PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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

Subject FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT Page Tuesday, 20 February 2007

ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 285 Tabled paper: Letter, dated 16 February 2007, from Her Excellency the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to Bills...... 285 SPEAKER’S STATEMENT ...... 285 Retirement of Clerk Assistant and Sergeant-at-Arms ...... 285 PROCEDURE ...... 285 Speaker’s Statement—Parliamentary Language ...... 285 PETITIONS ...... 286 TABLED PAPERS ...... 286 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ...... 287 World Athletics Championships ...... 287 Purified Recycled Water ...... 288 Tabled paper: Kit by the Government addressed to Members containing fact sheets in relation to purified recycled water...... 288 Ministerial Expenses ...... 288 Tabled paper: Public Reports of Ministerial Expenses for the period 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006...... 288 Council for the Australian Federation ...... 288 Tabled paper: Council of Australian Federation Communique dated 9 February 2007...... 289 Atherton Community Cabinet ...... 289 Tabled paper: Brochure by the Queensland Government, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet—taking Government to the people’...... 289 Smart State Ambassadors ...... 290 Chinese New Year ...... 290 World Junior Dancesport Championships ...... 290 Northern ...... 291 Powerdirect Australia ...... 291 Sugarcane Smut ...... 292 Tabled paper: Report, dated 18 February 2007, by Dr David Watson titled ‘The Economic Impact of Sugarcane Smut on the Queensland Sugarcane Industry—Final Report’...... 292 Energy Policy ...... 292

L J OSMOND N J LAURIE CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT Table of Contents — Tuesday, 20 February 2007

Water Savings; Q-Fleet, Tree Planting ...... 293 Tabled paper: Table titled ‘Summary of Water Usage at BCC Buildings’...... 293 Patel, Dr J; Hicks, Mr D; Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 293 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 294 Clean Coal Technology ...... 294 Greener Prisons ...... 295 Queensland Roads ...... 295 Energy Efficient Schools and TAFE Campuses ...... 296 ecoBiz ...... 296 Road Awareness and Accident Prevention Program ...... 297 Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Campaigns ...... 297 Child Safety ...... 298 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 298 Report ...... 298 Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee ‘Alert Digest Issue No. 2 of 2007’...... 298 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 298 Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006 ...... 298 PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT ...... 299 Water Supply ...... 299 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 299 Water Restrictions ...... 299 Water Infrastructure ...... 300 Aboriginal Communities, Meeting with Mayors ...... 300 Water Infrastructure ...... 301 WorkChoices ...... 302 Tabled paper: Paper, dated February 2007, by David Peetz, Griffith University titled ‘Brave New Work Choices: What is the Story So Far? ‘...... 302 Tabled paper: Paper, dated February 2007, by David Peetz, Griffith University titled ‘Collateral Damage: Women and the Workchoices Battlefield’...... 302 Housing Density, Water Supply ...... 302 Energy Retail Asset Sales ...... 303 Hook Point Beach, Fraser Island ...... 303 Department of Public Works and Department of Housing ...... 304 Nambour Hospital ...... 304 Pacific Motorway ...... 305 Bradfield Scheme ...... 306 Tabled paper: Extract from Hansard (pages 4084-4085) dated 24 October 2002 in relation to the Bradfield Scheme...... 306 Tabled paper: Extract from Hansard (page 2939) dated 28 September 2005 in relation to the Bradfield Scheme...... 306 Smoke Alarms ...... 306 Bradfield Scheme ...... 307 Murray-Darling Basin ...... 308 Water Wastage ...... 308 Young People with Disabilities ...... 309 Water Weed Control ...... 310 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 310 Water Supply ...... 310 Moggill Electorate; Ambulance Response Times ...... 311 Gold Coast Tourism; Liberal Party ...... 312 Ashgrove Climate Action Group ...... 313 Prep Year ...... 314 Tabled paper: Transcripts of weblog contributions by prep teachers ‘Sarah’ and ‘John’ in relation to prep teaching...... 315 International Aviation Industry; Climate Change ...... 315 Land Valuations ...... 316 North Keppel Island Environmental Education Centre ...... 317 Queensland Air Museum ...... 318 Climate Change ...... 319 Nanango Electorate, Water Shortages ...... 320 Clean Coal Technology ...... 321 STATUTORY BODIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 322 First Reading ...... 322 Second Reading ...... 322 PLANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 323 First Reading ...... 323 Second Reading ...... 323 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 20 February 2007

NUCLEAR FACILITIES PROHIBITION BILL ...... 324 Second Reading ...... 324 Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time...... 356 Resolved in the affirmative...... 356 Consideration in Detail ...... 356 Clauses 1 to 24, as read, agreed to...... 356 Schedule, as read, agreed to...... 356 Third Reading ...... 356 Long Title ...... 356 TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL ...... 356 Second Reading ...... 356 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 362 Coppabella Mine ...... 362 Tabled paper: Copies of extracts from the Minutes of meetings of the Executive Council of Queensland held on 16 May 2002 and 5 September 2002...... 362 TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL ...... 362 Second Reading ...... 362 ADJOURNMENT ...... 382 Patel, Dr J, Compensation ...... 382 Tabled paper: Copies of correspondence from Mr Ian Fleming of Queensland Patient Support Group Inc to Premier dated 6 December 2006 concerning patient support group funding of costs...... 382 Tabled paper: Correspondence from Mr Fleming to Mr Rob Messenger MP dated 16 February 2007 concerning Attorney General correspondence and visit...... 382 Tabled paper: Notes from an interview of Ms Leean Van Loon conducted by Ms Melinda Bradford at the Burnett Electorate Office dated 15 February 2007...... 383 Cerebral Palsy League, Colour Your Day Appeal; Bullets ...... 383 Bradfield Scheme ...... 383 Ipswich Motorway ...... 384 Coolum Ambulance Station ...... 384 Community Living Association ...... 385 Brisbane Road Car Park, Mooloolaba ...... 386 AusLink ...... 386 Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries ...... 387 Gold Coast City Council; Redistribution of Boundaries ...... 387 Tabled paper: Three electoral boundary review maps for the Gold Coast City Council...... 388 ATTENDANCE ...... 388 20 Feb 2007 Legislative Assembly 285 TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2007

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. MF Reynolds, ) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

ASSENT TO BILLS Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that I have received from Her Excellency the Governor a letter in respect of assent to certain bills, the contents of which will be incorporated in the Record of Proceedings. I table the letter for the information of members. 16 February 2007 The Honourable M.F. Reynolds, AM, MP Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Parliament House George Street BRISBANE QLD 4000 I hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly that the following Bills, having been passed by the Legislative Assembly and having been presented for the Royal Assent, were assented to in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on the date shown: Date of Assent: 16 February 2007 "A Bill for An Act to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005, and for other purposes." "A Bill for An Act to amend the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and other Acts administered by the Attorney- General and Minister for Justice and Women." "A Bill for An Act to amend the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000 and other Acts." The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely Governor Tabled paper: Letter, dated 16 February 2007, from Her Excellency the Governor to Mr Speaker advising of assent to Bills.

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

Retirement of Clerk Assistant and Sergeant-at-Arms Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I announce to the parliament today that our Clerk Assistant and Sergeant-at-Arms, Ian Thompson, has announced his intention to retire. Ian’s last day with the service will be 2 March 2007, so importantly this is Ian’s last sitting week. I indicated to the Clerk Assistant before that there are two to go after today. Ian is one of the longest-serving parliamentary officers that we have had. He has carried out his work in an extraordinarily professional manner to a range of different Speakers over that period of time. Ian began his career in the Public Service in 1967—40 years ago. We always thought that he was much younger than he looks! Initially employed by the Housing Commission, Ian came to parliament in 1973. Ian moved from administrative duties at parliament to procedural duties in 1977 and came to his current position in 1993. Ian will be missed by all members of staff, none more so than by the whips during the counting of divisions! He is a man who has a keen eye for numbers, and I am not talking about any honourable members! I am sure that all members will join with me in wishing Ian the very best in his retirement. Honourable members: Hear, hear!

PROCEDURE

Speaker’s Statement—Parliamentary Language Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I want to take this opportunity to remind members that standing orders and practice and procedures prevent, amongst other things, unparliamentary language, personal reflections on other members and members addressing each other directly across the chamber. My comments are to members of the government, members of the executive government, members of the opposition and members of the parliament as a whole. All of these rules are aimed at ensuring debate and questioning on issues rather than personal attacks across the chamber. Unparliamentary language is difficult to define and no exhaustive list of expressions has ever been able 286 Tabled Papers 20 Feb 2007 to be provided. It has been held by rulings by previous Speakers, with which I concur, that it is basically 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—does not mean that it is acceptable to the dignity of this House. A further and very separate matter relates to personal reflections. Standing order 234 provides that imputations and improper motives, personal reflections and unbecoming or offensive words in relation to another member are disorderly. A member has a right to require the withdrawal of such reflections. Personal reflections are simply not allowed. I ask members to play the ball, not the player in debates in this House. Generally, if the affected member believes a statement is a reflection, then the chair will require a withdrawal and will not make an objective assessment. Of course, members should be able to tolerate a certain level of criticism as this should be a House of some vigorous debate, and I know that often withdrawal is sought in trivial circumstances. I also remind members that the behaviour of one member in the House reflects on all members and the dignity of the House generally. I call on members to help me to uphold the dignity of this House and the respect of the Queensland public by behaving with dignity.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Public Dental Services Mr Hobbs from 821 petitioners requesting the House to stop limiting the number of public patients that dentists employed by Queensland Health can treat; pass legislation to allow the operation in Queensland of the Public Sector Dental Workforce Scheme; allow the public sector dentist based in St George to open clinics in Dirranbandi and Mungindi and appoint two dentists to the vacant positions in Roma.

Kulangoor, Landfill Mr Wellington, two petitions, from 110 petitioners in total, requesting the House to reject the application by Maroochy Shire Council for a proposed landfill site at Ferntree Creek Road Kulangoor.

TABLED 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— 12 February 2007— • Electricity Industry Retail Marketing Conduct Rules made under the Electricity Act 1994 • Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to a paper petition (753-06) presented by Mrs Stuckey from 1114 petitioners regarding the proposed Needle Exchange Program for 9 / 5th Avenue Palm Beach • Interim Government response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to the Select Committee on Travelsafe Report No. 46—Getting Tough on Drink Drivers • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition (750-06) presented by Mr Dickson from 151 petitioners requesting a public bus service for the residents of ‘The Palms’, Melody Court, Warana 13 February 2007— • Response from the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport (Mr Fraser) to a paper petition (758-06) presented by Mr Moorhead from 730 petitioners regarding regulation of restricted dogs under Chapter 17A of the Local Government Act 1993 14 February 2007— • Erratum to the Second Reading Speech for the Wild Rivers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 15 February 2007— • Response from the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport (Mr Fraser) to two paper petitions (715-06 & 722- 06) presented by Mr Wellington from 726 and 1067 petitioners respectively regarding the proposed landfill site at Ferntree Creek Road, Kulangoor 16 February 2007— • Explanation from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to the Legislative Assembly regarding an extension of time for the tabling of the Health Services Foundation Annual Report 2005-06 STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Professional Standards Act 2007— • Professional Standards Regulation 2007, No. 9 Local Government Act 1993— • Local Government (Dissolution of Johnstone Shire Council) Regulation 2007, No. 10 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— • Transport Legislation and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2007, No. 11 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— • Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Another Regulation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2007, No. 12 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 287

Electricity Act 1994— • Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2007, No. 13 REPORT TABLED BY THE CLERK The following report was tabled by the Clerk— Report pursuant to Standing Order 158 (Clerical errors or formal changes to any bill) detailing amendments to certain Bills, made by the Clerk, prior to assent by Her Excellency the Governor, viz— Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 Amendments made to Bill Short title and consequential references to short title— Omit— ‘Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Act 2006’ Insert— ‘Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Act 2007’. Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 Amendments made to Bill Short title and consequential references to short title— Omit— ‘Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Act 2006’ Insert— ‘Vocational Education, Training and Employment and Other Acts Amendment Act 2007’. State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 Amendments made to Bill Long title— Omit— ‘A Bill for An Act to amend the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and other Acts administered by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Women’. Insert— ‘A Bill for An Act to amend the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 and other Acts administered by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Women’. Short title and consequential references to short title— Omit— ‘State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006’ Insert— ‘State Penalties Enforcement and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2007’.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

World Athletics Championships Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.37 am): The eight-man evaluation commission of the International Association of Athletics Federations is currently in Brisbane. The members of this commission are assessing our city’s infrastructure as well as the Queensland Sports and Athletics Centre at Nathan as part of our bid for the 2011 world championships in athletics. I think we would be great hosts—in fact I know we would—and could stage one of the most successful championships if given the chance. While the bid process is very competitive and rarely does a city win first time round, I am very sure our wonderful weather, first-class facilities and vibrant cultural and social life will prove an attractive lure. Last week I met with the President of the IAAF, Lamine Diack, and expressed my 100 per cent support for this bid. The minister for local government and sport, Andrew Fraser, was also with me. Held every two years, the world championships are one of the biggest international sporting events attracting 3,200 world-class athletes, officials from over 200 countries and more than half a million spectators. Not only would a successful bid provide a massive boost to the local economy and create jobs, it would also expose the beauty of the Smart State to the world yet again and be a significant catalyst for increased tourism to this state. The minister for local government and I will be hosting the delegation later on this evening. It is led by IAAF Vice-President Helmut Digle, the German vice-president. Obviously we will be doing everything we can to win this bid. I acknowledge the support of Lord Mayor Campbell Newman and David Hinchliffe, the majority leader of the council, both of whom will be accompanying me to Kenya to make the formal bid. 288 Ministerial Statements 20 Feb 2007

Purified Recycled Water Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 am): My government is taking action to secure future water supply for the south-east, which is currently in the grips of the worst on record. We have committed to a range of new water initiatives, including new and a desalination plant on the Gold Coast, but we still need to secure additional water supply sources. The introduction of purified recycled water will provide this additional source to meet increased demand and sustain future growth in the south-east corner. However, while purified recycled water is a 100 per cent safe source of drinking water, understandably Queenslanders have questions that deserve answers. Many members of this House have approached me and the Deputy Premier with questions from constituents, and today I am pleased to provide south-east Queensland members with a purified recycled water information and tasting kit. This kit contains fact sheets, useful contact lists and, importantly, sample bottles of NEWater, Singapore’s purified recycled water. I table the kit for the information of all members. Tabled paper: Kit by the Queensland Government addressed to South East Queensland Members containing fact sheets in relation to purified recycled water This morning the kits will be delivered to the parliamentary offices of the 60 south-east Queensland members. They will allow members to offer taste samples to their constituents. I stress that this is only the beginning. In coming weeks we will have a much more substantial supply of the bottled water, which will also be provided to members to assist them in addressing the questions and concerns of constituents. I urge members to use these kits as a tool and to work with the government to provide south-east Queenslanders with the facts about purified recycled water. Ministerial Expenses Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 am): I remain committed to running an open and accountable government and as such I lay upon the table of the House the public report of ministerial expenses for the period 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. The public report clearly and transparently details to members of this House the expenses of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their offices. Tabled paper: Public Reports of Ministerial Expenses for the period 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. This report demonstrates that my government continues to be mindful of its fiscal responsibilities. Salary costs have increased slightly by one per cent or $86,000. This includes enterprise bargaining pay rises offset by some staff vacancies, including where staff assisted the Cyclone Larry relief effort. Travel and communication associated costs also increased during this time, which is typical when an election period is included. It also reflects a greater regional representation within my ministry. Administrative costs have increased by nine per cent or $447,600. However, I must highlight that this increase includes costs of over $200,000 for an upgrade to the ministerial and opposition computer networks, which I think most people would believe is appropriate and necessary. Due to this network upgrade, depreciation costs were also up compared to last year. This increase of $130,000 was largely due to computer equipment reaching the end of its useful life and being fully depreciated before the upgrade. Overall, expenditure has increased by 4.6 per cent or $664,400 compared to the same period in 2005. I have largely explained why. However, again I highlight that a large portion of this relates to upgrading computer networks, which is a one-off cost. The upgrade excluded, the increase in expenditure is 2.3 per cent on last year, which is considerably less than changes in the consumer price index for the same period, which was 3.4 per cent. My government continues to be prudent and responsible in its spending. Council for the Australian Federation Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 am): On Friday 9 of this month in I met with my state and territory colleagues for a very successful gathering of the Council for the Australian Federation. We reached agreement in a number of areas of vital national policy, including climate change, health care, water and mutual recognition of occupational licences. The premiers and chief ministers signed a landmark declaration on climate change and we have also called on the Commonwealth government to join us in acting to stop the acceleration of climate change. In an historic move, the council agreed to progress a national emissions trading scheme. The states and territories have already taken the lead on this issue by establishing the National Emissions Trading Task Force, which the Prime Minister is now duplicating. The council has called on the federal government to work with the existing task force to ensure a coordinated response. I also acted to ensure that there will be protection for the Queensland coal industry and the many thousands of Queenslanders who depend upon the industry for their livelihood as we work together towards creating clean coal technology—an obsession of the Queensland government. 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 289

Our support for an emissions trading scheme is subject to six principles— 1. Commonwealth participation is essential; 2. A very significant priority is the need to stimulate research and investment in renewable technologies, innovative carbon capture technology and clean coal technologies that maximise the economic benefits from Australia’s plentiful coal reserves; 3. Permit auction revenues should be divided among states and territories in a way that produces equitable outcomes; 4. Energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries should be protected from the impact of the scheme while competing nations are not subject to commensurate emissions reduction policies; 5. The scheme design addresses the issue of providing greater long-term certainty for investors in energy and energy-intensive industries; and 6. The scheme must be implemented as part of a coherent package of measures, including those in sectors not initially covered by the trading scheme. At the meeting I also proposed that a constitutional convention on federalism be held in 2008. This was met with strong support from other first ministers. Together, the states and territories will use the Council for the Australian Federation to put together this convention and take an important step towards ensuring the longevity of Australia’s federal system. On the issue of nuclear enrichment and energy generation, I led the council’s call to the federal government to assure the Australian people that their states and territories will not agree to nuclear power plants being built in their neighbourhoods. We know there is no need for nuclear power in a nation that has the technology to provide clean coal, natural gas and renewable energy—forms of energy that are more cost-effective and do not come with the risks of nuclear generation. There was also discussion on the severe drought that is impacting on southern Australia and large parts of Queensland in particular. The council agreed with me that we must demand that the federal government streamline its assessment processing for farmers seeking exceptional circumstances assistance. Farmers and the communities that depend upon them are suffering in terrible drought conditions and should not have to contend with unnecessary federal government red tape to get the support they need. The achievements of this meeting demonstrate the strength of the states and territories, through the Council for the Australian Federation, to take the lead on matters of national significance in the absence of strong federal government leadership. For further details on the meeting, I refer members to the communique that was released on 9 February and which I now table for the information of members. I have asked for copies to be prepared and distributed to the House and to all members. Tabled paper: Council of Australian Federation Communique dated 9 February 2007. Atherton Community Cabinet Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 am): I report to the House that earlier this month my government celebrated an historic occasion, the Atherton community cabinet—our 100th since being elected. Since these community forums began back in July 1998, more than 50,000 people have had the opportunity to participate in this popular process. For the information of members, I table a brochure produced to commemorate the 100th community cabinet. Again, members will receive copies. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Tabled paper: Brochure by the Queensland Government, dated February 2007, titled ‘Community Cabinet—taking Government to the people’. Leave granted. The face to face meetings have resulted in countless problems being solved and led to a new level of community consultation. A century of Community Cabinets across the State has attracted almost 8,000 formal deputations. The record number of deputations was 208 at Noosa in August 2003 and there was more than 150 in Atherton. I met with a diverse range of groups including the Mareeba Banana Growers, the Atherton Shire Council and the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health. There were also numerous individual deputations and many group ones ranging from the Tableland Womens Centre, through to the Hinterland Railway Interest Society. Mr Speaker, We are very proud of the process we put in place nine years ago—over that time community cabinets have given thousands of Queenslanders greater access to government. Growing up in Atherton left me with the impression that the further you were from the capital the more you were ignored by Government. When I was State Secretary of the Labor Party back in the early 80s, the State President, Denis Murphy, and myself used to fly around Queensland in a hired Cessna. We wanted to hear the voice of regional and rural Queensland and those trips were invaluable in providing an insight to what Queenslanders wanted from good Government. When our Government was elected we set up the Community Cabinet process with the support of the independent Member for Nicklin Peter Wellington. It was a formal way to give a voice to regional and rural concerns—people didn’t have to come to us, we came to them. 290 Ministerial Statements 20 Feb 2007

Smart State Ambassadors Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): I report to the House that four more outstanding Queenslanders have agreed to become Smart State ambassadors and spread the word about the dynamic, intellectual and creative energy in Queensland. This is about continuing to change the culture to take advantage of innovation in the Smart State. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. The new ambassadors are cancer researcher, Professor Ian Frazer, Academy Award winner for visual effects John Cox, climate change pioneer Professor Ian Lowe and Griffith University Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian O’Connor. The four new ambassadors represent excellence in Education and Social Policy, Health and Scientific Research, Environment and Sustainability and Creative Industries and Technology. They join our existing ambassadors Professor Glyn Davis, Professor John Hay, Professor Peter Andrews and Professor Peter Coaldrake in this important role. Our new ambassadors will be officially inducted during a scientific forum at the State Library later today. The Smart State Ambassadors demonstrate the great breadth of the Smart State and show that Queensland has world class innovators across the whole spectrum of scientific and creative endeavour. I am also delighted to announce the creation of a special Smart State grant in honour of cervical cancer vaccine co-developer, the late Dr Jian Zhou. The Dr Jian Zhou Smart State Fellowship for Immunology and Cancer Research is a special one-off research grant worth three quarters of a million dollars over three years and is made available under round two of the Smart State innovations Fund. It is the first formal recognition by the Government of Dr Zhou’s significant contribution to the development of Gardasil, the world’s first cervical cancer vaccine. Dr Zhou died suddenly in 1999, aged just 42 years. Chinese New Year Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): Today I also want to pay tribute to the Australian Chinese community. I do that on the eve of Chinese New Year. Last night at Parliament House my ministers and I hosted a special Chinese New Year reception. The reception was an opportunity to acknowledge the significant contribution that the Chinese community makes to Queensland. I acknowledge the arrival in Queensland of the new Consul-General for the People’s Republic of China, Consul-General Ren. As many members would know, Madam Liu Fei, who was the first consul here, did an excellent job. I acknowledge that today. When her term expired, the People’s Republic of China upgraded the status of the consul to consul-general. I welcome Consul-General Ren and indicate our willingness to work with him. I seek leave to incorporate more details in Hansard. Leave granted. The reception provided networking opportunities for a range of community leaders and a chance to wish each other a Happy New Year. As most members know, Sunday February 18 marked the start of the traditional 15 day Chinese New Year celebrations. On Sunday evening I also had the privilege of officially opening the Chinese New Year Festival. This year it is a particularly auspicious celebration as 2007 is the Year of the "Golden" Pig—an occurrence which happens only once in every 60 years. Chinese tradition is that any Year of the Pig will be a lucky year and a good time to have children. It is considered especially lucky in a "Golden" year. After a great 2006 for Queensland and the Queensland economy, those sentiments augur well for an even better 2007. The Chinese-Australian community is a vibrant community that has made a great contribution to our State. It has enriched our intellectual, cultural and economic life of Queensland. To those sentiments I can only add Xin Nian Kuai Le or Happy New year. World Junior Dancesport Championships Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.48 am): This morning I notice that there have been some press reports in relation to the World Junior Dancesport Championships. My government is providing support to those young Queenslanders who are going to Moscow. I seek leave to incorporate details in Hansard. Leave granted. Mr Speaker members may have seen a photograph in today’s Courier Mail of two bright young Queenslanders tripping the light fantastic. 14 year old Declan Taylor and his dance partner 12 year old Kirsty Andlovec were named Australia’s Junior Dancesport Champions in December. They have won the right to represent our country at the World Junior Dancesport Championships in Moscow in April. Today I am pleased to announce that the Queensland Government will be supporting these talented young people by providing a grant of $12,000 to allow them to travel with their parents to the championships. As members know the Queensland Government is establishing a strong relationship with the Russian authorities—no doubt Kirsty and Declan will further strengthen this valuable relationship. 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 291

Northern Australia Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 am): Northern Australia is rapidly emerging as Australia’s new economic frontier. The region has water and a wealth of mineral resources, including iron ore in the Pilbara, base metals such as silver, lead, zinc and copper in Queensland and the Northern Territory, together with a rich supply of natural gas in the north-western shelf and Timor Sea, and large proven reserves of coal seam gas in the Surat and Bowen basins. Now is the time to attract investment to unlock the new opportunities for value-adding our natural resources. Here in Queensland we have an abundance of resources, a strong industry presence and a growing population outside of Brisbane. We are also well advanced in developing our strategies to support the growth and development of our state’s northern economic triangle between Townsville, Bowen and Mount Isa. This area has the potential to become one of the world’s great export zones. Imagine what could be possible if Queensland joined forces with the territory and the west to identify our common strengths and opportunities. Between us we have the resources—including water—to support the emergence of industries that value-add to our natural resources, such as steel making, aluminium refining and zinc and copper processing. We also have the energy resources to make this a reality. That is why we are investing in the development of new technologies to secure the sustainability of our energy sector such as clean coal. We have the population, skills development programs and export infrastructure to go even further. Together we can make a serious contribution to the nation’s economy. The Top End is the ideal geographic gateway for exports, with our region just starting to experience the insatiable appetites of China and India—which will become two of the biggest economies, if not the biggest economies, in the world this century—let alone the demand for resources, products and services from right across the Asia-Pacific region. Melbourne, Canberra and Sydney have played an historic role in Australia’s economic and cultural development, but the dynamics for this century have changed. Fundamentally, the old power axis on our south-eastern seaboard has run its course. Ironically, our military planners during World War II were prepared to abandon Australia’s north. But the world has moved on. The economic balance has tilted northwards and Australia will continue to shift further north as the 21st century unfolds. It is time to look above the Brisbane line. Before Easter I will meet with the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and the Western Australian Premier, Alan Carpenter, to plan further for the future of industry and exports across the Top End. We will work with Senator Bill Heffernan, who is in charge of the Prime Minister’s strategy for the long-term future of the north, because we believe that in the long term Australia will move north and we believe that Queensland is in an ideal location to take advantage of that.

Powerdirect Australia Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.51 am): I am very pleased to advise the House of another outstanding result from the government’s energy sale process. Yesterday the Premier, the Minister for Mines and Energy and I were pleased to announce the sale of former Ergon Energy retailer, Powerdirect Australia, to AGL for a spectacular $1.203 billion. This sale represents the conclusion of the energy sales process announced in April last year. Since then I have updated the House as each sale process concluded. Members may recall the successful completion of the sale of the Allgas distribution business in November 2006 to Australian Pipeline Trust for $535 million. This was followed by the sale of Sun Retail to Origin Energy for $1.202 billion and Sungas to AGL for $75 million, completed on 1 February. The sale of Powerdirect Australia to AGL includes approximately 390,000 electricity customers in the northern part of the Energex electricity region and Ergon Energy’s existing competitive retail business. This is clearly another outstanding result for the state in what has been a tremendously successful sales process. The government has exceeded all expectations, raising a gross total of more than $3.015 billion from the sale of these businesses over the past 10 months. There has been some speculation about the likely competitive outcomes, given that AGL and the buyer of the other part of Energex, Origin, have now confirmed that they are in formal merger talks. I can confirm that I have spoken personally with the head of the ACCC, Mr Graeme Samuel, who has confirmed to me that the ACCC will take a very active interest in maintaining a competitive energy market here in Queensland. Clearly, the question of any merger between these players will need to take into account the assets they have here in Queensland. The government’s motivation in this process was not about a need for funds, as is sometimes the case in other jurisdictions; rather, it was motivated by a desire to increase economic activity and energy competition and, importantly, to increase competition to secure better outcomes for consumers. So we want to see those competitive outcomes remain and we would expect the ACCC to take a very active role if any merger between these two national players becomes a reality in the coming months or years. 292 Ministerial Statements 20 Feb 2007

As I have previously outlined in this House, the proceeds from these sales will be invested into the Queensland Future Growth Fund. This government will build a bigger and better future for Queensland, investing in clean coal technology, water and other transport and energy infrastructure. Although the achievements speak for themselves, having exceeded our targets and met our deadlines, I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have been involved in making these sales such a great success. The scheduled completion of the Powerdirect Australia sale on 1 March will mark the formal completion of the sales process. Going forward, however, I will be reporting to the House on the progress of those projects which are to be funded through the Queensland Future Growth Fund.

Sugarcane Smut Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (9.55 am): I have received, along with my colleague the minister for state development, John Mickel, a report on the economic impact of sugarcane smut on the Queensland sugar cane industry by Dr David Watson. I now table that report. Tabled paper: Report, dated 18 February 2007, by Dr David Watson titled ‘The Economic Impact of Sugarcane Smut on the Queensland Sugarcane Industry—Final Report’. Dr Watson has provided a thorough independent assessment of the impact of the disease on the sugar industry and made a number of important recommendations to facilitate economic recovery. The report was commissioned in November last year when it became clear that cane smut was widespread and established and that it was no longer possible to prevent or control its spread. The Queensland government moved from a containment and eradication approach to a long-term economic management approach, driven largely by industry, hand in hand with Canegrowers and BSES. After studying the report, I am pleased to inform the House that the impact of sugarcane smut is not as great as was initially expected. The report contains a number of recommendations, including that normal planting should continue uninterrupted; that the industry should replace smut-susceptible varieties with smut-resistant varieties during their normal cycle; that decisions relating to the approved variety lists for planting should be made on the basis of consultation with and advice from BSES and industry in each of Queensland’s six pest quarantine areas; and that the government should increase its input into research and the breeding of smut-resistant varieties of cane. Concurrently, the government will also move an amendment to the Plant Protection Act to ensure that the recommendations contained within the Watson report can be implemented. In the longer term, the integrity of Queensland’s biosecurity legislation will be assured by a comprehensive review, involving industry, to be completed by June 2008. The Watson report has been considered by my cabinet colleagues, who, in endorsing the recommendations, have reiterated this government’s commitment to a multibillion-dollar industry. This is in stark contrast to a federal government that has turned its back on growers. I would like to congratulate Dr Watson and his working group on this report. I commend the report to the House.

Energy Policy Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (9.57 am): There is global recognition of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and Queensland is on the front foot. We are investing in a range of initiatives to encourage new technology, renewable energy and smarter energy use. Our $50 million energy policy has helped diversify the state’s generation mix. We now have hydro, gas, biomass, wind and bagasse. Our world-leading 13 per cent gas scheme requires retailers and other large electricity users to source at least 13 per cent of their electricity from gas-fired generation. We have around 3,000 megawatts of gas-fired generation projects on the drawing board. There is our Windy Hill Wind Farm on the Atherton Tablelands; Australia’s only working geothermal power station in Birdsville; Swanbank E, the country’s newest and most advanced gas-fired power station; Swanbank B’s landfill gas supply that generates green energy; and a macadamia nutshell biomass plant in Gympie and a bagasse-fired plant near Childers. Some of these are big, some are small, but most are cutting-edge technology. All up, they are saving tens of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. We are also developing the state’s first solar farm at Windorah. Then there is ZeroGen, a world- first demonstration power plant outside . It will be the first in the world to integrate the technologies of coal gasification and carbon capture and storage. The amount of carbon dioxide captured would be similar to taking 93,000 cars off the road for a year. Finally, there is CS Energy’s Oxy- fuel project near Biloela. It is expected to demonstrate that our coal fleet can be retrofitted with oxy-fuel technology, which will achieve even deeper cuts to carbon emissions. The smarter use of energy is the backbone of our $14 million Energy Choices election commitment. 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 293

Water Savings; Q-Fleet, Tree Planting

Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology) (9.59 am): Contrary to the assertions of the Sunday Mail on the weekend, we have every reason to be pleased with the rate of progress we have made in water saving in government buildings. I am pleased to inform the House that we have in fact cut the consumption in the top 30 water user buildings by 38 per cent in the past two years. Funding of $5.3 million has been allocated to the department’s Water Smart Buildings program. Contracts have been let for full water retrofits in seven major high-rise buildings in the Brisbane CBD, focusing on taps, showers, urinal adjustments and replacing single-flush toilets with dual-flush models. Last year, based on rate notices provided by the Brisbane City Council, the top 30 water user buildings owned by the department saved enough water to fill 286 Olympic standard swimming pools. I table a document which details the amount of water saved for each building.

Tabled paper: Table titled ‘Summary of Water Usage at BCC Buildings’. As an example, Queensland Police Headquarters, in the three months to November 2006, achieved water savings of more than 40 per cent—that is 42,579 kilolitres of water in a year. The Department of Public Works has a strong history of supporting environmental initiatives. Under my watch, Q-Fleet has created a huge carbon sink in Queensland. We have introduced hybrid vehicles to the fleet and planted trees to offset our vehicle use. The more than 180 hybrid vehicles in the government fleet have cut fuel consumption by 113,500 litres. Q-Fleet currently plants trees through Greenfleet, a national not-for-profit organisation that plants and nurtures native trees. For an annual subscription fee, Greenfleet plants enough trees to neutralise the carbon dioxide produced by an average vehicle over a year. The two main areas to benefit in Queensland in 2006 were the Elanda National Park and Belli Creek. These areas gained 18,400 new trees, representing a yearly offset of 5,000 tonnes of carbon gases once the trees are fully grown. The program provides the additional benefits of restoring native habitat and helping to reduce erosion and salinity problems. The Department of Public Works gets little credit for these environmental initiatives, but that will not stop us from doing them.

Patel, Dr J; Hicks, Mr D; Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hon. KG SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Premier in Western Queensland) (10.02 am): Last year I provided details on the progress of the special process established to provide fair and reasonable compensation to former patients of Jayant Patel. I can provide an update. There are 383 claims for compensation under the special process. To date, 175 claims have been settled. A further 20 claims are due to be mediated in Bundaberg next month. There are currently 48 claims which are not eligible for compensation. The number of claims regarded as not eligible can change. Indeed, there are another three claims which are currently being reconsidered after additional information was provided. My department is always happy to consider additional information in these matters. I want to ensure that the special process provides fair and reasonable access to compensation to the former patients. On the separate matter of David Hicks, I hope to join other state Attorneys-General in April in making representations to US Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General discussed the continuing detention of David Hicks at its meeting late last year. We were also briefed by Major Michael Mori, the US military lawyer for David Hicks. By speaking with the US Attorney-General, we can again highlight our concerns about the prolonged detention of Mr Hicks—considering much of his five years in detention has been without charge. We can also hear firsthand from the US Attorney-General. David Hicks is not a model citizen, but he is an Australian citizen. Hicks is entitled to a day in court and for justice to be served. On the matter of greenhouse gas emissions, I can confirm that Queensland courthouses are playing a role. Contracts were recently signed to buy renewable electricity for the next three years for several of our largest courts. These include the Supreme and District courts in Brisbane and the Beenleigh, Brisbane, Maroochydore and Southport Magistrates courts. By using renewable energy, these courthouses are helping to reduce the production of greenhouse gases. The department projects that by using renewable energy we will save 15,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions being produced. Australian households on average emit 14 tonnes of greenhouse gas each year, so the savings are the equivalent of more than 1,000 homes. 294 Ministerial Statements 20 Feb 2007

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hon. CA WALLACE (Thuringowa—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in ) (10.04 am): Since the mid 1950s Queensland has become hotter and drier. This is expected to continue. Our annual average temperatures are projected to increase by up to two degrees Celsius by 2030. Over the same period, rainfall is also expected to decrease by up to 13 per cent over much of the state. Because these climate changes will have fundamental effects on land, vegetation and water management, the Department of Natural Resources and Water has been working to better understand and prepare for them.

The Queensland government is doing all it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate. The Beattie government recently led the way in Australia when we announced the creation of the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence. The centre, which will initially have 54 staff, will provide policy advice and scientific information on the causes and consequences of climate change, its impacts on the community, the economy and the environment, and the responses we need to put in place. The centre will open its doors a little later in the year. Staff will be located at our science centre at Indooroopilly and in Toowoomba. We are currently recruiting policy experts.

We also are finalising a climate change adaptation action plan, which will be released in a few months. The plan builds on Queensland’s existing responses to the enhanced greenhouse effect and climate change outlined in the Queensland Greenhouse Strategy. The Beattie government’s decision to end broadscale land clearing on 31 December last year will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 20 megatonnes each year. This was a great decision of national and international environmental significance. The Howard government’s claim that Australia has met Kyoto targets was only made possible through the ending of broadscale clearing in this state by this government.

Along with the Environmental Protection Agency, we also run Environmental Partnerships as part of our Blueprint for the Bush program. Under the scheme, landholders are given incentive payments to preserve areas of conservation value on their properties. Under our Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme, homeowners receive rebates for products such as water tanks, water efficient washing machines and shower roses and pool covers. A total of $23.2 million has now been paid out under this highly popular scheme.

Clean Coal Technology

Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (10.07 am): Today I have positive news about the state of clean coal technology in Queensland. The department of state development has just committed $200,000 to a feasibility study into the establishment of a national low emissions gasification test facility in Queensland. The study will be carried out by the Brisbane based Centre for Low Emission Technology, a $26 million joint venture between the Queensland government, CSIRO and other industry stakeholders. The focus of their study is to develop cleaner ways to produce value-added products from coal and therefore dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from its production and use.

Coal gasification helps us to value-add to coal by breaking it down into a variety of products including electricity, hydrogen, synthetic gas, liquid fuels and even fertiliser. Gasification is a bridging technology to our future hydrogen economy. The Chief Executive Officer of the facility, Dr Kelly Thambimuthu, is also a member of the Clean Coal Technology Project Board, which was set up by cabinet in July last year. The board’s role is to administer the $300 million Queensland Future Growth Fund and lead the way in clean coal technology.

Queensland is at the forefront of fundamental research in key fields of clean coal technology, and we are currently developing a clean coal technology research and development framework. A key project is ZeroGen, a Stanwell Corporation proposal to build and operate a world-first demonstration project in . ZeroGen will investigate the viability of integrating coal based gasification with carbon capture and storage to produce low emission electricity. There is also the CS Energy oxy- fuel proposal to demonstrate oxy-fuel combustion on an existing 30 megawatt coal-fired boiler at the central Queensland Callide A Power Station. This technology could then be retrofitted to other existing power stations. There are many other exciting and progressive projects on the boil, but in closing I reiterate that the Queensland government is making every effort to ensure that the important coal industry can and will be a clean and green industry. 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 295

Greener Prisons Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.09 am): The drought has brought home the reality of climate change to all of us so today I want to detail how the state’s prisons are playing their part in reducing energy consumption and increasing water efficiency. Water efficiency management plans are being produced for each of Queensland’s 13 jails, which will result in savings of up to 35 megalitres a year—or 15 Olympic size swimming pools of water. Already our prisons have introduced measures such as restricting prisoner showers and using site-collected water on prison grounds. All non-essential hosing has been stopped and flow restrictors have been installed on taps and toilets. All new capital works will feature flow restrictors in all tapware, water efficient shower heads, dual- flush toilets in some instances and the use of vacuum toilets in newer centres, the inclusion of native vegetation into landscaping and consideration of rainwater harvesting and water reuse. Meanwhile, new prison sites, such as the prison precinct in the Gatton shire, will incorporate further measures such as vacuum drainage, roof water to be used for toilet flushing, time-limited showers, roof water for irrigation and central laundering. Prisons are also becoming greener when it comes to energy usage. An energy performance contract at the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre should lead to annual savings this financial year of $126,594 and a drop in carbon dioxide emissions by 603 tonnes. An energy study at Woodford Correctional Centre should help lead to savings of around 20 per cent, or $334,374, while another at the Wolston Correctional Centre should save $460,000 and result in over 3,000 fewer tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. This program will be extended across all secure centres over time. In addition, many offenders are helping to green our environment through community service orders that focus on environmental restoration. Projects have included bushland revegetation at the Loders Creek catchment area on the Gold Coast, the Dune Beach regeneration project at Maroochydore, the Petrie Creek regeneration project at Noosa and work with environmental group Save Our Waterways Now. Queensland Roads Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (10.12 am): It has been reported that the federal government will spend $19 billion on transport infrastructure in the next round of AusLink funding from 2009. That is Australia wide. But Queensland has a list of urgent projects which could account for every cent of that $19 billion. Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile admits that population and infrastructure pressures in Queensland means we deserve special attention. I have a list of projects that not only could be funded but also must be urgently funded under the next round of AusLink, if not sooner. There is the festering sore that is the Ipswich Motorway. The federal government should have come up with the money for that years ago, but we are still stuck in gridlock while half of the northern bypass money is wasted on studies. On 17 February the federal member for Moncrieff, Steven Ciobo, said in the Gold Coast Bulletin that the Gold Coast has a very good case to claw back some of the $330 million it pumps into fuel tax every year. But has he done anything to secure 50-50 funding for the Pacific Motorway? No. To show that he puts politics ahead of community interest, Mr Ciobo did not once say this in his taxpayer-funded newsletters and postcards and deliberately misled people about this in the lead-up to the state election. Just as Cameron Thompson has become the biggest delay to upgrading the Ipswich Motorway, Steven Ciobo has singled himself out amongst federal Liberals on the Gold Coast as the biggest delay to an upgrade of this vital link. The design work on the Nielsens Road interchange is done and the land is fully acquired. As soon as we receive a federal commitment to the upgrade we can call tenders within a month. We are only asking for six lanes on the Gateway Motorway north from Nudgee Road to the Bruce Highway and south from Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road to the Pacific Motorway. Then there is the Bruce Highway goat track. It needs four-laning between Caboolture to Cairns, a Gympie bypass, major flood improvements and a commitment on a Cardwell Range upgrade. The federal government talks a lot about economic productivity but what about other bottlenecks? Where is the cash for the Townsville port access road—which I notice is now promised by federal Labor—or the port of Brisbane motorway? If the federal government is serious about freight it would upgrade the crucial Brisbane to Townsville rail; upgrade the Gore Highway, which I was on the other day and which is desperately in need of further work, in particular in the Pittsworth and Millmerran areas; construct a second Toowoomba range crossing—the has been dudded for decades; or upgrade the Warrego Highway between Roma and Mitchell, which is a very important route in terms of carrying rural livestock. 296 Ministerial Statements 20 Feb 2007

The Brisbane urban corridor needs an injection of cash to provide relief. What about Campbell Newman’s northern link? There is no money for that at all. We have the worst National Highway in Australia. John Anderson has admitted that; the AusRAP report indicates it. It is about time we had a federal commitment. I noted that yesterday Lord Mayor Campbell Newman was out promoting the 100 per cent state government funded new services to the University of Queensland. Route 209 runs every 15 minutes on weekdays and every 30 minutes on weekends; route 169 between Eight Mile Plains and the university runs every 10 minutes during peak times and every 15 minutes on weekdays; and route 109 started on December 18 last year. This $3.2 million package, as I indicated, is 100 per cent state government funded. I welcome Campbell Newman’s support of 100 per cent state funding and I invite him to take a ride on any of our state funded services when he wants to promote them at any time.

