginal funding to assist children. I welcome any funding grants that target adults. It is heartbreaking to turn children who are in need away because there are not the funds to provide services. This is particularly tragic as we are all aware of the enormous benefits that early support can have on a child's life. I believe that there also needs to be improvements in services for adults with disabilities. Many families and individuals have approached me and told me of their difficulty in accessing support under the lifestyle support package. I believe that every attempt should be made to assist Queenslanders with a disability. I am calling on the government to deliver some real funding increases in the forthcoming budget. I also raise the issue of ambulance reform. Roster reform for ambulance officers is not working as these officers are constantly fatigued due to continually being recalled to duty. If the government does not change the system then we could see a loss of life. I would like to express my complete disappointment that this government has kicked the officer in charge of Charters Towers station out of the accommodation that was provided to him as part of his contract when taking up duty as the officer in charge there. This house was provided to this family and now they have been kicked out to help fill the government’s coffers. Then the government has the cheek to threaten ambulance staff with a $3,000 fine for speaking out against the roster reform and these heavy-handed tactics. Nucrush Quarry Open Day Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (10.41 pm): I rise in this House tonight to speak about a good neighbour I have in the electorate of Gaven. Recently I was invited by the Neumann family to an open day at their Oxenford Nucrush quarry. The Nucrush quarry at Oxenford was once isolated from the urban push, but with the rapid growth of the Gold Coast houses are getting closer to the quarry. Mr Bruce Neumann, whom I consider to be a very community minded operator, has always been mindful of the way in which the area has become developed and organised the open day at the quarry. No expense was spared. Bruce and the rest of his administration staff went to great lengths to reassure the residents, not only long-term residents but also everybody else, whether their homes could be endangered by quarrying and the related risks of the industry due to blasting et cetera. 24 May 2005 Adjournment 1597

During the open day, geologists were deployed to explain the rock formations and the different rocks suitable for mining. There was also a bevy of staff on hand to explain that even the trucks that they use are above industry standards—they are the highest quality and class of truck. They explained that the tyres are all new and not retreads to avoid the possible risk of tyre shredding on our local roads and highways. They told how the trucks are all serviced and that there is no risk of brake failure around the mountainous regions of Oxenford and Upper Coomera. The trucks are fitted with all the latest emission controls. At great expense, the Neumanns had employed the blasters to be on site for the day to explain how the rock was blasted and collected and how the dust was minimised during the blast. Dust collection units were set up around the perimeter of the quarry to monitor the dust and also the noise impacts. We were shown all aspects of mining at the quarry. No expense was spared for all those who cared to come along to the open day. The buses continued to carry residents to all areas of the quarry. The Neumann family have been long-term residents of the Gold Coast and have always been the ones to support the communities in which they operate, from Currumbin to Upper Coomera. They support the lifesaving movement and other community groups and volunteers. I and most residents I spoke with on the day are reassured that the quarry should continue to operate and prosper alongside residents in the community. Low-lying Coastal Areas Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.44 pm): A recent article appearing in the Sunshine Coast Sunday highlighted a real dilemma for people living near the ocean or canals in our state’s many low- lying coastal areas. For some time now we have seen more and more people from throughout Australia and overseas move to live in our coastal regions in Queensland. I and others are concerned that many of these new residents settling in low-lying coastal regions in Australia may not be aware of the risks associated with living in these areas. Just because some coastal low-lying areas have not had any cyclones, floods or king tides in recent years does not mean that they will not be affected in the future. Earlier this month I read Kathy Sundstrom’s article which highlighted the possible dangers associated with living on the ocean front or even in prestigious canal front dwellings which may be tide affected. In her article she quoted an insurance broker who stated that many of these properties are just too risky to underwrite