Energy Efficient Schools and TAFE Campuses Hon. RJ WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Minister for Education and Training and Minister for the Arts) (10.15 am): As members have heard this morning, right across government departments are undertaking initiatives to save energy and water. Energy and water efficiency is not just good for the environment; it is good for the hip-pocket of Queensland taxpayers by saving funds that can be reinvested in other services. I am pleased to advise members that significant improvements are also being made in water saving and energy efficiency in schools and in TAFE campuses across the state. In the past 12 months, by careful management, we have been able to reduce water consumption in state schools from 7,766 megalitres to 6,122 megalitres. This is a saving in the order of 1,600 megalitres or the equivalent of 5,000 school swimming pools worth of water. Water-saving strategies are being applied across our schools including dual-flush toilets, pressure-reducing taps and waterless urinals. A review is currently underway of some 109 larger state schools to determine more comprehensive water-saving strategies and this will be completed by July 2007. All of our new schools incorporate water-saving devices. For example, the Burpengary Meadows State School, which opened this year, uses treated sewerage to irrigate the playing fields via an underground reticulation system. A similar recycling system to recycle waste water has been achieved by a partnership between Eatons Hill State School and the Pine Rivers Shire Council. In addition, 252 state schools, mostly in rural areas of south-east Queensland, have already installed water tanks with a further 46 schools currently installing them. In terms of energy efficiency, we have trialled stand-alone solar power systems in over 70 schools across Queensland. Not only do these systems reduce costs for the school but also the students are actively engaged in understanding the science of solar power generation. I also want to congratulate the Brisbane North TAFE Institute on its commitment to reducing water consumption. With six campuses serving over 30,000 students across Brisbane’s northern suburbs and in international markets, Brisbane North Institute of TAFE is one of Queensland’s largest training providers. Across its six campuses, Brisbane North TAFE has reduced its annual water consumption by over 90,000 kilolitres, down to almost a third of what was being used three years ago. Some of the most significant water savings have come from the horticulture faculty at the Grovely campus in my electorate. A number of strategies have been implemented by the teaching staff since 2004 to limit the amount of water used in the horticultural programs. A range of water miser plants have been developed, extra water tanks have been installed and there are more water recycling processes. The Grovely team has been working with the staff of the Roma Street Parklands and the Botanic Gardens to develop better ways of conserving water in these drought affected times. Lessons learned in conserving water in its own faculty have been well incorporated into the programs so that the students are learning from this experience.

ecoBiz Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (10.19 am): Queensland businesses are taking up the climate change challenge with vigour and the results will have great benefits for Queenslanders and our environment. To date, over 250 businesses across Queensland have joined the EPA’s ecoBiz program. This visionary program helps business identify and invest in environmentally sustainable business practices and technologies. Companies across the state are not only demonstrating that improved environmental performance equates to financial savings but also they are investing in their long-term viability as limited resources become ever more scarce and costly. 20 Feb 2007 Ministerial Statements 297

The Beattie government sees the ecoBiz program as the way forward. Ultimately, cutting resource consumption improves productivity and makes these companies more competitive. Sustainable companies also reap a range of other benefits including reduced risk, improved public profile and shareholder satisfaction. The Beattie government has already issued $1.53 million in rebates to ecoBiz companies to help them implement smarter, cleaner technologies. Collectively, these projects have the potential to save 577 megalitres of water, which is equivalent to 12,000 backyard swimming pools—enough energy to power 1,700 homes for a year—and reduce solid waste by 15,000 tonnes. They also have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17,840 tonnes, equal to taking 4,460 cars off the road for 12 months. A great example is the work of the GPT Group managed Riverside Centre, a 41-storey premium grade commercial building in the Brisbane CBD. GPT and property managers Jones Lang LaSalle have implemented a range of standard water-saving measures at the Riverside Centre, but they have also gone one step further by investing in an innovative project to recycle cooling tower waste water for reuse on site. In the planning stage this project was estimated to save three megalitres a year in potable water. However, in the first few months since the new system was commissioned in December, over 1.3 megalitres has already been recycled. I again congratulate those Queensland businesses who have joined the Ecobiz program and look forward to seeing more of them on our books in the future.

Road Awareness and Accident Prevention Program Hon. PD PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.21 am): The horrendous road toll on Queensland roads in February is an issue of importance to all Queenslanders and is a priority for our Emergency Services. There is serious concern that the number of road accident rescues and motor vehicle accidents that our firefighters attend is increasing year after year. In fact, the figure is up 20 per cent over the past four years. More than two people a day are cut out of crumpled cars. That is not the number of accidents that our firefighters attend; they attend over 10,000 accidents a year, but two a day must be cut out of their cars. With seven people dying in just one day earlier this month, the importance of programs like the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service’s Road Awareness and Accident Prevention—or RAAP—program are clear. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the RAAP program, and later this year the 200,000th year 12 student will complete the program. The RAAP program targets young drivers, primarily year 12 students, but it is also delivered to novice and prelicensed drivers in universities, TAFEs and even military facilities. The program, which is conducted by firefighters, is currently presented to around 90 per cent of all year 12 students in Queensland. I recommend that all members ensure their high schools offer their year 12 students this program. This year the RAAP program will be reassessed to ensure that we continue to stay relevant and to make sure we keep delivering important road safety messages while meeting the changing needs of our target audience. Here in Queensland 17- to 24-year-olds account for 30 per cent of all road fatalities, despite making up only 12 per cent of the population. The RAAP program aims to reduce this figure by providing year 12 students with a practical, interactive insight into what happens in a road accident, its aftermath and the effects on victims and their families. It is an effective and unique program that educates road users from a firefighter’s perspective, and the Beattie government will make sure that it continues to be delivered to young Queenslanders. I congratulate the minister, Paul Lucas, as well as his department on the great advertising program they have running at the moment. It really does sheet home to young people the consequences of road accidents.

Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Campaigns Hon. FW PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Minister for Disability Services Queensland, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Minister for Seniors and Youth) (10.24 am): Unfortunately, domestic and family violence continues to be a problem in Queensland communities. However, the Department of Communities has developed several successful initiatives that aim to reduce the incidence of domestic and family violence by challenging attitudes that perpetuate violence in relationships. While we recognise that men can also be victims of domestic and family violence, statistics show that 87 per cent of victims in Australia are women. That is why the Department of Communities ran a television advertising campaign during Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month in May last year targeting men who use abuse and violence in their relationships. The message was Domestic and family violence: See the signs. Be the solution. 298 Notice of Motion 20 Feb 2007

The result of this campaign was remarkable. During last May, calls to the statewide Mensline more than doubled, from a monthly average of about 300 calls to more than 760 calls. The success of this campaign meant that we repeated it during the recent Christmas–new year period, which can be a stressful time for some families. In fact, the incidence of domestic and family violence increases during the Christmas period, so our successful television advertisements were shown once again. Again, this campaign saw an increase in calls to the Mensline. Most importantly, of all calls received, there was an increase of 15 per cent in the number of perpetrators of domestic and family violence seeking support. Many of these callers indicated that they had sought support after seeing the advertisement on television. The Department of Communities will continue to use this successful campaign message for Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Month in May this year. As part of this month, the Queensland government will also recognise those people who make significant contributions in reducing violence in homes and the community through its annual awards program. Nominations for the awards will close on 12 March this year, and I encourage all members to support the people in their communities and submit nominations for an award in the various categories.

Child Safety

Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.25 am): There has been considerable publicity about a child safety case on the Gold Coast in which a mother is accused of attempting to poison her children. Child safety officers had visited the mother earlier in the day and made a decision to leave the children with their mother. The woman’s solicitor has heavily criticised Child Safety for that decision. The child safety department’s director-general has used special powers to publicly release information about the case to correct the record. The information provided by the director-general shows that on 8 February when child safety officers left the mother at home with her children there were no indications that any harm would come to them. The mother did not appear incapacitated by alcohol and was not making threats against herself or her children. The children were comfortable and happy. The child safety officers had previously interviewed the mother about an alleged threat she had made on 25 January and she had said she would never harm her children. Additionally, the officers were advised that the mother had undergone a psychiatric assessment and there were no concerns about her mental state. Nonetheless, to be sure, they had contacted the grandmother and arranged, cooperatively with the mother, for the children to be cared for by their grandmother that night. She had said that she was on her way to get the children before the officers left the house. I am satisfied that the child safety workers who attended acted appropriately and reasonably on the information available to them. Our child safety staff deal with more than 40,000 calls of suspected child abuse a year. They put up with lies and abuse from many of the parents involved in these notifications. Out of the thousands and thousands of investigations of abuse and thousands and thousands of decisions made each year by child safety officers, there will always be some decisions which, with the benefit of hindsight, should have been different. When perpetrators of abuse do not admit their failings, the protection of children will always be an imprecise science.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (10.28 am): I table the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 2 of 2007.

Tabled paper: Scrutiny of Legislation Committee ‘Alert Digest Issue No. 2 of 2007’.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (10.28 am): I give notice that I shall move—

That the Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006 and subordinate legislation 2006 No. 289 tabled in the parliament on 6 February 2007 be disallowed. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 299

PRIVATE MEMBER’S STATEMENT

Water Supply Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): Anyone who has followed Queensland politics over the last 20 years would have yesterday been bemused, confused or even flabbergasted at what they read in the state’s media. Seeing a Labor Party Premier standing up talking about the Bradfield Scheme would have left anybody with even a passing knowledge of Queensland politics shaking their heads. There has been one constant in this place for 20 years: the coalition parties have advocated the construction of water infrastructure right across the state. Labor governments and the Labor Party have poured scorn, derision and criticism on us for doing so. For 20 years that has been the one constant in this place. We all know that for the Bradfield Scheme is not about diverting water; it is about diverting attention. It is about diverting attention away from his government’s failings. This is a government that is hooked on diversions. Like a drug addict who needs a bigger hit each day to get the result that they want, so, too, the government needs a bigger diversion. It needs a bigger diversion each day, each week to get the result it wants. Last week it was building high-rise buildings in the Brisbane River. Yesterday it was diverting inland rivers. What are we going to be doing tomorrow? Towing icebergs from Antarctica or some other ridiculous diversion? It is all about diverting attention away from the things that this government is trying to hide. That is the question for the people of Queensland: what is it that the government is trying to hide? What are the revelations coming from those court cases that we cannot talk about? What is it that we are being diverted away from? We can talk about the water crisis and the impending disaster that is looming for the people of Brisbane. That in itself is, I think, enough reason for the Premier to try to divert attention.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Water Restrictions Mr SEENEY (10.31 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. While the Premier has been trying desperately to divert attention from the government’s failures, Brisbane people still do not know what is in store for them under level 5 water restrictions. Will the Premier today in the parliament face up to his failings and tell the people of Brisbane what level 5 water restrictions will involve and what impact they will have on the lifestyle of everyone in Brisbane? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. In terms of level 5 restrictions, we have established a Water Commission and a process to be followed by the commissioner, Elizabeth Nosworthy, and her team. That process involves consultation with the appropriate councils. As we know, the councils, by and large, own and control water. So there needs to be a consultative process involving the local councils. In terms of level 5 restrictions I should make the point that the Queensland Water Commission is a non-political organisation and it has responsibility for this. It introduced level 4 water restrictions on 1 November and overall consumption of water under level 4 water restrictions reduced by at least 30 per cent, which is a great outcome, representing 300 million litres per day. So with level 4 restrictions we saw people in the south-east corner respond to these restrictions in a positive way. Residential consumption is currently ranging between 170 and 190 litres per day per person. That is down from 300 litres per person per day before restrictions. As the level 4 business and industry water efficiency measures continue to be implemented, further savings will be delivered during the next few months. In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s question I want to start by applauding the community and the many hundreds of businesses and industry water users who have made significant inroads into water saving. However, without drought-breaking rain it is expected that additional savings will be required from all sectors within the community through new measures introduced under level 5 which are expected in the coming months. Unfortunately, because of the drought, yes, the Water Commission is looking at level 5 restrictions. The Queensland Water Commission is still working through the details of level 5 restrictions. It has not yet resolved the implementation date. It will determine the date. It has not determined it, but it is working on it now. The community response to this worst drought on record has been nothing short of extraordinary. Ordinary people throughout the community have responded to the call to reduce their water use around the home. The government has supported Home WaterWise. There are a number of other things that we are doing. I will not go through all of those water efficiencies because they are well known. 300 Questions Without Notice 20 Feb 2007

I want to talk specifically about some of the measures that I know the Water Commission is looking at because it is a fair question from the Leader of the Opposition. On return from leave, the Deputy Premier and I met with the Water Commissioner. One of the areas that the Water Commissioner is concerned about is the fact that there are some people who are using excessive amounts of water. What she is seeking to do is to set in place a process to try to establish why that is the case. We are not talking about fines. We are trying to persuade people to reduce their water consumption. There is a percentage—and I do not have the detail in my head—of people who are using excessive water. One of the measures of level 5 may well be communicating through councils with those people who are using excessive water to understand why that is the case. It may well be that people are watering their gardens at 3 am, in which case that should be pursued, or it may well be good reasons like, for example, they may be large families that have a good reason for using excess water. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the Leader of the Opposition for his second question, I welcome to the gallery this morning teachers and students from the Burpengary State School in the electorate of Kallangur, which is represented in this place by the Hon. Ken Hayward. Water Infrastructure Mr SEENEY: My second question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. Can the Deputy Premier confirm that, while the Premier has been desperately trying to divert everyone’s attention, construction of the recycled water pipeline has been progressing at a rate that is equivalent to one kilometre per month? Can she tell us when the construction rate will increase from the one kilometre per month that she is achieving now to the world record rate of 10 kilometres per month that she will need to achieve to prevent Brisbane running out of water? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I always welcome the opportunity to talk about progress on the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme and to advise members, yet again, that work is proceeding and is on track to meet the revised targets that I outlined to the House in November last year. I have seen these attempts by the team of engineers opposite to speculate about the progress at which the pipes are being laid. Can I make two points so that members understand how this project is being rolled out. Overwhelmingly the timing of the project is driven by the construction and full operational capacity of the three new advanced water treatment plants. While the laying of the pipes is a critical part of the project, obviously that is actually a relative straightforward labour and engineering task. It is relatively flat land. The stage 1A land has been acquired. The easement and this corridor is settled. So, while that obviously is a part of the program, having the pipes laid is absolutely pointless if we do not have the treated purified water to go through those pipes. That is by far the most complex part. That is what is actually driving the timing on the project. Secondly, I can advise members that, like all major projects, we will start with a certain work capacity and build that up over the progress of the project. To date the numbers in terms of the laying of the pipes have reflected the fact that there have been one or two teams to start with and there are now six work teams laying pipes. Based on the current work rate—that is, the rate at which pipes are being laid today—by the end of December 2008 we will have over 226 kilometres of pipe laid versus the 200 kilometres that we need. Even at the current rate, without any further build-up of capacity, we are well on track to actually lay more pipe than is necessary for the project. I thank the member opposite for the opportunity to explain that to the House. I am actually intrigued by the member’s continued interest in this pipeline. For those who were in the House in August last year, when the acceleration of this pipeline was the subject of a new water regulation there were 24 people who voted against the pipeline. When we go to the voting record of the House we will see the name Seeney and we will see the name Flegg, but we will not see the names of any members on this side of the House under the noes. Mr Lucas: You won’t see Caltabiano. Ms BLIGH: We will. Mr Lucas: You’ll see him there but you won’t see him here. Ms BLIGH: We will see Caltabiano on the list of noes but no longer in the House. I think it is the height of hypocrisy to come in here and complain about a project that those opposite voted against. Aboriginal Communities, Meeting with Mayors Mr O’BRIEN: My question without notice is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise of the recent outcomes of the meeting with mayors of Queensland’s Aboriginal communities. Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Cook for this question, because, as he knows as the member in this House who represents more Indigenous Queenslanders than any other member, this is an important issue both for him and for the government. I acknowledge his attendance at this meeting and his support for improving the lives of Indigenous Queenslanders. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 301

Following the community cabinet meeting in Atherton, I also met with the mayors of the Queensland Aboriginal councils in Atherton. That meeting was attended by me and six of my other ministerial colleagues and, indeed, the member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, and the member Barron River, Stephen Wettenhall. That representation gives members some idea how important this meeting was. This was a very positive and constructive meeting. Working together, my government and the councils agreed to take positive action in vital areas including health, education, policing and justice. Indeed, our Aboriginal communities, as we all know, need better education, health and policing support, and a cooperative, better coordinated approach will help deliver that. We have been working incredibly hard as a government over the last eight years and eight months to improve the lives of Indigenous Queenslanders, but there are areas that still need hard work. What we need is leadership from everybody involved—not just from my government but from the mayors as well. This generation of Indigenous mayors are leaders who are standing up for their communities and taking responsibility for improving the lives and opportunities of their residents. As a result of the discussions at the meeting, the director-general of Premier and Cabinet and of course the director- general to the Minister for Communities, Warren Pitt, who is responsible for Indigenous affairs and who obviously played a key role at this meeting, will negotiate to sign a formal agreement with all of the mayors. The 19 mayors will be represented in these discussions by the mayors of Bamaga, Hope Vale and Yarrabah. The agreement will spell out government support in key service areas. It will be the blueprint, we hope, for the Queensland government’s relationship with all of these Indigenous communities. We have also agreed that the council of mayors will meet twice a year with the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships, Warren Pitt. These meetings are based on the successful SEQROC approach we use with councils in south-east Queensland to help ensure everyone continues their cooperation at the highest possible level. We will do all we can to support the mayors in their efforts to lesson the terrible impact alcohol and violence are inflicting on some communities— alcohol and violence are having a devastating effect. I have read some comments in the press in recent days about these matters, but we have to be very clear about this. It is a major problem and my government is determined to do something about it. Part of the solution is to ensure more Indigenous people have access to jobs. We have agreed to work even harder to help communities generate long- term employment for their residents. There are no easy solutions to these entrenched and tragic problems that have come about as a result of 200 years of bad policy. But today should be a source of hope for everyone who wants to see Aboriginal people live long and healthy lives in functional communities. Water Infrastructure Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. I refer the Deputy Premier to the significant foresight of the local authorities of south-east Queensland to have available millions of litres of class A treated water which could be available to industry from today, taking stress off drinking supplies. Given that councils began planning and constructing this infrastructure years ago, why is it that this government has failed to follow this example and have in place the necessary infrastructure to allow its use, meaning that this water is now wasted? Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question. I presume that underlying the member’s question is support for the use of treated recycled water. Not surprisingly, the question comes from a Liberal member of the House. I wonder if the coalition actually supports the question. The member’s question goes to the heart of how we use what is an increasingly precious resource. This government has been the first government of any political persuasion in the country to bite the bullet on the use of recycled water on a comprehensive scale. We are investing, as I outlined earlier, in the western corridor recycled pipeline. I think, though, that all members would understand that this is the sort of infrastructure that not only has a very significant impact on the budget but also ultimately on water pricing for consumers. Therefore, it is important that all of the water that we are able to harness from a recycled source can actually be diverted for use where there is major industry. In the case of the western corridor, there are two significant users in the power stations and a number of other major industry users such as Incitec. There is also the potential that the path that it proceeds along will not only supply industry but also supply other sources, whether it is agricultural or whether it is going into something like a for drinking use. I take the member’s point that there may well be other recycled sources of water, and we are already in discussions with mayors on the Sunshine Coast, for example, about possible long-term uses of that recycled water. I look forward, as I said, to when that becomes a possibility and a reality and to the fulsome support of the united coalition on the use of recycled water for every possible purpose to ensure that the investment in the infrastructure is maximised and the cost of water on households is minimised. I make no apology for not only getting the water that we need but getting it at a price that is affordable for their constituents and my constituents and all of the people who are represented here. I do not want to see water going into rivers or into the bay any more than anyone else in this House does, but we have a plan for south-east Queensland. We are working with the mayors, and we will continue to work with them. If there are other ways of using recycled water in the future, of course we will be looking at it. But I certainly will not be taking water advice from the member for Moggill. 302 Questions Without Notice 20 Feb 2007

WorkChoices Mrs ATTWOOD: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier tell the House about the early impact WorkChoices may be having on our workers? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Mount Ommaney for her question, because the minister for employment and industrial relations, John Mickel, and I both know that she has a keen interest in this. Earlier this month industrial relations academics from around Australia and New Zealand got together on the other side of the Tasman to discuss patterns of employment in our respective countries. Queensland academic Professor David Peetz from the Griffith University business school presented two papers at the conference and made some very worrying conclusions. These quickly made news pages across Australia and quickly attracted the cynicism of the Commonwealth. So I raise the issue: what was all the fuss about? Professor Peetz found in recent years that while women have shortened the wage gap and won better pay and conditions this has largely been due to their activism and the protection of collective bargaining. Take that protection away, as WorkChoices is doing right now, and those to suffer will be workers who are going to be casual and part-timers and, and as Professor Peetz points out, mostly in the retail and hospitality sectors. They will be exposed. A government member: Tourism. Mr BEATTIE: And, of course, tourism. Without being able to work together through unionism and without the protection of collective bargaining, women and young new workers are the ones who will feel the full force of WorkChoices. A government member: Shame! Mr BEATTIE: Yes, it is a shame. In effect, Australian workplace agreements threaten to turn the clock backwards and widen the gap between men’s and women’s wages. I would like to say that Professor Peetz’s research is not conducted in isolation. In a statement released on 6 September last year about research into women’s wages and conditions conducted by Curtin University in Western Australian, the National Foundation for Australian Women also called on the Commonwealth to track the impact WorkChoices is having on women and pay. It said— This is about keeping the workplace family friendly; it is about ensuring that people who are finding it harder to get pensions because of changes to government policies are treated fairly at work; it is about making sure women who want to and need to work to support their families are not being exploited. Its research, I might add, was commissioned by the foundation jointly with the Women’s Electoral Lobby and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As Professor Peetz argued just weeks ago, the rate of conditions being lost is considerable: 51 per cent losing overtime altogether, which is twice the previous rate, plus another 31 per cent having it reduced. The evidence against WorkChoices is mounting high. I want to table for the information of the House both of those papers by David Peetz. The first is titled ‘Brave New WorkChoices: What is the Story So Far?’ and the second is ‘Collateral Damage: Women and the WorkChoices Battlefield’. Tabled paper: Paper, dated February 2007, by David Peetz, Griffith University titled ‘Brave New Work Choices: What is the Story So Far? ‘. Tabled paper: Paper, dated February 2007, by David Peetz, Griffith University titled ‘Collateral Damage: Women and the Workchoices Battlefield’. The minister for industrial relations and employment, John Mickel, will have a bit more to say about this in coming weeks. I hope Queenslanders note the impact of WorkChoices on work conditions.

Housing Density, Water Supply Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. I refer to former Deputy Premier Terry Mackenroth’s comments in the Courier-Mail on 30 October 2004 in which he said that the average required housing density under the South East Queensland Regional Plan was 78 dwellings per hectare, up from the current 11 per hectare. I ask: why is the minister promoting such high growth and increased housing density when there is no water now because of her failure to deliver the infrastructure the region needs? Ms BLIGH: I remember a time in this state when the National Party of Queensland wanted to see Queensland develop. What we have just heard is a question that puts forward the proposition that if we had people living in more spread-out patterns of settlement— Mr Lucas: More acreage! Ms BLIGH: Everybody on acreage, perhaps—it would somehow be more cost effective and efficient to get water to them. What an unbelievable proposition. In this country, the south-east Queensland plan represents leading-edge planning for growing urban areas. Yes, the member is absolutely right: it identifies the need, in appropriate parts of the plan, for higher density to ensure that we can actually provide the services—whether it is roads, water, energy—in the most cost-effective, time-efficient way. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 303

Earlier, the member for Moggill asked whether we could use more recycled water for other purposes. While the Sunshine Coast has a reasonable amount of recycled water that could be used, it does not have major industries such as power stations to utilise it. The member suggests that we should use all of our resources to build a big recycling plant for water to be used on the Sunshine Coast where there is no major industry and supply it to the most spread-out possible pattern of residential development. What was going on in strategy over there this morning? All I can say is that not only do we have a comprehensive water supply strategy for the south-east corner, which is about drought proofing and meeting our most urgent critical short-term needs for the next two years, but we also have a plan that takes us through to 2035 in the case of stage 2 of the Traveston Crossing Dam. Each and every part of that planning has been about not only what we need now but also what we predict we will need, based on population growth and the south-east plans development patterns, while taking into account the possible effects of climate change. We do not have any intentions of going backwards in terms of the planning mechanisms that we are relying upon. We are certainly not going to go backwards in terms of undoing what I think is a very important piece of urban planning, which is the south-east corner plan. And after what we have just heard, we certainly will not be going to the National Party for advice on urban water supply.

Energy Retail Asset Sales Ms BARRY: I refer the Deputy Premier and Treasurer to some discussion about the success of yesterday’s state government owned energy retail asset sales and the process. Can she detail the outcome, please? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. On the face of it, the process was relatively simple, that is, to identify the government’s retail energy assets in Energex and Ergon. While, on the face of it, that seems very simple, I am sure that members will understand that it was actually incredibly complex. We had to separate out the customer base of the former retail section of Energex’s operations. That required an extraordinary amount of very complex work, particularly so that we could ensure that the interests of consumers were protected. In April 2006, when we made an announcement, we initially believed that we could expect in excess of $1 billion for the sale of those assets. What we have gained for the taxpayers and the people of Queensland is a stunning $3.1 billion outcome. In short, through a fair and open sales process, we accepted the best bids. The sales process, which involved both national and international opportunities for bidders, involved some of the country’s biggest players. The winners from this are the consumers through increased competition and the taxpayers through the exceptional sales outcome. Yesterday, the Courier-Mail speculated that $600 million might be the outcome and other analysts indicated that anything over $400 million for the final tranche would be a very good outcome. In light of that analysis, $1.2 billion has to be seen as an outstanding success. However, this morning I noticed the predictable criticism from the opposition. We glimpsed what we could expect to see if the member for Moggill was ever in a position to run the sales process of a Queensland government asset. What were his comments? He is probably the only person in Queensland this morning who was disappointed with the $1.2 billion outcome, because he believes that the asset should have been sold to a Queensland company. I set out with a very clear sense of my responsibility to get the very best outcome for Queensland taxpayers. That meant going to the broadest possible market and encouraging the biggest possible players. That is why we achieved the result that we needed. Not for one minute could I imagine the member for Moggill applying that attitude to his own shareholdings, so I had a little look at whether he makes his own investments in energy companies. I am pleased to note that he does have an interest in an energy company called HiTech Energy that utilises some very interesting cutting-edge technology. Mr Lucas: Is it based in Queensland? Ms BLIGH: Is it a Queensland company? No, it is a Western Australian company! It is always interesting to look at these things. The other company that he has a shareholding in is something called Mark Sensing, which claims to give one a better image.

Hook Point Beach, Fraser Island Mrs MENKENS: I refer the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism to her government’s plans to close 18 kilometres of Hook Point beach on Fraser Island to traffic, with the area closed expected to later rise to 25 kilometres. This closure will force up to 34,000 cars a year to use the alternative route, which is dangerous and has the potential to cause much more environmental damage. Can the minister explain why she is closing Hook Point? Is this the start of an insidious plan to gradually close down the recreational access to Fraser Island of Queensland families and fishers? 304 Questions Without Notice 20 Feb 2007

Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank the member for Burdekin for her question. I am very pleased to be able to answer this question on the environment, which is only the second that I have been asked in the whole time that we have been in government. That is quite reprehensible. I would have thought that the member would have been more interested in the Burdekin and north Queensland. However, I return to her question. We are doing this to make that section of beach available to families, so that they can appreciate that absolutely pristine part of the world without four-wheel drives racing down the beaches, which puts people with small children in a very unsafe position. We will close this section of the beach knowing that there is another access route that will be upgraded regularly by QPWS rangers, and that this part of the world will be available to those who want to escape four-wheel drive madness.

Department of Public Works and Department of Housing Mr ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Minister for Public Works and Housing. Is the minister aware of recent media criticism of the department of public works and its management of air- conditioning temperatures in public buildings? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Yes, I am aware of that criticism and the other misguided criticism that appeared in Sunday’s Sunday Mail. I reinforce the point that we are very serious about installing water-saving devices in government buildings. I note that Government House leads the way. Last year it saved 87 per cent, police headquarters saved 44 per cent, and CITEC in my own department saved 57 per cent. Of course, those figures did not even rate a mention in the Sunday Mail. Apparently, we wanted to hear about the extra 2,000 litres that was used at the Lands Centre, which is a building that we are starting to work on next week, or the 300 kilolitres used at the construction site at the Old Museum. Apparently, we did not the want to hear about the 5,000 litres of water saved at Government House, the 43,000 litres saved at police headquarters or the 16,000 litres saved at CITEC. If ever there was a bit of swayed reporting, there it was. We have 28 buildings, two of which have saved 2,300 kilolitres between the two of them, and a saving of 300,000 kilolitres overall. So it is with the temperature. I do not know what sort of scientific qualifications there are down at the Sunday Mail, but the reality is that people wandering in and out of government buildings with a hand- held temperature probe hardly constitutes some sort of scientific evaluation. Yet that is what we are expected to believe. We would expect to see antics such as that on Monty Python or Little Britain. On a serious note, we take advice from engineers on this issue. It is not lick the finger and hold it up to the breeze. For example, we are told that where that lady was photographed shivering in front of the Gallery of Modern Art—perhaps she should have had a bit more clothing on her arms if she was that cold—would be the normal reaction. She should have known that an international standard of protecting artworks is 21 degrees. We follow that, because we borrow artworks from around the world. The advice we have is that between 22 degrees and 24 degrees is an acceptable standard. Indeed, in the past couple of years we have saved $9 million on our power bill by making sure that we are using energy-efficient devices in our government buildings. We have a proper management strategy. We do not have people wandering around with hand-held thermometers in various parts of building. We have very scientific methods of arriving at these decisions. So I urge people to not take too much notice of what they read in the Sunday Mail. The fact is that we take very seriously our responsibility as a government owner of buildings. We are doing everything that we possibly can to mitigate our place on this planet. The fact is that we are a big user of energy and anything we can do to reduce that has to be helpful in the climate change debate. We are doing just that. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Nicklin, I welcome to the gallery this morning teachers and students from the Mount Warren Park State School in the electorate of Albert, which is represented in this House by the Hon. Margaret Keech.

Nambour Hospital Mr WELLINGTON: My question is directed to the Premier and it relates to the Health portfolio. Firstly, I convey my best wishes to the health minister, Stephen Robertson. I wish him a speedy recovery. Prior to and after last year’s election, I had been meeting with members of the Nambour Nurses Union and the health minister for the purpose of buying more land for car parking at Nambour Hospital. Unfortunately, negotiations with the Maroochy Shire Council over the possible purchase of council land for car parking failed. Can the Premier provide an update on the progress of the purchase of new land for car parking at Nambour Hospital? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the member for Nicklin for his question and for his generosity towards the Minister for Health. The Minister for Health will not be here this week but he will be back. I stress that his procedure was minor and that he will be back. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 305

The member for Nicklin may recall that I, in fact, inspected this site with him on a previous occasion when he highlighted to me the importance of Nambour Hospital. So I am pleased to advise the member for Nicklin that a solution has been found to the growing demand for car parking at Nambour Hospital, because I have not lost my interest in his hospital. Queensland Health will purchase seven properties adjoining the hospital at a cost of $2.6 million. With a total area of approximately 4,799 square metres, the site will deliver an additional 160 staff car parking spaces. The negotiations for the purchase of these properties are complete and settlement will be finalised by June 2007. Demolition and construction works will then get underway. These site works are expected to cost about $500,000. I am advised by the minister, Stephen Robertson—who, while he may not be here is permanently on the phone; we should take his Blackberry off him over the next two weeks— Mr Lucas: He wouldn’t like that. Mr BEATTIE: He is sending me notes in relation to rivers, health—you name it; he is sending me messages. I am advised by the minister that the demand for car parks at Nambour Hospital has increased significantly in recent years. That is why he made it a priority to source and purchase the site for additional car parks to make the hospital more accessible for staff, patients and visitors. I say to the member for Nicklin that we will continue to work with him on these issues. I think that we have now resolved them. Queensland Health, in conjunction with officers from the Maroochy Shire Council, have worked to implement the various strategies. We are determined to deliver this. Basically, I think that answers the member’s question. I want to acknowledge the amount of pressure that the member has put on the government about this issue. I hope he is happy with this outcome. If there are any other issues, we are happy to pursue them. Are there any other matters that the member wants to pursue? Mr Wellington: I will be happy to talk to you later, Premier. Mr BEATTIE: That was a tactical victory for the member for Nicklin. I should not have led with my chin. I want to acknowledge that the member for Nicklin has pursued this issue for some time. In times gone by he pursued it with me personally, which is why I know about it. The member has pursued the issue with the health minister. Hopefully, he has the outcome that he wants. Perhaps more importantly than the member for Nicklin, the health minister or me, is that the member has achieved what the nurses wanted at that hospital. Nambour Hospital is an important part of the health services provided on the Sunshine Coast. I have no doubt that the member for Nicklin will send to both the Minister for Health and me a long list of all the other things that he wants. Hopefully, he will be as successful on a future occasion.

Pacific Motorway Mrs REILLY: My question is for the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. With the speculation that the federal government is putting up $19 billion for road funding, what could we speculate that Gold Coast residents could expect to see for the Pacific Motorway upgrade? In fact, what funding is there currently in the AusLink agreement for the Pacific Motorway? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member is consistent, diligent, hard working and assiduous when it comes to fighting for road funding in her electorate and, indeed, on the Gold Coast. Earlier today I informed the House of Steven Ciobo’s comments that appeared on the weekend in the Gold Coast Bulletin in which he indicated that he thought that the Gold Coast had a very good case for road funding. Of course it does. The problem is that it has had a very good case for a very many number of years. In fact, since March 2003, when $120 million was allocated by the federal government for the Tugun bypass, no money—no money—has been allocated by the federal government for major road projects on the Gold Coast. In fact, I refer to the local newsletter, which is a publication in which Mr Ciobo has a column. It states— I am also focused on continuing to improve roads on the Gold Coast, especially given our population growth. Following the most recent federal budget in which road funding for our City was doubled— That is minor project road funding, I might add. There is no funding for major projects— I continue to fight for a greater share of the 119 percent increase in road funding that the Howard Government provided to Peter Beattie in Queensland. How much did we actually get? The $120 for the Tugun bypass was announced prior to Auslink. How much have we had under AusLink that Mr Ciobo has fought for so effectively? Nil! That is how much Steven Ciobo has achieved for Australia’s fastest growing region. If you are on the Gold Coast and you are a motorist, you put $330 million of fuel tax into federal coffers each year. If you are a Queenslander and you register a car, you get 177 per cent back in terms of road expenditure. If you are a Queenslander, you get 18 per cent of the fuel tax. That is not good enough. 306 Questions Without Notice 20 Feb 2007

This year—2006-07—the state government road budget on the Gold Coast will be $354 million. That is a very large sum of money, but we need the federal government to match our $400 million to upgrade the M1 between Springwood and Tugun in two sections: one around Springwood and 23 kilometres between Nerang and Tugun. Already in terms of the Nielsens Road interchange, we have acquired the land, we have done the design and it can go to contract. In terms of the Mudgeeraba interchange, we will have the design by the end of the year. The Tugun bypass, which is under state control with $423 million of state government money and $120 million of federal government money, is ahead of schedule and due to be completed in June next year. The other day underneath the proposed runway extension we broke through in the tunnel. Instead of the members of the federal government being apologists for what happens in Canberra, it is about time they got on the front foot. I would have some sympathy for Steven Ciobo and his ilk if he had been out there years and years ago fighting for this money, but every time during a state election he decried responsibility. Why is he all of a sudden now claiming that the Gold Coast has some deserved entitlement to get this money? Because he is desperate. The Newspoll in the Australian today indicates why. They have extracted too much money from Gold Coast motorists in safe seats for too long. It is about time the federal government recognised that the Gold Coast deserves a much better deal. We will fight for them if it will not. Bradfield Scheme Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland. I refer to the former Beattie government natural resources minister, Mr Robertson, who stated in this place, ‘Clearly, a Bradfield-type scheme will not work’ and is ‘not feasible’ and a statement from the member for Ipswich that belief in Bradfield schemes is ‘bizarre’. I table those statements. Tabled paper: Extract from Hansard (pages 4084-4085) dated 24 October 2002 in relation to the Bradfield Scheme. Tabled paper: Extract from Hansard (page 2939) dated 28 September 2005 in relation to the Bradfield Scheme. Does the minister agree with these statements or does he support his Premier’s latest attempted distraction in backing the scheme to divert major rivers? Mr WALLACE: I thank the opposition spokesman for his question. I really, really thank him for his question this morning. It is a great question to ask. Since those statements were made, our Prime Minister in Canberra has put $10 billion on the table. He has put $10 billion on the table. Mr Lucas: They want it to go to ! Mr WALLACE: They want it to go to New South Wales. They do not support Queensland. I do not know why they do not support Queensland. As a north Queenslander, I am glad that the Premier made that statement. Good on him I reckon! I tell you what: I will be standing with and when we go to the federal government and say, ‘Look at this scheme. Have a good look at it.’ We are not wimps like the opposition. We are going to look at it. I tell you what, Mr Speaker: I will be behind the Premier when we go back down to Canberra on Friday and say to the Prime Minister, ‘Have a look at this. You have 10 billion bucks on the table. Let’s have a look at this scheme.’ I am a north Queenslander; let us develop the north. Peter Lindsay was quoted in the paper today. The member for Herbert should be absolutely ashamed of himself. He will not stand up for north Queensland. He kowtows to his mates in Canberra and from what I hear he kowtows to his mates over there. He should stand up for north Queensland. Where is the member for Burdekin on this issue? Is she going to fight for an expansion to the Burdekin? Where is she? We have not heard a peep out of her. I tell you what, Mr Speaker: I will be following the Premier down to Canberra on Friday and I will be right behind him saying, ‘We need to look at this scheme. It is a great idea.’ I say to the Premier that I have 80 years of Labor history behind me—80 years of north Queenslanders. We have been fighting and fighting for it, and it was the Hawke Labor government that funded the stage 1, and by God I will be bloody proud if it is a Labor government that funds stage 2! Mr SPEAKER: I am just taking in that north Queenslander’s reply. Before calling the member for Greenslopes, I welcome to the House today teachers and students from the Park Ridge State High School in the electorate of Logan, which is represented in this House by the Hon. John Mickel. Smoke Alarms Mr FENLON: My question without notice is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Can the minister advise the House what actions are underway ahead of the 1 July deadline for all Queensland homes to have smoke alarms installed? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for Greenslopes for his question and for his strong support of emergency services in his electorate and his concern for the safety of his constituents with regard to this question. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 307

A recent report on government services showed that smoke alarm coverage in Queensland homes has risen above 84 per cent of all homes. While that is good news it shows that there is still room for improvement. That is why the honourable member for Greenslopes has noted that from 1 July this year smoke alarms will be compulsory for all Queensland homes. Ahead of the expected increase in the sale of these life-saving devices, I recently launched a new information kit offering details on the types of smoke alarms recommended by the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service—the new Smoke Alarms: Installation and Maintenance booklet. It was designed by firefighters for all smoke alarm retailers to assist their staff, and it provides the latest and the most correct information to consumers. The booklet provides important information on maintenance and the placement of smoke alarms and the requirements of the legislation. The placement of smoke alarms is very important. It also contains a tear-off section that retail staff can give to consumers outlining information on the QFRS Safehome program. As many members will be aware, the Safehome program gives homeowners access to expert opinion on the placement of smoke alarms and general safety around their homes. I encourage everybody to obtain a Safehome booklet by calling 1300369003. I advise the House that starting next month the QFRS and the Real Estate Institute of Queensland will be holding forums across the state to educate and inform that key group about the new smoke alarm requirements. Approximately one-third of Queensland housing stock comprises rental properties of which around 80 per cent are managed by members of the REIQ. Officers from the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service will meet with real estate agents through the REIQ at forums. There will be 14 forums across the state starting in March and running through to April. I encourage all real estate agents to familiarise themselves with the requirements of this legislation. The Queensland Fire and Rescue Service community liaison officers are working throughout the state building community awareness, and an advertising campaign is also being prepared. There are still 200,000 homes in Queensland without smoke alarms. My message to them is simple: do not wait until 1 July—get in now and install smoke alarms because they could save you and your loved ones’ lives. Bradfield Scheme Mr HOBBS: My question is to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. It is his lucky day! I refer to the 2006 gulf water resource plan prepared by his department, which states that schemes like the Bradfield Scheme that change the course of major rivers do not stand up to scientific or economic scrutiny and turning rivers inland would harm the environments of the rivers and the health of the Great Barrier Reef and increase the prospect of inland salinity. Does the minister agree with his department’s assessment of schemes to divert major rivers? Will the minister now throw out the gulf water resource plan or does he agree with the Premier’s support for this latest stunt? Mr WALLACE: This is part 2. I thank the member for Warrego for his question. As I said earlier, I am quite happy to stand behind the Premier on this one. Mr Hobbs: Do you stand behind your department? Mr WALLACE: My department makes assessments and models and water resource plans right across the state. As the Premier said, this will not be an easy process. It is not a simple adoption of the old Bradfield Scheme; it is an investigation of possible ways that we can get water into the Murray- Darling Basin. The difference is, as I said earlier, the Commonwealth has put $10 billion on the table. Why should all that money go to New South Wales irrigators? Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: You have asked a sensible question. There is a lot of disorder on the opposition benches. Let the minister answer the question. I am allowing interjections but if about five or six of you are talking at once the chamber cannot hear the minister’s answer. Mr Rickuss: Can we get a sensible answer? Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member for Lockyer that that is completely disregarding what I just said. You get a fair bit of leeway in this place and you know it. Mr WALLACE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is quite obvious that those opposite do not care about Queensland. They do not care about north Queensland and its development. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The minister can ask for an extension of time. If you want that in question time, which you presumably do not, let the minister have his say. Mr WALLACE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Coming from the member who approved Cubbie Station, I think that is a bit rich. We are going to look at— Mr Hobbs: It was your minister. 308 Questions Without Notice 20 Feb 2007

Mr WALLACE: Obviously they do not like the response that we are going to stand up for Queensland. We are going to be standing up for Queensland irrigators and farmers. I am going to a meeting after question time with Queensland irrigators and farmers and AgForce to tell them that we are out there to protect their rights. We are not going to sell them down the drain. Where has the opposition been on all of this? We have not heard anything about it. In fact, I am going to give full marks to Barnaby Joyce because at least he stands up for his constituency. We have not heard a peep from those opposite about the Prime Minister’s $10 billion plan. Where have they been? They have been silent. They are scared. They know that the Commonwealth has not got their best interests at heart. We will be fighting for Queensland irrigators and farmers. I say again that I will be behind the Premier on Friday when we go to Canberra. We will be standing up for Queensland irrigators and farmers. We will be getting our slice of the $10 billion. Why should New South Wales get it all? We will be fighting for our rights. I congratulate the Premier. My office has been flooded with emails.

Murray-Darling Basin Mr HAYWARD: My question is to the Premier. Can the Premier advise the House of further details of his water options for the Murray-Darling Basin? Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely. Let me make it clear: those opposite are not prepared to stand up for Queensland but we are. One thing I am prepared to do is this: I am not going to see one farmer’s water allocation go—which is what is proposed in the abolition of the water allocations as part of the Prime Minister’s plan—without considering more water for the Murray-Darling. That is right. If those opposite are not prepared to stand up for the farmers and rural Australia then I am prepared to and will. That is what this is all about. We do not always agree with Malcolm Turnbull but I notice that the federal minister said that, although the project would be expensive, it would be considered by the Commonwealth’s new water task force. The federal government is prepared to look at what we are doing but those opposite are not. Those opposite should go out and tell every farmer that they are prepared to sell out the farmers’ allocations without even looking at the alternatives for providing more water. We are prepared to look at the alternatives. Let me talk about the second part of my plan, which unfortunately received some coverage only in the Australian, because this is just as important as what we have talked about in terms of Queensland. The second option involves the drawing of water from the Mann River in Northern New South Wales. It involves the construction of a weir 20 kilometres upstream from the confluence of the Mann and Clarence rivers, some 60 kilometres north-west of Grafton. Water is pumped via a 70-kilometre pressure tunnel to a regulating weir on the Myall River, passing through a 28 megawatt hydropower plant before flowing into the Dumaresq River. This will enable over 950,000 megalitres of highly reliable water into the Border River per annum. This then flows, via Goondiwindi, into the McIntyre River and into the Darling system. The 2001 cost estimate was $1.5 billion. Notably, both the Northern Rivers and Bradfield projects would deliver approximately two million megalitres of highly reliable water into the system per annum. These figures may require some refinement and I have never said anything to the contrary. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite may think it is funny that farmers will lose allocations of water but I do not. All I have said from the beginning is that we need to do some work on this. I have been up front about it. Those opposite should go and tell the farmers out there that they do not care about water allocations. Those opposite will then see how popular they will be. The member for Warrego will be looking for a new job because his constituents will not vote for him if he does not stand up for their water allocations. The Traveston Dam at full capacity yields 150,000 megalitres per annum, hence the two projects would be the equivalent of pouring the annual yield from 13 Traveston Dams into the inland rivers. It should also be noted that the projects would rely upon some level of public financial support but they are nevertheless economic infrastructures that would be supported to a significant extent by revenue from water sales. We will stand up for Queensland. Those opposite have abandoned the farmers; we will not.

Water Wastage Mr JOHNSON: My question is directed to the honourable minister for natural resources. The department’s web site states that where water is allowed to flow uncontrolled into open drains and creeks, even in well-maintained drains up to 95 per cent of the water is wasted through evaporation and seepage. Does the minister think north Queensland water should be irresponsibly wasted in this way by supporting the Premier’s latest distraction to divert the major rivers of north Queensland. 20 Feb 2007 Questions Without Notice 309

Mr WALLACE: I am quite enjoying today because, as an unreconstructed north Queenslander, what a great idea from the Premier! What an absolute pearler! The people of north Queensland are backing him 100 per cent—apart from the whingers over there: the Peter Lindsays of the world who get up and whinge and knock. They have no plans for the north. They have deserted the north; the Nats have deserted the north and now the Libs have. Good on Bob Katter. No wonder he got out of the Nats. Imagine sitting with that bunch over there and knocking such a visionary scheme. The good old days of the National Party are well and truly gone. Where are the visionaries on the other side these days? They have gone. I am looking forward to going to Canberra on Friday with the Premier. I look forward to seeing the face of the Prime Minister when he sees there is an option here that we do have to look at. There is an option here where we can have a nation-building exercise. I support the Premier 100 per cent. I am looking forward to Friday. I will have a big grin. I hope Mr Turnbull will be there as well so that he can back us. He said in the Courier Mail that he is going to back us. It is great to see that Bill Heffernan, the friend of the National Party, is backing us, too. Member for Gregory, mate, what are you doing? What are you doing, mate? We have the chance here to develop Queensland. There is $10 billion on the table. Let us develop northern and western Queensland. Good on you, Premier; I will see you on Friday.

Young People with Disabilities Ms PALASZCZUK: My question without notice is to the minister for disability services. Can the minister inform the House what steps the state government is taking to improve the lives of younger people with a disability living in aged residential care in Queensland. Mr PITT: I would like to thank the member for Inala for her question and also extend to her my appreciation for the work that she did before entering parliament on this very important issue. Many members would not know this, but she was responsible and instrumental in preparing the Queensland case for presentation to the Commonwealth on this matter. The Queensland government recognises the difficulties facing younger people with a disability who currently live in residential aged-care facilities. Many young people are inappropriately placed. Sometimes it is through family choice and sometimes through lack of options. We cannot do much about the family choice situation, but with lack of options we are doing something. That is why we have allocated more than $4 million towards the construction of special accommodation facilities for younger people with a disability. This funding has been allocated as part of the Younger People in Residential Aged Care Initiative, a five-year, $47.8 million package funded by the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. A total of $2.7 million will be used to build a 16-bed facility in Brisbane at Sinnamon Park, while almost $1.4 million will go towards the construction of a 10-bed complex in far-north Queensland. I would like to congratulate Youngcare, an organisation dedicated to addressing this issue. It has succeeded in raising awareness across the state regarding the problem that young people face. It has also been very entrepreneurial in the way in which it has gone about its business to secure private funding to match government funding, in many cases. I am also particularly pleased that far-north Queensland has been chosen as the site for one of these complexes. This is further evidence that this government represents all Queenslanders and not just those who live in the south-east corner. St Johns Community Care will build the accommodation service and hopes to have it finished by January next year. It is worthwhile pointing out to members that these new facilities were designed to make them as homely and welcoming as possible for younger people with a disability. The complexes will provide an environment much more suited to the client’s age group and interests, which is far more appropriate than what many currently experience in nursing homes and a world away from the old institutionalised approaches of the past. This new service will create an appealing environment and provide a dignified and independent lifestyle for younger people with disability support needs. Everyone entering these new accommodation complexes will do so at their own choice and this is contrary to reports in the Cairns Post that indicated the state was going to move or shift people against their will. This is just not on. It is an option that has been developed in collaboration with younger people with a disability themselves. Supports will be based on the outcomes of individual assessments and will be age and culturally appropriate. Support options and daily routines will be flexible and individualised for the clients. The development of support networks and participation in the community will be encouraged and indeed fostered. I would like to thank the Premier for his intervention at COAG with the Prime Minister on this issue. The states were not getting anywhere with former minister Kay Patterson— Time expired. 310 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007

Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Maryborough, I welcome another group of students and teachers from the Mount Warren Park State School in the electorate of Albert represented in this House by the Hon. Margaret Keech. Water Weed Control Mr FOLEY: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources and Water. Before I ask the question, if the Premier and minister want to get some T-shirts printed saying ‘Bring on Bradfield’ I will wear one with them. Since the responsibility for water weed control has been shifted to the landholder, and given that water weeds move up and down rivers and creeks, I ask the following: if a landholder sprays a section of hyacinth adjoining his land and the wind or current flow moves that section, will the minister make the landholder spray the new coverage of weed adjoining their land and how many times over? Secondly, if it is the landholder’s responsibility why has SunWater failed to spray the weeds around its own land in the area of the tinana barrage? Mr WALLACE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not have that technical information on spraying, but I will certainly get back to him. I think his irrigators really appreciate the machine that we have up there to take a lot of the hyacinth. I will get a more detailed answer on that back to the member after the sittings. Just going back to the Bradfield Scheme, which the honourable member mentioned, I say what a surprise it was to hear the Leader of the Opposition get up and say that Bradfield was just a diversion and then pop off about three questions on Bradfield. Obviously it is an exercise that is on the opposition members’ minds at the moment. It is obviously an issue that they are thinking about. It is a very serious issue. Again, I reiterate my comments that I am looking forward to going to Canberra on Friday, standing up for Queensland irrigators and farmers— Mr Hobbs: It will all be lost. It evaporates. Mr WALLACE: unlike the mob opposite—and actually putting something different on the table. Why do we not look at that $10 billion that is there and see how much we can get into Queensland and perhaps build this nation? We do not want to suffer the same problems in the future that they are suffering in the Murray-Darling. That is why we have been very good in our water management across most of Queensland. That is why we will be working on Friday to look after irrigators and farmers. Mr Hobbs: It won’t get there. Mr WALLACE: The member for Warrego may well knock it. The member for Warrego sits there and knocks this particular plan. However, as the Premier said, we have a couple of options that we need to put forward, and we will be doing that. This is too important a scheme and a project to get thrown out, as the National Party seems to be saying. I look forward to that trip on Friday. We will be standing up for Queensland irrigators and farmers. I say to the member for Maryborough that I will have to get some T- shirts printed but, like yours, mine will have to be extra large. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Water Supply Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.31 am): This morning in the parliament we saw some bizarre performances by both the Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources and Water as they continue to try to divert attention away from the looming disasters that are about to engulf their government. I think there is an opportunity now to put a few things on the record. If the Premier is at all serious about protecting the water allocations of Queensland farmers, the first thing he should do is to recant the statements that he has made about Cubbie Station. We all remember when he came in here with his proposal to close down Cubbie Station, to compulsorily resume it and to do away with that irrigation industry in south-east Queensland. It appears that he has had another road to Damascus type conversion. What we need from the Premier is less stupidity and more seriousness about the Queensland irrigators’ allocations. Get real and get serious and support— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to be careful of your language. Mr SEENEY: What we need from the Premier are some real commitments to some real proposals that protect Queensland water users and their allocations. The other bizarre contribution we heard this morning was from the Minister for Natural Resources and Water, who seemed to think that it was his job to stand up for the people of north Queensland by sending all of their water to Adelaide. Somehow that was going to be of benefit to the people of Queensland. As I said earlier in this House, for 20 years there has been one constant and that is that we 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 311 have advocated the construction of water infrastructure right across Queensland, but particularly in north Queensland. If any member of this House wanted to do anything for the people of north Queensland they would join with us in advocating the construction of some of those water projects in north Queensland for the benefit of the people of north Queensland. To do that, the water needs to be used in north Queensland. If honourable members look at what has been proposed under the terms of the Bradfield Scheme over the years, they will see that it has been about using the water in north Queensland. It has been about providing irrigation for that area of land between Hughenden and Richmond and ensuring that there is economic development in that part of north Queensland that benefits north Queensland in its entirety. What the Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources and Water were talking about this morning is not the Bradfield Scheme; it is the Beattie scheme. It is about somehow taking that water and running it all the way down the western river systems to Adelaide. It is absolutely impossible. There is no amount of money that would make it possible. Look at the facts. The natural floods in those river systems contain hundreds of billions of litres of water—huge amounts of water—but those natural floods very seldom make it all the way down the river systems. They are dissipated in the channel country, in that network of channels that has become world famous as a cattle fattening area. Those huge flows are dissipated in those areas. If we take that million litres of water a year that is available theoretically from the Bradfield Scheme and even if we get it to the top of the Warrego River, which is 700 or 800 kilometres away, and release that water into that river system, it is not even going to reach Longreach. It is not going to get a fraction of the way down the river because those mighty floods that are a characteristic of those river systems very seldom make it down those river systems. We face a huge logistical challenge to get it from the Thomson River, which flows into Lake Eyre, and then from there across to the Warrego River, which is the headwaters of the Murray-Darling. To suggest that putting that relatively small amount of money at the top of the Murray-Darling system is going to have any effect anywhere is absolute lunacy. I say to the member for Maryborough that that is not to say that the Bradfield Scheme does not deserve some credibility and some examination. But the Bradfield Scheme is not what is being talked about in this parliament. The Bradfield Scheme is not what is being proposed. What is being talked about is the Beattie scheme. The Beattie scheme is not about diverting water; it is about diverting attention. It is about playing politics. It is about selling out the people of north Queensland, not supporting them in any way. If the minister for water were at all serious about protecting the people of north Queensland he would be supporting us in having a realistic look at the original Bradfield Scheme and all the other water infrastructure projects in north Queensland. If the Premier were at all serious about getting water for the people of Adelaide, he would put it in a bottle and take it down there in the government jet because that is the only way he is going to get it there. He is not going to run it down the western river systems and expect it to reach the people of Adelaide and the lower ends of the Murray- Darling. What we have seen is a classic political play. It is a case of do anything to create a political diversion. It is about protecting the government from the revelations that we all look forward to and that we know are coming. No distraction will take away the attention that those revelations deserve when they eventually surface.

Moggill Electorate; Ambulance Response Times Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (11.36 am): Last week we saw a tragic accident on Moggill Road that could have easily ended in the loss of life. In fact, quite a number of high school students from Kenmore State High School ended up in hospital as a result of a truck going around a blind corner down a steep hill on an appalling road surface and being unable to stop in the wet and hitting the school bus. These sorts of accidents are tragic enough, but in this case this is an accident that should never have happened. This stretch of road is notorious. It has been the subject of complaint for years. I raised it in my maiden speech in this place. I raised it in the most strident terms on 22 February two years ago. Ever since this government was elected—every single year the Beattie government has been in office—it has put out this little fairytale called the Roads Implementation Program and every year since its members have occupied that side of the chamber they have allocated budgeted funds and promised to fix this bit of road. Every year that they have been in office they have done that, and what has happened? Absolutely nothing! There has been not one shovel load of dirt; there has been no grader; there has been absolutely nothing. Kenmore State High School is in a back street. This is the main access road. It has no control whatsoever on it. There are 1,500 kids there. I have written yet again, although I am getting tired of raising this issue, to the main roads minister to tell him that he was lucky on this occasion that children did not die and that it is a certainty that there will be further accidents and possibly fatal accidents at this intersection. I urge him to get on with the job and deliver on that promise. That is a shameful failure of government policy, endangering the lives of numerous children every afternoon. I could not put this in strong enough terms. 312 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007

The minister knows the passion with which I have pursued this. He has been warned by bus company operators, schools and parents but he has just ignored it and nothing has happened. I will continue to raise this issue. I will be writing to the minister in the strongest terms that this government is responsible for the injuries or fatalities on this stretch of road because it knows about it and promised to upgrade it. In a similar vein, this area of Brisbane has some of Brisbane’s most appalling ambulance response times. In the surrounding area people only have one chance in four of getting an ambulance on time in an emergency. This matter has been raised repeatedly so I conducted an online survey of my constituents on the first responder program. I will be writing to the minister and will give him the responses we had because there were a lot. Some 80 per cent of respondents supported the first responder program. In fact, 71 people volunteered to be trained. I will write to the minister about that. I was surprised that 20 per cent were opposed to it until I read their responses. Let me read to members some of the responses. The first one states— Being an employee of the state government I am constantly reminded that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. If we accept this then we will never have a proper service. I have worked with volunteers for 23 years. They do their very best to help, but they are no match for a professional service. Please lobby for proper police, fire and ambulance. The next response stated— Next we will be asked to carry out surgical proceedings. I pay my ambulance levy. I am a Queensland resident. I expect the same services that are afforded to other residents in Brisbane. This is what Dr Flegg should be fighting for. Dr Flegg has been fighting for that as well. The next one states— Your proposal, whilst meritorious for trying to do something to address a serious problem, does not address the critical issue of ambulance services in the western suburbs. It is outrageous that the service to this area is so poor. The next one states— Isn’t this just a cop-out of the responsibilities of the emergency services? Why are people paying their ambulance levy? Many more went on in the same vein with their frustration about emergency services. Gold Coast Tourism; Liberal Party Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (11.41 am): I expect this summer’s Gold Coast tourism figures to show a big increase—a huge boost thanks to some political stunts taking place in the southern states. One factor sure to drive tourists north to the sunny, warm and inviting Gold Coast is that conservative leaders in New South Wales and Victoria have taken to being photographed in their budgie smugglers. These photos will help drive people north because they prove that the water along the southern coasts is obviously a lot chillier than it is on the Gold Coast. The hapless New South Wales and Victorian Liberal leaders, Peter Debnam and Ted Bailieu, have both tried to lift their sagging profiles with the seminude shots, emerging James Bond-like from the surf in their Speedos. They have ended up resembling the cast of the movie Calendar Girls. I am puzzled by what they are up to. But with blokes like this parading around southern beaches in lycra it seems only natural that normal people will run a million miles and be scared off and come to Queensland for their holidays. I call on Liberal leader Bruce Flegg to rule out any such flaccid stunts. Debnam and Bailieu have proved it to be a pretty limp way of getting attention. I beg Dr Flegg to stick to some discreet boardies so he does not write off the Gold Coast’s reputation like those two shrinking violets down south did for Victoria and New South Wales. Ms Jones: Shrinking violets. Mr LAWLOR: Shrinking all right. Further on the subject of the Liberal Party, not only is it intellectually bankrupt but quite possibly also financially bankrupt. It is in desperate financial straits. At various times since the state election it may have been even trading whilst technically insolvent. There can be no other possible explanation for the extraordinary and possibly illegal pressure the Liberal Party is placing on its members opposite and last election’s failed candidates to pay the costs associated with the last state election. I happen to have a letter dated 23 January from state director Geoffrey Greene to Terry Rogers who members might recall was the previous member for Redcliffe. Mr Hinchliffe: I don’t remember that. Mr LAWLOR: Not many can. It states— I hope that you have had a restful holiday. He was pretty restful when he was here. I thought he was comatose most of the time. It goes on— The President and I are to brief the Management Committee and State Council in February on campaign indebtedness arising from the 2006 State Election. 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 313

He asks for him to please contact him within seven days to resolve outstanding campaign matters. He asks him to bring with him an income and expenditure statement, bank account statements and chequebook. I am told the demand was made for many thousands of dollars. I have been told with regard to the member for Noosa that they took almost $50,000 out of an account under his control without even discussing it with him. That is how desperate the Liberals are for money. When Liberal members had a universally glum look last sitting we thought it may have been because the leader had already run up the white flag in the race for the premiership at the next election, but we now know otherwise. They are actually much more comfortable with the member for Callide as the alternate Premier than the member for Moggill. Every Liberal member opposite and just about all failed Liberal candidates—and God knows there were plenty of them—has been under enormous pressure to pay up. The invoices that they have been asked to pay in at least some cases are dodgy. They are based on the Liberal Party’s massive debt problem, not necessarily on the actual debts of members and candidates. Money was syphoned off in the last election from headquarters, a lot of it to Chatsworth to try to save the miserable hide of Michael Caltabiano— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! That language is unparliamentary. Mr LAWLOR: The Liberal Party convention just after the state election was given a grim report on the party’s finances. Creditors exceeded debtors by around $300,000. The bulk of the debtors were the various state campaign committees. The Liberal Party has stalled on paying its bill to Australia Post of over $200,000. As Terry Sweetman revealed in the Courier-Mail last Friday, it resorted to the lowest and grubbiest trick in the book to justify not paying. It alleged that postal workers had been seen dumping stacks of political mail and that that political material had deliberately not been delivered on time. How low can it go? When Senator Macdonald was asked to substantiate these claims at a Senate estimates committee last week he could not do so. But Senator Macdonald and the Liberal Party cast an unwarranted and shameful slur on every postal worker. The party officials know and everyone involved in the election campaign knows that the Liberal Party campaign organisation was a shambles, and Liberal members and candidates know that better than anyone. As it has deliberately inflated these invoices to make the financial position look better than it is, a lot of the demands for $50,000 and so on will not be paid—certainly not by a lot of failed candidates. Time expired. Ashgrove Climate Action Group Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.47 am): Following on from the member for Southport, I would like to acknowledge the great contribution of Ian Brusasco, who is one of my constituents and is in the branch of the member for Stafford— A government member interjected. Ms JONES: He helps out on my campaigns but he is actually in the Windsor branch. Ms Croft: He is an honourary member. Ms JONES: He is an honourary member. I take that interjection. He has been very supportive of me. I thank him for his insight; we are in a far better financial position than those opposite. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing our community. In recent times we have seen significant growth in the public awareness of ordinary Queenslanders of the need to save water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by being more environmentally responsible. I am proud to advise the House that local residents in the Ashgrove community have been spurred into action and have established the Ashgrove Climate Action Group. Last Thursday more than 50 concerned local residents attended a meeting at St Michael’s church hall. Their guest speaker was Chris McGrath, barrister-at-law and one of only a select few Australians hand-picked to be trained personally by Al Gore to give presentations on his ‘Inconvenient Truth’ slide show. I want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Ashgrove resident and mum Emma Rose whose vision has been behind establishing the Ashgrove based group. I think Emma summed up what many parents feel when she told the meeting— While many of us know climate change is a huge problem and we know what causes it—yet it just feels too overwhelming—but I want to be able to look into my children’s eyes and be able to say that I did all I can. It was this sense of responsibility that inspired Emma to make her own household carbon neutral and also why she wanted to encourage other local residents to do the same. The next meeting of the Ashgrove Climate Action Group to be held in March will feature John Seed from the Rainforest Information Centre. He will be talking about how we go about building stronger neighbourhoods to 314 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007 educate ourselves and develop creative actions together. Who knows, if we harness enough strong local will perhaps it will not be too long before we see Ashgrove residents put pressure on our local Woolworths and Coles to ban plastic bags. The Howard government’s cynical game of catch-up on environmental policy during this election year is shameful. Mr Howard has been at the helm for more than 10 years, but it took him until last month to even acknowledge that climate change was serious. A government member interjected. Ms JONES: Some people say it is because he is going deaf. Compare this to the position of the federal opposition leader, Mr Rudd, and his team who have already indicated a commitment to a national emissions trading scheme, the need for a robust mandatory renewable energy target and the need for an effective national strategy on demand side management. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Rudd on his initiative to host a national summit on climate change. It is a welcome recognition at the federal level of the seriousness of this issue and the ramifications for our country. Mr Rudd has been very proactive in showing leadership on climate change and the actions we can take to tackle the single biggest threat to the future of our economy and the environment. This Labor government has a very strong record on environmental policies and tackling climate change. Our Queensland Greenhouse Strategy, the investments we have made in clean coal technology, and climate research and development put our state at the forefront in our country. Last term this government delivered on a 2004 election commitment by introducing legislation controlling tree clearing and broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation. We did this despite the National Party voting against it en bloc. One of our re-election commitments during the recent state election was to strengthen the state’s leadership in climate change by establishing the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence. As the minister advised the House this morning, the Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence will harness the scientific knowledge and expertise of officers from across government with 54 staff to work at the centre, which will open its doors later this year. As a multiagency organisation, the centre will bring a whole-of-government focus to the vital issues of climate change and its impacts on all sections of the community and the economy as well as the environment. It will also engage with national and international researchers ensuring Queensland benefits from the global research agenda on climate change, including the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology. Earlier this month Queensland joined with all other Labor states to sign up to a state based carbon trading scheme. In the absence of will or leadership by the Prime Minister or the Liberal Party, this cooperative arrangement is a breakthrough for our country. We need to stimulate research and investment in renewable technologies and innovative carbon capture technology. Government must listen to the concerns of the people and continue to make changes to ensure we protect our environment for future generations. Finally, I want to encourage all members to get their hands dirty and participate in the upcoming Clean Up Australia Day on Sunday, 4 March. I will be joining members of Save Our Waterways Now to clean up our local spaces in my electorate. Prep Year Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (11.52 am): With the introduction of prep, 2007 has been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, a memorable year in the history of our state education. The implementation of prep in Queensland has brought the state’s education system into line with the rest of Australia. It has introduced a full-time, play based transition to year 1 and, although noncompulsory, has been embraced by approximately 29,000 children across Queensland. As members will be aware, a considerable number of concerns were expressed prior to the introduction of prep by the Queensland coalition and by anxious parents, teachers and educational experts. These concerns included the inflexible age cut-offs for prep and year 1; the failure of the government to provide full-time teacher aides; the general lack of resources such as educational toys, play equipment and accessible toilets for prep; and the insufficient funding for the new school year. Of these concerns, perhaps the one that has received the most publicity has been the failure of the Beattie government to ensure full-time teacher aides for each prep classroom. This publicity is due, in large part, to a dedicated group of concerned parents and early childhood teachers, collectively referred to as Prep Alert. Dismayed by the government’s unwillingness to provide full-time teacher aides, Prep Alert convened many public forums, engaged with the media, lodged petitions and met with members to highlight the juxtaposition between the Beattie government’s position and early childhood literature, evidence from other states and territories and, most importantly, the wishes of parents and teachers. As I understand it, at the group’s last meeting with the education minister the group was told that the government would not be monitoring the need for full-time teacher aides during term 1 and was satisfied with its decision to provide the 15 hours of teacher aide time currently allocated. Consequently, earlier this year Prep Alert established its own web site not only to monitor the need for full-time teacher 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 315 aides but also to enable greater information sharing about prep generally. Like many community awareness web sites, the Prep Alert site has a ‘Have Your Say’ function where persons wishing to voice their concerns can post comments for public viewing. From the comments posted, it seems that a number of teachers have used this site as a forum to voice their concerns anonymously without fear of reprisal or sanction by the department. While there are many comments on the site worthy of consideration in this House, I have selected portions of two which I consider are particularly deserving of members’ attention. The first comment was posted by a Queensland prep teacher referred to only as ‘John’. It reads in part— It has been a very challenging start to teaching Prep for me. I was very excited after completing my Prep Teacher Training and eager to implement the wonderful new curriculum. I experimented with it last year with my preschoolers with great success. ...

I had looked at my programming and 15 hours of teacher aide time was practical and easy to work with, on paper. I did not factor in how I would deal with the children wetting their pants, and the children running away numerous times a day. I did not factor in that I might have a class with as many behavioural challenges and special needs as I ended up with. I am concerned about class sizes as all our Prep classes are sitting on 26 children, rather than the maximum of 25 and told to expect more, as a new teacher is unlikely before Semester 2. I am concerned about splitting up my class halfway through the year if we do gain a teacher. I am concerned about the school based expectations to have these children at a high skill level by the end of the year, yet not given the resources to do this. ...

I feel very disillusioned. I loved the idea of Prep and the theoretical side of it, but the practice seems to be far from this. Another prep teacher, ‘Sarah’, writes in part at the end of her contribution— It’s such a shame the Ed Qld always seems to short change children. Prep has the potential of being fantastic for our little ones, but it’s not going to reach it if we are given facilities and resources that don’t make the grade! I table the full transcripts of both of those contributions because I do not have time to read them out. Tabled paper: Transcripts of weblog contributions by prep teachers ‘Sarah’ and ‘John’ in relation to prep teaching. In repeating these concerns I stress that I do so in support of our teachers and in no way as criticism of them. The professionalism, energy and commitment that these teachers have displayed in implementing the prep year is indeed a credit to them. Transition to any new system is difficult enough, let alone when that transition is not backed by adequate time, resources or funding and when the short- term contracts of some of those guiding the transition are precarious. The Queensland coalition has always supported the theory of prep. However, comments like those that I have just read indicate that the system is clearly letting down our dedicated teachers, our young and the philosophy of early learning. Beattie rhetoric needs to be matched with resources. I know many members will have visited schools in their electorates during the start of the school year, looked at the prep facilities and known in their own minds how difficult it is for these teachers. Every teacher that I have spoken to and every teacher aide that I have spoken to have said, ‘Yes, we’re doing our best, but we need that teacher aide time. We need to have two adults fully supervising the full year in prep so that we can get the very best educational outcomes from what can be an excellent prep year.’ Time and again everyone in this parliament has supported prep. We need to provide the resources to make it work. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Hervey Bay, I want to acknowledge in the public gallery members of the Buderim Mountain Probus Club, which is in the electorate of Kawana, and which is represented in the House by Steve Dickson. International Aviation Industry; Climate Change Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (11.57 am): I wish to bring to the attention of the House the challenges posed to the international aviation industry by global warming driven by climate change. While air travel is vital to the economy of the world, with global air traffic growing at nine per cent per year since 1960, there is now a growing awareness of the environmental downside of the greenhouse gas emissions that aircraft inject into our upper atmosphere. The airline industry needs a global emissions trading regime and Australia needs the federal government to drive this process in order to protect not just our environment but the vital tourism industry and the jobs that sustain communities such as my electorate of Hervey Bay. I ask the federal government to consider what is at stake here. Five million international visitors came to Australia in 2005-06 spending $18.8 billion between them, and of course 99 per cent of them arrived by air. Queensland’s share of those international visitors was worth $3.4 billion last financial year. However, the world aviation industry is now going through a massive shake-out as the industry that brought us globalisation now itself feels the pain of rising fuel prices and increasing competition. In 316 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007

2005 the global airline industry lost $US6 billion and over the last five years the industry has lost more than $US1 million per hour or $US43 billion. Some 50 per cent of the US airline industry is now in bankruptcy, including Delta, United and Northwest, which are among the top six US airlines. While air travel around the world has grown strongly by some 34 per cent over the last 10 years, that growth has been driven by a 30 per cent cut in air travel prices in the same period. But faced with oil prices that have risen from $US20 a barrel in November 2001 to just on $US60 a barrel today, the capacity of the industry to generate growth by continued cost-cutting is now limited. While industries can and have begun exploring the use of alternative fuels, the only thing that flies aeroplanes is aviation gas—not ethanol, not hydrogen, not solar power, but good old-fashioned, oil-based, CO2-producing avgas.

The world is now well and truly aware of CO2-driven climate change and the spotlight is now turning onto the role of global aviation in that process, but the industry does not have the ability to shift to cleaner alternative fuels. Planes generate a unique cocktail of emissions. Aircraft produce carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrocarbons, sulfur dioxide, napthalene, benzene, ozone, formaldehyde and ultrafine dust particles. Those components and the waste vapour in jet trails contribute significantly to global warming. The Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management estimates that on a round trip from New York to London a Boeing 747 spews out approximately 440 tonnes of CO2, which is about the same amount emitted by 80 four-wheel drives in a full year of hard driving. A United Kingdom report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution stated that in 1999 global aviation emissions were responsible for 3.5 per cent of total radioactive forcing or global warming. This figure is expected to grow fourfold by 2050. The RCEP concluded that, ‘Air travel will become one of the major sources of anthropogenic climate change by 2050.’ A discussion paper from the London based Institute for Public Policy Research states that at the current rate of growth, emissions from aviation alone could take up the entire global sustainable rate of greenhouse gas emissions by the middle of this century. The Howard government’s belligerent refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol shows just how shallow and poll driven is its recent rhetorical change of tack on climate change. However, if the federal National-Liberal coalition’s recent shift of stance on climate change is to prove to be anything more than hot air ahead of this year’s election, the establishment of a global emissions trading regime should be an urgent national priority. The Kyoto protocol exempts emissions from international aviation from its targets, but now pressure from around the world is mounting to bring those emissions within the targets. It is vital for the tens of thousands of Queenslanders employed in the tourism industry and the $3.4 billion that international tourism contributes to our economy that the aviation industry is able to purchase greenhouse credits under an international emissions trading regime. Aviation will not be able to switch to lower emission fuels and, given how isolated Australia is due to our place in the Southern Hemisphere, it is safe to say that, if our international tourism industry is to continue and prosper, it will be by air or not at all. The federal government must urgently begin the difficult but essential process of negotiating a carbon trading regime for the world in order to provide aviation with future options. Not to do so would render the PM’s new rhetoric on global warming just more unwelcome hot air.

Land Valuations Mr GIBSON (Gympie—NPA) (12.03 pm): Today I rise on a matter that is of concern to all Queenslanders, that is, the value of their homes. Ordinary Queenslanders who have worked hard and are fortunate enough to purchase their own homes need and want to be reassured that, when the time comes for them to sell, for whatever reason, they will be protected from unscrupulous sharks and dodgy individuals. Today I advise the House that one of the biggest sharks operating in this state is, in fact, the sleazy Labor government and its dodgy mates in the government-owned Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd, or QWIPL. QWIPL should not be the arbitrator of land purchases in the Mary Valley involving people affected by the dam footprint. This proponent company is engaged to construct the dam and should not be compensating affected landholders. There is a direct conflict of interest. QWIPL is charged with ensuring that it achieves a price tag of $1.7 billion for the proposed dam and, as a result, is tending to devalue the land that is required. I have been approached by many constituents on this matter. Not all are prepared to have their details made public, as they are continuing to negotiate their sales. Others have been bullied and traumatised by QWIPL with statements like, ‘Take it or leave it. We can always get our price when we compulsorily acquire your land.’ I believe that the details of each case show a systemic and deliberate attempt to delay and reduce the price to be paid by using incompetent government appointed valuers or—and this is the more likely suggestion—by giving those valuers riding instructions to provide a forced sale valuation. 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 317

My, how the story has changed. Before 9 September, government valuations were either on par with private valuations or were over, sometimes by up to 20 per cent. However, since the election we have seen a shift and government valuations have been dropping. They can be up to one-third less than the private valuation. Those people have worked hard to purchase land. Some have built new homes and taken out mortgages, and for what? To have this government come in and offer up to one-third less than private valuers indicate their property is worth. What happens when someone questions the government valuation provided by QWIPL? I can share with the members what happened to one family. Their private valuation was significantly higher than the government valuation, but rather than try to negotiate a price, QWIPL questioned the qualification of their private valuer. This was despite the fact that the private valuation was provided by Herron Todd White, one of the most respected valuers in Queensland. Another family had a meeting with David Hill from QWIPL to discuss the discrepancy between the government and private valuations. One of the first things that Mr Hill said was that the government valuation was an insult and by the end of the meeting he had raised QWIPL’s offer. However, a week later he reneged on his previous offer and went back to the original price. Unfortunately, there are many stories like these. The people of Queensland have a right to know that, if their land is required for a project, they will receive a fair price from the government and not be ripped off by its sleazy henchmen. We are experiencing a period of unprecedented infrastructure growth as the Premier plays catch-up after years of doing nothing. As a result, all over our great state Queensland families will be affected by land acquisitions. The great Australian dream of home ownership is becoming a nightmare for some as they watch their property values plummet under this Labor government. Of course, if you are a comrade and have connections with the Labor Party the story is quite a different one. We have seen this recently in a case involving a property on Skyring Creek Road which was valued at $1 million more than the property across the road. In that case the government valuation was 200 per cent more than any private valuation. Recent speculation in the media suggests that the reason for this generous offer had more to do with the owner’s links with Terry Mackenroth than with realistic property values. However, what could be the reason for the deal being signed on 18 August—three days after this government went into caretaker mode? It could not be that the price had already been agreed upon, as there were other families in the same situation who were told that they could not settle. It could not be because of hardship, because a family who applied under hardship provisions during the caretaker period had to get both the opposition and the government to sign off. No, there is something dodgy with this deal and that is why I have asked the CMC to investigate the details. Whenever land is acquired by a government for any purpose, there is a primary principle that, after the acquisition, in monetary terms the affected parties should be in as good a position as they had enjoyed. Putting it simply, after selling to the government any Queenslander should find himself or herself no better off than had they sold privately and certainly no worse off. That is clearly not the case under this government. North Keppel Island Environmental Education Centre Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (12.07 pm): Many people have concerns for the environment— time and time again in this House we hear about them—but the bulk of Australians have really blundered on regardless. We now have concerns about climate change, but most of the members of this House are not aware how much Queensland is on the front foot in relation to environmental matters. We have all seen the advertising and we all know of Great Keppel Island as a holiday destination, but few know anything about the North Keppel Island Environmental Education Centre. This centre is run under the auspices of Education Queensland and I congratulate the Hon. Rob Welford as the current minister, and the Hon. Anna Bligh and the Hon. Dean Wells as previous ministers, for their ongoing support of the centre. Today, the island runs environmental courses and teaches schools and environmental groups throughout Queensland. Principal Greg Hossack and his staff are working hard to keep the teaching facility operating. The staff is assisted by the Wappaburra people, who are the original owners of the area, led by Bob Muir. Their people have cared for these areas for thousands of years. They are working for the benefit of the environment and future generations. Environmentally, North Keppel Island is well positioned to undertake studies of the reef and adjacent land areas. The diversity of plant and aquatic life and its impact on our atmosphere and our environment contribute greatly to our knowledge of natural occurrences. The island is situated approximately 25 kilometres north of the mouth of the Fitzroy River, which is the second largest river system in Australia and which has a massive impact on the reef, the birds, mammals and fish in the larger environmental area. I think it is ironic that, on looking at our Constitution, people will find that our founding fathers did not have a great knowledge of the environmental damage to which they would ultimately condemn Australia. The only provision dealing with any environmental matters is section 100, which deals with water. Although the Constitution does not mention the river 318 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007 directly, if we consider the history of our Constitution we would find that that only reflected the wish of the two larger states to rape the Murray River, which we are now trying to resurrect after 100 years of such rapine. Those circumstances caused continuous disputes between the Commonwealth and the states, which has led to the current ennui about climate change and the emission of greenhouse gases. Because of the impact on the whole natural environment by the actions of man, it is pleasing to know that the centre works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which sometimes gets criticism—and there was substantial criticism a couple of years ago when it increased the green zones on the Great Barrier Reef—but I can tell members that if the Murray Darling Basin Commission is one-tenth as effective as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, it may be classified as successful. Surprisingly, many people may not realise that North Keppel Island has its own photovoltaic array which fully supplies green power, which saves massive amounts of greenhouse gases caused by the use of powered generators. Last year, I was very pleased to represent the Minister for Education and launch a book about the North Keppel Island Environmental Education Centre in its 10th year titled Our Pearl in the Pacific. It pays tribute to the people who have helped keep the island from degradation. It is also thanks to the forethought of the Walls family, who were the original lessees and operators of the island for approximately 85 years, that we have this environmental gem in our area. Many descendants of the Walls family still live in central Queensland, including Aggie Humphris, who is the mother of one of my staff. She is also the great-granddaughter of Alexander Walls, who purchased land at the first land sale in Rockhampton. Even though she suffers ill health, she still keeps an interest in her community. I pay tribute to Aggie and her family for their contribution to their community. There are many families throughout Australia like the Walls family who have had the forethought to act in an environmentally sensible manner and who have endeavoured to lessen the impact of humanity on our environment. I was also pleased when initial funding of $500,000 was granted for a new bigger and better boat for the centre to allow more schools and groups to undertake environmentally sensitive activities. Sadly, there was some delay because of increasing costs, but that boat is now to be in operation by about July. Whilst the federal government seems to have suddenly realised the impact of climate change, there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction. It can look at the lead shown by Queensland in supporting environmental initiatives such as the North Keppel Island Environmental Education Centre and realise that Queensland is the Smart State and is getting on with the job of protecting our environment for future generations.

Queensland Air Museum Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (12.12 pm): In 1973 the Queensland Air Museum had its beginning when the Queensland branch of the Aviation Historical Society of Australia purchased a Canberra bomber. The bomber was unveiled at the Pioneer Valley Park at Kuraby, thus inaugurating the museum. By 1977, this aircraft was moved to a site at lower Nudgee where it was joined by a number of other aircraft. In 1980, the then Landsborough Shire Council, under Councillor John Harrison, persuaded the Landsborough Shire Council to allow the air museum to relocate to Caloundra and offered a hangar on the current Caloundra Aerodrome site. In 1986, a Canberra, Meteor and two Sea Venoms were transported to Caloundra. In April 1987, the museum was opened by Mrs Ly Bennett, the wife of the late Air Vice-Marshal Don Bennett, of Pathfinder fame, who had been patron until his death in September 1986. In fact, the road leading to the museum has been officially renamed Pathfinder Drive in honour of the Pathfinder force. Over the ensuing years the museum purchased and restored a number of aircraft. There are now 40 in total. It has been explained to me that this is perhaps the second most important collection of aircraft in Queensland and one of the most important in Australia. The museum does not merely focus on military aircraft; rather it highlights aircraft in general with a particular emphasis on the history of flight in Queensland. In addition to aircraft, the museum houses a large quantity of memorabilia, including that of aviators such as Charles Kingsford Smith and Bert Hinkler. The museum is a voluntary organisation with about 160 members, many drawn from Air Force and aviation backgrounds. The museum sits on two hectares and attracts between 10,000 and 12,000 tourists per year. The Sunshine Coast draws enormous economic benefit from tourism and the museum is one element of that industry. We now find that the growth in Caloundra poses a real threat to the museum as it sits on the Caloundra Aerodrome site, which is a prime location for development and the CAMCOS rail corridor. The members of the air museum and the people of Caloundra understand very clearly the importance of development and growth, but equally they are concerned that the historical value of these aircraft and memorabilia be not lost to the Sunshine Coast, given the hundreds of thousands of hours over the past 20-odd years that have been put into the museum. 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 319

It is also a simple fact that the aircraft cannot be moved. I was advised that it would take 20 men up to two years to dismantle and move the 40-odd aircraft and memorabilia that are on the site. This museum is a vital link to our aviation history and to lose this collection will be a disaster to the people of the Sunshine Coast and, indeed, to Queensland. If it is removed, it will never be returned. There is a real risk that if the collection cannot be saved, it will be broken up forever. At a meeting last Thursday, which I attended, it was determined to form a task force to look at how this collection can be preserved for, as I said, the people of Caloundra, the Sunshine Coast and across Queensland. The meeting was attended by people connected with the museum, the RSL, Vietnam veterans, air cadets, ratepayers and many others, clearly showing a united effort to protect the air museum from destruction. The first meeting of the task force will be held on 1 March to form a strategy for its approach, with the emphasis on retaining the air museum where it is. Whilst accepting that development and change is inevitable, there is also a clear necessity to protect the historical link to the past. This air museum provides a critical plank to that platform. We must all play a part in this—the community, local government and the state and federal governments. A whole-of-government and community approach is going to be required to protect this important site, which houses historical collections and memorabilia. I am asking the people of the Sunshine Coast to get behind this very important project. It is a project that simply and clearly protects our heritage, not just for ourselves but for those in the years to come. Climate Change Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (12.16 pm): As we heard a couple of weeks ago, following the handing down of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the debate about the cause of climate change is effectively over. Global warming is caused by human activity, but the debate about how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the steps that are needed to adapt to the consequences of climate change is only just beginning. When this issue was last debated in this parliament, many members of the opposition did not even think it important enough to warrant being present in the chamber. How out of step they are with both the scientific community and the wider community and how arrogant and ignorant they must have been perceived to be. It is accepted in the scientific community that one of the effects of climate change is increased variability in our climate. The current drought in south-east Queensland and in other parts of southern Australia may well be the result of climate change. Certainly, in far-north Queensland, it is predicted that we will experience more intense rainfall and cyclone events. Two weeks ago when this parliament was in session, the Premier and the Minister for Emergency Services reported on Cyclone Nelson, which had formed in the Gulf of Carpentaria and which was moving across the coast towards Cairns. Every cyclone season, the people of far-north Queensland, particularly in the coastal areas, endure the spectre. Fortunately, that cyclone passed without significant damage to property and without loss of life or injury, although in a cruel twist of fate, again there were farmers in the Innisfail district whose banana crops were damaged fresh on the back of making good after the devastating effects of Cyclone Larry. I am sure every member of this House would join with me in expressing our sympathy to those farmers who yet again have been dealt another blow. The importance of that is for us all to realise that this phenomenon is with us forever and likely to get worse. As cyclones Larry and Monica demonstrated last year, cyclones have the potential to devastate communities and wipe out whole industries. Despite a remarkably successful recovery effort supported by the government and spearheaded by General Cosgrove, the effects of Cyclone Larry will be felt for some time yet and no-one who experienced Larry will ever forget its destructive force. In the aftermath of Cyclone Larry the government formulated a coordinated policy response to the increasing threat of cyclones. Safeguarding Cyclone Communities is a package of initiatives to help communities in coastal Queensland be better prepared and equipped than ever before to cope with the accelerating impacts of climate change. The package includes $52 million over five years to boost equipment and training for emergency services personnel. I can inform the House through my contact with the various state emergency services personnel in my electorate of Barron River that every single additional piece of equipment is highly valued and much appreciated by those volunteers. The package also includes $4.4 million over two years to enhance spatial information and mapping to more accurately predict the impact of storm surge; to provide specially equipped storm shelters in new or upgraded public buildings that will withstand winds of up to 306 kilometres an hour; to identify public and private buildings that are sufficiently robust to be used as evacuation shelters and provide them with emergency supplies and equipment; and to conduct an education awareness campaign on preparing for cyclones specifically targeting new residents. A key feature of the package was convening a summit featuring national and international delegates to plan and prepare for future cyclone seasons and to examine the latest trends in cyclone and storm management. I am very pleased that the Premier accepted my invitation to convene that 320 Matters of Public Interest 20 Feb 2007 summit in Cairns, which is a city very vulnerable to the impact of cyclones and storm surges. I was also delighted that that summit was held at the excellent facilities of James Cook University at Smithfield in the heart of the electorate of Barron River. The Barron River electorate includes most of the low-lying northern beach suburbs of Cairns. Time expired. Nanango Electorate, Water Shortages Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.21 pm): Until the south-east corner began to experience water shortages, concern for the crisis the drought has inflicted on many rural communities hardly crossed the government’s agenda. Many rural communities have watched their water storages dwindle and have an existing water capacity for only weeks or months, not years. Some have already reportedly begun carting water for residents. The Tarong and Tarong North power stations generating futures are now under threat because of a lack of water supply from Wivenhoe and . The construction of the water pipelines to allow the recycled water pipeline to come on line has a deadline which may very well not beat the decline in the water level of Boondooma Dam. The Tarong Power Station is to be the recipient of recycled water via the current pipeline from Wivenhoe, and it is proposed that a smaller water pipeline from Wivenhoe be laid to furnish water supply to Toogoolawah. Blackbutt, however, which currently obtains water from the Wivenhoe pipeline, is to get its water piped from Boondooma. That poses the question: by the time the Tarong Power Station is either receiving recycled water or has to be shut down because there is no more water, will there be enough water left for the people of Blackbutt to access? Thus jobs are threatened in the South Burnett. But there is more. Meandu coal, which currently powers Tarong Energy, has come to its end and Tarong Energy must make a decision as to whether it will access coal from the Kunioon, Glen Wilga or New Acland mine sites. If Tarong Energy chooses either of the latter, the South Burnett loses more jobs. Of the three sites in contention, New Acland and Glen Wilga have potential futures in export but the Kunioon site does not. The Kunioon site is located within a very short distance of the current Meandu mine and the Tarong Power Station, so the Kunioon site is obviously the preferred option for the towns of Nanango, Blackbutt, Yarraman and Kingaroy, which all rely heavily on the mine for employment and business. Pre the existence of the Tarong Power Station, the Meandu mine and more recently Tarong North, the South Burnett was subject to the vagaries of the weather and even now few areas are not impacted by this 10-year drought. With the advent of Tarong Energy and the Meandu mine, the area was delivered a solid future and any threat to that future is taken very seriously. The loss of the mine would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs. Even the threat of job losses is already impacting on businesses and employment opportunities as employers delay putting on extra staff ‘just in case’ the Kunioon mine does not proceed. The real estate market has also stalled. The Tarong Power Station and the Meandu mine have encouraged and supported many opportunities for jobs, training and apprenticeships. These two organisations have, through their interaction with the community, become an essential part of our community. It has to be recognised, however, that we are dealing with commercial entities, and the bottom line is the almighty dollar so the decision will be a commercial one. Collectively, we the communities of the South Burnett ask the minister, as the shareholding minister of Tarong Energy, to take into consideration the wide-ranging impact on the people of the South Burnett if the wrong decision is made—that is, if the option is taken not to obtain coal from the Kunioon site. We ask the minister to use his influence to ensure the district’s continued positive future, considering we have a lot of issues on our plate. Mayor Reg McCallum of Nanango stated in the South Burnett Times recently— A decision to develop coal resources outside the South Burnett will have a devastating effect on us all. It would be a major blow to the region if the current bond that exists was to be severed. How right he is. But let us not stop there. Let us go for the trifecta. The Kingaroy Shire Council states that we have 12 months maximum water supply. With its own bores drying up, our biggest employer Swickers is augmenting its dwindling supply with town supply but its needs grow greater every day. It has asked for government assistance to install a $3 million recycling plant to minimise its call on the town’s limited and finite resource. The South Burnett faces an uncertain short-term future if the drought, which we can do nothing about, continues or if government helps to ensure that jobs are secured but it is not forthcoming—which the government can do something about. This government so readily addresses the needs of the south- east corner but forgets or ignores the needs of the rest of the state. More than $57 million has been spent searching for underground water for Brisbane. This company is asking for assistance of only $3 million. But why stop there? Let us add another industry which does not drain our water supplies but has continually sought help and has been knocked back. It is looking perhaps to move elsewhere. 20 Feb 2007 Matters of Public Interest 321