against flood damage caused by sea. While those with flood cover will be covered for flood waters which come from heavy rain, they will not be insured against the ravages of rising ocean waters. She also quoted a weather bureau spokesperson who stated that it is only a matter of time before king tides, storm surges or cyclones at sea cause waters to rise and flood thousands of homes built in low-lying areas of the Sunshine Coast. I have approached insurance brokers and they have confirmed that the majority of insurers will not insure against such events. One insurer said that his rule of thumb was that when water hits the ground it is floodwater but when it rises it is from the ocean and that is not included in the coverage. I believe that people living in low-lying areas near the ocean, river mouths or canals need to check their insurance policies and contact their insurers to clarify what cover they have so that there are no nasty surprises if a cyclone or king tide affects their property. If they have a policy which covers them for flood damage they need to know what constitutes flood in their policy. I use this opportunity to call on the Premier, the minister for fair trading and the minister for local government to assist in publicising the dangers of living in low-lying areas which may be prone to wild storms, cyclones or king tides and to urge people in Queensland to check their insurance policies. I worry that many may have no insurance cover and be unaware of the losses they could sustain. I table a copy of the article in the Sunshine Coast Sunday of 1 May this year written by Kathy Sundstrom and add that I endorse the sentiments that this article has raised. I urge all members to read the article and take this matter up with their constituents. Russell Island Rural Fire Station Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (10.47 pm): On Saturday, 30 April I had the pleasure of attending the opening of a new rural fire brigade station on Russell Island. What a magnificent building that the local community are quite rightly very proud of. On the four southern bay islands of Macleay Island, Karragarra Island, Lamb Island and Russell Island the rural fire brigade performs a vital role in protecting people’s lives and properties from the risk of fire. It also supports the Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics and first responders in accident rescue. I wish to inform the House of an incident that recently occurred on Macleay Island that proves the importance of smoke detectors, the value of our fire education programs and the courage of young children. Samantha Taylor and her three children, Zac, Luke and Chloe, were asleep in their house. In the early hours of the morning Chloe stirred from her sleep and heard beeping. In fact, she thought she was dreaming. As she awoke from her sleep she realised that the smoke detector was going off. As a 1598 Adjournment 24 May 2005 result of the fire education program she had received at school she was able to go and wake the other three members of her family and evacuate them from the house. That young girl saved three other lives on that morning. This is a result of the fire detectors and the training that she had received. Her mother told a story that a week previous to the fire she had burnt some toast in the kitchen. As she was stumbling around the kitchen to try to clean up the mess from the burnt toast she tripped over her daughter, Chloe. When asked what she was doing, Chloe answered, ‘The smoke detector was going off so I get down low and go, go, go.’ The message she had received at school had been engrained. Even in the situation of the burnt toast she responded appropriately. I commend Chloe for her bravery in saving the rest of her family. At the opening of the fire station Commissioner Lee Johnson provided Chloe and the rest of her family with a well-founded award for their actions on that night. Whilst the house was lost, their lives were saved. The subsequent community support was amazing. In particular, as President of the Queensland Parliamentary Lions Club, I commend fellow Lions Ron Sutcliffe and Wally Crook on rallying around and trying to raise funds to support the family. I also congratulate Chris Tranent, Doug Brewer, Mark Bilston, Byron Shrecve, Sam Brewer and Dave Curtis, who were part of the SES search party that recently found the missing tourist on Moreton Island. These are good members of the Redlands SES volunteers. Again, it just goes to show the high quality of emergency services volunteers that we have in the Redlands and the great work that the community does in pulling together to help support all people in times of crisis. Booth, Mr F Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (10.50 pm): Tonight I want to pay tribute to one of the unsung heroes of outback Queensland and outback South Australia, the late Frank Booth. Frank Booth was born at Anna Creek Station in South Australia on 21 February 1931 and died at Birdsville on 28 February 2005. This part Aboriginal rose