These four industries are but the tip of the iceberg because, as everyone knows, even one threatened business has a domino effect on every other business in an area, and there are very few things that happen in a community that impact more on individuals, businesses or industries than the loss of jobs. The government needs to be concerned. We are asking for help and we are looking for support. I believe that the government needs to show for once that it is a government for all Queenslanders, not just for the south-east corner. Clean Coal Technology Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (12.27 pm): Earlier this month we witnessed claims by Senator Bob Brown from Tasmania in relation to phasing out of coal exports. He said on 9 February, ‘Australia should develop a plan in the next three years to reduce and phase out coal exports.’ According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Senator Brown quotes that the Australian coal industry employs 28,000 people. Statistics from the Queensland coal industry confirm that 20,000 of those workers are based in Queensland. From June 2005 until June 2006 the number of jobs in the coal industry in Queensland increased by 17.82 per cent. Senator Brown’s comments could have been interpreted to put those jobs at risk. The majority of our power generation in Queensland is from coal-fired power stations, but over the years the Beattie government has been actively pursuing policies that utilise a combination of coal and renewable energy. One area in which Queensland is leading the way is clean coal technology. It is this type of technology that will be the way of the future—technology that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time preserving the employment of thousands of workers in the Queensland coal industry. The Stern report states clearly that ‘even with strong expansion of the use of renewable energy and other low carbon energy sources, fossil fuels could still make up over half of the global energy in 2050,’ and, further, that a combination of business and financial investment intertwined with policy direction by government is at the core to drive innovation change. Already the Beattie government is committed to driving innovation change through research and development to help better develop new clean coal technology. The advances in Queensland will then be able to spill over and assist other countries such as China and India; hence, having a direct effect on international cooperation in relation to energy emissions. By exporting this technology to the world, we have the potential to be a leader in the field. Queensland is leading by example. In July last year the Queensland government allocated $300 million from the Queensland Future Growth Fund to develop further technology. Presentations to the board included the ZeroGen clean coal power project, an oxy-fuel firing project and a zero carbon project at a coal seam gas field. On 1 November last year the Minister for Mines and Energy stated that Stanwell Corporation had just launched an environmental impact study into the groundbreaking ZeroGen project. I note this morning in ministerial statements that the minister for state development said that the ZeroGen project will be the first in the world to investigate the viability of integrating coal based gasification and carbon capture and storage to produce low-emission electricity. It would have the potential to capture and store up to 420,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide or the equivalent, as the Minister for Mines and Energy said in his ministerial statement this morning, of taking 93,000 cars off the road. The Beattie government has supported the establishment of world-class research and development facilities to support the mineral resource industry right here in Queensland. I was pleased to note that the minister for state development today announced that the Department of State Development has just committed $200,000 to a feasibility study into the establishment of a national low- emission gasification test facility in Queensland. According to the Australian Coal Association, clean coal technologies are a family of new technological innovations that are environmentally superior to the technologies in common use today. Examples of clean coal technologies currently in operation or under development around the world include stack gas treatment, advanced pulverised fuel combustion, fluidised bed combustion and gasification and integrated goal gasification combined cycle. It is clearly through partnerships between government and industry that we can make a significant difference to the way in which we clean our coal and help to produce low-emission electricity. The research and development now will contribute to our future. This is not out of step with the Stern report. In the report it says that the investment that takes place in the next 10 to 20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and the next. It is very clear that a Queensland government and industry partnership is one step that can help achieve further advances in clean coal technology. Already the Premier has indicated that the pilot scheme of the Stanwell Power Station near Rockhampton could bring clean coal technology online much sooner, indicating that a five-year time line is not out of the question, and further that in discussions with Chinese officials they would welcome 322 Statutory Bodies Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

Queensland’s technology in this field. It is now up to the Howard government to show some clear leadership and put further funding into more research and development to create better technologies whilst at the same time preserving the thousands of jobs in the coal industry. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The time for matters of public interest has expired.

STATUTORY BODIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (12.32 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend various acts establishing statutory bodies. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. RJ MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for State Development, Employment and Industrial Relations) (12.32 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Statutory Bodies Legislation Amendment Bill 2007. This bill delivers the Beattie government’s policy and election commitment to return employees of certain statutory bodies affected by WorkChoices to the state industrial system. The WorkChoices amendments to the federal Workplace Relations Act extended the coverage of federal industrial laws to many Queensland employees through the use of the corporations power under the Australian Constitution. Included within the scope of the expanded federal industrial system are employees of incorporated Queensland statutory bodies which engage in trading or financial activities. The Queensland government is unapologetically opposed to the nature of the WorkChoices legislation and its effect, in particular, on employees. As part of its resolve to minimise the impact and coverage of WorkChoices, the government has pursued a path of ensuring that employees of these statutory bodies can again enjoy the security and protection of Queensland’s state industrial jurisdiction which is fair and balanced and has overseen rock-bottom levels of disputation since its inception of state industrial laws under the Beattie government. A challenge by Queensland, the other states and some unions to the validity of WorkChoices resulted in the High Court upholding the legislation late last year. However, the Beattie government continues to lead the charge against these harsh federal laws and has a number of options it is pursuing, including legislation, to help Queensland workers and their families robbed of pay and conditions. The Statutory Bodies Legislation Amendment Bill is part of the government’s response. This bill will re-establish state industrial jurisdiction over employees of affected statutory bodies by taking their employment relationships beyond the reach of the federal workplace relations laws through their employment by the newly created employing office. In view of the time, I seek leave to have the remainder of my second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. In the case of the Museum, Library and Art Gallery, the employees will in fact be employed by the Department of Education and Training and the Arts. It does this in a way which enables affected statutory bodies to continue to perform the function for which they were created. Staff will be employed by unincorporated statutory entities which are not subject to federal industrial laws but which are instead Government entities whose staff are employees of the Crown. The statutory bodies will utilise these Crown employees to enable them to achieve their purposes. I now turn to the detail of the bill. The bill consists of 12 parts, a Preliminary Part 1, followed by Parts 2-12 each of which amends a different Act governing the respective statutory bodies. Generally, in respect of each statutory body, the bill provides for the creation of a new entity to be the employer of the relevant staff. The staff of this new unincorporated entity, the employing office, will perform work for the statutory body under a work performance arrangement between the two entities. The bill expressly provides that staff employed under such a work performance arrangement are employees of the employing office, not the statutory body. Staff of the affected statutory body will be provided with employment in the new employing office. In the case of the Museum, the State Library, and the Art Gallery, the relevant government department will continue to employ staff under the Public Service Act, and staff directly employed by the various statutory bodies corporate will also be provided with employment by the department. 20 Feb 2007 Plant Protection Amendment Bill 323

The bill preserves each employee’s existing rights and entitlements and provides for these to accompany the person to their new employer. It also ensures that the newly created employing offices will be bound by the state industrial instruments that had application to the respective statutory body prior to WorkChoices. The bill provides for the appointment of an executive officer for each employing office with the employing office acting through that executive officer. It also provides that the employing offices comply with statutory financial reporting requirements. In the preparation of the bill, my department has consulted extensively with statutory bodies impacted by the bill, with relevant Government departments and agencies, as well as the unions that have coverage of the work required to be undertaken by the staff. The bill delivers the Beattie Government’s promise to return to the state industrial system employees of statutory bodies affected by WorkChoices. At the same time it respects and preserves the integrity of affected statutory bodies and it respects and preserves the rights and entitlements of the employees of those statutory bodies. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Miss Simpson, adjourned.

PLANT PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (12.35 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Plant Protection Act 1989. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (12.35 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. As a matter of urgency, I am proposing that the Plant Protection Act 1989 be amended to allow the Chief Executive of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries to amend declarations of approved sugarcane varieties as required and also to allow Bundaberg growers to plant sugarcane smut-susceptible varieties this March. Sugarcane smut is regulated under the Plant Protection Act 1989. The disease was detected in June 2006 in and around the Childers area. In early November 2006 it was also detected in Mackay. Scientific opinion now is that smut is widespread and well established and it is no longer possible to prevent or control its spread. Accordingly, the state government has moved from containment and eradication to long-term management driven largely by industry. However, the current legislation was framed to deal with pest incursions and disease outbreaks, not with widespread, long-term disease management and economic recovery, as we are presently faced with. In November 2006, Dr David Watson was contracted to assess and report back to the Queensland government on the economic impact of sugarcane smut on the Queensland sugarcane industry and identify ways of facilitating economic recovery. In framing the recommendations of the report, Dr Watson observed— • that in an economic sense the incursion is manageable by the sugar industry in the normal course of business; • that government should not be directing how local areas are to manage the incursion but rather should adopt a facilitating role in the management process; • that there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the epidemiology of smut in Queensland and the practical aspects of farm management of the disease; and • that there is considerable urgency to increase the number of smut-resistant varieties of cane available, both to improve the yield and CCS characteristics of the cane and to ameliorate the risk to the industry of a reliance on too few varieties of cane. The report’s recommendations include— • factors that should be included in regional response plans for each Plant Quarantine Area; • allowing the planting of sugarcane smut-susceptible varieties in the Bundaberg-Childers area; • consideration of whether any mechanisms designed to facilitate additional plantings of smut- susceptible cane in the Bundaberg area should also be made available to other areas; • that the government should consider augmenting industry research and plant-breeding activities to increase the variety and availability of smut-resistant cane; and • that the government deliver smut management information and decision support tools for epidemiology, on-farm surveillance and farming systems practices. 324 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Bundaberg growers have strongly expressed a desire to plant susceptible varieties this autumn as they are currently at a disadvantage to other cane-producing areas. The Watson report found that there would be an economic advantage for them in allowing the planting of 2,000 hectares of susceptible varieties in the coming weeks. However, as part of the original June 2006 containment and eradication response, smut-susceptible varieties were removed from the Bundaberg approved varieties list in August 2006, leaving Bundaberg growers with insufficient planting material for an autumn 2007 planting. Furthermore, the current operation of the Plant Protection Act 1989 will not allow for the relisting of smut-susceptible varieties for planting. This has resulted in an inconsistent outcome whereby only Bundaberg growers are not allowed to plant susceptible varieties. The government is therefore moving quickly and decisively to amend the act so as to provide the power to amend the approved varieties declaration. As a matter of urgency, I am proposing that the relevant legislation be changed to mitigate against risk to the government caused by the inconsistency of the application of the act between the other pest quarantine areas. This would allow the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries’ chief executive to amend the declaration of approved sugarcane varieties as required and also allow Bundaberg growers to plant smut-susceptible varieties this March. There is only a small window of opportunity to facilitate a March planting for these producers, and the government does not want to exacerbate the problems already caused by the inflexibility of the act and its subordinate legislation to take on board economic recovery from pest and diseases. There may be some in the industry who oppose the planting of susceptible varieties as they perceive this may increase the risk to them of contracting the disease. However, the weight of national scientific evidence suggests that smut in Queensland cannot be eradicated or contained. The Australian government’s National Management Group’s refusal to fund eradication is a strong argument for allowing the planting of susceptible varieties. With the establishment of the new agency Biosecurity Queensland, there will be a further substantial review of this act in consultation with industry, which will deal with other important policy issues. In the meantime, the industry and government should not be saddled with the unintended consequences of an outdated section of the Plant Protection Act. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, adjourned.

NUCLEAR FACILITIES PROHIBITION BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 29 November 2006 (see p. 731). Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (12.41 pm): I rise today to make a contribution on behalf of the Queensland coalition to discuss the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. This legislation has the stated objective to help to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Queensland by prohibiting nuclear facilities, and this noble statement is repeated in the minister’s second reading speech. In reality the bill, if passed, will achieve nothing. The bill is initially set on a false premise that the state has some control of nuclear facilities in Queensland. This is untrue. In reality, the regulator in relation to nuclear facilities is the Commonwealth government. This bill, therefore, is little more than a state government public relations exercise designed to voice the Beattie government’s objections to issues raised in the recently released report of the uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy review conducted by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The government is assisted in its propaganda by the Australia Institute, which has been scaremongering Queenslanders on where nuclear power facilities may be built. The Australia Institute released a report on 30 January listing 19 likely sites. These sites included Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island. While we are talking about a report from the Australia Institute, let us have a look at the background of the people who are deliberating on such a report on the siting of a nuclear power station. They included Meredith Edwards, affiliated to Labor, senior policy adviser to Paul Keating; Barbara Pocock, affiliated to the Democrats, senior policy adviser to the leader of the Democrats; Christian Downie, affiliated to the Greens, policy adviser to New South Wales Greens; Emma Rush, affiliated to the Greens, a member of the Melbourne City Council Greens movement; and Andrew McIntosh, affiliated to the Democrats, policy advisor to the Democrats. The board of the Australia Institute is littered with left wing hacks and cronies whose political affiliation is linked in some way to the left wing of the Queensland Labor Party. Therefore, anything that this group puts forward can only be taken in the context of being part of the farce that is this bill. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 325

On 6 June 2006 the Prime Minister announced the appointment of a task force to undertake an objective, scientific review of uranium mining and the possible use of nuclear energy in Australia. The results of this task force are pertinent to this debate, to say the least. At a time when greenhouse gas emissions is the most talked about subject in political forums, one of the key findings of the task force is that nuclear power is a low-emission technology. The report states— Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power are more than ten times lower than emissions from fossil fuels and are similar to emissions from many renewables. It goes on to say— The challenge to contain and reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be considerably eased by investment in nuclear plants. The report then concedes that— Australia’s greenhouse challenge requires a full spectrum of initiatives and its goals cannot be met by nuclear power alone. The greenhouse gas emission reductions from nuclear power could reach 8 to 17 per cent of national emissions in 2050. That is why it is amazing that a party that supports the continuation of uranium mining in Australia and its export to countries that will be using the mineral in nuclear facilities stands here today as a vocal opponent of what its own federal Labor policy encourages, that is, the responsible use of uranium. It is interesting, as this Labor government has voted in this House to do away with the free hospital system, with all Labor members feeling totally embarrassed over betraying their own political ideologies. However, within a few months the Premier announced that he was going to retain the free hospital system and there were many roars and cheers from backbenchers who were relieved that the Premier had come to his senses. The state Labor government will oppose nuclear energy in Queensland but will change its position when its federal Labor colleagues reverse their position on nuclear energy. So this bill is a waste of time and will deliver nothing when this government may support nuclear power further down the track. I would like to acknowledge the importance of our great coal industry and the wonderful employment opportunities: the billions of dollars in royalties and gross revenue and also the need for a coal-fired power station in north Queensland. I would like to bring to the minister’s and the Premier’s attention a potential site. As they are aware, the National Electricity Market Management Company— NEMMCO—report said that Queensland could face widespread interruption to its electricity supply by 2009 if no extra power stations are brought on line with existing ones. Mineral development and investment in north and western Queensland have been put on hold because of a lack of reliable power sources. It is logical to identify Pentland as an alternative site for a base load power station. The report states— Major stakeholders have already done extensive investigations into the feasibility of building a power station at Pentland, including a $2 million drilling program completed by the owners of the Pentland coal reserves, Xstrata, who confirmed the ore body is a good enough quality for an economically viable 600-800MW power station for the next 35–40 years. About the site it states— It is commonsense as we have one of the biggest river systems in Queensland with a plentiful supply of water, a nearby rail facility, a rural environment, and a potential power station that sits on unlimited coal reserves and Pentland is a vital link to North and Western Queensland. This proposal has the support of federal and state members, Charters Towers Chamber of Commerce, city and shire councils, Townsville Enterprise and investors. I note, too, that the state government has licensed the Steritech irradiation facility that uses radioactive materials at their facility in Narangba. It is hypocritical for the government, on the one hand, to license a nuclear facility and, on the other hand, to ban them. I do not know if the anti-nuclear lobby within the government has forgotten about this facility. I would like to refer to the web site of Steritech to explain to members what ionising radiation is. All matter is made up of atoms consisting of a nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons, similar to the sun surrounded by the planets. The nucleus is made up of a zoo of different particles. The most significant are called neutrons, because they do not carry an electrical charge and positively charged protons. Atoms containing the same number of protons have identical chemical properties and are known as elements. Elements with a different number of neutrons are known as isotopes. There are 88 naturally occurring elements, some examples of which are oxygen, iron, sulfur, uranium and radium. Some atoms have an excess of energy in their nucleus. They get rid of this energy by emitting some form of radiation. The process is called radioactive decay. Most of these radiations emitted have enough energy to strip off one or more of the electrons orbiting a nucleus. This process is called ionisation and, not surprisingly, the sort of radiations that can produce it are called ionising radiations. Ionising radiation comes in four main forms: alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays and X- rays. Each one behaves rather differently and can present different sorts of hazards. X-rays are a particular form of ionising radiation produced when high-speed electrons are stopped by heavy materials. Steritech uses gamma radiation for its sterilising process. Where is the logic in this legislation, therefore, when the Beattie Labor government, on the one hand, decides to license this nuclear 326 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007 medicine facility and today, on the other hand, wants to completely ban nuclear facilities? I wonder whether this will mean the closure of the Narangba facility. Maybe this legislation is not supposed to have any logic attached to it. Maybe it is just supposed to be filled with grand statements because it is actually just a stunt. This legislation is a complete joke and yet another example of the time wasting that goes on in this place. As we see countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States embrace nuclear energy, to rule out public debate on nuclear energy as a possible future option is typical of the Beattie government’s cannot do, cannot build approach and bowing to the factions. Queensland’s immediate energy needs have been wonderfully served and we are fortunate to have coal in abundance. With the world’s demand for energy forecast to double over the next 30 years, demand for our coal will soar and this resource may not last forever. Unfortunately, when it comes to looking at the future infrastructure requirements for our state, this government is about perception. It pretends to plan but never does. When it comes to infrastructure, the Labor government is always playing catch-up. It has no vision and it has never looked down the track and thought that we may need a low-emission energy source in the future so let us keep our options open. The way the Labor government thinks is that it is politically expedient to put a bill forward to prohibit a low-emitting energy source. As it has done with hospitals, water, roads, housing and electricity, it will rue the day that it closed its mind to this greenhouse friendly electricity option. This bill is in reality unachievable and is a waste of the time of this parliament. The regulator to nuclear facilities in Australia is not the state; it is, in fact, the Commonwealth. So when it comes to making decisions about nuclear facilities this bill is redundant at all stages. Interestingly, this bill does allow some nuclear facilities to be built. Clause 7 outlines a number of exemptions including the operation of a nuclear powered vessel. So does this mean that at no stage can we have low-emitting greenhouse gas friendly nuclear facilities in Queensland, but we can have a nuclear powered vessel that is more than likely regarded as a military target? How safe does the Left of the Labor Party feel about that? I am sure that a number of those on the Left would have spent a bit of time hanging around the docks waiting for a US military destroyer to come in obviously for the purposes of protesting against its presence. By allowing this legislation, those opposite will continue to allow those military vessels to dock in populated areas. Speaking of hypocrisy, I want to refer members to clause 21 of this bill which creates an obligation on the minister to conduct a plebiscite to ascertain the views of Queensland voters if the Commonwealth takes steps towards supporting or allowing construction of a nuclear facility. This is what we like to refer to as the ‘get out of jail’ clause. This clause adds further to the stunt nature of this bill. It would be interesting to seek the minister’s views as to whether he would seek to have the legislation repealed if a plebiscite conducted under the provisions of this bill resulted in a yes vote. The minister’s second reading speech and explanatory notes to the bill both claim that this legislation is in response to ‘community concerns about potential environmental and human health impacts and weapons proliferation.’ However, the government has not consulted with the community in any meaningful way whatsoever in relation to preparation of this bill. Under the consultation heading in the explanatory notes the government has indicated that it has consulted with only two of its own agencies—the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, which has to draft the bill, irrespective of its own policy intent, and the Coordinator-General. The community concern which the government claims to reflect in the bill must be ideologically driven rather than based on any empirical evidence to gauge community views on the nuclear issue. In conclusion, let me reiterate that this bill is a joke. It achieves nothing and is a waste of the time of this parliament. The Queensland coalition believes that the coal industry is still the most important energy- producing option for Queensland. This bill, however, does not look to the future options for electricity generation that we may have to consider. This bill does not come under the jurisdiction of this parliament for a start because nuclear facilities are regulated by the Commonwealth. This bill rules out the future use of a low greenhouse gas emitting option which could be very desirable when coal supplies start to run out. This bill does not rule out the building of new nuclear facilities and allows nuclear powered vessels to dock in our harbour and so in reality does not achieve Labor’s true policy outcomes. This bill has had no consultation with the community despite the fact that it is based on the premise of community concerns. This bill should be treated with contempt by this parliament. It is purely a stunt that is set up for the Left and achieves no real outcomes because this state does not have the power to achieve outcomes on nuclear facilities. It is a joke and a waste of the valuable time of this parliament, and for this reason the coalition will be opposing this bill. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (12.55 pm): I am pleased to add my voice in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill, which aims to protect the Queensland way of life by banning nuclear facilities, including power-generating plants and waste disposal sites. I note the absence of National Party and Liberal Party members on the speaking list for this bill. That would strongly suggest to me and the rest of 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 327 the House that they support John Howard’s intent to locate nuclear facilities in Queensland. It might suggest, Minister, that John Howard has the go-ahead with regard to nuclear facilities in Queensland and possibly some of the best locations could be in National Party electorates. I do not see them in here opposing the move by John Howard and the federal coalition to locate facilities in different parts of Queensland. I am sure the member for Charters Towers would argue strongly if there were one suggested for his electorate. It would be a good idea if those opposite could get up in here and at least oppose John Howard’s intention. This bill will ensure that if the Commonwealth attempts to ram through nuclear facilities in our great state then Queenslanders will have their say through a plebiscite. That is what this legislation is all about. This legislation is Queensland’s response to Prime Minister John Howard, who appears hell-bent on forcing Australians to accept nuclear as an answer to all our climate change ways. In driving the push for nuclear power, Howard has given no consideration to what this would mean to Queensland’s environment, tourism industry, local communities or our thriving coal industry. In the words of Australian of the Year Tim Flannery, ‘He is acting more like the CEO of a company than a responsible Prime Minister.’ That was in the Bulletin on 19 December last year. According to a recent Australia Institute report there is a very real possibility that Queensland would feature prominently in any Australian nuclear industry with at least six centres, including Rockhampton and Mackay, earmarked as sites which would meet the criteria for nuclear plants. That is not good news for Queensland. It is not good news for central Queensland. The federal government may well want to push ahead with the nuclear opinion regardless of public opinion but we do not think that is right. Supporters of nuclear power see it as the magic pill that will cure all our climate change problems. But this is naive and simplistic. There is no doubt that we need to act now to address climate change. The experts tell us that we need strategies that will deliver realistic and effective results within the next 10 to 15 years. But even supporters of nuclear admit that it will take at least 15 to 25 years to get even a fledgling nuclear industry off the ground in Australia. So nuclear will not deliver in the short term. It may be that down the track we will have little choice but to explore nuclear as part of a range of energy options. But at this time the nuclear option raises far more questions than it answers—questions such as where to site nuclear plants. According to recent Australia Institute research, 75 per cent of Australians are opposed to having a plant sited in their local area. The safety of the nuclear plants is another issue. History paints a sorry picture of the long-term impact of nuclear accidents. We all remember Chernobyl. Disposal of nuclear waste is a concern which raises many more questions such as the location of suitable waste disposal sites, safe transportation of the waste to those sites, the long-term impacts on the environment, the excessive use of water—if that is not the major problem for us now. According to independent studies, nuclear stations use 25 per cent more water than traditional coal-fired power stations, which is a real concern for a country facing the worst water crisis in its history. It is clear that significant community anxiety remains about nuclear energy. With two-thirds of the Australian population opposed to nuclear power, there is a need to send a clear message to the federal government about where Queensland stands in this debate. Issues such as nuclear plant sites, their safety and waste disposal considerations will no doubt be covered in greater detail by some of my esteemed colleagues. Sitting suspended from 1 pm to 2.30 pm. Mr PEARCE: Following on from where I left off before the lunch break, I now want to focus on the potential impact of a nuclear industry on my electorate and on my constituents. At the heart of my concerns are what such an industry would mean to Queensland’s $16 billion a year coal industry and the thousands of people it employs. There is no doubt that Queensland’s mining and resource sector and in particular the coal industry has underpinned our state’s growth and prosperity in recent years. There are now more than 18,000 workers employed directly in central Queensland’s coalmining industry. In terms of employment flow-ons, it means that the mining sector now accounts for one in every eight Queensland jobs and in central Queensland it is one in every four jobs which have a direct or indirect link to the resource sector. In 2005-06 coal alone generated almost $18 billion in exports. That means substantial royalties for Queensland’s state coffers—that is, more than $1.5 billion from mining and petroleum according to state budget forecasts for 2006-07. With the opening of new mines and the expansion of many existing operations, our state looks set to continue to ride on the crest of a coal wave for some years, offering security to people who work in the industry and to central Queensland’s cash flow. The mining sector lies at the heart of Queensland’s booming economy upon which our state is thriving in terms of income, jobs and government revenue. So why should Queensland’s current and future prosperity be at risk? The CFMEU’s—and I should declare my interest as a member—Mining and Energy General President, Tony Maher, told the 7.30 Report late last year that coal is Australia’s biggest single commodity and export earner and it ‘would be economic suicide for our country to strangle that export’. The answer lies not in closing down coal-fired power stations but embracing new technologies that can deliver cleaner power for Australia. 328 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Prior to lunch the member for Inala made a very informative contribution to this debate on clean coal technology and its importance to the future of the coal industry and the long-term benefits to world climate change. She was also spot-on when she spoke about the Beattie government’s role in the development of clean coal technologies. The role of government at both the state and federal level should be about promoting and encouraging a diverse range of energy sources, and that is what is happening in Queensland with research and development of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal—there is a good example of a trial of a geothermal power plant at Birdsville which currently meets 25 per cent of that town’s electricity needs—and biofuels such as ethanol. Of course, investment in clean coal technologies is one of the key planks of our government’s strategy for a more sustainable future. I am the first to agree that the coal industry is a dirty commodity—and no-one in this place knows that better than I do—but Queensland’s coal industry is at the forefront of research into clean coal technologies. As the world’s largest exporter of seaborne coal, the industry has acknowledged the negatives but it is now also embracing the potential for future technologies which will deliver environmental benefits. Queensland already has the most efficient coal-fired power generators in Australia thanks to improved technologies which have enabled a more efficient use of coal and delivered reduced levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Queensland’s supercritical coal-fired stations such as Callide C, Millmerran and Tarong North meet 27 per cent of the state’s annual electricity needs but produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than their traditional coal-fired generator cousins. A world-first full scale trial of new clean technology which will burn coal using oxygen rather than air is due to start in 2009 at Biloela’s Callide A Power Station. I am very excited about the work being done in my own electorate of Fitzroy by the state-owned Stanwell Corporation. The ZeroGen project is a world-first power plant which will integrate two clean coal technologies to produce baseload electricity with significantly low CO2 emissions. Those technologies are sequestration—that is, the safe and secure storage underground of carbon dioxide from a power plant and coal based gasification—and are currently the cleanest method of converting coal’s energy potential to electricity. That is pretty exciting stuff that is going to be happening in the years ahead. If these results prove as expected, the ZeroGen plant should be up and running by the year 2010. Once operational, this facility will produce up to 100 megawatts of electricity with the capacity to capture and store up to 420,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. I am told—and it has been said in the House a couple of times today—that that is the equivalent of taking some 93,000 cars off the road. If ZeroGen is a winner, this technology could well prove to be our most valuable export in the future in terms of what it can deliver by way of reduced greenhouse gas emissions from power stations throughout the world. That means we will be able to continue to export our coal around the world but power station emissions will be reduced to acceptable levels. We are making progress in an industry which has proven to be the backbone of our state’s economy and which is providing the solid framework for Queensland’s current and future prosperity. The PM may wish to cast aside coal to surf the nuclear wave, but I for one will fight for the future of Queensland’s coal industry, its employees and its communities. The Queensland coal industry is not a lumbering prehistoric beast; it is a highly sophisticated and efficient industry with world-class workers, world-first health and safety standards and best practice in exploration and processing systems. It is at the forefront of new technologies which will ensure our vast reserves of coal will continue to fuel our economy and job market now and well into the future. Continued investment in clean coal technologies and renewable energy options has to be a safer and more sensible option for Australia. All stakeholders in the coal industry recognise the need for change but are equally adamant that coal can and should be an integral part of the solution to addressing climate change. Its companies recognise the need for change. For example, Rio Tinto’s CEO, Leigh Clifford, has said— We must focus on coal quality and clean coal technology if we are to balance the needs of the environment with our capacity to afford the changes necessary for a sustainable future. The workers will benefit and, from my close association with the workers, it is also the workers who recognise the need for change. In its climate change discussion paper, the CFMEU acknowledges the need to— ... contribute responsibly to seeking solutions to the clear threats presented by human-caused climate change. The CFMEU also believes that energy policy must not only foster renewable energy technologies but also include a major commitment to substantially reduce emissions from fossil fuel use, which we have to accept is increasing, not decreasing. Clean coal technologies hold the key to ensuring the long- term sustainable future of the industry. If we can build a cleaner, greener industry and maintain job security along the way, then surely this is a much better outcome than a move to the nuclear great unknown. There are too many questions which remain unanswered for me to support a nuclear option at this time. I therefore commend the bill to the House and urge my colleagues to protect our great state’s current and future prosperity by saying no to nuclear. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 329

Mrs SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (2.39 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill, which aims to protect the health, safety and welfare of Queenslanders by prohibiting nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites in this state. Ever since the Prime Minister, John Howard, appointed his heavily biased nuclear energy task force last year, two things were apparent: firstly, the task force, simply because of its make-up, would find in favour of an Australian nuclear energy industry; and, secondly, the location of any future nuclear plant was a matter of serious concern to most Australians. This second point is borne out of research. Firstly, the Roy Morgan research poll conducted in June 2006 found that, while 49 per cent of people approved of nuclear power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emission, 87 per cent expressed concern about the disposal of nuclear waste. This poll did not canvass the location of nuclear power plants. Secondly, a news poll taken in late May 2006 found that only 38 per cent of people were in favour of nuclear power plants with 51 per cent opposed. Significantly, opposition was greater among women than it was among male respondents. As with the Morgan poll, this poll did not canvass the location of nuclear power plants. Thirdly, a further Newspoll commissioned by the Australia Institute confirms and refines their initial polling. When questioned about a nuclear power plant in their local area, 66 per cent were opposed with only 25 per cent in favour. Again, women outnumber men in opposition. Ms Jones: That’s because we care about our communities. Mrs SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the rising star, the member for Ashgrove. Women outnumber men in opposition by 75 per cent to 57 per cent. Younger people and those of us who have had to live in the shadow of a nuclear power plant for the longest are more opposed at 72 per cent than people aged 50 years or older at 60 per cent. Similarly, people with children show a higher level of opposition at 72 per cent than those without children at 64 per cent. This latest poll shows clearly that opposition to nuclear power is significantly greater when the issue of nuclear power plant siting is included. A Harris poll in the UK, which was published in the Financial Times in November last year, found that only 34 per cent of the population, in a country that has had nuclear power generation for many years, supports the building of new nuclear power stations to replace the older stations that are now starting to be decommissioned Thirty-three per cent are opposed with 33 per cent uncommitted. Clearly, the people of the UK remain unconvinced despite having lived with nuclear power generation for many years. Nevertheless, John Howard, while professing to want a full-blooded debate on the issue of nuclear power generation, has actively sought to ensure that the issue that matters the most to the majority of Australians is not part of that debate. An article that appeared in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on 7 June referred to the Prime Minister as saying that his task force would examine every stage of the uranium cycle except how many nuclear power stations might be needed and where they would be built. As it was so simply stated by the Australia Institute, ‘the Prime Minister’s suggestion that he can broaden the debate by excluding discussion of a crucial issue is a non sequitur’—but so much of the PM is absurd. It is widely acknowledged that nuclear power generation can be viable only if penalties are imposed on power generation from fossil fuels. Dr Ziggy Switkowski puts this at $15 to $40 per tonne of carbon released—or, to put it another way, nuclear energy costs about 50 per cent more to produce than does electricity from our existing power generation plants. For nuclear power to be viable, the cost of energy to consumers has to rise by 50 per cent. Obviously, the opposition is very happy for their taxpayers to pay that. That will mean— Ms Jones: Shame! Mrs SULLIVAN: It is a shame. That will mean not only an increase to the household budget for power usage but also increases in the price of goods and services consumed by the household because of increased power costs to the businesses producing those goods and services. What nobody seems to want to talk about is the fact that, if we artificially raise the price to consumers of electricity produced in the traditional power stations to make nuclear power generation viable, non-carbon emitting renewable energy generation on a large scale also becomes viable—wind generation, solar generation and solar thermal generation being among those methods of generation we can look at. Also, nobody seems keen to discuss what happens after a nuclear power station has ended its useful life. I do not suspect very many of those would be turned into arts precincts, as we have done with the Powerhouse centre at New Farm. Mr Lee interjected. Mrs SULLIVAN: And a fine establishment it is. I am sure the member for Indooroopilly agrees with me. Mr Lee interjected. 330 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Mrs SULLIVAN: Absolutely. Right now in the United Kingdom the decommissioning of 16 old nuclear power plants has commenced and that is expected to cost 76 billion pounds— Ms Jones: Seventy-six billion pounds! Mrs SULLIVAN: I reiterate that, 76 billion pounds or, if you like, about $190 billion dollars—more than $10 billion dollars per plant, or three times the cost of building the plant in the first place. What an indictment on our future. What a massive financial burden for our children and grandchildren. We are told that modern nuclear power stations are not a safety concern. Firstly, if that is the case, why is it necessary in the USA to have the Price-Anderson Act limiting the insurance liabilities of reactor operators? As Dr Richard Corkish of the University of New South Wales points out, without that act there would be no commercial nuclear energy industry in the USA. Secondly, any suggestion that there is no risk of accident or incident at a nuclear power station has to be accompanied by a suggestion that somehow both the major causes of those events in the past, human error and mechanical failure, have been eliminated. Good luck trying to win that argument. As recently as 25 July last year, an electrical fault at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden led to the plant being shut down with several problems occurring during that shutdown. One expert familiar with the plant, Lars-Olaf Hogland, said that it was the most serious nuclear incident since Chernobyl with only good luck preventing a meltdown. As is usually the case, other experts disagree, but whatever the status of the event that occurred it occurred because of a series of failures at the plant. We should never forget, either, the effect on communities that comes about as a consequence of failures at nuclear plants. At Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant was within hours of requiring that the entire state of Pennsylvania be evacuated. Seven years later, the Chernobyl accident caused many hundreds of immediate deaths and many thousands of deaths later, including the deaths of some people who were yet to be born at the time of the accident. Over 300,000 people in the area of Chernobyl have had to be permanently relocated. An accident at a nuclear power plant cannot be ruled out absolutely. The consequences of an accident at a nuclear power plant can be so dire that any thought of building the plant ought to be ruled out absolutely. As well as accidents, we need to consider attacks on nuclear power stations. Dr Switkowski has dismissed the possibility of a terrorist attack—just like the opposition—stating— We have looked at it and convinced ourselves that the probability is very low and we can’t find examples of terrorists penetrating the defences of a nuclear power reactor. That is dangerous thinking. Before 9-11 Dr Switkowski would have said the same thing—that the probability was very low of terrorists flying aircraft into targets like the World Trade Centre towers and the Pentagon. Could it be that the reason Switkowski could not find evidence of terrorists penetrating the defences of a nuclear power reactor is simply that, to date, there has been no concerted effort made to do so? What happens to the radioactive waste materials produced at nuclear power plants? Apparently, for the most part the radioactive waste is stored at the power plant itself, or at least in the medium term. In recent years we have seen community opposition to the Howard government’s attempts to site a radioactive waste storage facility in sparsely populated areas of outback Australia. Whether it is , West Australia, the Northern Territory, or Queensland, not one of those states with vast underpopulated regions wants to host such a facility. If the Australian people are unwilling to have the stuff stored in a national facility in outback Australia, it is a pretty certain bet that they will not be wanting to have it stored near the major population centres. But apart from storage itself, let us consider the nature of the material that is produced as a result of the nuclear generation of electrical power. A review of the Switkowski report by the EnergyScience Coalition was critical of the government’s report, saying that it did not adequately deal with the issues of nuclear waste and proliferation. The scientists estimated that the 25 nuclear power stations would over a period of 60 years produce between 37,000 and 45,000 tonnes of nuclear waste. Do we really want that to be part of our legacy to future Australians? Government members: No. Mrs SULLIVAN: I would have to agree with this side of the House. All of us on this side of the House certainly do not want to see that happen. Our children, our grandchildren, our great- grandchildren and even our great-great-grandchildren will curse us for going down this path. But it is even worse. That amount of spent fuel contains between 370 and 450 tonnes of plutonium, enough to make 37,000 to 45,000 nuclear weapons—and no-one will thank us for that. Bribie Island, in my electorate of Pumicestone—which I humbly represent—has been identified by the Australia Institute as a place that meets the principal criteria for the siting of a nuclear power plant. Ms Jones interjected. Mrs SULLIVAN: It is absolute madness, and I take that interjection of the member for Ashgrove. There was a little flurry of concern back in May last year when the Institute released its original list of 50 possible localities, which included Caboolture shire and Caloundra city. It should be said that the 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 331

Institute undertook this work before the Prime Minister’s task force had reported its finding because of its deep concern regarding the Prime Minister’s duplicity in quarantining the issue of siting of nuclear power plants from the consideration of the issue. Now the Institute has refined that original work and has pared the list down to just 12 locations—one of which is Bribie Island and another of which is the Sunshine Coast. Switkowski recommended 25 power stations; the Australia Institute has identified 12 suitable locations. That means that multiple nuclear power stations will be the norm. At least that is my understanding. Ms Jones: They’ve never been good at numbers on their side. Mrs SULLIVAN: They have never been good at numbers; that is correct. Either that or Prime Minister Howard will take the most foolhardy course and site his nuclear power stations in unsuitable locations, adding to the potential for a nuclear disaster. It should be noted that Barney Foran, Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra, made these comments when the Switkowski report was released. He said— The report says 25 nuclear plants so I’d say five each for Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth with another five close to expanding population centres, mostly coastal ... Bribie Island and the Sunshine Coast may well host as many as five nuclear power plants between them. However, while that would be a tragedy for my constituents and people living on the Sunshine Coast, they will not be alone. Sure, our houses will decrease in value, the growth of our communities will slow down, but we will have lots of company. The immediate evacuation zone recommended in the event of an incident at a nuclear power plant is everything within a 30-mile, or 48-kilometre, radius of the power plant. In the case of a nuclear power plant on the northern part of Bribie Island, that means evacuating an area from Pinkenba to Coolum and west to Kingaroy. If you live north of Brisbane’s CBD, keep your bags packed—you may have to move at a moment’s notice. I suspect that that zone contains more than the 340,000 people permanently relocated and something approaching the 800,000 people temporarily evacuated as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident. It is interesting to note what our local federal Liberal MP’s reaction has been to this issue. Ms Jones: Silence? Mrs SULLIVAN: Not quite, although one member has been quite silent on this. I am informed that has said that the suggestion that Bribie Island could be a site for a nuclear power reactor is ludicrous. I have to say that I agree, but I will take it one step further—the suggestion that we should go down a nuclear energy path is itself ludicrous. Since the release of the Switkowski draft report, Mr Brough has been ducking the question of whether or not he, like the Prime Minister, would be happy to have a nuclear power station in his electorate. Unlike the Liberal Party federal MPs in the neighbouring Fisher and Petrie electorates, who quickly assured their constituents that they opposed a nuclear power station in their electorates, Mr Brough has remained tight-lipped. While the federal government continues to try to quarantine the possible location of nuclear power plant reactors from the debate on a nuclear future for our country, Mr Brough’s refusal to be drawn on the issue is begging to be seen by many as a sign that our area has been pencilled in for the privilege of hosting one or more nuclear power plants. This conclusion has been drawn because, like his mentor Howard, Mal Brough is no stranger to doing and saying whatever is necessary to get elected. To say that he opposes nuclear power plants in our area would be popular. The fact that he will not say that is a sign that he does not want to be branded later on as having lied to his electorate on such an important issue—that would stop his meteoric rise dead in its tracks. Let me say this to the people of Queensland, but particularly to the people of the federal seat of Longman: the Liberals are hell-bent on foisting a nuclear power industry on Australia and Mal Brough is his willing and loyal accomplice. Part of that plan is to put a nuclear power plant in our neighbourhood. The only way we can stop them is to get rid of them. To do that, you need to vote Labor federally. I know the Labor candidate for Longman quite well. He is a good bloke. He is a straight shooter. When Jon Sullivan and Kevin Rudd say that they will put an end to Howard’s megalomaniacal madness on nuclear power generation, we can believe that that is exactly what they will do. Queensland is at the forefront of research on clean coal technology and has a growing reputation in this field. I welcome the appointment of Dr Kelly Thambimuthu, who has accepted an invitation from the Premier to become head of the Brisbane based Centre for Low Emission Technology. He sees an enormous opportunity to help develop technologies that will reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from electricity generators. Since coal in Australia is worth $25 billion annually, creates 30,000 direct jobs and 100,000 indirect jobs, this is the way forward for the Smart State, not nuclear power. I commend the bill to the House. 332 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (2.56 pm): I rise to support the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2007. We do not need the risk, the expense, the danger, the public uproar or, in particular, the waste- handling problems of this glow-in-the-dark solution being proposed by Canberra. Nuclear power in itself is not the problem; the major concern is what happens to the waste products. I do not think anybody in Australia, or Queensland for that matter, would want to have nuclear waste dumped in their backyards. Nuclear power is certainly being used in a number of overseas countries and has been used for a very long time, but I think we all remember the horrific Chernobyl disaster in Russia not that long ago and there have been other accidents involving nuclear power over the years. Even if we only exported the uranium, our Australian government would be silly enough to allow the waste products to come back here to be disposed of. No-one would be naive enough to think that other countries would not save some of that material for ulterior motives. Why should we have to consider mining uranium when other alternatives have not been fully utilised? For example, north Queensland has massive power-generating potential from the clean green hydro-electric option. I have spoken before about the enormous generating capacity of the Tully- Millstream project. This one scheme alone has already been engineered, has already had tens of millions of dollars spent on it and needs only to be completed to give us 500 kilowatts of electricity from renewable sources that do not pump out thousands and thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas and which do not leave us with radioactive waste that will remain lethal for centuries. The extremist rabid stance on the tiny piece of affected rainforest cannot be sustained when the alternative is more massive coalmines, more coal-powered power stations or, worse, the introduction of nuclear reactors. I have recently learnt more of the potential of the north and this is a potential that was realised, studied and was to go ahead under an earlier Labor government that was in power in the fifties but was abandoned by an incoming country party at the time. In the far north we have had some 50 years of outstandingly successful operations of —which, as we all know, was built for irrigation in the fifties—followed by the and the Kareeya hydro scheme. The third tranche was to be a dam on the , which has its headwaters on the tablelands and eventually runs out to sea near Ingham. In a visionary approach, the old-school, traditional Labor Party looked ahead. They looked over the horizon and in planning for the future also carried out the engineering and other works necessary for what was to be the third leg of a massive scheme. The Herbert Dam, which was to be built south-west of Mount Garnet, was to have comprised a major dam wall with seven weirs back along the Herbert River to provide not only a truly enormous water storage facility but also flood mitigation for the coastal lowlands around Ingham. It was also to have giant hydro-electric generation capacity even bigger, I understand, than that of the Tully-Millstream project. I am advised that this project was next on the list for construction when the conservatives took power in Queensland in the late fifties and killed it off. The Nationals have no credibility on dam issues in the far north and they have no answers either, apart from the Buck Rogers insanity of going nuclear. We in the far north well remember how the conservatives promised the Tully-Millstream project some 10 years ago when they were in power in both state and federal parliaments. They went back on their word the minute they got into power in both parliaments in 1996. We have not forgotten. Do we need more power-generating capacity? Of course we do. Do we need it in the far north? Of course—with our growing population and growing agriculture and industry, of course we do. Do we need it for our future? With the expected migration to the north of this state and this nation’s population and industry, of course we do. Do we need to go nuclear to meet those needs? No, of course we do not. That is the kind of insanity that we see coming out of Canberra more and more often these days. While nuclear reactors may provide some answers in terms of power generation, we need to look at the entire process involved and especially the enormous problems posed by the waste material that they generate. This is where I believe nuclear power generation fails badly. It is a process that creates material that is radioactive, potentially lethal and is either impossible to safely dispose of or astronomically expensive to deal with in any other fashion. And, of course, it is also a product that can potentially be used to create the most destructive weapons known to man. We live in a world where the risk of this material falling into the wrong hands does exist. We live in a world where extremists will go to any lengths in pursuit of their insane agendas. It is impossible for anyone to make a weapon out of the water running from a hydro station; it is not impossible for nuclear waste to become a nuclear weapon. It is possible to stop that process before it begins by simply not going nuclear to start with. What we need is a commitment to go hydro, to go green and to get these environment-saving, planet-protecting schemes up and running. I was pleased this morning to have heard the minister for energy talking about hydro and other alternative sources of power generation. I point out also, that along with the successful operation of the Koombooloomba-Kareeya project for decades, my electorate in the far north is also home to a highly successful wind generation facility near Ravenshoe. The far north has proven that there are alternatives to coal and nuclear which can be clean and green and do not glow in the dark. I will be supporting this bill. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 333

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.02 pm): I rise to speak to the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. I note that the bill is aimed at protecting the health, safety and welfare of Queenslanders by banning nuclear facilities including uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites. As soon as the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the response is somewhat akin to when the word ‘cancer’ is mentioned: most people see it as the worst possible scenario with dire consequences and most people hope that it will never come to them. There are many myths surrounding this topic and if one gets on the internet one can easily find articles and research either endorsing nuclear energy as the way of the future as being a competitive form of power generation or the precursor to wiping out the world. The alternative route, as this state is pursuing, is clean, green coal technologies. Again, there are many questions surrounding this particular technology. On both sides of the fence there are a number of arguments that easily sway a person towards their own particular leaning, be that for or against. In the past fortnight I have had people from the industry itself who have given me opinions on both sides of the fence. There is no doubt that the current coal technology is not the best and needs cleaning up, but I see it as the lesser of two avenues—nuclear versus coal. When it comes to nuclear power we are told its production is comparable to coal power production. That may be very true at this time but my question is when the few countries—and believe me there are only a few—that are willing to accept this waste and are currently building facilities for the disposal realise that the expansion of this industry is massive and the growing mountain of waste generated for disposal is a lucrative cash cow, will we eventually be able to afford the cost of storage offshore? I know many members might think that that would not happen, but I believe it will happen. We all know that greed is one of the worst possible components of human nature but unfortunately it is there and will never go away. It is the disposal of waste that is my greatest concern. More and more people believe that the waste from mining uranium should be returned to where it was mined. If money is made from the product they think the obligation to dispose of the waste properly must be met. Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste dump in their backyard, although they would be willing to take the money from the mining. We have an abundance of gas and coal resources in this country and currently these industries employ an enormous workforce. Coal is our biggest exporter; not just in Queensland but Australia. We need to ensure that, before we wipe away this lucrative export market and the workforce associated with it, we are secure in our thinking, our knowledge and our future. This bill may be a reflection of community concern, but those concerns need to be addressed and any fears allayed. No government can do that if it does not actually know the answers to the questions. There should be no minimisation of potential dangers because no margin of error is acceptable. There are many other forms of energy generation that can be streamlined including solar, which is more than appropriate in Queensland, the Sunshine State. Hydro is another form of energy generation; there is plenty of water up north. We have heard a lot about piping it of late so why can it not be harnessed to produce hydro-electricity? We have winds, onshore and offshore; we have wave power. In the future there will be other sources that will be revealed as a more appropriate, clean and green way to go and we should be looking at these. This bill does not limit medical research or treatments that involve radiation, including storage and disposal facilities for radioactive waste as a result of medical procedures. It does not affect the Radiation Safety Act 1999 or the Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Act 2001, and it does not affect visiting nuclear-powered vessels. There would be some who may think that this bill might affect those vessels and would require them to stay offshore the whole time. We need to be very sure that every safety precaution is in place before we step into the realms of all things nuclear. As the old adage espouses: act in haste, repent at leisure. It will be the generations to come who will bear the cost and potential disasters if we do not get it right. I do not want that to be my legacy to my grandchildren and beyond. I cannot support nuclear facilities at this point in time. I do leave it open for the future as technologies evolve and any concerns can be allayed. But at this point in time I do not support nuclear industries in Queensland and I commend the bill to the House. Hon. LH NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism) (3.08 pm): Nuclear power is not a viable option in Queensland. Any mention of the word makes me and many thousands of Queenslanders extremely nervous. As environment minister, I am aware of the ramifications a nuclear plant could have to our environment and our communities and I implore governments of all persuasions to focus on other renewable sources of energy. As a state member for an electorate on the ocean I know that my constituents are also very concerned. The Commonwealth government has identified several preferred sites for nuclear power stations, including my own electorate. History and science have revealed that there are a number of serious environmental consequences of establishing a nuclear power industry in Queensland. If we establish a nuclear power station along the north Queensland coastline, it will have serious implications for our unique environmental assets such as the Great Barrier Reef and, of course, it will impact the community and businesses which depend on them. 334 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Queensland has an abundance of potential alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, as well as well-established coal and gas industries. The state government embraces smart solutions to our energy challenges. We are investing heavily in research into clean coal technology and supporting a range of renewable energy technologies. Nuclear power is not the right energy choice for us. A nuclear industry in Queensland could lead to serious social, economic and environmental consequences, particularly in regional Queensland. As nuclear power stations need large amounts of water and access to the power grid, they are likely to be sited on the coast. The health and safety of regional communities surrounding a nuclear facility could be significantly impacted by not only the station itself, but the need to transport nuclear fuel rods and high-level radioactive waste along roads, through ports and other community infrastructure. The day-to-day operation of a nuclear facility could severely impact upon our unique environmental values. For example, thermal pollution from cooling water discharges could affect Queensland’s significant World Heritage sites, such as the Great Barrier Reef. Much of our economy, particularly tourism, depends on maintaining our unique natural assets. In 2005, it was estimated that marine park tourism generated over $5.1 billion and more than 54,000 jobs for Australians. There are many intractable problems surrounding nuclear power. For example, radioactive waste generated from nuclear related activities is one of the most intractable problems facing the nuclear power industry throughout the world. There is something very important that the federal government fails to mention: that nuclear energy will not solve climate change. Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral. Significant quantities of greenhouse gases are produced in constructing and decommissioning nuclear facilities and managing nuclear waste. A significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed by 2050 if Australia is to make its contribution to curb climate change. Recent estimates suggest that even aggressive use of nuclear power in Australia would only see a reduction of eight per cent to 18 per cent in national greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which includes the CEOs of six major Australian companies, showed that greenhouse gas emissions could be cut by 60 per cent from year 2000 emissions by 2050 while maintaining economic growth, without the use of nuclear power. The Commonwealth government task force said that it would take at least 10 to 15 years to build just one nuclear power station in Australia. Of course, nuclear power needs huge amounts of water. Just one large nuclear power station would use more water than the total household demands of Queensland. A study by the Australian Parliamentary Library gave a range of 100 million to 150 million litres per hour for a potential Australian nuclear power station. That is more water per hour than 400 average Queensland houses use in an entire year. With hot summer temperatures and limited freshwater resources, nuclear energy presents too great a pressure on the availability and quality of water. Energy efficiency improvements deliver seven times more reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per average dollar spent than nuclear power. Reactors cost billions of dollars each to build. Investment in renewable energy programs, clean coal technologies and energy efficiency initiatives would meet our energy needs without producing radioactive waste. Nuclear energy is estimated to be 20 per cent to 50 per cent more expensive to produce than energy sourced from coal or gas under current conditions. The cost of decommissioning large reactors and storing high-level waste for up to 250,000 years has not yet been accurately calculated. Past experience, though, suggests that such projects nearly always cost more than was claimed. There are better alternatives. Renewable energy including hydro, wind, solar and biofuels already supplies 19 per cent of the world’s electricity compared with nuclear’s 15 per cent. Renewables do not have the risks and expense of nuclear. Australian companies are leaders in the global renewable energy market and Australia has immense solar resources. The amount of solar energy hitting Australia in just one summer day is about half the total global energy use for an entire year. The Commonwealth government’s Department of Resources and Energy estimated 15 years ago that a mix of renewables could provide 30 per cent of our electricity by 2020 at no more than 10 per cent extra cost. The Commonwealth government’s Switkowski report warned that nuclear power could cost up to 50 per cent more. Nuclear reactors have so far produced a global toxic pile of 250,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste with no long-term solution for its management. Queensland is free of this high-level radioactive waste and we would like to keep it that way. Radioactive wastes arise across the nuclear fuel cycle. High-level waste including spent nuclear fuel is by far the most hazardous. A typical power reactor produces 25 to 30 tonnes of spent fuel annually. Despite 50 years of investment in the nuclear industry, no safe, long-term disposal method has been found. There is evidence that waste is contaminating groundwater and surface water. The high- level and long-lived waste will remain a problem for thousands of years after the reactors have been closed down. There are potential health and safety risks associated with the location and operation of nuclear facilities and the transport of nuclear material. While risks to the health of the public and plant workers from normal operations of modern nuclear facilities might be low and safeguards can be put in place, exposure to nuclear contamination through accidents can result in significant health effects. The Chernobyl death toll is still rising. There have already been more than 50 deaths and several thousand cases of childhood thyroid cancer. In the 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 335 longer term, several tens of thousands of people around Europe will probably die prematurely because of the fallout. Forty per cent of Europe was contaminated by the Chernobyl accident to varying degrees. The radioactive fallout continues to affect agriculture and food management in several countries. Overall, the Chernobyl-4 reactor generated power for just over two years, but human suffering, health problems and environmental pollution will go on for generations. Nuclear power facilities have been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a security risk and potential terrorism target. There are no such risks with wind turbines, solar panels or generators using clean coal technology. Establishing nuclear power plants in Queensland’s regional centres would significantly impact on our communities, our business and our unique environment. As the minister responsible for protecting our environment, I strongly oppose the Commonwealth push for nuclear power in Queensland. Mr MOORHEAD (Waterford—ALP) (3.17 pm): I rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill puts in place strong safeguards to protect our environment, our safety and our economy from some of the myths that exist about nuclear power and nuclear enrichment. This bill will prohibit the construction or operation of nuclear facilities including uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites in Queensland. However, a sensible balance is achieved by providing specific exemptions to the prohibition for nuclear materials to be used for research and medical purposes and for the operation of nuclear-powered vessels. While this bill is important, it is by no means groundbreaking. This bill provides similar protections to those that either exist or are under consideration in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. In the last 12 months the issue of climate change has started to be given the consideration it deserves. , floods and cyclones have shown political leaders that climate change cannot be put off as a problem with which only future generations must deal. When John Howard became a convert on the road to climate change late last year, his first response was to say that he will fix the problem with nuclear power stations. I am not sure the people of Bribie Island in the electorate of my friend the member for Pumicestone are impressed about proposals for a nuclear power station on Bribie Island. But before we even get that far we come across our first myth in the debate about nuclear powers—the argument that nuclear power is a solution to climate change is a myth. It is true that production of nuclear energy considered by itself can have much lower carbon emissions. But what is myth in this debate is that massive amounts of carbon emissions are produced to mine uranium, build nuclear power plants, deal with waste and to decommission nuclear power plants. It is true that when high-grade uranium is used the nuclear life cycle can provide some lower emissions than other power stations. However, the world’s reserve of high-grade uranium is very limited and may only last a few decades. Carbon emissions from mining, milling and the enrichment of low- grade uranium are substantial. Therefore, the total carbon emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle become greater than or equal to those of other non-nuclear power stations such as gas-fired power stations. Nuclear facilities are not the panacea for climate change. There are many other things that can be done, and are being done, to produce other low-emission energy sources. This exposes the cynical exploitation of this issue by the federal government. This debate by the federal government is one of smoke and mirrors, distracting people from the real issue of climate change. The second myth I would like to expose is that somehow nuclear enrichment, or nuclear power, will contribute to the Queensland economy. The coal industry employs more than 28,000 workers in this country as well as supporting many other related industries such as maintenance, hospitality, transport and construction. Queensland’s coal supply can continue to provide energy to our economy for 300 years. Why would we take a chance on a risky and expensive nuclear facility when it would have such a disastrous affect on our economy? Rather than nuclear facilities, the sensible solution is the research and development of clean coal technologies. The Beattie government has allocated $300 million to the development of clean coal technology. This will be a strategic plank in ensuring the long-term viability of the coal industry into the future. This important investment will work towards reducing emissions from coal-fired power stations along with the promotion of other energy sources such as gas, geothermal energy and wind power. What do the federal government’s own experts say on nuclear power? It does not get much better. In March 2006 the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation released a report from Professor John Gittus titled ‘Introducing nuclear power to Australia: an economic comparison.’ Before going into the detail of the report, the House should be aware of Professor Gittus’ background. Professor Gittus is an adviser to the nuclear industry as well as advising Lloyds of London on the insurance of nuclear power plants. Professor Gittus comes to this debate with a long history of supporting the development of the nuclear industry. What does Professor Gittus have to say about the economics of nuclear power? In order to make nuclear power financially viable the private sector must build the next generation of nuclear power stations, which are still under development. The government would have to subsidise 14.3 per cent of the construction cost, and then the government would still have to subsidise the cost of electricity by 336 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

21.4 per cent. Even an advocate of the nuclear power industry says that the numbers just do not add up. However, those in Australia who support nuclear power want us to subsidise the destruction of the coal industry that has driven growth in Queensland for decades. The other cost of nuclear power is water. At a time of drought, water is becoming a scarce commodity. The reality is that nuclear power uses at least 25 per cent more water than coal-fired power stations. At a time when the water grid in the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme will move power stations from potable water to recycled water, those proposing nuclear water would place a greater demand for water on our dwindling water supplies. The other myth of nuclear power is that it is somehow a clean technology providing clean power. Nuclear power is a risky prospect. The easy measure of this fact is that insurers are reluctant to insure nuclear power plants without government guarantees. Simply put, insurers will not put their money on such a risky prospect. Whilst Chernobyl is often referred to in this debate on nuclear power, there are more recent examples including accidents at Sellafield in 2005; the death of four workers in Fukui, Japan, in 2004; and two people killed and 439 people exposed to radiation in Takamura in 1999. Above all, there is still no long-term solution to nuclear waste. Approaches to date have been characterised by an out-of-sight out-of-mind solution. I congratulate the minister for this important legislation. I hope this legislation will provide some comfort to the people of Queensland that the myths and misrepresentation put forward by the federal government will not be the basis for the introduction of nuclear power in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (3.23 pm): Like so many other members of this place, I rise to support the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill. It is very necessary legislation in the context of the Prime Minister’s push to force nuclear energy on to the people of Australia. It is important that parliaments such as ours stand up and make a very clear statement about what we see as the future for Queensland, and that future does not include nuclear power. I would particularly like to commend the contributions of a couple of members. The member for Pumicestone made a brilliant speech that I thought summed up the issues perfectly. I will not repeat what she said. The issues of the increasing risk of nuclear proliferation, the cost of nuclear energy being two to three times that of coal, the practical realities of our lack of nuclear scientists and nuclear engineers since the School of Nuclear Engineering was closed at the University of New South Wales in 1988, the enormous need for water, and the cost benefit analysis that would suggest nuclear power being able to supply 2.5 per cent of the world’s electricity needs, as it does now, for 45 years or, alternatively, all of the world’s electricity needs for six years just do not make sense given the enormous decommissioning costs that the member for Pumicestone outlined. All of those factors I have cited would lead people to say that nuclear energy is neither desirable nor viable in Queensland’s context. I would like to focus on one angle of the debate. This is the Prime Minister’s outrageous assertion that nuclear energy is somehow clean and green. He has said it over and over and over. I cannot believe the chutzpah of the man. A government member interjected. Mr McNAMARA: It is more than chutzpah, isn’t it? It is audacity. It is a lie of such enormous proportions that one could rest in its shade. He keeps looking to the camera saying it over and over— clean and green. One thing that can be said about nuclear power is that it is neither clean nor green. Nuclear waste is not a possibility. Although the potential for catastrophic meltdowns is always present, that is only a possibility. The reality, however, is that there is a certainty that every nuclear power station will produce nuclear waste, and we will be stuck with that waste for a million years. The breathtaking assertion that somehow it is somebody else’s problem or it is something that we do not really want to talk about has stunned me in this debate. The Howard government cannot keep rocket launchers under lock and key safely. The Howard government cannot keep an accurate count of the number of rifles that it thinks it owns. The idea that someone would trust the federal government to look after something deadly and dangerous for 24,000 years is just patently absurd. Whatever endeavours the federal government embarks upon—whether it is deporting Australian citizens or arranging for Saddam Hussein to get $290 million in bribes out of the pockets of Australian grain farmers—members would have to say that there is no sense of competence in this government that would lead members to think that, yes, the federal government will look after nuclear waste and it will be fine. It has a great track record in everything else it does, so that will not be a problem. The process of nuclear power generates waste. This is a certainty. Spent fuel elements are the by-product that must be disposed of. Of course, first they actually have to be allowed to cool. The cooling process of the various isotopes—while they decay—takes between 10 and 100 years. Let us take 60 years as a pretty well accepted round figure. For 60 years there is this highly toxic waste lying around cooling in ponds waiting to go somewhere. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 337

There are probably four forms of waste that come out of the nuclear process. The first is the isotopes that cool in the ponds. The second is in the generation process itself. There is always the small release of radioactive isotopes—such as hydrogen-3, carbon-14, plutonium-239—that go into the air. These emissions are not accidents; they are part of the process. There is also the potential for accidental emissions. No matter what anyone claims about the industry having a better safety record in recent years, the reality is that a nuclear accident is not a little accident; it is a catastrophic accident. The scale of the disaster that can ensue is not something where someone says, ‘Okay, well, it’s sort of like, you know, we have trucks driving around with petrol in them, that’s risky, too.’ We are talking about accidents that can endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Finally, the plutonium waste that has to be isolated and purified in reprocessing plants and which is able to be turned into weapons grade material simply cannot be ignored. The maximum full power life of a reactor is 24 years. Most reactors do not get to 24 years. They aim to get 24 years of life out of a nuclear power station. The end cost of decommissioning those power stations but, more importantly, dealing with the waste is never calculated in this process. Whenever we talk about electricity from nuclear energy, the most expensive way to boil water anybody has ever thought of, the end cost of looking after that waste is not factored in. The cost of the guy at the gate of the nuclear dump by 24,000 years is not taken into account. It is a quite dishonest economic calculation to not count in something that we know is a stone cold certainty of the process. It simply makes a mockery of the whole argument. Around the world at this time is a very large backlog of high-level waste that has been accumulating for 60 years. That backlog of waste is sitting there waiting to be dealt with and governments do not know how to deal with it. There is some quarter of a million tonnes of spent fuel sitting in ponds waiting to be disposed of. I for one have absolutely no faith that I would trust the Howard government with a burnt match let alone with the waste product of nuclear reactors. I strongly commend the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill to the House. I will add one other thing. The Hervey Bay City Council has twice in the last three months defeated a motion moved by Councillor Belinda McNeven that we develop a policy about Hervey Bay being a nuclear free city. I think that is a shame. However, I think it certainly evidences why this parliament needs to make sure that we establish that there will be no nuclear reactors in Queensland so that local councils that may not have the intellectual capital to appreciate all the issues involved do not go making the mistake of my council and putting their hand up in the air and waving it around and saying, ‘We will take a nuclear station, thanks.’ While I am the member for Hervey Bay in this place I will certainly oppose that. I support the bill strongly. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (3.32 pm): I am very pleased to rise in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006 and in doing so declare my support for the Queensland government’s dual commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting Queenslanders from the risks associated with nuclear energy. While the generation of nuclear power may result in zero greenhouse gas emissions—and that I think is somewhat in question—it is quite clear that nuclear power itself is not a greenhouse free technology, as was so ably and clearly detailed by my colleague the member for Hervey Bay. The nuclear fuel cycle from the mining of uranium right through to the waste disposal stage produces an extraordinary amount of greenhouse gas emissions as well as many other factors that I will go into a little later. With both our economy and our standard of living so integrally associated with the coal industry here in Queensland it seems to me to be a much better path to pursue clean coal technologies integrated with carbon capture and storage as a measure to reduce our emissions by over 80 per cent rather than to pursue this vision of a nuclear future. Queensland has already invested heavily in these technologies with demonstration projects planned by two of our government owned corporations. Stanwell Corporation’s ZeroGen project to be located near Rockhampton is a world-first commercial project which will develop a plant utilising integrated gasification combined cycle technology in combination with carbon capture and storage. CS Energy will also develop a $188 million oxy-firing demonstration plant near Biloela in central Queensland. It will also be used in conjunction with carbon capture and storage. There are many issues associated with nuclear power, not the least of which is that it is a very water hungry industry. The limited water resources in a state such as Queensland must be an inhibiting factor for the development of nuclear power in this state. The Switkowski report which underpins Howard’s conversion to nuclear advocacy did not specifically cover water usage, but the report does note that nuclear power plants are less efficient than coal-fired plants and require more water. The Premier has said that nuclear power plants use the equivalent of 5,000 Olympic size swimming pools of water per year more than the equivalent coal-fired power station. An independent study by ROAM Consulting into the viability of nuclear power in Queensland indicates that a nuclear power station of the equivalent capacity to the coal-fired Stanwell Power Station would consume 25 per cent more water in the process of generating electricity. On this basis, especially given the increasing tendency to drought conditions in Queensland, a lack of sufficient and reliable water supply is surely an impediment to the development of nuclear facilities. 338 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

Of great concern to me with the federal government’s push for nuclear power is where such plants would be constructed. We have heard from the member for Pumicestone previously that, while there is some support for the general concept of nuclear power generation, when it comes to whether people would be happy to have one of those plants in their backyard, overwhelmingly the response is, ‘No, I wouldn’t.’ I, like many other Australians and Queenslanders, feel exactly the same way. It is quite disturbing that the recent ROAM Consulting study identified Townsville, Collinsville, Mackay, Broadsound and Rockhampton as suitable locations for a nuclear power plant. Locations further south were considered problematic due to water supply issues. The proximity of a nuclear power station to the Great Barrier Reef would raise serious environmental concerns. The higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant could easily have a negative effect on water quality and aquatic life. That is not to mention the effect that nuclear power plants in places like the Mackay- Whitsunday region would have on tourism—‘Come and see our great Barrier Reef and that big ugly thing spewing out toxic waste is also on our tour today.’ I do not think it is going to work for us. What we want to know is where our federal member, the member Dawson, De-Anne Kelly, stands on this issue. As with most other issues, she is trying to have a little bit each way. First of all there was the headline in the local paper, ‘De-Anne backs a nuclear power plant for Mackay’. The article states— Member for Dawson De-Anne Kelly has thrown her personal support behind a nuclear power plant in the Mackay region. She is quoted as saying— ‘As an electrical engineer and high voltage technician, I personally support nuclear power and I believe it could offer the region some exciting opportunities,’ she told The Daily Mercury yesterday. That is quite disturbing. When she was taken to task about this issue she started to back down pretty quickly because the inconsistency is that she supports a nuclear power industry in her backyard, which is one of the greatest coal producing regions in the world. It was not long before Mrs Kelly started to back down and then try to prove her coal-loving credentials. I have to say that I actually agreed with some of the things she finally had to say about coal production. These points were also raised by John Mickel, the minister for state development, while he was in Mackay recently. What he said was that, in light of the global warming and greenhouse gas emission debate, we really ought to be encouraging the mining of coal in Queensland and the export of our coal to the world because we have some of the cleanest coal in the world. By countries like India and China using our cleaner coal their emissions will, as a direct result, be much lower. Mrs Kelly really has done a backflip and I am not surprised. It is ludicrous to support a nuclear power industry in the heart of the Mackay-Whitsunday tourism region. My position on this matter has been, and is, perfectly clear. I am proud to be part of a Queensland government that is committed to ensuring the safety of Queenslanders by preventing the development of nuclear energy in this state. Let us consider just a couple of those safety issues, even though these have been canvassed. The uranium fuel cycle poses risks to human health and the environment. Spent uranium fuel is highly radioactive and toxic, requiring stringent standards of treatment and storage. Then there are accidents in nuclear reactors such as the Chernobyl explosion, and we know that that can produce devastating effects. Storage of waste material is a major issue and has been very ably outlined by my colleagues. The high level of radioactive waste resulting from nuclear power generation is difficult to dispose of to say the least and has to be isolated from the biosphere for thousands of years. The US and Finland are the only countries which have identified specific repository sites for final disposal of high-level radioactive waste. This is not an issue that we have an answer for in this country and we should not even be considering embarking on such a path until we have those answers well in hand. I reject the notion of a nuclear energy industry in Queensland and commend the bill to the House. Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (3.40 pm): I rise to support the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006 and, in so doing, acknowledge that there are those in my electorate who are supportive of nuclear energy. When the Prime Minister announced the federal government’s consideration of nuclear power as a response to the greenhouse issue, it achieved what I believe it was intended to achieve—that is, to engender vigorous debate in the community. During that debate there was one gentleman who wrote to the paper and said that it was inevitable because of our power consumption. There were others who wrote and said that it was safe and acceptable given the technology that has developed over the years. But I believe that statistically the majority are against it. Some of their fears are well founded and some of them perhaps are not supported by technology but are no less real to them as members of the community, and I would support their concerns. Other speakers in this debate cited Chernobyl as an example of the impact of a nuclear plant gone wrong, and one previous speaker cited other nuclear accidents. The reason that Chernobyl sticks in my mind is that, firstly, it is a salient reminder of what happens when a nuclear plant does go wrong. Its maintenance was allowed to run down. There are those who support nuclear energy who say that 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 339 that would never happen again, and I want to touch on that in a moment. A nuclear accident is unforgiving, it is invasive and it is deadly. That is the difference that other speakers have highlighted— that is, if a turbine goes down in a coal-fired power station it has some repercussions, but it certainly does not have the repercussions of a nuclear meltdown or other incident. Those who defend nuclear energy do so by saying that Chernobyl was a product of its own environment—that is, its political environment—and that the plant was allowed to run down. I want to cite some anecdotal situations without being critical of anyone within that system. I have talked to people over time about our hospitals. I am sure that everybody in this parliament has had discussions with members of their electorates in relation to hospital services. It is probably one of the major issues that we make representations about and write letters about, because health is one of those matters intrinsic to people enjoying quality of life. In those discussions it was sometimes stated that equipment in hospitals becomes redundant, certainly well past its use-by date and should be replaced. For varying reasons, sometimes that replacement takes a little bit of time, and I am thinking of the sterilisation equipment. The sterilisation equipment in a hospital is the core to the effectiveness of the hospital in terms of infection control. A person can have any sort of medical procedure, but unless clean and sterile equipment is used then the portal for infection is obvious. Therefore, one of the core matters for a hospital is to ensure the sterilisation process, the integrity of that process and the relevance of the equipment. That should be the No. 1 priority and should therefore never be neglected. But it is. There is equipment that is obsolete. There is equipment that is run down. If people in the community saw the state of some of the equipment used, those people would be mortified. The argument that Chernobyl was a one-off—that the equipment was allowed to run down but ‘we wouldn’t do that’—is a little bit light- handed in terms of potential. The impact of Chernobyl should never be forgotten. Years ago there was an international project that one of the service clubs got involved with to bring children affected by Chernobyl out of Europe to give them a break—a holiday, if you like. Some of those children were obviously affected. Their health had been impacted significantly and their quality of life and life expectation had been immeasurably reduced. I think that is always a reminder. Gladstone was cited as one of the highly attractive sites for a nuclear reactor. As I said earlier, obviously people in the community reacted very violently against that. I do not believe it was just the NIMBY syndrome. Rather, for the vast majority of people it was a genuine concern about having a nuclear reactor in Australia, let alone Gladstone, because those people did not say, ‘No, we want one so long as it’s at Biloela or so long as it’s at Yeppoon or so long as it’s outside of Brisbane. If it is, then we’ll accept it.’ They just said, ‘We don’t want it.’ Gladstone is a significant coal port and has— Mr Beattie: Hear, hear! Mrs CUNNINGHAM: It is. It is an excellent coal port, and growing as we speak. It has a good water source and has access to the power grid via high-voltage networks. So it is a very attractive site, but I would reiterate to the Prime Minister and everybody else that the people there do not want it. We do not want it. We do not support it as the majority view. We do need to look at alternatives, and there are a number of them. They have already been cited—solar, geothermal, biofuels and, more importantly perhaps, clean coal technology given that it is a resource that is within our community for many years to come. There is an important opportunity that this drought has highlighted in terms of hydro-electricity. I would hope that the majority of members in this House have had a look at the Snowy River scheme. At the time that that was built it was a scheme of great vision. It was certainly an expensive one but one that I believe has paid off in principle as well as in practicality. There have been discussions in this chamber and outside about piping water from north Queensland. Because of the topography that is involved between the north Queensland area such as the Burdekin et cetera down to the south-east corner and to wherever else it might go, there is a prime opportunity to plan and design into that project—if indeed it goes ahead—hydro-electricity along the length of that pipeline. We have the terrain to be able to plan quite a number of hydropower plants. The water would still get down to its destination, but it could generate a significant amount of energy on the way down. I would commend that as a possibility or a probability to the Premier. As has been stated already, there are really not many upsides to nuclear power other than the end product—power. But the process that generates the waste which is a by-product of that power production affects the environment greatly and is a downside that, unfortunately, the Prime Minister has not seen fit to properly investigate or, at least, to properly articulate. A number of years ago in my electorate we as a community went through a process of examining ourselves in terms of the waste that we will accept. A general principle was enunciated that if an industry establishes itself in an area, the community accepts the benefit of that industry, and that is usually employment. The state and federal governments accept the benefit, and that is usually taxes. Therefore, as a reciprocal responsibility we should accept the waste that is generated by that industry. We get the advantage; we should accept the disadvantage, or the responsibility of waste. So whatever sort of energy generation we decide to accept, we also have to accept the products that go with it. 340 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

My community will not accept—and I wholly endorse this—that it becomes a waste dump for other countries’ waste that is damaging to the environment and will potentially impact on health. Such a move has a high level of responsibility in terms of the long-term care of the waste and particularly so if it is just to become a waste dump for the sake of income. I believe that those are the risks that we face if we adopt and embrace nuclear energy. But they certainly are not the primary reasons I oppose nuclear power and my community opposes it. It is not seen as safe. It is not seen as acceptable environmentally. It is not seen as an option that is without choice. I commend hydropower to the Premier, who is in the chamber today. I commend those other opportunities for generating power, albeit in smaller amounts. But certainly, I do not encourage, I do not accept and I do not support nuclear energy. Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (3.51 pm): I rise to speak to this bill. As members know, it is unusual for me as Premier to speak specifically to a bill that is introduced by one of my ministers. But as members understand, this is a very important bill for the future of Australia. As such, I feel very strongly about it. The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill will help protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Queensland by prohibiting nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites, in Queensland. In a nutshell, we do not need them and we do not want them. It is very simple. The Queensland government considers that there is no sound economic or other reason to be considering nuclear power or nuclear waste dumps in this state. On 7 June 2006 the Queensland parliament passed a motion opposing any nuclear reactor or nuclear waste dump in Queensland. My government strongly maintains this policy position. Furthermore, this policy reflects community concerns about potential environmental and human health impacts and weapon proliferation. On 9 June 2006, I wrote to the Prime Minister, John Howard, seeking an assurance that the federal government will not use its powers to impose nuclear power stations or dumps on Queensland. The recent debate about climate change in Australia has led to greater interest in the potential for nuclear power to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In December 2006, the federal government released its report titled Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—opportunities for Australia?, widely known as the Switkowski report. The Switkowski report claims that the deployment of nuclear power, starting in 2020, could see 25 reactors producing over one-third of the nation’s electricity by 2050. It is apparent that the federal government is seriously considering the introduction of nuclear power. Indeed, Ziggy Switkowski was here last week trying to promote this policy on behalf of the federal government. He was at a lunch attended by my director-general. Ziggy did not know who was in the crowd. Basically, he gave the states a nice touch up along the way and took a very strong pro-uranium position. I say to Ziggy—who I know—to stay out of the politics. He is not campaigning for the federal government. He should be politically neutral because, frankly, his reputation is suffering. It will do Ziggy no good if he is seen to be partisan about this issue. Indeed, on questioning from my director-general, Ziggy was found wanting in a number of areas of understanding of clean coal technology and the costs. Ziggy was out there putting out the most expensive model for clean coal technology. I just say to Ziggy that we are not going to be hoodwinked by this nonsense. As I said, I know Ziggy. I have a bit of respect for him personally and privately, but I say to Ziggy to get off the political bandwagon and make sure that people get objective facts on this issue because the Queensland government will not sit by and allow him to misrepresent our position. The Queensland government has been very clear in expressing strong opposition to nuclear power and waste dumps and its preference for the pursuit of clean coal technology and renewable energy as a more strategically and economically sensible option for Australia. I have to say that I do not understand why anyone in this country would not be right behind clean coal technology. I still do not understand why the federal government has this obsession with supporting nuclear power and waste dumps—unless we think politically for a minute. If we do that, we get a glimmer of understanding. What has happened is that the federal Liberal Party has done some research. It has found that climate change is becoming an enormously important issue and could well determine the next federal election. So what do you do if you are Prime Minister? You come up with a strategy—and talk about diversion; good heavens!—that suddenly paints nuclear power as a green option. Can members believe this? Nuclear power is painted as a green option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to clean up the environment. I have to tell members that this strategy is so breathtaking that it has had some success. If the federal government strategy was not so breathtaking in its factually incorrect approach, then I am sure it would not have been anywhere near as successful in some people’s minds. I say to Australians to not be hoodwinked by this nonsense. I say to Australians to not be hoodwinked into thinking that a dirty industry such as nuclear reactors is suddenly going to provide some lower greenhouse gas emission outcome that will clean up the planet. The truth is that if we want to clean up the planet clean coal technology is the way to do it. There are two major causes of greenhouse gas emissions. The first is vehicles and the second is power generation. China imports a large amount of coal. As China emerges this century, a large part of its power generation will be by coal. Nuclear power may make up two per cent, three per cent, or four per 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 341 cent of its power generation. So what are we going to do about reducing greenhouse gas emissions in one of the developing nations—and I say this with great respect to our Chinese friends—where greenhouse gas emissions are increasing? If we are really serious about climate change, we should develop clean coal technology here in Australia, use it to change our generators to clean up our emissions and then sell the technology to China and India—the emerging nations. In this way we make a world contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions on this planet. Nuclear power is not the answer. It does not achieve what clean coal technology can, either domestically or internationally. So let us pull off the blinkers and look at a real, practical way of dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. The Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill will help protect people in regional and rural Queensland from the threat of nuclear facilities being built in their backyards. I ask the Prime Minister: what do we say about Queensland? A wonderful tourism destination one day, nuclear reactive the next? That does not work terribly well. I cannot see the ad that goes with that. I cannot see the poster in New York that is going to get people flocking here. If the Commonwealth government pushes ahead and forces nuclear power on Australians, Queensland communities face the real threat of becoming home to any number of the 25 nuclear reactors proposed for our nation and risks becoming a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste. Ziggy’s view is that the nuclear waste is out in the ground—dig a hole, dump it in and put a bit of cement around it. I have to tell Ziggy that he might think that that works in some other places in the world, but it will not work here. The federal government is pushing ahead with a plan for nuclear power despite the very real concerns of Australians with regard to the environment and safety. The management and disposal of high-level radioactive spent fuel from the nuclear fuel cycle is one of the most intractable problems facing the nuclear power industry throughout the world. No country has yet successfully implemented a system for the disposal of this waste. In addition to the cost of identifying potential waste disposal sites, there is a cost and a risk of transporting nuclear waste on public infrastructure, most likely over long distances. Clearly, one would want to put nuclear waste in a remote area if that was one’s bent. That is the Ziggy way. While the safety record of the industry has improved since the accidents at Three Mile Island in the United States of America and Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, concerns still exist about the location of major facilities close to population centres. A nuclear accident could have massive implications for the health of Queenslanders and the magnificent Queensland environment as well as incalculable detrimental impacts on our economy. I say to the Prime Minister and others who have argued that nuclear power is an essential response to climate change that that is bunkum. That view is in conflict with internationally accepted reports such as the Stern review: the economics of climate change. That report found the uptake of nuclear power will be relatively small globally—and we need to listen to these figures from the Stern report because they put a lie to the nonsense we are getting from the federal government. Listen to this: the Stern report found that the uptake of nuclear power will be relatively small globally—about six per cent to 10 per cent—compared to fossil fuels, which will be between 66 per cent and 71 per cent. So if you want to clean up the planet, what source of energy generation do you clean up? It is quite clear that we should focus on clean coal technologies. Why expand the problems of waste disposal associated with a nuclear industry? The high capital cost of nuclear power continues to mitigate against its wider use. Unlike many other countries, we are lucky to have ready access to more affordable and safer alternative sources of energy including coal, gas and renewable energy. That is a fundamental point. We have access to this power anyway. If there were no alternative for energy generation, we would probably understand what the Prime Minister is talking about. But we have all of those sources—coal, gas and renewable energy. Ms Jones: Wind. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, wind. There are all sorts of renewables and alternatives. We need a bit more of that though. I note that there is no shortage of wind in here. Nuclear energy will not be economically competitive in areas such as Australia where there is easy access to low-cost alternatives. A recent independent study commissioned by my government shows that a nuclear power station would use 25 per cent more water than a coal-fired station. That is not a smart option when we are currently experiencing the worst drought on record. The Queensland government’s position on climate change is that clean coal technologies and renewable energy are more strategically and economically sensible options for Australia than nuclear power. Clean coal technology has the potential to help cut greenhouse gas emissions, without the risks posed by nuclear generation. With over 300 years supply of coal and thousands of jobs depending on the industry, Queensland also needs to demonstrate that there is a clean future to coal-fired power generation. Because of this, the Queensland government is investing heavily in the development of clean coal technology and is providing over $300 million under the $1 billion Queensland Future Growth Fund for its development. A 342 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007 number of clean coal projects are already under development, including Stanwell Corporation’s proposed ZeroGen project, a world-first demonstration plant—at commercial scale—that will integrate the gasification of coal with the capture and safe storage of carbon dioxide emissions to generate low- emission baseload electricity. As well as enabling Queensland to use its massive reserves of coal to produce hundreds of years of safe, reliable and environmentally responsible electricity, the Smart State is leading the international community in the research and development of clean coal technologies. Our project is the leader in the world in this area. Hence, we look forward to a partnership with the Commonwealth in bringing it to fruition. The export of these technologies to countries like China, which generates 15.6 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, will make a significant international contribution to the reduction of emissions—and that percentage is rising. The multibillion-dollar coal and mineral industry is fundamental to Queensland and Australia’s economy and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. The initiation of public investigations focused on nuclear energy, in light of overwhelming community opposition, provides a distraction and diverts valuable resources from efforts in clean coal technology and other more strategically important areas for Australia, potentially undermining industry certainty and confidence in the energy sector. Nuclear power stations require access to significant quantities of water and need to have a strong grid connection for inherent stability. These requirements constrain nuclear power stations to along the eastern seaboard of Queensland, south of Townsville, where the largest population centres in Queensland are also located. That is a fact. Uranium enrichment plants, as we know, are energy intensive and require access to ports through which raw materials, waste and enriched product are shipped. This is likely to restrict suitable sites to areas close to major coastal centres—and that is very likely in this state. Long-term radioactive waste disposal generally relies on deep storage in stable rock strata. Suitable sites may exist in western Queensland remote from settlements. However, the waste will have to travel along existing transport routes through population centres. This bill reflects our strong concerns about potential environmental and human health impacts of nuclear facilities, the association with weapons proliferation and the risks posed by waste transportation and disposal, and the fact that Queensland is likely to be a prime site under the federal government’s proposals and hence why this bill has been introduced. The bill will prohibit the construction or operation of nuclear reactors and other major facilities in the nuclear cycle other than uranium mining and exploration. Those issues of uranium mining and exploration will be dealt with at the ALP’s national conference in April. Specific exemptions to the prohibition apply to nuclear materials used for research and medical purposes and for the operation of nuclear powered vessels, as people would understand. Queensland is not alone in rejecting nuclear power. At the Council for the Australian Federation meeting held in Sydney on 9 February 2007 all the state and territory leaders agreed with my position and joined me in affirming their concerns about nuclear power. I put it on the agenda and I make no apology for having done so. Many of the other states already have legislation that bans the establishment of nuclear facilities. This bill sends a clear message to the federal government that Queensland does not support a nuclear industry. It is very simple: if the Howard government wants to use its powers to override the strong position of Queenslanders, in the way that it did in relation to its industrial relations reforms—and in the way that it is trying to do in relation to the Murray-Darling—this government will make certain that Queenslanders have a chance to have their say. If the federal government adopts a position in support of allowing the generation of nuclear power, uranium enrichment or the creation of nuclear dumping facilities then we will put a plebiscite to the people of Queensland to ask them whether they support the location of such facilities within Queensland. The Howard government may not want to listen to my government, but we want to make sure that Queenslanders are at least given the chance to be heard. Why is that relevant? Because that will put political pressure on the federal government to not go down this road. I want to reiterate two points. I still cannot understand why the federal government has not got enthusiastically behind clean coal technology. We have had a huge debate about nuclear power. Yes, the Prime Minister has said some things in support of clean coal technology, but we still do not have money from the Commonwealth for it and we need it. We need to make certain that we develop our own energy sources for the future. We all know that the coal industry is important to us. We all know that as part of the agreement with the premiers a week or so ago we agreed to develop a carbon trading emissions scheme. Out of that, of course, we have made certain that appropriate protections are here for industry, but we have been forward looking and visionary in what we are doing. We want to protect the environment. We want to enhance our existing resources. We want to ensure that we clean up coal and are able to sell it for the next 300 years. Out of that we will make a contribution to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. My government passionately believes, as I do, in the future of not just coal but also energy in this state. We have a record of changing the energy mix. A few years ago we brought in a new policy in relation to energy generation in this state. It was a controversial one then but not now. About 97 or 98 per cent of our generation was coal. We brought in an energy policy that said from 1 January 2005 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 343 the mix would change: the mix would provide 85 per cent generation from coal, 13 per cent from natural gas and two per cent from renewables. Some of the coal companies at the time were not happy. I remember having a meeting with them where I said, ‘Well, you go and find me any other company or energy source that has 85 per cent of the market and then come back and talk to me.’ I have not seen them since. Those coal companies understand that they do have a significant role to play. The point I make with regard to this energy policy is that you can change the mix by enhancing what you already have. When I am talking about what we already have, I am talking about coal and coal seam methane which is associated with coal. What has happened as a result of the energy policy? We now have coal seam methane as one of the fastest growing industries in this state. Generation, capacity—we have all sorts of investment in it. We have developed a whole new gas industry based on coal seam methane as a result of the strategy of that energy policy. We have a track record of making changes where necessary to value and enhance our existing natural resources. I say to the Prime Minister today that we need to do the same thing with clean coal technology. When one talks to those involved in the coal seam methane policy they know that our energy policy was the catalyst that changed the whole energy mix. Out of that there was growth for everybody. I say to the Prime Minister let us not be blinkered about this for political reasons, let us look at the long-term interests of this state and this nation. That lies in clean coal technology. It does not lie in nuclear power generation in this country. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.10 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. After listening to the contribution from our Premier on the bill and in light of comments that other members have already made, I wonder what else I can contribute. I certainly will be supporting this bill. It is very timely that we are introducing this bill with a federal election just around the corner. It is an opportune time for all members of this parliament to speak on behalf of their respective electorates in this House before a vote is finally taken so that this parliament and all members will be able to send a very clear message to the respective federal senators in Queensland so that they know without a shadow of a doubt what the position in Queensland is in relation to the matters that are contained within this bill. A number of our local councils on the Sunshine Coast have formed a very clear position on the issue of nuclear facilities in our backyard. I say, without reiterating what has already been said, that I will certainly be supporting the bill and I would urge all members of this parliament to speak up and send a very clear message on behalf of their respective constituents in Queensland as to what their position is on this very, very important matter, which is very timely prior to a federal election. I commend the bill to the House. Ms JONES (Ashgrove—ALP) (4.11 pm): I rise in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. This bill aims to ban nuclear facilities, including uranium enrichment, enrichment plants, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites in Queensland. The Prime Minister has jumped on the nuclear band wagon. He has finally woken up to the fact that climate change is a real threat to our community and he has come up with nuclear as a clean, green solution. While he is trying to dress it up as a clean way of delivering energy, we all know that his support is not because suddenly after 10 years he has developed an environmental conscience, but because of his perception that there will be substantial economic gains for his government from using this resource. He has always put the short-term gain ahead of the long-term good. We on this side of the chamber believe that the health and safety of our community is priceless. As the minister said, there is no sound economic or environmental reasons to be considering nuclear power or nuclear waste dumps. Yet the Howard government in its draft report Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy—Opportunities for Australia?—and I stress that it is a large question mark—maps a way forward for the introduction of a nuclear industry in Australia. This, like its industrial relations changes, is another example of how the Howard government is out of touch with ordinary Queenslanders. The community has genuine concerns about the environmental and human health impacts as well as weapon proliferation. A study carried out by an Oxford research group indicates that a terrorist attack on high-level radioactive waste tanks in the UK, where most spent fuel from UK nuclear power stations is temporarily stored and reprocessed, would pale in comparison to the scale of Hiroshima. I visited Hiroshima a couple of years ago. An estimated 140,000 people were killed as a result of the bombing and its after-effects including radioactivity. I saw firsthand the devastation caused by the nuclear bomb. The loss of life and destruction still haunts that city. I turn now to this myth being perpetuated by the Liberals and Nationals in Canberra and here today that nuclear is such an energy efficient solution to power generation. Every stage in the process of supporting nuclear fission uses energy and most of this energy is derived from fossil fuels. Nuclear power is a massive user of energy and a very substantial source of greenhouse gases. In fact, studies show that the delivery of electricity into the grid from nuclear power produces, on average, roughly one- third as much carbon dioxide as the same quantity of electricity from gas. 344 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