to great heights. As I said, he was born at Kidman’s Anna Creek. Frank Booth spent his early years there before moving to Marree with his twin sister, Annie, his younger sisters Nellie, Blanche and Alma and his parents. From an early age he worked alongside his father learning traditional Australian bush skills. As a six-year-old he rode his pony for several hundred kilometres beside his father as they drove a mob of cattle from Oodnadatta to Commonwealth Hill Station in the far west of South Australia. Frank Booth started working for Bill Brook in the early 1960s when he moved to Adria Downs Station near Birdsville. Part of his reason for moving to Birdsville may have been to be closer to local lass Phyllis Murray, whom he soon married. It was the start of a 37-year working involvement with the Brook family and particularly a close working relationship with David Brook, now the proprietor of Brook Holdings at Birdsville in the south west. His obituary stated— 'He was the person I worked with most in my life,' Mr Brook recalls. 'I grew up under his wing. He knew all the important little things. He might have saved my life half-a-dozen times.' Mr Brook describes Frank as having been an ideal man to manage the cattle on the vast scale of Adria Downs. ‘For him to rise before dawn and not finish until sundown was a normal day,' he said. ‘If the day extended into driving cattle through the night to avoid the heat of the day he did not mind. ‘He never seemed to get tired or feel the cold. On the coldest mornings he would never wear a jumper or a coat and always have his sleeves rolled up and shirt buttons undone to reveal his barrel chest. Mr Brook describes Frank Booth as having been a fine horseman whether cutting out bullocks or broncoing calves. ‘On a horse he was perfect, he was as good as you'd find,' he said. He was the most capable stockman around for a long time. He was also an incredible navigator at night or in dust storms. And he knew the limitations of horses and cattle and people. The late Frank Booth is one of the true legends and one of the true gentleman of outback Australia. Frank and Phyllis raised seven children—Evelyn, Bully, Kenny, Sharon, Teresa, Laura and Dwayne. Frank Booth held the reins at Adria Downs for 23 years before moving in 1985 to manage Cordillo Downs Station in the far north eastern corner of South Australia for the Brook family. After 37 years of loyal and dedicated employment with the family, Frank Booth retired to Birdsville in April 1999. He was a regular in the Birdsville pub most afternoons after he had retired. There is a sign in the pub which reads at the end of the bar, ‘Reserved Frank Booth’. Publican Jo Fort describes his passing as a huge loss for the hotel. There is an empty space at the end of the bar. He was a legendary bloke. Vale, Frank Booth—one of the true gentlemen, one of the true great characters and one of the true outback Australians. Hoolihan, Mr A Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (10.53 pm): Similar to the member for Gregory, I have a story to tell about a remarkable man of the outback. My father died on 13 May. He was born on 26 December 1917. Anthony Kevin Gibson Hoolihan was the fifth child of 12. He left school at 13 years of age and worked in pastoral industries and became a shearer. He joined the AWU in 1936. One of the real things that we should look at in terms of paying attention to unionism is that on the day he died he had spent 69 years as a member of the AWU. He followed pastoral pursuits, but he also joined the Army. He joined the militia first off and was discharged medically unfit because he broke his arm. He then told a few little lies to join the regular Army and he served in the 2nd/33rd Battalion in New Guinea. He came back from 24 May 2005 Adjournment 1599

New Guinea and the Army found out that he told it some stories, so it put him in a supply platoon and sent him to Borneo. He landed in Borneo in 1945. While he was back in Australia in 1944 he married my mother, Alma Grace McIlwraith Taylor, on 11 May. Two days before he died they celebrated their 61st wedding anniversary. He returned from the Army and there were four children—my sister, Glenda, me and two younger brothers, Kenneth and Noel. He continued to work in the rural industries as a shearer until 1967. He left that because of ill health and then became a contract cleaner and gardener. He also ran a small mail run. He spent all of his life working for the advancement of those people with whom he worked and for those who had less than him. He spent many years involved with St Vincent de Paul in Longreach and was its president and secretary. About two years ago he decided that he and mum would go into a home because they could not look after their own home. He had a number of illness scares, and he did not make it from the last one. On 13 May he died. He left four children, 15 grandchildren and 12 great- grandchildren. He will be missed by everyone who knew him. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.56 pm.