The other myth is that it is cost effective. Nuclear power plants rely on large government subsidies in every country they currently operate. The cost of nuclear is prohibitive because the decommissioning and management of waste has to be taken into account—something that the Prime Minister conveniently forgets. The estimated cost of cleaning up and decommissioning the existing British nuclear plant is £70 billion—which is a lot of dollars over here. Finally, in my view, the most important issue, as the member for Pumicestone spoke about earlier, is where exactly is the Prime Minister planning to put the 25 nuclear generation plants and what is this government’s plan to store the waste. There is already a backlog of high-level waste accumulated across the world, distributed in cooling ponds, in deteriorating containers and decommissioned reactors and heaps of radioactive mill tailings—around 250,000 tonnes. As the member for Hervey Bay said, it takes at best 60 years for this nuclear waste to cool. The waste needs to be processed and stored for a long time considering the longest life for a nuclear reactor is 24 years. As the Premier said, there is no country in the world which has come up with a safe way to store nuclear waste. As I said earlier today, we need to invest in new, safe, renewable and clean alternatives. Nuclear is not the answer. We are elected to make decisions that protect future generations and our community and that is why I wholeheartedly support the banning of nuclear facilities, nuclear power stations and nuclear waste sites from Queensland. I urge all members to support this bill. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (4.16 pm): I rise to speak against the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill. If one sits in the chamber and listens to those opposite one would think we were actually— Mrs Sullivan: Speaking hypothetically, are we? Dr FLEGG: The member is on the closed-circuit TV. We can see the way that the member is carrying on and we can hear the sort of nonsense and drivel that she has been going on with, I can tell her. If one listens to the other side, all we are listening to is a stunt. One would think that we were planning the site of a nuclear facility in Queensland. All it is is part of a Labor Party scare campaign. It has had so much practice running them that it thought it would use its skills to run another one. This is nothing more than a political stunt. In fact, it is ugly political opportunism. It knows full well, for a start, that if a decision were made nationally this piece of legislation would not necessarily end the prospect of nuclear industry in Queensland, but it wants to make some points. It wants to practise political opportunism. In fact, what it wants to do is wander around Queensland and raise the spectre of a nuclear facility in every electorate that is of interest to them. This is nothing more than cheap politics. It should be called for what it is. That is why we will be opposing this bill. There is a great analogy here. The Premier has given us a very, very good analogy. Yesterday he was talking about pumping water from rivers in north Queensland to Adelaide. It has been dismissed in every serious scientific report. It was ridiculed in the press. Members will remember when they talked about a canal from the Kimberleys to Perth. That is exactly the same as what the Premier has said. In fact, one would be lucky to divert the rivers in north Queensland and end up with a bottle of water in Perth. But when challenged, what did the Premier say? He said that we should consider everything. Everyone knows the work that has been done on these projects. They have been dismissed every time they have been looked at, but the Premier says, ‘Let’s consider everything.’ What the Premier meant was, ‘Let us consider everything unless there is a decent political scare campaign with which we can go around and try to terrify the people of Queensland.’ How can the Premier have possibly stood up yesterday in relation to water and said, ‘Let us consider everything,’ and then stand up here today and say, ‘Let us ban by law any sort of nuclear activity,’ before we have even had the debate? They are absolutely and completely contradictory. Ms Nolan: This is the debate. Dr FLEGG: Queensland has not had a nuclear debate at all. All that Queensland has had from a few politicians on the other side is a scare campaign. When it suits them, when they want a distraction that has already been studied and dismissed, they want to consider everything. But when it comes to the opportunity to pass up a good political scare campaign, they do not want to consider everything. We have seen a great deal. In fact, this morning I was trying to count—and I lost count—how many ministerial statements rabbited on about climate change and greenhouse gases. It is quite apparent that we have to consider and seriously look at all of the prospects. Would it be acceptable to have dismissed all the other forms of alternative energy because people do not want a wind farm near their house or people do not want other sorts of activities near their house? The government has to have the courage to at least allow people to have a debate and allow it to be considered. This legislation would not deliver one scrap of protection to anyone in Queensland. Before any facility was sited in this state there would be a debate; there would be an opportunity for this government to take whatever action was appropriate. But, no, we have to have a political stunt; we have to waste the time of the Queensland parliament. I have seen people running scare campaigns that there would be some nuclear facility on the Sunshine Coast. Of course there is not going to be a nuclear facility on the Sunshine Coast. Mr Hoolihan: Where’s your guarantee? 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 345

Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection because this bill gives those people no guarantee whatsoever. It is a fanciful scare campaign to be running around the Sunshine Coast suggesting that there is going to be a nuclear facility there. All that has happened is that the people of Queensland in those areas where they have run the scare campaign have been duped. They have been duped, firstly, by this nonsense I have been hearing from the other side that some decision has already been made that ‘they are going to put a nuclear facility here’. What a load of rubbish! Anybody who has followed this issue understands that there has not been any such decision. In fact, there are many obstacles. However, the Prime Minister has said that we should be prepared to consider things. We should allow communities to have their debate. Those opposite do not have enough respect for the intellect of Queenslanders to even let them have a debate about the possible merits. There are Queenslanders who are just as concerned about climate change and other issues. It is so easy to run a scare campaign, and members opposite have had a lot of practice at it. I guess if they have honed their skills on running scare campaigns to the extent they have, they would not want their skills to go to waste. I listened to the Premier saying that the federal government has forced a nuclear industry on us. What an absolute load of rubbish! The only thing the federal government would force on us is the ability to have a debate, the ability to consider things, the ability for communities to make a decision without being dictated to by the scaremongers opposite. Are there problems with nuclear energy? Of course there are. There are substantial problems with nuclear energy. There are quite a number of benefits as well, but there are a substantial number of problems. We have heard some discussed here today: waste disposal, water discharges and, in particular, the fact that it is considerably more expensive to produce than our traditional sources of energy. So certainly there are problems. I can tell members that the problems are nowhere near as daunting as getting the rivers in north Queensland to flow down to Adelaide. The fact that there are a few problems that may be convenient for the scare campaign being run by those opposite should not mean that we refuse to consider or even allow debate on this issue. Nuclear energy is certainly more expensive. Queensland has a significant coal industry that actually flourished under previous national coalition governments. Certainly the coalition members on this side are every bit as committed to the Queensland coal and methane industry as the government. However, if we took Mr Beattie’s approach that says, ‘This could be a threat to the coal industry,’ why would we consider a wind farm? That produces electricity as does coal. Why would we put up solar power? They are all potential alternatives to coal. The same ridiculous argument could be levelled at any other source of power because they are all potential alternatives to it. Mr Hoolihan: But not as potentially fatal. Dr FLEGG: Someone down the back there does not know a great deal about coalmining and coal generation. I take the interjection that uranium is potentially dangerous but coal is not. I suggest the member takes a look at some of the figures on the effects on the health of coalminers, the accidents in mines and so forth. Nothing in this world is without some sort of risk. I do not know the number of people killed in the coal industry, but I can tell members it is an absolutely enormous number. It was a pretty stupid remark to suggest that that is the argument we ought to be using. I heard some references to the report by Ziggy Switkowski, and every reference was to the effect that this was somehow government policy. We see reports handed down in Queensland time and time again where this government does not accept the recommendations contained within them, but it still has a debate. This is no different to the Forster report or the dozens of other reports in Queensland where the report is considered. The fact that somebody has written a report and delivered a report does not mean that the government is going to adopt it or that the government even necessarily endorses the view expressed in that report. It is about being intelligent. It is about being sensible. It is about being willing to have a look at the facts. We could argue the same things in relation to fluoridation of water or even recycled water. We can run a scare campaign on anything we want, but in a place like the we should be applying some intelligence. We should not just be boring some scare campaign into people whom we hope are not in possession of all the facts. We should be able to have a debate. We should be able to use some intelligence. I get very frustrated when I see scare campaigns on a whole range of issues. I spent a lot of my life seeing children undergoing general anaesthetics for their appalling dental diseases and I get angry when I see people running scare campaigns against fluoridation. Yet in this case it is not just the anonymous people on the internet running a scare campaign; it is people who ought to know better. It is people who ought to know better that responsible government would at least allow this matter to be debated and considered. This is nothing more than a scare campaign. While we are talking about a scare campaign, I remember the Premier’s first comments in relation to this. Without any proposals, with nothing more than the very beginning of some sort of national re- evaluation after all the years of nuclear power being treated as a pariah, with nothing more than the beginning of a bit of a debate and a bit of an intelligent look at some of the facts, after 20 years of behaving in the way that we have we should consider whether maybe—just maybe—it would be in Australia’s interests to reconsider those ideological positions that have been held for so long. 346 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

The first comment I can remember from the Premier is that we would be building a power station which would run boiling water out and cook the reef. The Premier believes that a nuclear power station is going to cook the reef! I imagine he thinks that water coming out of conventional power stations does not get heated up. This is the low level of debate and the sort of nonsense and scaremongering that we have heard. All around the state people who have an association with the reef have been threatened and intimidated. All of the coastal communities have been attacked. The people on the Sunshine Coast have been misled. This debate has nothing to do with siting a nuclear facility in Queensland. There is no nuclear facility on the drawing board now or in the near future. The costs alone would prevent us moving down that road in the short term. However, it is about time we had some intelligent debate. Let us decide that we will apply our intelligence after 20 years of holding our arms crossed over our chest whenever the word ‘nuclear’ has been mentioned. Let us own up and face up to the fact that an enormous climate change is threatening the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of people. Let us say that nothing should be off the table. We should be adult enough to consider all the options. If, after considering it, it is not in the interests of Queenslanders or Australians to build nuclear facilities, well and good. However, the government should not engage in a simple-minded scare campaign before we have even considered it. This is a stunt. At the present time there is no proposal for any nuclear industry in Queensland. This is nothing more than a scare campaign. It is nothing more than political opportunism. It is a dirty way of doing politics. This state is not even going to be allowed to have a debate about it. We have seen this sort of scare campaign too many times. It is not in the interests of Queenslanders to run a scare campaign on fluoride and say, ‘We had better not fluoridate.’ It is not in our interests to run a scare campaign on anything, let alone one of the biggest challenges facing the state—climate change. We are just going to wipe off the slate one of the matters that could be considered. I think this will be seen by Queenslanders for the nonsense that it is. The coalition will certainly be voting against this bill. Ms DARLING (Sandgate—ALP) (4.32 pm): I rise in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. The Queensland government is committed to addressing the climate change impacts of the energy sector through technology based solutions. Coal based generation with clean coal technologies has significant greenhouse abatement potential. Clean coal technologies with carbon capture and storage can reduce emissions from coal-fired electricity generation by over 80 per cent. While it may be true that the generation of nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases, the overall nuclear fuel cycle does. This includes the stages of uranium mining, conversion and enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel reprocessing, and disposal and storage of wastes. Given the potential emission reductions from clean coal technologies, combined with the economic benefits that Queensland does and will continue to derive from its coal resources, it is in Queensland’s interest to pursue coal based solutions and renewable energy. I expressed my grave concerns about safe options for nuclear waste disposal in this place last year, so I will not revisit that issue today. However, I will outline the economic reality of future power options in Queensland. The recently released Switkowski report commissioned by the federal government indicates that the energy generation costs for nuclear power would range between $A75 and $A105 per megawatt hour. The report indicates that over time these costs might reduce to $A44 to $A70 per megawatt hour for the first Australian plant. However, these costs do not include nuclear waste disposal costs, which are significant. Compared to the costs of conventional coal based electricity generation, indicated by the report to be $29 to $39 per megawatt, nuclear power is not competitive. Combined cycle gas turbine generation, leading to costs between $31 and $48 per megawatt, is also significantly cheaper than nuclear power. The costs of nuclear energy are more comparable to advanced clean coal technologies with carbon capture and storage. For example, integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage, as will be demonstrated by Stanwell Corporation’s ZeroGen project near Rockhampton, would cost between $52 and $99 per megawatt hour. The Queensland Centre for Low Emission Technology states that the first generation of integrated gasification combined cycle plants with carbon capture will be demonstrated in the next five to 10 years. The Fairview project near Roma in southern Queensland, which will extract methane from underground coal deposits for electricity generation, will also demonstrate the capture and burial of carbon emissions. Efficiencies will increase and costs will reduce as further research and development and demonstration of these technologies takes place. A special report on carbon capture and storage, released in November last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, indicates that carbon capture and storage costs can reduce by 20 per cent to 30 per cent over the next decade given sufficient support for research and demonstration. The Switkowski report indicates that it would optimistically take 10 to 15 years before a nuclear power plant could be operating in Australia, if there was a decision to allow nuclear power. By this time, clean coal technologies are likely to reach commercialisation in Queensland. As the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies predicts, carbon capture and storage in Australia will be applied widely within 20 years. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 347

Queensland has already invested heavily in clean coal technologies and carbon capture and storage, with a number of demonstration projects already planned. Research and development and work towards developing a regulatory regime for carbon capture and storage is likely to allow deployment of clean coal technologies before the earliest possible deployment of nuclear generators. Queensland has over 30 million tonnes, or almost 250 years, supply of black coal in the state, and coal currently provides over 84 per cent of the electrical energy used in the state. Importantly, the coal industry also sustains more than 22,000 jobs. With long-term supplies of low-cost coal complemented by the availability of gas and investment in renewable energy generation, Queensland has no urgent need to diversify its energy sources by including nuclear power. My views on nuclear waste disposal are already on the parliamentary record, as I have mentioned. There is no proven or reliable long-term mechanism for the disposal of nuclear waste. We must protect Queensland from becoming the world’s nuclear dumping site pilot project. We also refuse to be the pilot site for the federal government’s misguided push to move us to a nuclear state. I appeal to the Commonwealth government to invest in world-leading technology to guarantee the viability of existing Queensland industries and protect Australians from this unnecessary nuclear popularity drive. Queensland is investing in clean coal technology, natural gas and renewable energy options. The Prime Minister needs to put his money where his mouth is and invest a decent amount of money to research, implement and expand the clean coal technology, natural gas and renewable energy industries, like the Queensland government is. Queensland is using proven technology in generating energy from wind, geothermal and natural gas sources, with a solar farm soon to come online. The Commonwealth would be wise to support existing and proven Queensland industries that will bring climate sensitive power generation online decades sooner than any pie in the sky nuclear dream. Do not expect the people of this state to foot the extortionate bill to establish nuclear power stations and waste disposal facilities at the expense of the current viable industry. The Queensland government has faith in the ability of Queensland industry to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Queensland government is putting its money where its mouth is and is investing in new technologies. There will be no nuclear reactors, disposal or storage facilities in this state. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WETTENHALL (Barron River—ALP) (4.39 pm): I rise to support the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill. The people of north Queensland have been told by various candidates and representatives from the conservative parties in this state from both the federal and state arena that a nuclear industry is going to be good for far-north Queensland, good for Queensland and good for Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. I, as a representative of some of the people of far- north Queensland, am proud to be able to get up in this House and support this bill, which will, for all time, prohibit nuclear facilities being built in far-north Queensland and in this state. If that swiftie is tried to be pulled on the people of this state, then this legislation will require that issue to be put to the people of the state in a plebiscite. That is a very good thing. That will send a message to Canberra, to those who would have an unsafe nuclear industry in this state, that the people of Queensland do not want it. I will happily pre-empt the outcome of any such plebiscite by predicting that that is exactly what the result would be. What could be a greater distraction than the Prime Minister commissioning a report into the prospect of a nuclear industry in this country? What could be a bigger distraction? We have heard a lot of talk about distractions in this parliament today. But that is the biggest distraction of all. No-one has yet answered where these nuclear facilities, as marvellous as they are proposed to be, will be. No-one has answered that. We hear from the other side of the House that one could be in far-north Queensland, right next door to my electorate. This legislation will ensure that that will not happen. It will not happen without that issue going to a plebiscite of the people of this state. A number of arguments have been put forward as to why a nuclear industry is wrong for Queensland and wrong for Australia. We have heard a lot of compelling arguments on cost, safety and environmental grounds. What a nuclear industry in Queensland would do is risk all of the investments that are now happening, and should be happening with greater support from the federal government, in clean coal technologies and renewable energy. All of that would be placed at risk if we go down the path of a nuclear industry in this state. That is the last thing that the people of Queensland and the people of far-north Queensland want. We are fortunate enough in my electorate to have a hydro-electric power station which contributes significant amounts to the peak load electricity generation of this state. Recently the Beattie Labor government has invested in a very significant refurbishment of facilities in the hydro-electric power station. We have heard a number of comments during the debate today about investments in other renewable energies and clean coal technologies that the Beattie Labor government has put forward over some years. That is the way that we should be going. That is the way that we are going. We will not be going down the path of a nuclear facility in Queensland. The people do not want us to go down the path of a nuclear facility in Queensland. 348 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

The people will remember and they will be reminded that opposition members are not supporting this bill. Up and down the length of Queensland they will be reminded and they will know and they will remember this. That will come back to haunt members of the opposition at the next election and wherever they go. People are saying, ‘We don’t want nuclear generation in our backyards. We do not trust it. We do not believe it is safe.’ The most important point of all is that we do not want to pass the risks of storing toxic waste for hundreds and thousands of years on to the next generation. Where do our children and our children’s children have an opportunity to take part in this debate? They are relying on us. That is why this bill is so important. It will protect future generations from the consequences of the unsafe storage of toxic waste. It does not matter what is said and it does not matter how many times it is said that this is a stunt. The reality is that we still do not have a scientifically proven safe method of storing nuclear waste. There is none. That is why it is shameful that members of the opposition are willing to risk future generations by not supporting this bill. There is no scientifically proven way of storing that waste. We all know and countless studies have shown it over and over again that there is a very close link between the civil use of uranium in a nuclear industry and the military use. We do not have the mechanisms to unravel and prevent that. We know that the environmental risks are very important and very real. It is all very well for the member for Moggill to get up and poke fun at the Premier’s comments about boiling the reef, but it is true. The risks of thermal pollution are very high and there is no proven way of overcoming them. This parliament is doing the right thing in debating this bill and erecting a mechanism to protect future generations. It will be supported by the people of Queensland. It is a guarantee that if ever members of the opposing parties, whether it be in this parliament or the parliament in Canberra, want to start a nuclear industry in this state the people will have their say. For those reasons I support this bill. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (4.46 pm): I, like my colleagues, rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill. So far this has been a fascinating debate. I have frankly been astonished at what I have heard. I was shocked a little while ago to read on the front page of the Australian that our Prime Minister, Mr Howard, was confident that Australians would soon come to understand that nuclear energy was a clean, green energy source for the future. What I have heard today is, with varying degrees of honesty, the coalition in this House support that fundamental proposition. The member for Charters Towers began essentially with an argument that we should leave it all on the table and that we should be open to a range of possibilities. That suggestion was subsequently followed, I thought in a somewhat interesting manner, by the suggestion from the member for Moggill when he fronted up. The thing that shocked me about the member for Moggill’s contribution was its many internal inconsistencies. He argued fundamentally two things. He argued that it was right to keep all of the options on the table. He argued that we should leave the door open, as his colleagues had, to the possibility of nuclear power in Queensland. But when it was suggested that there might be a nuclear power plant at Cairns, at Townsville or, in his case, specifically on the Sunshine Coast he said, ‘Of course there will not be a nuclear power plant on the Sunshine Coast.’ I cannot begin to understand how it is that, whilst arguing that we must leave open the door to nuclear power plants across Australia, whilst knowing that the Switkowski report brought down by his colleague the Prime Minister has suggested 25 nuclear plants across Australia, and whilst knowing that nuclear power plants are best situated near the ocean, the member for Moggill could then suggest that, of course, there will not be one on the Sunshine Coast. When we join those dots we come logically to the conclusion that if we are going to have nuclear power in this state and in this country, as the Prime Minister has asked, a place with a growing population close to the sea—that is, the Sunshine Coast—is the most obvious site that possibly comes to mind. I cannot see how it is, therefore, that the member for Moggill can be telling us that it is okay to leave open the door to nuclear but, of course, there is no possibility for the Sunshine Coast. Mr Wilson: His logic is that it is self-evident. Ms NOLAN: The minister is entirely correct. That is the fundamental hypocrisy of the member for Moggill’s contribution. The second contradiction in the member for Moggill’s contribution was that he suggested that it was outrageous to bring forward this bill today before we have had the debate—that is, it was outrageous to establish a bill of which the fundamental provision is that if the federal government continues with its aim of trying to force nuclear power upon the states we will have a plebiscite. Dr Flegg came in here and argued that having a plebiscite was contrary to the interests of debate, that we could not bring forward this bill of which the fundamental facet is a plebiscite because to do so pre-empts or stifles debate. I cannot begin to understand how that can be. I would have thought that the fundamental proposition of this bill was that if we are going to have nuclear power it will be against this state government’s will and it will be through the process of a plebiscite. How you can say that that is not a debate quite fundamentally confounds me. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 349

To come to the provisions of the bill, this debate is the kind of debate that will absolutely characterise politics across Australia and indeed across the Western world in the 50 years ahead of us. We live in the richest and the happiest time in human history. We have had 50 or more years of peace and of almost continuous economic growth. We are the fattest, the happiest and the richest people ever to have lived. We do not often talk about from whence that growth and that wealth has come, but we need to understand that it has come quite fundamentally from an increasing ability to exploit our natural resources for economic growth and for human gain. What politics has largely been about in the last 60 or so years is sharing that wealth around—continuing the growth and distributing the wealth. We have now in our human history come to a fundamental crossroads because we have now, for the first time since the Industrial Revolution, realised that there are natural limits to our capacity to exploit our natural resources for economic gain. The first point at which we have come to a real hurdle is with the fundamental realisation that continuing to burn fossil fuels for cheap energy leads to climate change, and there will be other hurdles like this. Unlike a debate simply about splitting up the wealth, in the next 50 years we will talk about if we can continue to have that wealth in light of climate change, as we are talking about today. Can we continue to have that wealth in light of peak oil? Can we continue to damage our soils for often quite low-value agricultural production? What are the natural constraints on the exploitation of our natural resources for human economic gain? This debate is the harbinger of what will be the political debate in at least the next half century. This debate is important in that sense. In that debate there are essentially two clear positions. There are those who will say, ‘Don’t worry. You should leave it for tomorrow. It will all be okay,’ and there will be those like this state government who argue that it is imperative that we genuinely seek to live sustainably. Climate change, as I said, is the first time we have come to that hard question, but here it is that we find ourselves today. I am, as I said, genuinely shocked by the Prime Minister’s proposition that what we should do to deal with climate change is simply skip forward—we should simply move from burning coal as we have done for a long time now and switch to nuclear power in Australia. There is no doubt that we have to deal with the emissions from coal. Coal constitutes about half of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, and emissions from stationary energy have increased by 43 per cent between 1990 and 2004. So it is absolutely necessary to put the brakes on that. This afternoon my colleagues have talked about a number of their concerns about nuclear energy. They have talked about nuclear weapons proliferation, they have talked about the impact of nuclear power plants on communities and they have talked about the use of water. My fundamental concern when it comes to nuclear power is, as I acknowledge some other members have mentioned, that we simply have no answer to the question of nuclear storage. Spent fuel such as plutonium-239, which is one of the components of spent fuel, takes hundreds of thousands of years to break down. All around the world we simply have no answer to the question of what do we do with the spent fuel from nuclear power plants. In Australia we have been having this debate about a nuclear waste site for at least the last decade, and it is a question that this Howard government has been unable to resolve. Members will have seen the Howard government talking about putting medium-level nuclear waste first in the Northern Territory and then in South Australia. Members will remember that in the lead-up to the last federal election the Howard government, with all of its courage, abandoned plans for a nuclear waste site in South Australia for fear of offending voters in a handful of marginal seats. So this government, which cannot even address the nuclear waste we have got now, is now proposing to give us much more. All around the world this question remains unresolved. The United States, for instance, has 500,000 tonnes of nuclear waste scattered around the nation in 50 temporary sites because it cannot resolve what to do as a permanent solution to nuclear waste. The only answer that is genuinely on the table when it comes to dealing with nuclear waste is to put it in a hole—hardly a groundbreaking solution. Again, in the United States the one nuclear waste facility called a pilot plant which it does have is a 655- metre deep hole in what is understood to be a fairly geologically secure structure in New Mexico. We cannot go down the path of nuclear power until we have resolved the question of nuclear waste. It strikes me as fundamentally immoral to suggest that because we want to have cheap power today we will cast this burden not just upon generations to come but for millennia to come. I cannot understand how any individual can think that that burden upon humanity for millennia to come is in any sense a reasonable price to pay so that our power can be cheaper today through nuclear power than it would have been through available renewables. I cannot understand how it would be that the Howard government should put forward that proposition—that we as a nation should accept the cost of polluting the earth forevermore when we have not even genuinely explored the options of clean coal and renewable power. That possibility strikes me quite simply as being fundamentally immoral. If the question is can we pay more in order to prevent our earth being polluted forever, then I think the answer to that question can only ever be yes. I think this debate about what price we are willing to pay for the earth and for generations to come is, as I said, the question that will consume political minds for at least the next generation. But in that debate there will at every point be two sides, as there is in this debate today. 350 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

There will be one side who will say, ‘We need to keep living it up. We need the power to be as cheap as possible and hang the consequences,’ and there will be another side—our side—who will say, ‘We owe it to ourselves and to generations to come to genuinely seek to live sustainably.’ That is the only side on which I can comfortably live, and it disappoints me that members opposite do not share that, I believe, fundamentally moral view. With that, I support the bill. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (4.59 pm): I am delighted to rise to speak in support of this wonderful legislation. In my view, the use of nuclear power for any sort of electricity generation is quite simply insane. For the life of me I cannot figure out why sensible human beings think that it is a good idea to generate power in such a way that it creates by-products that remain poisonous to humans and every other form of life on the planet for tens of thousands of years. It raises the question, though: why is it that we are at this point considering this issue within the parliament today? I think the answer is pretty simple. Happily, the environment will be a very significant political issue at the upcoming federal election. More and more people are deciding to make their voting decisions and change their voting decisions on the basis of various candidates’ and parties’ views on protecting the environment. John Howard, who I think we all understand is a politician who simply hates the environment, has worked this out. During his tenure as Prime Minister, he has had a woeful record on environmental issues. We only have to look at what he has done with Tasmania’s forests and the shocking manner in which he pulled money from Queensland when we tried to strike a deal to outlaw broadscale tree clearing. Thankfully, the Beattie government came to the party on that one. But John Howard did not. I think John Howard’s government has been quite woeful in its attitude towards Japanese whaling in the great southern ocean whale sanctuary. People suggest that John Howard has had some sort of conversion to an understanding about the importance of climate change. No, he has not. He still does not understand. What he does understand is— Mr Reeves: The Newspoll. Mr LEE: That is exactly right. He understands the numbers. He understands that people care about the environment and that they care about climate change. John Howard thinks that, with the nuclear issue, he has the perfect green issue, the perfect political environmental issue. It is an issue upon which he can continue his government’s woeful and destructive practices towards the environment while at the same time pretend that his policies are clean and green. To put it frankly, he wants to have his yellowcake and eat it, too. I think we all understand that Howard is no stranger to lying for political gain. His government has been described as mean and tricky. In fact, one of his federal ministers from Queensland has described him quite publicly as a lying rodent. Howard has run the fictitious argument that nuclear power is in some way less destructive to the environment than creating electricity through traditional means such as coal fired power stations. He does this by looking at a very narrow part of the nuclear cycle. He takes a single period during the fuel cycle of uranium and decides that that is the period of time in which he will assess it. He looks at that and says, ‘During this brief period, there are fewer greenhouse gases created than there are during the same period by coal fired power stations.’ That is a joke. If we want to assess the climate impacts of any form of power generation, we have to do that from the beginning of the cycle to the end. We have to start with the mining. We have to factor in the milling, the transport and the enrichment. But, most importantly, the one thing that Howard does not want to talk about ever is that we have to factor in the costs associated with the long-term storage of the by-products. In the history of the planet, only one nuclear power station has been decommissioned— Chernobyl. That is not what we could call a successful decommissioning. That means that, based on current technology, every other nuclear power station on the planet is going to have to run indefinitely. So once that power station passes the point at which it can usefully generate electricity, it will still have to be kept humming over, because there is no means by which we can stop the processes within the power stations and turn the darned things off. When we factor that into any equation, generating electricity through the use of nuclear power will always be worse for the environment and create more problems for climate change than any other form of power generation that we could comprehend. We have been taken for a ride by the Howard government and I for one am someone who is not happy about that. I have to tell members that two people in my community who appear to be happy about it are the federal members of parliament whose electorates cover my electorate: the federal member for Moreton, Gary Hardgrave, and the federal member for Ryan, Michael Johnson. We have not heard a peep out of those two about the destructive effects of mining uranium and generating power by using nuclear power stations. I know what the constituents in my part of the world think about this issue. They do not want it. What are we getting from the two federal backbenchers, Hardgrave and Johnson? Absolutely nothing. They are two members of the federal parliament who on this issue, I have to say, are not sticking up for the views that are strongly held within their communities. That is the point that should be made on this issue within the parliament today. Clearly, Gary Hardgrave, the federal backbencher for Moreton, and Michael Johnson, the federal member for Ryan, do not have the ear of the Prime Minister. They do not 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 351 have the ear of the cabinet. As a result, they are bad and weak community representatives. Quite frankly, I think my community has been cheated and taken for a ride not just by John Howard but also by Hardgrave and Johnson. Hardgrave and Johnson should do the right thing and step aside and give my community decent representation. I am looking forward to the representation that Moreton will get from Graham Perrett. I know the member for Mansfield is as well. I know that other members of parliament are looking forward to the representation that Ross Daniels will give the people of Ryan. The people in those electorates have had stuff all on this issue from Michael Johnson and very little from Gary Hardgrave, the federal backbencher for Moreton. I am delighted to support this bill. I am one of those people who think it is wonderful legislation. As most members would know, I am one of those people who think that we should go even further. I would like to put on the record that I am looking forward to the day when we introduce legislation outlawing once and for all uranium mining in Queensland. I am also looking forward to the day when Queensland has some capacity to keep nuclear powered weapons of war—nuclear powered ships, weapons of war—outside the state of Queensland. But with those words, I am delighted to support this bill. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.07 pm): I rise to speak in support of the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 2006. The Queensland government is proposing to progress the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill to ban the development of nuclear facilities in Queensland, including uranium conversion and enrichment plants, nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear reactors, spent fuel reprocessing plants and facilities used to store or dispose of material associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. The bill’s purpose is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Queensland. This bill, and the debate that we are having today, highlights quite clearly the difference between the coalition members, who are willing to support a form of power that is inherently dangerous and produces dangerous by-products, and Labor, which has a strong record of protecting the environment and protecting our residents. This bill will empower all Queenslanders with the right to seek court orders or declarations to stop or prevent an offence against the proposed legislation. There is no sunset clause within the bill that would lift the ban on nuclear facilities at a future date. I am really pleased to see that. The bill specifically excludes from the prohibition the storage or disposal of radioactive waste material for research or medical purposes. That is consistent with the government’s Smart State investments in medical and research infrastructure. The bill also has no effect on the Medical Radiation Technologists Registration Act 2001, which governs the registration of medical imaging technologists, nuclear medicine technologists and radiation therapists. Consequently, the bill will have no impact on the level of nuclear research or the application of nuclear medicine in Queensland. Also, the bill does not prohibit the operation of nuclear powered vessels in Queensland ports. One of the bill’s primary functions is to prevent the high-level health and safety risks associated with the operation of nuclear facilities. This issue has been the focus of recent media attention regarding pro nuclear activists’ claims that current technology has made the construction and operation of nuclear facilities significantly safer than in past decades. Whilst improvements have taken place, it remains that no nuclear plant design can be regarded as comprehensively safe and disposal of radioactive waste still remains a significant issue. I have listened today to a lot of members on this side of the House talking about the issue of radioactive waste. It is an issue that concerns people in my electorate. In fact, people have been stopping me in the street over the past couple of weeks to talk about the issue of nuclear proliferation and what would happen if we ended up with facilities like that in our state. They are quite clear that they do not want them. Furthermore, nuclear facilities in Queensland would require subsidisation which would impose a significant financial burden on Queenslanders. That is something that we all need to think about quite carefully when we are talking about energy costs and how people will be able to follow through with their family budgets. The recently released Switkowski report Uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy indicates the extent of this subsidy. It says that ‘nuclear power would be between 20 and 50 per cent more costly to produce than coal or gas fired power’. The formation of this bill has also been necessitated by the government’s concern regarding safety risks involved with nuclear proliferation and the potential threat of terrorism. The government is advised that actual cases of nuclear proliferation have not involved safeguarded facilities in countries which are signatories to the United Nations nonproliferation treaty. Proliferation in the past has involved illegal supply networks, secret nuclear facilities and undeclared materials. Whilst it could be expected that measures would be put in place to prevent nuclear proliferation in Australia, including Queensland, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study suggests that an international effort to reduce the proliferation risk is required. This should include reappraisal and strengthening of the current institutional underpinnings of the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards regime including sanctions. Until these newly strengthened measures have been established, the construction and operation of nuclear facilities in Queensland remain a risk to the safety of all Queenslanders. 352 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

The threat of terrorist attack is also a concern for the Queensland government. The release of radioactive material from an explosion at a nuclear facility would have catastrophic consequences. The Queensland government will monitor technology developments relating to the nuclear fuel cycle, including the installation and operation of planned nuclear power stations, the use of laser technology for enrichment and the geological disposal of nuclear waste. Until proper health and security measures and adequate institutional arrangements which guarantee safety are established, we will remain committed to the prohibition of nuclear facilities in Queensland. I call on members opposite to sit down and really think about the consequences of supporting a nuclear industry in Queensland. We have seen reports that suggest that the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island would be good spots for nuclear power stations. The member for Pumicestone talked about that in relation to Bribie Island. We were talking about this on the weekend with Jon Sullivan, the Labor candidate for Longman. We are all very concerned that no-one actually rules out having these particular facilities built in their area. I note that our local federal Liberal member has been quite dodgy in not answering the question. He will not come out and say that he does not want nuclear facilities in Queensland and that he definitely does not want them on the Sunshine Coast or Bribie Island. That is what he needs to do. That is what we all need to do. It is our job to protect Queenslanders. It is our job to make sure that nuclear facilities are not built in Queensland ever. I call on those opposite to really think about this. They should listen to what their constituents are saying because they are saying to me that they do not want nuclear power stations in Queensland, and I am sure that they would say that to those opposite if they were out there talking to them about it. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Hon. GJ WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.13 pm), in reply: It is a pleasure to make some closing remarks in this second reading debate on this very important piece of legislation. I want to cover a number of areas. I want to make some general remarks about the bill, then address the federal government and state government precedents for this bill, comment upon some of the excellent contributions made by government members and Independent members, and then finally address a number of points raised—purporting to be arguments against the bill but not so—by the opposition. I thank honourable members for participating in this debate. Against the Commonwealth government’s growing advocacy for nuclear power, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill will ensure that nuclear power is not progressed in this state. The Queensland government remains concerned that the potential release of toxic radioactive materials from the uranium fuel cycle poses unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Consequently, the bill will prohibit uranium conversion and enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, nuclear electricity generation and spent fuel storage and disposal in this state. By progressing this bill, the Beattie government is ensuring that the health, safety and welfare of all Queenslanders will be protected. Honourable members will be aware of the Commonwealth government’s assertions that nuclear energy is a viable response to reducing stationary energy emissions and addressing climate change. This is spurious logic. Firstly, it implies that nuclear energy is safe and that the expertise to roll it out is readily available in Australia. Secondly, it is actually contrary to the Commonwealth’s existing statutory position, and I will address the detail of that shortly. The Queensland government has a more realistic approach—significant investment in clean coal technologies that will build on Australia’s experience and expertise. Whilst there is inadequate evidence to support nuclear power as safe and cost effective, greenhouse gas abatement measures and clean coal technologies are expected to be both cost effective and supportive of the state’s whole economy. The consequences of operational failure or potential terrorist attack on nuclear facilities are also of concern to the Queensland government. Until acceptable security and institutional measures which guarantee health and safety are established, the Queensland government will remain committed to the prohibition of nuclear facilities. While the Commonwealth could enact legislation contrary to these state based powers, which itself would be a total reversal of its position at present at a legislative level, such action would require amendment of the existing Commonwealth legislation. Section 140A of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act states that the Commonwealth environment minister—

... must not approve an action consisting of or involving the construction or operation of any of the following nuclear installations: (a) a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; (b) a nuclear power plant; (c) an enrichment plant; (d) a reprocessing facility. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 353

This Commonwealth prohibition was enacted by the Howard government in 1999. Further, the Commonwealth’s Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act, passed by the Howard government in 1998, prohibits enrichment and nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power stations and reprocessing facilities. In effect, the Queensland parliament is being asked to affirm the position of the Commonwealth. Should the Commonwealth government take steps to amend its legislation, the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill requires me to seek the views of the people of Queensland on this matter. The circumstances which motivate some countries to adopt nuclear power are not present in Queensland. While some countries incur a high cost to import conventional energy commodities, Queensland has abundant energy resources, such as gas and clean coal technology, to meet its future energy needs. It would appear from the position that has been put by two members of the opposition—and only two members of the opposition participated in this debate, which is one of the most important debates, I dare suggest, that will take place in the parliament this year, if not over the next five to 10 years—that those opposite seem to be oblivious to the fact that this legislation is actually based upon quite sound legislative precedent. It is based upon the Nuclear Activities (Prohibition) Act 1983 of Victoria. Secondly, it is based upon the Uranium Mining and Nuclear Facilities (Prohibitions) Act 1986 of New South Wales. Yes, it is true that in 1983 and 1986 there were Labor governments in office in Victoria and New South Wales respectively when those pieces of legislation were passed. However, in addition to those precedents—in one case a 24-year-old precedent—we do have another illustration of the common sense of this legislation, and that is the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of the Commonwealth. There are key provisions in that act which are simply replicated in this legislation. As I said earlier, that legislation was passed by the Howard government in 1999. I direct the attention of the House to comments made on 29 June 1999 by the Howard government’s minister at that time. In his second reading speech, he spoke in support of this important federal legislation. Dr Stone was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. She drew the attention of the House to the particular significance of the bill, which had been developed over a number of years as part of the COAG federal-state negotiation process, which had occurred from 1996 to 1999. She said that the legislation revision then before the House was foreshadowed back in 1996 when the environment election policy statement for the Howard government, prior to that election, was released stating that it would introduce legislation saving and investing in our natural heritage. In those 1996 statements she identified that major legislative reform was foreshadowed for the environmental law area. She went on to say that since the coalition had been elected in 1996, the federal government had worked cooperatively with all of the states. Members will remember that New South Wales and Victoria had no nuclear facilities bans in place at that time. The federal government worked closely with those two states and the other states to develop the legislation that was before the federal parliament and it did that with great success. Dr Stone said that both federal and state governments had sought to identify better means of delivering efficient and effective environmental management for Australia as a whole, that would effectively balance the needs of the environment and the needs of industry. She talked about the 1997 Council of Australian Governments Agreement that was reached on those issues. On page 7,814, she stated that the bill before the House implemented that COAG agreement. She said that the Commonwealth’s role was confined to those areas identified as being of national environmental significance. She then listed a number of them, concluding with ‘nuclear actions by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies’. That shows how important the federal Howard government believed its federal legislation was in 1999. It believed that it was of national significance to protect the environment throughout Australia. One of the key provisions of that legislation was to ban nuclear facilities of the type that I enumerated earlier, setting at a federal level the mark for where the country should be at. It also reflected what had already happened in 1983 in Victoria and in 1986 in New South Wales. Just in case there is any doubt about that in the minds of opposition members today, the 1999 legislation complemented the 1998 legislation of the Howard government. Section 10 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 prohibits nuclear installations such as nuclear fuel fabrication plants, nuclear power plants, enrichment plants and reprocessing facilities. It creates a positive prohibition against any official under that legislation issuing a licence for any of those facilities. Opposition members here should have no doubt that the course that they have chosen is actually in conflict with the position of the federal government—their own party. It is one thing for us to be out of step with the federal government. However, opposition members are entirely out of step with their own parties because, since 1998 and 1999, the federal government has enacted and promoted legislation that bans nuclear facilities. 354 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 20 Feb 2007

I draw attention to the fact that previously the opposition—although not so much today because I do not think this was raised today—has publicly said that we have no capacity to legislate to this effect and that the federal government can, should it so choose, override this legislation. Under both our state constitution—as with other state constitutions—and the federal constitution there are separate legislative capacities for the respective governments to legislate in the fashion in which we are doing today, as the federal government has already done and as the other two states did so long ago. Firstly, there is no inherent contradiction between the positions and, secondly, there is an obvious role being played by this legislation which complements the federal legislation that has already activated the federal constitutional head of power to ban nuclear facilities throughout Australia. There are no inconsistencies and, in fact, once passed this legislation will complement the federal government act that has been operating since 1998 in one case and 1999 in the other case. It needs to be remembered that we represent all of Queensland and that there is good reason for us to be concerned about what the federal government may do in the future contrary to its legislated position. The Switkowski report identifies where it can be reasonably anticipated the federal government will go. Two reports have tried to make practical sense of the Switkowski report, which has been presented to the Prime Minister, and identify the possible implications for Queensland. In 2006 its own consulting group did a study, as averted to by others earlier today. That study identified that, if one tried to apply to Queensland what is put forward in the report to the Prime Minister and tried to make some practical sense of what nuclear power would mean for Queensland, one would have to look at nuclear power stations in Townsville, Collinsville, Mackay, Broadsound and Rockhampton. That is the claim of one report and people may think that that is an exception and we should not pay too much attention to it. However, another report tries to make practical sense of what the Prime Minister’s proposals on nuclear power stations might mean for Australia and, in particular, Queensland. That is the report by the Australia Institute dated 30 January 2007. That report identified that potential Queensland sites for nuclear power stations are Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, the Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island. Mr Seeney: What rubbish! Mr WILSON: I take the interjection of the Leader of the Opposition— Mr Seeney: Good, put it in Hansard. It’s rubbish. Mr WILSON:—who has been noticeably absent from the debate. He did not participate in the debate and has just arrived for this part of the debate. We are grateful for his late attendance. I want to be sure that the rest of Queensland has a record of the Leader of the Opposition’s position, which is that it is rubbish that a nuclear power station could be placed in any one of those places in Queensland. It cannot be in any of those places, according to the Leader of the Opposition. If Howard goes ahead with nuclear power in Australia we are left with two other alternatives: one, that there be no nuclear power stations in Queensland or, alternatively, that any nuclear power stations in Queensland would be anywhere other than the places nominated by the Leader of the Opposition as being places where it would be rubbish to assert that there would be any nuclear power station. I am delighted that that is now on the record. While I am addressing that, I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Ipswich, who I think took the analytical scalpel to the contribution of the Leader of the Liberal Party, particularly where he asserted that there is no way there would be a nuclear power station on the Sunshine Coast. He did not put forward any argument for why there could not be, but was merely asserting that of course there would not be. Therefore, we are left to conclude that it would be self-evident that there would not be; that the evidence is there without it being put forward to prove the case. I think what he is doing is reciting the position that the member for Maroochydore took in the debate on the motion on 7 June 2006. She said— I also want to put on record that I have never been accused of being quiet before. I was on the record with Mark McArdle, before the state government was, saying that there is no way we would have a nuclear plant on the Sunshine Coast. On the one hand members opposite oppose this legislation which would ban nuclear power stations in Queensland. On the other hand they are falling over themselves to reject the proposition that a nuclear power station could be in any of the places in Queensland named today. As I say, we are left to the conclusion that on the science and logic of the opposition, it cannot be in any of those places as named—so it is the rest of regional Queensland—or, if the opposition has its way, there will not be any nuclear power stations in Queensland. The latter two options are highly less likely than the first. I want to now address a number of things put forward by a number of speakers, particularly the member for Moggill and the member for Charters Towers. Firstly, I do not want to go over the ground covered I believe so ably by government members in the House tonight. I want to acknowledge the member for Fitzroy, who stood up for the coal industry. That is what this bill is also doing: standing up for the Queensland coal industry despite the opposition by the members opposite to our position. 20 Feb 2007 Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Bill 355

I want to acknowledge also the member for Hervey Bay who addressed the question that there is no technology to deal with the waste at the moment. There are 443 nuclear power stations throughout the world in 31 countries and there is no technology for the long-term disposal of waste taking into consideration the safety of humans and the environment. There are two proposed repositories, one in Finland and one in the US. The one in Finland will be available, so it is said, by 2010 and the other some years after that. Even now, after 40 years of generation of nuclear power, there is no settled safe technology for the long-term disposal of the waste. The member for Pumicestone put the breadth of arguments. Any member of the public reading her speech would acknowledge it as a common-sense provision on this legislation and the question of nuclear power stations. The member for Charters Towers asserted a number of things including that the bill would achieve nothing, that it is a PR exercise and that it is scaremongering, and some of the hard-hitting, profound points were also later picked up by the member for Moggill. The member for Moggill became quite elaborate. He was describing the position as a stunt, a scare campaign, an ugly political opportunistic act, dirty politics and cheap politics. He did not address the fact that the Howard government had already legislated federally in 1998 or 1999 to the effect of what we are doing now. He did not address the fact that Victoria in 1983 and New South Wales in 1986 had done likewise. He then went on to say that this legislation stops debate. The real truth of his concern is not that it stops debate but that it focuses and starts debate. That is what the opposition has as its fundamental objection to this legislation. Despite what the members opposite say, one consequence of this legislation is that it actually helps to generate the debate about nuclear power in Australia because it says quite boldly that there are many other options for Queensland far preferable to nuclear power. It does nothing about stopping debate at all. It actually facilitates the holding of a debate. Also, not only does the passing of the bill through this House generate debate within the community and in here, but the bill itself proposes a mechanism for the conducting of public debate as a prelude to holding a plebiscite to ask Queenslanders what they think about any proposals by the Howard government to put one or more power stations in Queensland. On the one hand they posture that they are defending the right of Queenslanders to debate and exercise free choice, so they use that argument to oppose this legislation. On the other hand in effect what they are doing by opposing the bill—were they to be successful—is opposing Queenslanders having a legislated right to have a plebiscite on this issue. Whilst speaking on this and thinking of the Leader of the Opposition, who did not participate in the debate but thought it was serious enough only to do so by way of a casual interjection, it occurs to me that he says that there will be no nuclear power stations in Queensland. That is effectively his position: there certainly will not be any in those major regional places. The report to the Prime Minister says that there will be 25 nuclear power stations within the next 15 to 20 years. It is going to be pretty crowded elsewhere in Australia if there is not at least one or more power stations in Queensland if there are going to be 25 throughout the country. Tasmania is a bit crowded at the moment. It has a fair bit of hydro so they might not want to put a nuclear power station there. South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales are going to become pretty crowded with 25 nuclear power stations. It is a bit hard to believe that that is really going to be the outcome. The member for Moggill also said in support of his argument that we should leave all things on the table. He said that just as we consider and leave on the table wind farm technology for supplying technology to the network, we should also put nuclear power technology on the table—as if they were equivalent technologies in terms of their nature and the way in which they generate electricity. Wind power is a highly unreliable source of power for baseload power, let alone peaking power. It is at a very limited number of locations throughout Queensland. There are limited places throughout Queensland for wind power. These units generate at most 120 to maybe 200 megawatts at the extreme with many turbines in the air. Nuclear power is only a sensible option if it is being talked about for major baseload electricity generation to supply thousands and thousands of megawatts to the Queensland electricity grid. That is why nuclear power cannot be equated to wind power. Finally, I want to acknowledge the contributions made by the Independents. As I recall, all of those who spoke indicated their support for this legislation. In relation to the member for Tablelands, I do not necessarily agree with everything that she has said. However, I do appreciate the support of the Independents. I take some comfort from the fact that they are not opposing the legislation because I believe that they are reflecting authentically what is happening in their respective electorates and the disparate areas from which they come. I think that is quite a feature of the support they are providing. The members for Gladstone, Nanango, Tablelands and Nicklin are from different areas. Mr Wellington: Gladstone, Nanango, Maryborough. 356 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

Mr WILSON: And Maryborough. It is quite a reinforcement of the government members’ position that this legislation is important to Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Division: Question put—That the bill be now read a second time. AYES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Beattie, Bligh, Bombolas, Boyle, Choi, Croft, Cunningham, Darling, English, Fenlon, Finn, Foley, Fraser, Gray, Hayward, Hinchliffe, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Jones, Keech, Kiernan, Lawlor, Lee, Lee Long, Lucas, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Moorhead, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Reeves, Reilly, Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Sullivan, Wallace, Weightman, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wendt, Wettenhall, Wilson. Tellers: Male, Nolan NOES, 24—Copeland, Cripps, Dempsey, Elmes, Flegg, Gibson, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lingard, McArdle, Malone, Menkens, Messenger, Nicholls, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Stevens. Tellers: Dickson, Rickuss Resolved in the affirmative. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 24, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Question put—That the bill be now read a third time. Motion agreed to. Long Title Question put—That the long title of the bill be agreed to. Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 29 November 2006 (see p. 731). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (5.51 pm): It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak to the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. It is a piece of legislation that has been lying on the table of the House for some time now. It is a result of the Queensland Road Safety Summit that was held early last year. What is the price of road safety? I do not think we can put a price on it. From the outset I point out that the opposition will be supporting this piece of legislation in its entirety. I congratulate the minister and his government on bringing this legislation before the House. We have been waiting for a long while for certain aspects of this legislation to hit the decks. The amendments in this legislation are aimed at improving road safety in Queensland. The minister rightly said this in his second reading speech. I believe the main issue is that of random roadside drug testing and the use of drugs that impair a driver’s ability to drive in a safe manner. As the minister said in his second reading speech, in 2005 alcohol and other drug use were identified as the contributing factors in 114 deaths on Queensland roads or almost 35 per cent of Queensland’s road toll. It makes one wonder how people can justify their right to get behind the wheel of a vehicle when they are under the influence of alcohol or a drug and how they can justify their actions if they are sincere about what they do in their community every day. The statistics prove this. In the 25-year period from 1980 to 2005 some 11,222 people perished on Queensland roads as a result of 9,959 crashes. There are 431 fatalities a year. With the introduction of technology, in the last 10 years we have seen a significant decline in the number of fatalities. That technology and also our better roads have assisted in this regard. We have to admit that, whilst we harp on about the fact that we are not getting enough money for road construction around the state, our roads have improved. The number of people using the roads has increased. In the last 10 years, 1996 to 2005, we averaged about 325 fatalities a year. The real issue that I want to bring to the attention of the House today—and no doubt people are aware of this—is not the fatalities but the number of people who are maimed or injured on our roads and will never again have a quality of life as a result of somebody driving a car under the influence of alcohol or drugs. When we look at the statistics I think Queensland is on the right track. The coalition introduced speed cameras in this state in May 1997. The Queensland speed camera program is estimated to have resulted in a reduction in fatal crashes of 45 per cent in areas within two kilometres of speed camera sites. Corresponding reductions of 31 per cent, 39 per cent, 19 per cent and 21 per cent were estimated for hospitalisation, medically treated and non-injury crashes respectively. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 357

If technology is going to make a difference let us have the technology. In New South Wales there are fixed cameras on the side of the roads. The traffic moves in a procession. People sit at 100 kilometres an hour. We do not see some rabbit try to pass on the wrong side or get ahead too quickly because they know that the cameras are there and they know that the breaking of the speed limit will not be tolerated. I totally support the introduction of fixed cameras in Queensland. I really believe that it would make a significant difference to the road toll in our state when that becomes a reality. As the minister from 1996 to 1998—and the Hon. Paul Lucas would vouch for this, too—I saw the result of some fatal road crashes. In the chamber this morning we heard the Minister for Emergency Services talk about some of the fatal crashes we have had in recent times. It is a scary fact that in the last couple of weeks there have been 10 or 12 fatalities. This is since parliament rose a fortnight ago. The majority of the people killed were in the age group 17 to 24 years. The crux of what we are talking about today is getting the mix right. We can look at the deaths per 100,000. In 1980 we had 24.58 deaths per 100,000 compared with in 2005 some 8.27 deaths per 100,000. The figure is slowly coming down while the population is growing and there are more vehicles on the roads. I salute the government and anybody else who is committed to making our roads safer and putting in place the technology that is going to assist in doing that. We live in a technological age and we should take advantage of it. If it is going to save countless tens of millions of dollars in our hospitals and with our doctors so be it. If it is going to save countless tens of millions of dollars in insurance premiums so be it. The most important fact that many people are not aware of and do not realise—and the Minister for Emergency Services said this this morning—is that two people are cut out of vehicles every week in Queensland. Just think about the police, the fire officers and the ambulance officers who go to those scenes and are subjected to that every day of their working lives. I would not like to be one of them. We can criticise these people from time to time but, by God, at the end of day they do a fantastic job. They have to do this because of the idiots who are driving on our roads. I applaud the government today for the provisions in the legislation relating to drug testing. Drug testing is something that we in Queensland have been waiting for for a long time. I know that it was talked about when I was the minister in this state. I know that Victoria has had it for some time. The government has probably used that as a template and done a lot of research. The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, CARRS as it better known, conducted a study in Townsville. It found that 27 drivers tested positive to one or more illicit drugs out of 752 saliva tests supplied by drivers at RBT locations. This is 3.5 per cent of drivers or one in 28 drivers. This is from the minister’s second reading speech. Mr Lucas: Very concerning. Mr JOHNSON: Absolutely. I take the interjection from the minister, because in the past these people have gone undetected. In the future they will not go undetected. As I have already said, the road toll is now down to around 300-odd deaths a year. I believe we can get it even lower by getting some of these other idiots off the roads and making them aware of the consequences. This testing is very professionally done with two saliva tests that will take up to three minutes on the side of the road compared to the five minutes it takes in the Victorian jurisdiction. I do not care if it takes an hour: if these people are breaking the law, they should be off the road. If that is not sufficient for the police at the time, they then have the power to be able to subject those people to a blood test, as is the case with RBT. We have been waiting for this legislation for a long while. The heavy transport industry is another industry that many people are waiting to see cleaned up. Those in the industry who do the right thing are paying the same penalty as the people who do the wrong thing. I make no apologies and no excuses for anyone who breaks the law by driving heavy transport under the influence of drugs so they can get from point A to point B in a certain time. It is just absolutely irresponsible. We are going to see the heavy transport industry tidied up while at the same time we will also see a different attitude by people driving on our roads. Too many people for too long have said, ‘It’ll be right, mate. We’ll run the gauntlet.’ The days of running the gauntlet have just about come to an end. I have spoken with numerous people in the department of transport and with the minister face to face about loss of licence through loss of demerit points because of breaches in logbooks and heavy vehicle driving hours. Even though that is not applicable to this legislation, it is applicable to a regulation that the minister tabled in this House earlier this month—on 6 February I think it was. In canvassing that subject, it is an issue applicable to heavy driving. The operators of heavy vehicles who do the right thing are unfairly treated. That does not mean to say that I condone breaking the law. I certainly do not condone breaking the law. I urge the minister in his capacity as the custodian or creator of transport law and order in this state to look at that issue in a professional vein through the eyes of the industry with guidance and advice from the good owner- operators within the industry and the good companies within the industry to get the right mix, I suppose, so we can get a genuine resolution to this issue. 358 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

There has been input on this issue in the past and the Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Hughie Williams, has been very vocal about this. I support Hughie Williams for the stand he takes on road safety, but at the same time we have situations where some of the rules and regulations are going too far in relation to the penalties incurred. In terms of logbook breaches, there are amendments in this legislation that the minister has put in place where they can get driving— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Member for Gregory, is the matter that you are dealing with the subject of your notice of motion? Mr JOHNSON: It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Then perhaps that would be in anticipation of the debate. Mr JOHNSON: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am just touching on the road safety aspect of it. But I will move away from that. I am sure I have not insulted the minister. I would not intentionally do that anyway. Mr Lucas: I’ve got a very thick skin. Mr JOHNSON: You have to have sometimes. When you are transport minister, you have to have thick skin. Mr Lucas: Absolutely—a big man and a big box. Mr JOHNSON: I know he does not walk away from his responsibilities, and nor do I, because at the end of day that is what this forum is for—trying to get the real picture. While talking about road safety in terms of the licensing situation, the new concept for learner drivers is a magnificent concept and one which will put the responsibility back on young people in that it is not a right to have a licence but a privilege to have a licence. It is a privilege for any of us to have a licence to drive a vehicle of any type of description on the roads. This new P-plate concept of red plates and green plates—red plates for 12 months and green plates for two years—really shows that Queensland will be at the forefront of making our roads safer. If we see those kinds of plates on a vehicle, we will immediately back off and not stress them by driving too close. It is the same for learner drivers. We will see genuine outcomes as a result of this change in the legislation and the conditions applicable to young drivers. A third of the drivers killed on our roads are in the 17 to 24 age group. How often do we see it? This legislation also reduces the age that a driver can get his or her learners to 16 years. I looked at that when the minister’s advisers gave us a briefing on this legislation and thought to myself, ‘Why would you do that?’ When we think about that and the limbo period before they get an open licence, it is another three years. Over that three-year period those people have to do the right thing to ensure that they do not violate the law, because if they do they will lose their licence. As the minister said, in 2005 alone there were no fewer than 106 fatalities in Queensland as a result of young driver crashes, and that is 32 per cent of the state’s road toll. Convening forums has also been good. The other issue that I want to touch on in relation to road safety is people using cruise control on vehicles. This is an issue that we hear a lot about but people do not mention it often. I use cruise control on the western roads. It is the worst thing in the world if you are not aware of the road. People think that by putting cruise control on it is an automatic way of driving a motor car, but it is a damned dangerous way of driving a motor car if you do not know the road. That is something that should be taught to not only young drivers but all drivers—that is, if they do not know the conditions they should not use cruise control. There was a bad fatality between Emerald and Alpha a couple of years ago where a lady from Toowoomba perished because of the use of cruise control on a bad bend where people did not know the road. This legislation also puts in place a test for young drivers after 12 months. These are things that will make young drivers more aware of their responsibilities and make them better drivers in the long term during that probationary period of three years. Initiatives such as these are the good things in this legislation. All of us have been through learning how to drive. When I first came to Brisbane I thought, ‘I’m not going to drive down here.’ After a while you get your confidence and you learn how to do it. The same is applicable to city drivers driving some of those longer distances in western areas or some of the more difficult areas in the cape, the gulf and other parts of the state. A complete testing program is something that we should be looking at when it comes to these young people. Another aspect of this legislation in relation to young drivers relates to peer passenger restrictions between 11 pm and five am for holders of a first-stage provisional licence. This is a very good initiative and one that will create a safer environment for young people. I have had a lot of people contact my office complaining about the high-powered vehicle restrictions for first- and second-stage provisional drivers aged under 25. They have sons and daughters who want to get their licences and the only car they have in which to do that is a high- powered turbo car. I know that the minister’s advisers have said that a very small number of people 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 359 throughout the state fall into that category, anyway. The law has to apply to everybody. We support what the government is trying to do through this legislation, and that is to create a safer environment for people and to make them more responsible. I refer now to the old pet subject of the restrictions on the use of mobile phones—the bluetooth and all the other bits and pieces of technology that go with it. That is all good. Another important aspect of this legislation is the late-night driving restrictions for those young drivers who return to driving after having their licences suspended or disqualified. Another important aspect of this legislation is the requirement for drivers holding a first-stage provisional licence for 12 months to pass a hazard perception test. I want to raise the issue of the requirement on a person to hold a heavy rigid truck licence for 12 months before that person can move to getting a semitrailer licence. I ask the minister, in his reply, to touch on what the criteria will be now, under this legislation, for young people aged under 25 who want to get their licences. How will that affect the heavy vehicle industry? I know that a lot of young people want to find their niche in that industry and get their heavy vehicle licence so that they can drive semitrailers or type 1 or type 2 road trains and move up through the scale. I think that this legislation could create problems for those young drivers. The amendments to the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 improve the administration of railway corridors by allowing a rail sublease to continue when the sublease has been surrendered by a railway manager. That is a good amendment. That will certainly allow the control of some railways to be transferred to tourist operators so that they can be converted into tourist attractions. That will allow some of these railway lines to be kept open. I applaud this part of the legislation. The amendments to the Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 make minor administrative changes. They provide for driver disqualifying offences that have been amended or renumbered to continue to be disqualifying offences and for serious child related offences to continue to be regarded as disqualifying offences. I also think those are very good amendments, because it puts those people on notice that, regardless of the area of the industry they want to move into, they are not going to be accommodated. This legislation also makes amendments to the effect that, if people lose their licence in another jurisdiction, they cannot come to Queensland and get their licences. I was not aware that that law was not already in place through the uniformity of road rules and the National Transport Commission. This amendment demonstrates a national commitment to road safety. In future, the net will catch everybody. So, if somebody has done the wrong thing in Western Australia, they certainly cannot come to Queensland and get off the hook. That is my interpretation of the amendment. I believe it is a very important part of this legislation. It is important to have uniformity in our road rules. This amendment certainly makes the process clearer for applicants, accredited persons and registered persons from outside Queensland to apply for licences in Queensland, as well as making it easier for the department to take action where a disqualifying offence was committed outside Queensland. This legislation makes amendments to the Tow Truck Act 1973 to correct a cross-referencing error. That is good. I want to touch on the amendments that are modelled on similar provisions contained in the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000. At present, Queensland Transport conducts checks on persons to authorise, approve or accredit their criminal history to ensure that they have not been charged with or committed any offences that will disqualify them from holding positions of trust in the community—for example, to work as bus drivers, taxi drivers, marine licence examiners or tow truck operators. These new provisions will allow the electronic exchange of information on a daily basis. In that way the Police Service can provide Queensland Transport with the information so that Queensland Transport knows full well who they are dealing with when issuing licences. I think that is a very important part of crime detection as well as making certain that we have licensed drivers on the road doing the right thing. When it comes to the vulnerability of children, the old adage is that we cannot put a price on our kids. They are not negotiable. They are the most sacred people in our lives. We have to do everything possible to make certain that they are safe. Although this issue might not be applicable to the contents of this legislation, I want to refer to a headline that appears in today’s Toowoomba Chronicle, which states, ‘Politicians at odds over roads’. I am talking about the second range crossing in Toowoomba. Accompanying the article is a photograph of a sign that states that since 1992 on the range crossing there have been 12 fatalities, 153 casualties and 159 closures. I have heard the bantering that is going on around the state at the moment in relation to the $19 billion that the federal government is going to expend on roads right across the Commonwealth over the next two or three years. I say here today that I do not care what government is in power; it is a bit late, during an election year, to start saying, ‘We are going to spend this sort of chaff.’ For about 10 years there has been a crying need for a second Toowoomba range crossing. I say to Mark Vaile, John Howard, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard that we need that second range crossing. At the moment, 80 per cent of the cattle that comes down the range on the back of a truck is killed at Dinmore. That impacts on road safety. It is no good putting legislation through this House if we are not going to get our fair share of the dollars to upgrade these roads in question. 360 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

Mr Lucas: Can I say this: I acknowledge that you have been consistent on this. Many others have not. You have been consistent on it. From your time as minister, you have been consistent. Mr JOHNSON: I will continue to be, too. If we went out in our motor cars and poked out onto the Ipswich Motorway, we would just about go off our rockers sitting in traffic wondering, ‘How much longer? How much longer?’ That is an impost on commerce, family time, the health system—everything— because somebody wants to play politics with it. I have to say that there is no room for politics when it comes to safety and when it comes to the dollars that should be paid from the taxpayers of this nation into the coffers of Main Roads in this state or Main Roads in any other state to upgrade the roads in question. I was the minister who was responsible for the upgrade of the Pacific Motorway. There is no reason that the Ipswich Motorway cannot be upgraded so we can have a safe environment for people. The same applies to the Bruce Highway going north, the Warrego Highway going west and the Barkly Highway. That is just about finished, but how long did we have to scream about that? Mr Lucas: Ron Boswell actually played a very important role in the Barkly Highway. Mr JOHNSON: I recognise that and I thank him that it happened. If members know the Barkly Highway like I do, they would know that it is 180 kilometres from Mount Isa to Camooweal. If members drove from Mount Isa to Camooweal along that highway late in the afternoon, they would not know whether they were going to hit a beast, a motor car or a road train because they are driving into the western sun. Other issues such as narrow bridges and narrow bitumen roads are recipes for disaster. That is our National Highway, yet here we are trying to get our road toll down. The statistics that I have read out today show the hard cold facts. When we analyse the statistics of road fatalities in Queensland and multiply them out, they equate to about 2,000 deaths per annum right across Australia. When we equate that to serious injuries right across Australia, we can probably multiply that number of fatalities by five. So there are probably 10,000 people per annum who receive some serious injury as a result of a road accident. We cannot sing this song about receiving our fair share of road funding enough so that we can make our roads safer. We support the government on road safety. This is not about politics; this is about being sincere and fair dinkum in our resolve to get genuine outcomes. Young people are learning to drive motor cars every day and we have to make our roads safer. I look around this chamber and see many members here—and the member for Clayfield is one—who have young families. I know the minister himself has a young family. Those young families are going to be the motorists of tomorrow. We have to make certain that as we progress through the 21st century Queensland has the best roads in this nation because this is where the wealth-generating capacity is. This is where the dollars will be generated. There was a debate in the House this afternoon about nuclear energy. We talked about our coalmining industry—and I know that it is as sacred to your part of the world, Mr Deputy Speaker Hoolihan, as it is to mine. That industry has a wealth-generating capacity. At the same time we need improved infrastructure for such industries, and that comes down to better roads and better rail services every time. We have a lot of that here in this state but we cannot do it on our own. We need support. At the end of the day, if Queensland is going to grow we have to get those dollars to go to the right places. Mr Deputy Speaker, you might think I am off course with this legislation, but I will say this: there is a social impact on all of us with this legislation. The social part of this legislation is that we have to get the mix right between safety and good driving conditions, good road conditions. Look at what Campbell Newman is trying to do here in Brisbane. He is trying to build tunnels and other infrastructure to cater for the population explosion in the south-east corner over the next 10 to 15 years. This will be a city of over two million people. Yes, we can do it, but the Brisbane City Council cannot do it and the state government cannot do it. We need some of those federal dollars to come here. It is a waste of time for us to put transport legislation like this through the House if we cannot build the roads to go with it. That is exactly where I am coming from. While as a member of this parliament I represent the people of far-western Queensland, when it comes to better roads, safer roads and better driving conditions I represent every Queenslander and every part of Queensland. I believe that is what we should be all about—getting the best outcome for our people regardless of where we live. It gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. I thank the minister and his advisers for the briefing they have given me and for the detail they have been able to provide us in relation to the amendments. While we can see that those numbers of fatalities have been slowly coming down over the past 25 years, I hope that over the next five to 10 years we will see them reduced even further. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (6.23 pm): I rise to support the random drug testing scheme amendments in the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. As members would certainly be aware, the use of drugs, like alcohol, can significantly impair a person’s skills and functions essential for safe driving. In 2005, alcohol and other drug use was recognised as a factor contributing to 114 deaths on Queensland roads, which made up 35 per cent of the state’s road toll. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 361

In early 2006, the government convened a Road Safety Summit. A broad range of government and community interests were represented at the summit, which explored key features of road safety in connection with the Queensland road toll. The Road Safety Summit highlighted drug driving as an issue of growing concern within this state. In fact, clear evidence is emerging of the prevalence of people driving on our roads while under the influence of drugs other than alcohol.

As an illustration, a study of the incidence of drug driving was recently undertaken by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety—Queensland, or CARRS-Q as it is commonly known. The most recent component of the CARRS-Q study was conducted in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast between February and September 2006. A total of 2,000 saliva specimens were taken during that study. Out of an initial batch of 1,152 samples analysed, around one in 23 drivers tested positive to an illicit drug.

As far as alcohol is concerned, the random breath testing, RBT, program has been instrumental in its positive influence on the behaviour of drivers with regard to drinking and driving. In 1989, not long after RBT commenced in this state, one in 40 drivers tested were found to have an illegal blood alcohol concentration. By 2005, this number dramatically decreased to one in 92 drivers tested. It is now a common thread for someone at a party to say, ‘I’m the designated driver,’ or ‘I can only have one or two drinks because I am driving.’ That was unheard of 15 or 25 years ago.

Improved targeting and deployment of the RBT program and other behaviour-changing strategies have also been instrumental in reducing the prevalence of drink driving. As I am sure members would agree, the RBT program has withstood the test of time for its ability to deter would-be drink drivers and detect and penalise drink drivers, both of which have made Queensland’s roads safer for all road users. However, it is still a concern that people worry more about getting fined if they get caught rather than worrying about the effect that drink driving could have on themselves and other road users. A similar system is needed to detect and penalise drug drivers and to deter others from drug driving in the first place. The initial results from the most recent CARRS-Q study showing one in 23 drivers testing positive to an illicit drug only reinforces that view.

I am therefore pleased that the bill proposes to amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 to allow for the introduction of a random drug testing scheme based on the analysis of saliva. This will ensure that persons who take illicit drugs and drive can be detected and penalised in a way which is comparable to the way drink drivers are detected and penalised. The system will screen drivers at the roadside, providing an effective detection, prosecution and deterrent process for those persons using illicit drugs and then driving motor vehicles.

Recently I visited Melbourne on behalf of the minister to review a couple of things. We witnessed random drug testing being conducted by the Victoria police. It was a very effective operation. I note that in the advisers box is Mr Stapleton from the transport department who was with me. It was a very effective way of doing it. It was interesting to talk to the police and hear about the impact that drug testing has had on changing drivers’ habits since testing was introduced in Victoria. The statistics from the CARRS-Q study—one in 23 drivers tested positive to drugs—were similar to the results that Victoria police were getting. As I said, the drug-testing process was based on a random testing process, which I think was very effective, and I know that it will be well supported by the community.

The proposed legislation for random drug testing is modelled on the existing legislation for RBT. Modelling the new random drug testing scheme on the legislation for RBT has considerable benefits for police because no dramatically new processes are introduced, and it assists police in conducting both random breath and random drug testing as part of the same operations. It is also beneficial to the court system because procedural processes to bring drug drivers before the courts will be largely the same as for drink drivers.

Most importantly, the random drug testing scheme is modelled on a system that Queensland drivers are already familiar with, making it easier for them to understand and accept. The random drug- testing scheme will complement the existing RBT program and significantly contribute to reducing the number of people taking drugs and then driving, increasing the safety of Queensland’s roads for all road users. I welcome the significant road safety initiatives delivered by this bill. As the member for Gregory said, it is important for all of us to do whatever we can to improve road safety on our streets and for drivers. This is just one way of doing that. I commend the bill to the House.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm.

Debate, on motion of Mr Bombolas, adjourned. 362 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Coppabella Mine Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (7.30 pm), by leave: Tonight there have been reports in the media in relation to the approval of an assistance package for Coppabella Mine. The reports refer to material authorised for release by Justice Moynihan this afternoon. In particular, I refer to the affidavit of the principal financial investigator in the misconduct function of the Crime and Misconduct Division. In that document, the investigator draws attention to a supposed coincidence involving significant dates. It notes that in relation to a financial assistance package for Coppabella Mine, the corridor relocation facilitation deed, the rail infrastructure facilitation deed and the infrastructure user charge deed were all signed on 23 October 2002. However, it is important to note that this was in fact the final stage in a lengthy approval process. Australian Premium Coals Pty Ltd, the operator of the Coppabella Mine, sought assistance from the state to relocate road and rail infrastructure under which they had discovered significant coal reserves. On 22 November 2001, the then Minister for State Development approved a proposed funding arrangement as the basis for commercial negotiations between the Department of State Development and Australian Premium Coals Pty Ltd. At the conclusion of those negotiations on 16 May 2002, Executive Council gave approval for an assistance package as an investment or financial arrangement pursuant to the Financial Administration and Audit Act 1977. The total amount of the assistance package was $28.787 million, including $2.617 million in GST, repayable to the government over 10 years by way of an infrastructure user charge. In other words, it was paid back. On 5 September 2002, Executive Council recommended expenditure of $28.787 million pursuant to the decision of 16 May 2002. I understand that on 23 October 2002, the then Treasurer signed the three relevant deeds to formally execute the documents related to the decision of Executive Council. As members can see, the signing of the deed was merely the formality at the end of a lengthy and comprehensive process. To assure members that this matter was handled with integrity, honesty and decency, I take the unprecedented step of tabling for the House the Executive Council minutes and relevant documents of Thursday, 5 September 2002 and Thursday, 16 May 2002. I have not done this before, but I believe that I have a responsibility to the House to explain the circumstances. I draw to the attention of the House the document that I will table from Thursday 5 September 2002, the Executive Council minute. It basically states that the Treasurer’s approval for DSD to establish a loan facility with Queensland Treasury Corporation had been obtained. Also, on 16 May 2002 the Department of Treasury sought Governor in Council approval for the provision. In other words, there is no great significance to the date of 23 October 2002 other than, as I understand it, that was when the three relevant deeds were formally executed. The work had been done beforehand. I table those documents for the information of the House. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Copies of extracts from the Minutes of meetings of the Executive Council of Queensland held on 16 May 2002 and 5 September 2002.

TRANSPORT LEGISLATION AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p.361. Ms PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (7.33 pm): I rise to support the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. Specifically, I speak in support of the initiatives related to the introduction of the random drug-testing scheme in Queensland. In December 2004, the Victorian government introduced a saliva based random drug-testing scheme. I will point out to the House some statistics that are very important in showing that the drug-testing scheme does work. Victorian police figures to 12 December 2006 indicate that, of 24,000-plus tests carried out, approximately one positive tested car driver has been found for every 46 tests conducted and one positive tested heavy-vehicle driver has been found for every 67 tests conducted. This provides an overall ratio of one positive driver for every 51 tests conducted. The tests clearly indicate that random drug testing is working in Victoria. As the Minister for Transport and Main Roads advised the House late last year, research into the incidence of drug driving in Queensland has been undertaken by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland. In addition, this afternoon the member for Gregory talked about the success of a trial that was carried out in Townsville. I will not go over the statistics from that trial, other than to say 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 363 that the test results showed one positive result for every 28 drivers tested. Of the 27 positive tests returned, 13 drivers were detected with the presence of cannabis, 11 with amphetamines and three with both cannabis and amphetamines. Eighteen per cent of drivers participating in the study reported that at lest once in the previous 12 months they had driven a motor vehicle within four hours of consuming an illicit substance. Finally, 15 per cent of Townsville drivers who were approached refused to take part in the voluntary study. Recently CARRS-Queensland repeated the study in south-east Queensland and the results indicate a similar level of drug driving to that in north Queensland. In particular, the initial batch of samples analysed showed that approximately one in 23 drivers have tested positive to an illicit drug. The results of these studies underscore the need for the new enforcement tool of roadside saliva screening to deter driving under the influence of illicit drugs. Currently, there are some provisions under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 to deal with people driving while under the influence of a drug. However, currently there is no ability to undertake a relatively quick and non- invasive screening test for drugs based on the provision of a saliva specimen. The bill amends the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 to allow for a random drug-testing scheme based on the collection and analysis of a specimen of saliva. The bill also amends the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to provide police with the power to stop a vehicle and administer the saliva test. In most cases, drivers will be screened initially at the roadside. The initial screening test will take between three and five minutes to achieve a result. In the event of a positive test result indicating the presence of a relevant drug, a second screening test will be undertaken. The second test will take approximately five minutes to administer. If the driver is unable to supply a saliva sample for the second test, a specimen of blood may then be required. There may be some variation in the time required to undertake the two saliva tests, depending on the time it takes the person to provide a sufficient amount of saliva for the test. The test will only detect the active ingredients of the drugs. It will not detect drugs that may have been taken days or weeks earlier. Any positive test will be confirmed by laboratory analysis. Drivers will only be charged on the basis of a laboratory analysis that confirms the existence of an active drug. The bill provides that it will be an offence to drive with a presence in the blood or saliva of any drug prescribed by a regulation. Initially, it is proposed that there will be tests for THC, methylamphetamine or speed, and MDMA or ecstasy. Those drugs have been identified as being a major contributing factor in serious and fatal vehicle crashes. Further, there is no pharmacological use for those drugs. Finally, existing technology can readily and consistently detect the presence of those drugs in the saliva of a person. The introduction of the random drug-testing program will provide another effective tool for police to use in the detection of those people who are driving on Queensland roads with illicit drugs in their bodies, putting the safety of others at risk. The amendments proposed by the bill are focused on those drivers whose reckless behaviour has the prospect to harm so many in our community. Random drug testing has already been used in Victoria, has recently been introduced into New South Wales and is also operating in South Australia. It is a tragedy that so many lives are lost on our roads. I believe that the community will support any measures that will help reduce the number of fatalities. I was also pleased to hear earlier the member for Gregory saying that he supports this initiative. The addition of random drug testing is clearly an initiative of this government to help save lives. I commend the minister for bringing this forward. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (7.39 pm): The public has called for urgent action to end the carnage that they hear of daily on our roads, particularly the tragic loss of young lives. This bill responds to that call with sweeping changes to give young people a wake-up call and it provides for the introduction of random roadside drug testing, fixed speed cameras and many other measures that will go a long way to improving road safety. Some members in this House were young drivers in an era when the blokes—not many women drove—had a car with a bench seat. They had one arm on the steering wheel, the other around the girl bringing her in real close and—this is the tragic thing—many drove with a belly full of alcohol. It was the done thing. Thankfully, we have come a long way through the great efforts particularly through the Road Safety Division of the Department of Transport. Many years of good campaigns such as the drink-driving campaigns have all played their part. We have seen very positive changes in attitudes and behaviours. Sadly, we do not have cars with those bench seats any more. The intensive campaigning of recent decades to limit drink driving coupled with strong laws and policing practices has had a very profound and positive effect on behaviour. Sadly, though, the public awareness campaigns, the strong laws and the shock advertising have not got through the heads of all young people. As we all know, 17- to 24-year-old males are the group most at risk of death in road crashes—more than any other drivers. There were 106 deaths attributed to young driver crashes last year in Queensland alone. The tragedy is that most of these accidents and deaths are entirely preventable. 364 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

I want to publicly thank community members who had their say on the serious issue of youth road safety at community forums I held last year in Forest Lake and Algester last year. In particular, I thank the staff and students of Forest Lake State High School. These students were frank and thoughtful with their contributions. I am now pleased to report back to these local people that the Beattie government has taken on board many of their ideas and this bill will now give effect to many sweeping changes to minimise risk-taking behaviour of the thoughtless young drivers who put their lives and the lives of others at risk each time they switch on the ignition of their car. The key changes include things like requiring learner drivers to record 100 hours of certified supervised on-road driving experience. I know the young people at the Forest Lake State High School were a bit worried about that, wondering who would sit in the car with them for 100 hours or who might pay for the driving lessons if they had to do it through a driving school. I think many of these issues have been taken on board. The way this system will be set up will mean that most young people should not have any problem recording those 100 hours of supervised driving. The peer passenger restrictions are all very sensible measures as well as restricting all mobile phone use for young people. Those things are very practical, sensible measures and I am sure we are going to see the benefits of those once they are introduced. I join other members in welcoming the introduction of random roadside drug testing. There has been a longstanding myth that driving under the influence of marijuana makes people more cautious drivers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Blood tests at the morgue have proven that drugs are very prevalent in road accident victims and may, in fact, kill more people on the road than alcohol does. There are issues with roadside drug testing and people have questions about it. At a meeting I was at last night people raised issues with me about this scheme. Some people were asking: will the DNA samples be taken and retained? If so, for how long? And will they be protected? These are issues I will ask the minister to consider and report back on. People asked: how can drug levels in the blood be measured and what measurement is deemed excessive or dangerous? My understanding is that there will just simply be a positive or negative, not a level of drug in the blood. I note the minister has taken on board many of the issues people have raised through the feedback around the state. I am sure these issues and questions are ones he will respond to as well. I know that the minister is also very determined to end the carnage on our roads. I commend his efforts. I know that as a father of young children and soon-to-be drivers he is particularly concerned and has done a lot in his time as transport and main roads minister to make road safety a top priority. I commend his departmental officers as well, who are so devoted and determined to make sure young lives are not ruined in the way they are currently. To Mike Stapleton, his colleagues and others involved in the road safety activities of the department I say: a job well done, although there is lots more to do. This bill contains a lot of great measures. I welcome them and look forward to seeing the positive results that should occur. Mr GIBSON (Gympie—NPA) (7.44 pm): I also rise to speak tonight on the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. I wish to touch on two aspects of the amendments that have been covered quite intensively tonight. One is the young driver rules but I will also touch on the rail subleases. I would like to begin by addressing the area that refers to young drivers. As a parent of a son who turns 17 in March this year, I know firsthand the concerns that most parents experience as their children begin to learn to drive. We want to balance the desires of our children to increase their independence with the need to develop their driving skills. Currently society puts a huge load of responsibility onto the shoulders of our teenagers. At this time of life they are expected to complete their secondary education, face the challenges of planning for tertiary studies and often many have part-time jobs. Lay on top of this all the normal hormonal changes that occur at this stage in their lives and we have incredibly complex dynamics. Just ask any parent of a teenager. With all of this going on we have somehow expected our youth to master the complexity of driving a vehicle in a few short months. I still remember how hard it was for me to master changing gears, using the clutch, maintaining steering whilst monitoring the road, looking ahead and all the time trying to remember where I was next meant to turn to get to my destination. When I was younger the only concurrent distraction that I faced in the car was the car radio. Today, however, young drivers face distractions from mobile phones, SMS messages, stereo systems with incredible subwoofers and in-car DVD players. The complex human dynamics required of a motor vehicle driver have increased since I was 17 and this complexity will only increase into the future. Statistics, unfortunately, show us that most of us take years to master all these complex dynamics of motor vehicle driving. The harsh reality is that we bury those who do not master those skills. I thank this government for listening to the people and implementing the 100 hours of certified supervised on-road driving experience. This single act will go a long way to improving the skill level of our young drivers, but we can do more. I know firsthand as a parent how difficult it can be to help our children learn good driving skills. Indeed, it was said to me only the other day that the sins of the parents fall onto the children because they develop our bad habits. We need to do more than just supervise their driving experience. We must ensure that young drivers receive appropriate driver awareness education. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 365

One organisation that could be a model to be duplicated across the state is the well-equipped Roadcraft Driver Education Centre located in Gympie. Roadcraft has been mentioned in this chamber many times. It was established back in 1979 as an initiative of the Gympie Rotary Club with assistance from other service clubs in response to concerns about the then mounting road toll. The complex currently provides a range of road safety education for primary and secondary school students and driver training programs. It is interesting that they teach driver skills to children from preschool—four years of age—through to adults aged 90-plus. Their courses cover attitude, driving skills, driver rules and vehicle dynamics. The training course which they conduct for year 11 and year 12 school students is a three-day, one-night course which I am told is unique in Queensland. It is also a community based model, which is very important for all it contributes back to the area. Proudly, the organisation is totally self-funded. Community organisations and the service clubs as well as a couple of businesses donate a total of approximately $15,000 a year directly to reducing course costs for year 11 and year 12 students. There is also an Education Queensland officer located at the Gympie Roadcraft complex which provides statewide coordination, which is an important element in driver education. My son and his classmates from St Patrick’s College recently attended this facility, as do most year 11 students from Gympie high schools. As a parent I can say how impressed I was with what he learnt and, more importantly, how impressed I was with the attitude that he developed towards road safety from his experiences there. Indeed, I doubt that there have been many pieces of legislation placed before this House that have pricked the interest of 16-year-olds across this great state of ours, and rightly so. The amendments in this legislation will impact directly on the one area that most 16-year-olds see as their step into independence—obtaining their drivers licence. It is a common attitude in our community that a drivers licence is a privilege extended by society. However, in contemporary Australia a young person who is unable to drive a motor vehicle is denied participation in many, if not all, of the activities of our society. To take part fully it is almost essential to have access to a motor vehicle and a licence to drive it. If our society is willing to permit a young person to obtain a licence, then this same society has a responsibility to do all in its power to properly provide that young driver with the capabilities to use a motor vehicle safely and effectively and the legislation to encourage appropriate driver behaviour. I am very proud to say that this legislation goes a long way towards achieving that. As an indication of the interest that this legislation has generated amongst 16- and 17-year-olds, I would like to take a moment to read some comments from local Gympie year 12 students who were asked to write on this legislation as part of an English assignment. I quote from two sets of remarks. One student says— The experience that older drivers seem to possess wasn’t gained because back in their day it was harder to pass the test, in fact it was much easier back then (So I’ve been told). They gained the experience by driving and learning for themselves ... Maybe it’s too much money to provide courses and easier to make money by charging ridiculous amounts for the practical test, which if they make harder, more and more people will be failing. Instead of punishment maybe they should try encouragement. By educating people not to make the mistake in the first place then they could be saving more lives and more time for people out on the streets. Another student stated— The most common causes for car accidents amongst young adults are speeding and drink driving ... Perceiving themselves as adults, they believe that they are free to drink and licensed to drive. The new restrictions placed on P-platers are specifically designed to target these risk factors and enforce more sensible behaviour. Accordingly, the laws that state P-platers caught speeding will lose their licence ... and restrict drivers under the age of 25 from carrying more than one passenger ... sufficiently aimed to counter the most common situations which cause accidents, young drivers driving to and from parties while intoxicated. It is pleasing to know that the youth of our great state are so interested in this legislation and are obviously so very aware of the changes that it is bringing in. The other area of interest to me is the rail subleases and the administration of the railway corridors. The interest is, of course, because my electorate has the tourist attraction of the Mary Valley Heritage Railway. The Mary Valley Heritage Railway runs steam, railmotor and passenger tours on the Mary Valley line of Queensland Rail, a line that Queensland Rail has not used in commercial operations for some time now. The Valley Rattler preserves our history and provides a living reminder of our fascinating past for all of us to experience. The ability of the Mary Valley Heritage Railway to use the existing railway corridor from Imbil to Gympie results in many benefits for my electorate. There are the economic benefits of receiving greater than $1 million dollars per annum directly into the area, the increased tourism infrastructure, the continuing use of existing railway facility infrastructure and preserving it as a viable community asset. It creates employment opportunities for many people. To date it has enjoyed considerable success, carrying over 40,000 people, the majority of these being new visitors to my electorate. It is important that the Mary Valley Heritage Railway has the opportunity to grow its operations. It is clear from these amendments that this bill will ensure that this is able to occur. It is important that organisations such as this can look to a future and extend their operation and management plans so that they have viable alternatives in what can grow as a tourism industry. 366 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

I am very pleased to read these amendments. We have heard many of the other areas covered tonight regarding speeding and drug testing. I support all of those. I think in this case we have clearly seen a piece of legislation that is good for the state of Queensland and has support from both sides of the House. I follow others who have spoken before me, and I commend these amendments to the House. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (7.54 pm): It takes just one mad moment to become a road crash victim and just one lifestyle habit to be a contributing factor in a crash. It is a pleasure for me to join the debate on the bill currently before the House, the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill. The bill makes a number of changes to transport legislation. This legislation will introduce a number of initiatives aimed at improving the Queensland road safety environment, in particular the introduction of random roadside drug testing. Also in the bill are young driver initiatives that will reduce the number of road crashes involving young drivers that lead to horrific injuries and too often fatalities on our roads. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary Travelsafe Committee, I have a real interest in the legislation that we are now debating because it shows that we as a government are taking positive steps to address road safety in our state. Not all of the new measures being put in place under this legislation will be popular. It will be seen by some that the new laws are restrictive, even harsh. However, the harsh reality is that every year people die on Queensland roads and hundreds are seriously injured. Therefore, strong measures need to be put in place in order to deal with those who break our road laws, making our roads unsafe for everyone else who uses our roads. Let me first speak in support of random roadside drug testing. For a long time in this country there has been a great deal of attention focused on drink driving and how drivers affected by alcohol are contributing to fatal and serious injury crashes. There was recognition that while there is a road safety risk posed by drink driving, drug driving is also a real road safety problem worthy of greater attention by governments. Driving while under the influence of drugs is currently one of the biggest road safety problems on our roads. What do we mean when we talk about drug driving? A drug is defined as a substance, either legally prescribed or illegal recreational drugs which, when consumed or used by the person, either temporarily or permanently alters their normal mental or physical faculties in the following ways: motor and coordination skills, reflexes, vision, ability to judge speed and distance, fatigue, memory loss, perception of time, place and space, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, fainting, and aggressive and psychotic behaviour. There is growing evidence that drug driving is a significant road safety problem in Queensland. In fact, drug driving is now recognised as one of the biggest road safety problems on our roads. Drugs are linked to over 30 per cent of fatal driver crashes in Australia where there are deaths compared to 20 per cent that are linked to alcohol. Recent field trials on drug testing systems conducted by the Queensland University of Technology Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety, also known as CARRS-Q, suggests that drug driving may be far more prevalent than drink driving and, even worse, drugs are being used in conjunction with alcohol. I understand that this is referred to as polydrug use, which multiplies the impairing effect. Police are not detecting these drug impaired drivers at random breath tests because they do not have the tools to do it. It is generally accepted that a wide range of prescription and recreational drugs can impair driving, but it is what responsible individuals do with the knowledge they have that is important. If a doctor or a chemist warns a patient of the dangers of driving while taking a prescription drug and that person drives, then the individual needs to take a close look at their driving behaviour. However, it must be recognised that the prescribed drug is for health purposes while recreational drugs are a lifestyle habit where involvement or participation is one of choice by an individual. Roadside random drug testing in Victoria has netted one conviction for every 76 drivers tested. This compares to one drink-driving conviction for every 250 random breath tests conducted. Those are alarming statistics. That data alone suggests that drug driving is very common. A study by CARRS-Q of the prevalence of drug driving in a sample of 331 young Australian drivers with an average age of 24 years found that 26 per cent had driven under the influence of psychoactive drugs at least once in their lifetime and 15 per cent had driven within six hours of taking drugs and alcohol. Of those who had drug driven, 10 per cent had subsequently been involved in a crash. From talking to police and road safety experts it is clear that the number of drug drivers has increased over the past two decades and there is a link between young people’s perceptions about detection and punishment as a result of drug driving. Dr Jeremy Davey from CARRS-Q has been involved in the Queensland roadside testing trial. The trial collected saliva swabs from some 2,000 Queensland drivers who had been tested at RBT sites. The trial took place in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast. Preliminary evidence brought to my attention indicates a prevalence of drug driving greater than that in Victoria. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 367

Research shows that the drugs cannabis and speed, in particular, affect a driver’s decision- making capacity, vision and judgement. All these are very serious factors for a person driving a motor vehicle. A person who has smoked pot prior to driving is at the same risk of a fatal road crash as a person who has a blood alcohol content or BAC of 1.15 per cent, which is 15 standard drinks over the limit. Those types of statistics are frightening but they are statistics that the general public would not be aware of. There is no doubt that drug driving is a high crash contributor and a problem on Queensland roads. That is why this legislation is before the House. I turn now to the risks to young drivers on our roads. This is an area of road safety that I am particularly passionate about. As chairman of the Travelsafe Committee I, along with other members, have extensively investigated the issues, the results of which were published in two reports tabled in December 2003. Those reports were report No. 40, Reducing the road toll for young Queenslanders—is education enough?, and report No. 41, Provisional driver and rider licence restrictions. I do not have the time to go into the details about the hundreds of hours of research, discussion and consultation with key stakeholders such as our youth, road safety experts, police and Emergency Service personnel both here in Queensland and interstate. But when one puts so much effort into a task one gets to understand what is happening to our youth on the roads and the task becomes one of determination to make a genuine difference. I am pleased that the government, through the Minister for Transport and Main Roads, Mr Lucas, is putting in place legislation that supports new rules with the intent of saving young drivers from being involved in road crashes. There must be meaningful change to the current legislative regime in order to reduce the high level of road crashes involving young drivers in this state. No parent should have to endure the heartbreak of burying their son or daughter as the result of a horror car crash. That is not the way it is meant to be. Families never get over the loss of loved ones taken by a road crash. It is a senseless waste of life and opportunities for those killed and those left with life-long injuries. Some interesting information to come out of the work of the Travelsafe Committee included: young drivers and passengers aged between 17 and 19 are more likely to be involved in a crash because their skills are still developing, they are influenced by social pressures and they exhibit behavioural characteristics that are linked to high-risk driving behaviours. The Travelsafe Committee met at nine different locations around the state. It was very interesting to listen to young people and hear some of the concerns they have about the existing road rules and the changes that we were talking about at the time. The Travelsafe Committee studying the five-year period between 1998 and 2002 found that there were 22,920 young drivers and riders involved in motor vehicle crashes. Every one of those crashes could potentially have been a lot more serious. There could have been fatal or serious injuries involved. A lot of them were probably crashes where there was very little damage. The fact that we had so many young people involved in crashes says to anybody who takes an interest that there must be a problem with the way young drivers are handling the task of being out on the road. Police statistics show that young drivers and riders appeared to be most at fault in 71.6 per cent of those crashes. The research, discussion and information showed that the top four contributing factors for crashes involving young drivers and riders included: inexperience, lack of expertise, undue care and attention, an overprescribed concentration of alcohol and excessive speed for the circumstances. The work that we did certainly supported a lot of research from around the world and other jurisdictions in this country that peer group pressure often caused young drivers to behave differently. In an effort to impress, young drivers might conform to a certain behavioural pattern advocated by their peers. Mr Lucas: That’s absolutely right. One of the things that I am very keen to look at in the future is the role of young women as positive influences to say to young blokes, ‘Listen, I’m not going to get in the car with you.’ I think that is a strong point you are making. Mr PEARCE: And I think it is reasonable for young people to listen to women. As we get older we learn that the most beneficial thing we can do is actually listen so we may as well start at a young age. Young drivers often want to demonstrate their independence, impress those around them and even put to the test and push their ability behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. People see this happening every night of the week if they know where young drivers hang out. They cannot help themselves. They have to impress the girls. They have to impress their mates by doing wheelies and speeding around and dodging in and out of traffic. It is an accident waiting to happen. Unfortunately, young people do not see the dangers that we as older drivers do. All these factors can lead to greater risk taking in driving and ultimately a fatal crash. So peer passenger restrictions can mean less encouragement to be stupid. One of the best things that we will get out of this is that if there is a crash fewer young people will be seriously injured and possibly killed. I am a strong supporter of the move to reduce the licence age to 16 years and extend the minimum learner licence period to 12 months. Linked to this, learner drivers being required to record 100 hours of certified supervised on-road driving experience will give young drivers a greater opportunity to get that much needed experience. Young drivers are more likely to be involved in a crash 368 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007 in the first six months of having their licence than at any other time in their life. The more supervised experience a young driver gets during the learning phase the greater the risk reduction of crashing in the early stages of their licence. A Swedish study linked crash reductions of some 40 per cent for young drivers who increased their supervised driving experiences while on a learner’s permit. There is a strong message for parents and members of this place when talking to their constituents that we need to ensure that young drivers, particularly in the learning stage, get as much experience as they can in the company of their parents or experienced drivers. It is interesting to note when going through the information that is available that actually very few young drivers are involved in serious crashes during the learning phase. I think it is something less than one per cent. Mr Lucas: The safest time statistically to be on the road is supervising a learner driver. You are safer supervising a learner driver than driving yourself. Mr PEARCE: Yes. I guess it becomes a low risk because of the supervision, the slower speeds and the incident evasion training that they would receive while they are learning to drive. There is a strong message there for everybody. Get in and work with these young adults. Get them the supervision they need and give them the confidence they need before they go forward and get their licence. The legislation provides for two stages of the licensing system. The first stage of the provisional licence will have high restrictions and provisional licence holders will be required to display P-plates. There was a lot of objection to that, particularly from the young males, when we were travelling around the state. They thought that they would be targeted. It is a common-sense approach to letting other drivers or other road users know that a person does not quite have the same experience as they do. The issue generated considerable discussion. The experienced drivers welcomed the idea mostly because it helped them separate inexperienced drivers from experienced drivers and encouraged more care and attention from the experienced drivers in that general vicinity. It is interesting to note that young females indicated that they could live with P-plates but it was young males who rejected the proposal. On the issue of mobile phone restrictions, I strongly support the restrictions as proposed under the amendments of the bill. Restricting all phone use during the first stage for all provisional licence holders is an important step forward for road safety, especially for those young drivers in their first 12 months of having a drivers licence, and I have just talked about that. Research from all around the world shows that young drivers are more likely to be involved in a road crash in the first six months of driving than at any other time in their life due to their inexperience or lack of expertise and the fact that they do not know how to apply the care and attention that is required. Restricting the use of mobile phones including hands free, bluetooth accessories and loud speaker functions will remove a distraction that young drivers can well do without. As much as we do not like to admit it, the use of mobile phones, hands free, bluetooth technology or whatever—the connecting, the answering and the discussion—is a distraction that can be a significant contributing factor to a crash. What people do not understand is that the level of distraction is deadly and drivers fail to acknowledge and to accept that their ability to react is impaired due to the attention being given to the operation of a mobile phone while driving. A joint two-year study between Griffith University and the Holden Performance Driving Centre on the Gold Coast found that drivers talking on a mobile phone lost the ability to control their cars properly, were less able to interpret road conditions and braked later in an emergency. That is a real cocktail for tragedy, particularly for young inexperienced drivers. Associate Professor Paul Treffner of Griffith University is reported as saying that drivers approaching a corner while talking on a mobile phone reacted more slowly than when not speaking on the phone. They took their foot off the accelerator later, they were going too fast and consequently their manoeuvre through the corner was inappropriate. He also said that drivers using hand-held or hands-free phones does not make a difference—either case is bad and increases the chances of a crash. A study that came out of Utah in the United States using simulators with test subjects who were either drunk or using a mobile phone and following a pace car that braked intermittently found the following: none of the drunk drivers rear-ended the pace car. However, three talking on mobile phones did. That says it all about the use of mobile phones. Other studies have reported sober drivers involved in rear-end collisions were unable to stop talking on the phone, even as they knew they were about to hit another car. Concentration on the conversation, thinking about how to respond and the intensity of the discussions are all distractions that affect reaction times. The evidence is there to support the ban on the use of mobile phones for young drivers. They simply do not have the experience to properly handle a motor vehicle safely, let alone dial, answer or talk on a mobile phone while driving. From what I have said today about the use of mobile phones while driving, there is a powerful message there for us all: using a mobile phone while driving is a dangerous practice. Road safety is an issue for each and every one of us. We all as individuals can contribute to what happens on our roads. I support the bill before the House. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 369

Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (8.13 pm): I am really proud to rise to talk to the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill tonight, and one would hope that most members of this House will support this bill. The Sunshine Coast gets to experience many accidents, even in the local area in which I live. You can go outside on a Saturday night and pick people out of cars at one o’clock in the morning. It is an experience that I have had, and these are young people. They are sons and daughters and they are mums and dads. We are losing many lives in Queensland, and this bill will save lives. For that, I endorse what the government is doing. In particular I want to talk about fixed speed traffic cameras, an initiative being put forward in this bill. I do not know whether or not most members are aware, but local governments throughout Queensland have been pushing for a long time to have the ability to put fixed speed cameras in local streets. There are many accidents still happening on local streets; you do not have to be on a highway to die. It can happen anywhere. In these local streets most local governments in Queensland are putting in traffic-calming devices. It can cost anywhere from $25,000 up to $100,000 for traffic-calming devices, depending on whether lights have to be put in the area. The Local Government Association of Queensland has lobbied the state government on a number of occasions asking for fixed speed cameras, and I think the government is heading down that path now. This will help reduce people speeding in local areas. It will save local governments a hell of a lot of money, because $100,000 is a lot of money for a local government to spend. Putting fixed speed cameras in a position where they can be relocated at another time will hit people in the hip pocket, and that coincidentally will hopefully stop these people from speeding. At the end of the day, it is also the lesson that we as parents teach the younger people who are breaking the law by speeding. If we do not continue to keep trying to get this message out to our younger community, young people are going to keep losing their lives. An accident happened at Karawatha Drive in Buderim within the last 12 months. I think most people in Queensland heard about it. It actually got this government moving to confiscate many hoons’ cars on the Sunshine Coast. The loss of these people’s lives impacts not only on the immediate family but also on their friends and their grandparents. Every single person in our society will be impacted at some time through the death of a loved one in a vehicle. With the government bringing this legislation forward, it is a nice change to stand up in this House and say that this government is doing the right thing and the opposition will be supporting this legislation. The deaths in the state have to stop. Testing for drugs and alcohol is another great initiative. The people that I spoke about before whom we pulled out of a car at one o’clock in the morning were in a situation where the car was flipped over on its back, there were bodies hanging out of the back of the car and we were expecting these people to be dead—they were actually alive, and I was very grateful to see that—but there was the stench of alcohol and bongs floating out of the car. These are real issues that we need to jump on top of and we need to eradicate it as quickly as possible. Again, I am endorsing what this government is doing. It is making the right decision. We all should be standing behind these decisions and promoting them as much as possible regardless of which side of politics you are involved with. It is good to see this bill being put forward. I totally endorse this. The people of the Sunshine Coast will totally endorse this bill. However, I ask the minister for transport to please take on board the idea of speed cameras in local streets. It is an opportunity where we can save lives all over Queensland—not just in Brisbane but in every part of this state. We need to give local councils the opportunity to be able to operate these speed cameras in a non-profit situation where the money raised goes to people who have been hurt in accidents in order to get their lives back on track. Mr Lucas: I will respond to that in my response. Mr DICKSON: That would be good. We have to give local governments this opportunity. The government may have to give funding to local governments to put these speed cameras in place, but it is about the manpower to operate them—to change the film, to check the cameras to make sure they are working or to relocate them. This situation would work extremely well on the Sunshine Coast. It would save the local governments up there a lot of money in traffic calming. I ask that the government please look at this suggestion, because it has been put forward on numerous occasions before by the Local Government Association. It has been consistently knocked back. Now that the government is putting in these fixed speed cameras, it should be endorsing these cameras to go all over the state. Perhaps it could be done as a trial. I would be very happy to trial them in my area and would be happy to take the hit for it if people do not like them. It is going to save lives, it is going to hit people in the pocket and it is going to stop people from speeding on local streets, be they young, old or any other age. This is all about saving lives. I will ask the minister if he can please have a look at that, and I again endorse this legislation before the House. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (8.18 pm): It is a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight and to see such good support from both sides of the House, because it is very important to all of us that we see a big reduction in not only the number of fatalities but the number of injuries that are occurring on our roads. I want to congratulate the minister for the series of forums that he ran around the state. The 370 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007 one at Toowoomba’s Cathedral Centre was very well attended, which was probably typical of the rest of the state. There was interest taken in the subject by young people, by a whole range of citizens, by the driving instructor industry and so forth. When we talk about road safety we concentrate on fatalities, but there are also the people who are made paraplegics or quadriplegics and those with permanent injuries which impede what they can do throughout the rest of their lives. It really is something that we have to address. I have read about the telegram boys during World War I who used to go to the houses of so many mothers and tell them that, unfortunately, their sons had been killed on the Western Front, or at Gallipoli, or wherever. That is the sort of scourge we have in the modern era with all the young kids who are killed. Probably the worst that can happen to families is to get that knock on the door on a Saturday night and receive that sad and tragic news. So it is great to see that we are all united in wanting to address this issue. This legislation contains some practical and sensible measures, and I agree with them. We all know—it is logical and obvious—that the biggest problem we have with young drivers is their inexperience. That can only be overcome through experience. All of us have been through rollovers, or have hit trees, or have driven into ditches and all the rest of it. By the grace of God we are still here. Some of us have lost mates who did not get through those things or we have seen some tragic accidents happen. After we have that experience, we realise that we have to back off the throttle 10 per cent or go a bit steadier around corners and all the rest of it. So I think it is a wonderful thing to give those young people 100 hours of supervised driving. I remember speaking at the forum that the minister attended. I spoke about how 16-year-olds are able to learn to fly a plane. If they do not do anything right there, they are in big trouble, because they will drop out of the sky. Flight training is gradual and stringent and there is much testing and checking. There are hardly any aircraft accidents in Australia, but there is carnage on our roads. We have to consider driver training in that regard so that when our young people go and drive on their own, they have the training behind them that makes it as safe for them to drive as it is for those 16- and 17-year- olds to fly planes. So I think this 100 hours of supervised driver training is excellent. It may be a bit of a burr under the saddle for a lot of young people, but if they realise it is going to make them better and safer drivers, it will enable them to enjoy their lives and their families and to reach their potential in their careers, and it will teach them not to harm their mates or their girlfriends, then I think they will understand that it is well worth while. This legislation then moves to the next level of providing two stages of provisional licensing. I think that is also very good, because, predominantly, car accidents involve people in that 17- to 24-year age group. Again, this is still a learning process for people and this amendment makes everybody aware of what they have to do. The legislation also contains a number of other amendments that I think are very good. Previously, members have commented about the amendments that relate to mobile phones and anything else that distracts people from driving, such as thumping music from a stereo system in a vehicle. My office is located on Ruthven Street in Toowoomba not far from the traffic lights. If someone pulls up in a car with one of these stereo systems playing, the double-plate glass window in my office thumps and my liver bounces up and down. I wonder how those people can actually drive a car and know what they are doing with that music playing. I think that is an issue as well. So the various restrictions that apply through the two stages of provisional licensing are very good. I also agree with the issue of fixed cameras. When we were in government our then transport minister, Vaughan Johnson, introduced speed cameras. I remember that, as health minister, I stood beside the member at the media conference when we announced the introduction of speed cameras. It was a difficult and unpopular thing to do, but my job was to talk about the reduction in injuries and trauma that we would have as a result of the introduction of speed cameras. The government that followed our government has continued to use those speed cameras. I believe that speed cameras have contributed to a reduction in injuries and have made the roads safer. I think the fixed cameras will work well. In many parts of New South Wales drivers have to be terribly careful, because there are signs that the cameras are there. The cameras are located on the fixed gantries that cross the roads. Drivers know that the cameras are there. Regardless of whether they are safe drivers or not, people are always very conscious of those fixed cameras. Previously, I heard a speaker talk about using cameras on local roads. I would like to know whether that will occur, because some roads in my electorate are used as short cuts. One road in particular is used as a short cut to the university. Speeding occurs on that road and the only way that can be combated is by having the police conduct spot checks on that road at certain times. But a fixed camera could be just the answer for some of those roads that are problem areas for the police. On the subject of road safety, I would like to thank the minister’s staff for the interest that they have taken in a young girl in my electorate—18-year-old Victoria Whitley. She was the Australian go-cart champion. She is now undertaking the motor sports course at the TAFE college and she wants to be a V8 driver. I have no doubt that she will get there. Her father was a champion racing car driver at the 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 371

Toowoomba speedway and elsewhere. Victoria is a wonderful young woman who has dedicated much of her life to going to schools and presenting road safety messages, particularly in defensive driving. She has been quite appalled—as most of us have—by the carnage on the roads involving young people and she wants to do something about it. A lot of us say, ‘Isn’t it terrible,’ but Victoria has said that she would like to go out and do something about it. I would like to thank Mike Stapleton, who has met with Victoria and spoken to her. I believe that Victoria has a good message to send, because she is a young attractive woman who has made it in the racing world. She sends the message that she is in a dangerous sport, but racing car drivers go only one way—there is no-one coming the other way on the racetrack. Those racing car drivers have stewards with red flags, green flags, chequered flags, yellow flags and so on. They all wear helmets, fireproof suits, gloves, boots—the whole thing. Their cars have roll cages. The racing car drivers operate under rules. There are also fire safety measures track side, there is an ambulance track side, and flashing red and green lights to stop and slow down the drivers and so on. Even so, racing cars is still dangerous. So Victoria asks these young people, ‘Why would you go out and speed on the roads when you have none of that safety equipment to protect you, you do not have an ambulance beside the road and you have traffic coming at you from both sides and all the rest of it?’ Young people take notice of Victoria. I think this is a good way to get the message across. We probably need lots of young people like Victoria Whitley, but I believe that she could well be used in a promotion of road safety. She is a young person who has done exceptionally well in motor racing and would be respected by her peers. So I hope that the transport minister could follow that up. Victoria was delighted to meet the Premier at the recent community cabinet in Toowoomba. The Premier has been sent a copy of what Victoria can do and so on. So I hope that we can get some assistance to young people through what I believe will be an excellent way of doing it. Another aspect of this bill relates to drug testing. I am probably as amazed as a lot of us that it has taken so long to get to the point at which we have drug testing. I know this has been fraught with difficulties in terms of how we conduct the testing and how we do it in within a certain time frame. I note from the minister’s second reading speech that it takes about three minutes to do the roadside saliva test and then other tests have to follow. But when we see the statistic that some 28 per cent of road facilities or accidents involve people on drugs, it really makes us—and that is both sides of politics— wonder why we have not conducted such testing before. Drug driving would seem to me to be as big a scourge as drink driving, if not bigger. The legislation states that testing can be done for three drugs. Obviously, other drugs are used, but the drugs mentioned are probably the most common drugs that are used: speed, cannabis and so on. But I wonder about heroin and other drugs. What testing can be done for those? Maybe the minister could refer to that in his reply. Mr Lucas: The regulations allow us to add more as technology proceeds. That is our intention. Mr HORAN: That is good. I think we would all like to see that, because when these people drive while they are stoned, innocent people are hurt—the people they smash into and the pedestrians they hit. Drug driving, and the accidents that it causes, is as bad as drink driving. It is interesting to note how far road safety has come. I grew up in an era when young people had a very cavalier attitude towards drink driving and cars. But when my boys reached that age I was amazed at how young people had changed their attitudes. They always had someone to drive them home, or they had someone who was the designated driver. That really made a difference. Back then there was probably 40 per cent of the number of cars on the road as there is now but the number of fatalities as a result of road accidents in Queensland was around 700 or 800. The Courier-Mail would often ask, ‘Is it going to be 800 this year?’ I think we are now down to around 300— Mr Lucas: 336. Mr HORAN: 336—with probably three or four times the number of cars on the road, with better braking systems and all the rest of it. So what we are doing is working. I think we all support these new measures. Whilst they might be tough—no-one likes to get pulled up for speeding and young people might like an easier path to getting a drivers licence—they are for their own good, the good of their family and the good of our community. Whilst you can never put a price on life itself or on family life, we also have to consider the enormous damage that is done to our economy and our society. You can just imagine what it is like for people who work in accident and emergency departments at hospitals, ambulance officers, police and so on. We fully support all of these new road safety rules and drug testing. A part of this bill is about subleases on railway lines. I know that Downs Steam in Toowoomba does a wonderful job in restoring old railway carriages and engines. It is a wonderful part of history. That organisation has ideas of possibly running a steam train from Spring Bluff, east of Toowoomba through to Warwick in the future. Spring Bluff is a wonderful historic station. It is where 25RQR embarked on the trains for the Battle of Milne Bay, which saved Australia. So it has a lot of history. I think that steam train 372 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007 run would rival the Mary Valley rattler in terms of interest and the places it would go through—towns such as Cambooya, Clifton, Allora, Warwick and even down to Stanthorpe. That will be important for that organisation. It may be looking for some assistance in the future. It has been going for a number of years now. It is a very stable, strong organisation but staffed by all volunteers. They have done a marvellous job. I also want to talk about intercoolers on cars. I think this is important for the safety of young people. A lot of cars now—they can be second-hand Gallants or Subarus—get turbo chargers put on them and then intercoolers which boost the power even further. So you have these little light cars with unbelievable power, which is not what those cars are designed for. The new Toyota V8 diesel traybacks have intercoolers on them but that is a standard feature for the big frame of the cruisers. But that power is just too much for those little vehicles. A mechanic in Toowoomba told me that an easy way for the department of transport and police to rid the roads of this particular scourge would be simply to take those little cars that have an intercooler on them—cars that were never designed to have that much power—off the road, unless they get rid of the intercooler. The intercoolers interfere with the entire system and detail of those cars—they interfere with the way the manufacturers intended them to be and the reason the cars would have been licensed to be on the road in the first place. The intercoolers are put in the front of the car, which is the crash zone or the safety zone of the car. They cut the front out and put the intercooler there, with three-inch stainless steel pipes and all the rest of it. So the crash zone itself is impaired, and the integrity of the manufacturer’s rules and regulations in making that vehicle is destroyed. Again, it might not be popular with young people, but it is certainly going to save their lives or the lives of someone else. I note that the shadow minister for transport spoke about the second range crossing. The minister would be disappointed if I did not speak on this topic. I have been speaking on it since 1996. That road was going to cost $300 million then. I am not sure what it would cost now. That $300 million would be chickenfeed compared to what it would cost now. Toowoomba is the only city in Australia that has to put up with the heavy semitrailers and B-double traffic that we have to put up with. Our main road traversing our city is James Street. Mothers use that road to take their kids to St Joseph’s College or St Saviour’s or St Mary’s or Harristown State High School—a whole range of schools. That four-lane road interconnects the west and the east of the city. It is the heaviest freight- carrying road in Australia. There are 16 sets of traffic lights for those semitrailers and B-doubles—and they are mostly B-doubles now—to traverse. There are about 3,500 heavy trucks every day out of 20,000-odd vehicles that come up the range. They have to go through 16 sets of traffic lights. If you stand at any set of lights on James Street in Toowoomba, you will have six or seven B-doubles either side of you—probably two lanes of them sometimes. It is an absolute nightmare. Once they get through the city they either turn left to go to the southern states or turn right to go to Darwin or north-west Australia. It is absolutely urgent for us to get a second range crossing. The amount of $34 million has been expended on buying up the corridor and doing the detailed plans, which the Queensland department has done. I met just recently with Ian Macfarlane about the matter. I know he is pushing hard for it. But we have to make sure that it is a high priority here in Queensland so that if we can get the money it can be done immediately. It is absolutely essential for us. The new range crossing will allow trucks to cross the range at 80 kilometres an hour. It costs about $90 an hour to run a B-double, so it will save them money anyway even if for a period of time it has to be a public-private partnership. Mr Lucas: Unlike the debacle of the Ipswich Motorway, at least we agree on the corridor. Mr HORAN: You agree on the corridor. That has all been bought. Mr Lucas: So there is no fight about that. Mr HORAN: I am talking about my patch. I appreciate the fact that the minister has always given us support on this. I am asking for continued and ongoing support. We are doing our bit. We are talking to Ian Macfarlane. Ian is talking to Mark Vaile. We have to get that done. It cannot be left on the lay-by list anymore. Every time we get somewhere near the point of getting something done, someone wants a ring-road around a capital city—it is either Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or one of the coasts. But it is about time Toowoomba was properly looked after. I think the sign on the range says it all. It says, ‘Slow down. Since 1992, 12 deaths, 153 casualties. Since 2002, 159 closures.’ So on 159 occasions in the last four years the range crossing has been closed. Sometimes traffic has to be diverted on to the goat track up through Murphy’s Creek to get into town. That sign was put up some time ago, so those figures would be a fair bit higher by now. It is just not good enough for the biggest inland city in Australia to have to put up with this social disruption through the main east-west street of our city. It is not fair on the transport industry and the economic infrastructure of Australia that 3,500 B-doubles a day, or of that order, are wasting up to an hour to climb the range and go through 16 sets of traffic lights when they are carrying all the produce and goods of the bulk of Australia. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 373

That is one issue I would like to see addressed. I am sick of talking about it. I have been talking about it since 1996. The patience of the people of Toowoomba has run out. The federal government is on notice: do something this time because we want to see it. We have been a patient crowd up there, but we will not cop it any longer. I would like to once again thank the people in the department of transport who gave their time and energy and the minister, who led them. They spent some careful, detailed time talking to people about how to get it right for young people. Passing this bill tonight is a stepping stone along the way to preserving a wonderful future and life for our young people and taking away the trauma, tragedy and sadness for families who have young people involved in accidents. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (8.38 pm): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. This bill is aimed primarily at introducing drug driving, young driver licensing conditions and potential new technologies including fixed cameras that may be used in conjunction with speed cameras on our roads. It also deals with other areas, including the handling of rail subleases and other rail property issues and matters relating to the health of public transport drivers. These amendments, which will enable the Beattie government to proscribe new rules by regulation, not legislation, will have a significant effect on the licensing of our young and learner drivers, particularly those under 25 years of age. It is proposed that the Beattie government will reduce the learner licence age to 16 and extend the minimum learner licence period to 12 months, require learner drivers to record 100 hours of certified supervised on-road driving experience, noting that a learner licence will be valid for three years, and will require motorbike learners to hold a provisional car licence for 12 months prior to gaining a motorbike learner licence. The government is also planning to introduce a two-stage provisional licensing system with tighter restrictions affecting those in the first stage, particularly those under 25 years of age, including compulsory P-plates, passenger restrictions between 11 pm and 5 am and only being able to carry one non-family member passenger aged under 21 during these times. High-powered vehicle restrictions for first and second stage provisional drivers are also proposed, as is restricting all mobile phone use and restricting mobile loud speaker functions for supervisors and passengers of the learner drivers. There will be late night restrictions for young drivers returning from a licence suspension or disqualification or for driving under a good behaviour licence, and they will have to pass a 12-month hazard perception test to progress to a second stage provisional licence. Provisional and open licence holders under 25 years who have been disqualified will be required to recommence at the first stage provisional licence. Just for good measure, in case anyone under 25 years feels that they have been discriminated against on the basis of age, the Beattie government has included provisions that will mean that the amendments cannot be declared unlawful on those grounds. These are quite major changes and, coupled with drug testing, could have serious consequences if violated. The explanatory notes refer to the number of 2005 road deaths that involved young drivers. It was 106 or 32 per cent of the road toll for that year. It would be interesting to know how many of those deaths involved just alcohol, just drugs or a combination of both, and the other factors that were involved in the remainder of the road deaths in 2005. The explanatory notes also refer to 114 deaths in 2005 having alcohol and other drug use as contributing factors. That is almost 35 per cent of the toll. However, again there is no indication of how many were just alcohol related, how many were just drug related or how many involved both. Whatever the figures are, I am sure that the state of our roads network is also part of the equation. Along with making the legislative environment harder and tougher on drivers, there is a duty of care on this government to do much better in terms of the level of maintenance on our Queensland road networks, including the roadside environment, road cambers, the grip or glasslike smoothness of some asphalt, the sealing of shoulders, widening and so on. Road users are already paying far more in fuel taxes, excise, registration and so on than is being spent on our roads. I turn now to the proposed regulations to introduce random roadside drug testing. These amendments will mean that if any level of illicit drug is detected, it will be considered an offence. Unlike alcohol, which has a limit of .05, drugs will have no acceptable minimum level. One would have to wonder whether passive smoking, whether knowingly or unknowingly, of cannabis will have an effect due to the zero tolerance level or whether those on certain medications will know when their medications will have worn off sufficiently to enable them to drive. I am aware that in America federal employees are subject to random drug testing. In some cases it has been found that eating pastries with poppy seed toppings can have a positive result in a drugs test. While those cases may be exceptional and the proposal before us today includes a very short list of illicit drugs, at present anyhow, it begs the question of how practical the zero limit is in regards to drug driving. For a first offence there will be a penalty of up to $2,100 or up to nine months in jail. Police will be able to test drivers of motor vehicles, trams, trains or vessels for the purpose of conducting a saliva or blood test to determine the presence of a relevant drug. It is envisaged that initially the relevant drugs will be cannabis, speed and ecstasy. As the minister said before, that list may be added to at any time. 374 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

Initial roadside testing is anticipated to take up to five minutes. If a second test is needed, it could take up to 10 minutes. The saliva specimen will be divided into parts and placed in separate containers. If a relevant drug is detected, then another part of the specimen may be analysed in a laboratory. Delays caused by drug testing to law-abiding citizens going about their normal daily business may not be widely accepted. I now turn to a specific area of drug use that is addressed in this legislation, which is the use of stimulants in the long-distance trucking industry. Those drivers are identified in a parliamentary library research brief as being among those most likely to be affected by drugs while driving. It also notes that this is because stimulants are used so the drivers can stay awake. While impaired driving is unacceptable, here is a clear example of how only part of the problem is being addressed. We expect our transport needs to be met on demand. This means that drivers are often forced to cover long distances on extremely strict schedules. Government laws deem that they are also expected to stop at designated times, to rest for designated times and to keep logbooks showing this. Clearly, all these things clash with the commercial imperative and the fatigue management requirements. Add to that the fact that there are very limited rest areas—let alone rest areas with even basic toilet facilities— suitable for heavy transports to park in and the drivers wind up in an unenviable position. We really need to improve road safety, particularly in the heavy transport sector. Therefore, along with regulations and fines and drug-driving penalties being imposed, surely this government has a duty of care in meeting its obligations in making it possible for those drivers to meet their conflicting goals. Increasing penalties, for example demerit points, now accumulate on logbook offences, with maximum penalties which can go as high as $4,500, all applying to the driver. Those hardworking drivers can ill afford to lose $300 or $600 per week, or nearly a week’s pay, let alone anything higher. The drivers believe that it is high time that this government faced up to its workplace health and safety obligations and provided them with suitable truck stops. As yet, there is no help for the driver to resist the pressure of delivery times and no provision of more rest stops with basic things like toilet facilities, let alone a covered table and a bench to sit at. I support action against drug-impaired driving, but I believe that one of the first things that should be done, especially in the heavy transport sector, is to reduce the need for so many drivers to feel as if they have to take these substances. It is irresponsible to place the conflicting demands of quick delivery, long distances, poor or non-existent rest stops and the risk of losing their jobs or contracts for late delivery on to drivers without helping them avoid desperate measures such as taking drugs. I urge a more widespread approach to some of the underlying issues. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (8.46 pm): It is a delight to rise tonight to speak to the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill. At the outset, I commend the minister, the Hon. Paul Lucas for the legislation. It is very important legislation and I congratulate him for bringing it to the House. I would add a hopeful note in relation to the road toll. When I received my licence in 1976, the Courier-Mail was running a road safety campaign called Campaign 550. Mr Lucas: I remember it well. Mr McNAMARA: Yes, there was an arrow and a target board on the front of the paper. In 1977 the aim was to try to get the Queensland road toll under 550 deaths. We should pause to reflect that, notwithstanding the road toll is still a terrible tragedy for some families and last year Queensland lost 337 people on our roads, nevertheless we have made significant progress. Over that 30-year period the number of vehicles on the road has doubled and the road toll has come down by a considerable percentage from over 550 to 337 last year. I do not say that with any sense that we have done enough or that that is good enough; far from it. However, progress is being made. However, we are now hitting that part of the road toll that is really tough. I think everyone in the House would acknowledge that we have a particular problem with young people who are evidencing a nihilistic behaviour that is very hard to legislate around. Over the past three months my city of Hervey Bay has seen a succession of absolute tragedies, where young people driving cars at incredible speeds have hit poles and died. On one weekend, between Friday and Sunday, in Hervey Bay we had three fatal accidents, all involving young people driving at excessive speeds. This aspect of youth culture is now beginning to persist, which highlights the importance of the amendments introduced by this particular bill such as peer passenger restrictions and night time restrictions between 11 pm and 5 am for first stage provisional licence holders under 25. We are seeing terrible car accidents with six people in them and the person who is driving is 15, unlicensed and drunk. The steps taken towards young people to say, ‘Okay we are going to have a much more restrictive regime,’ I think are necessary by virtue of the reality of the types of accidents that we are seeing. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 375

In his famous book the Souls of Black Folk, WEB Du Bois wrote very forcefully about the sensitive subject of African American youth growing up in America. He referred to what he called their ‘twoness’. He wrote— One ever feels his twoness—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body ... Du Bois wrote that book in 1903. In many ways there are elements of that split apparent in the attitudes of some young people when they get behind the wheel of a car—the stressful and unresolved separation from what many of us accept as the open and accessible society. The rich, vibrant and wealthy culture in which we live is not a perspective shared by all, particularly by some young people. Today, regretfully, many youths find making that transition from youth to adulthood even harder, particularly in a society that celebrates gratification. In many cases, for them the word ‘future’ means some time after Saturday night and looking beyond that is simply not something they have done. Despite our wealth, many young people still feel locked out of our culture and locked out of the success and opportunities that are available to so many. I only wanted to say a few words on this bill. I certainly strongly support the changes that are being introduced here. I think we have reached a point where the easy methods of reducing the road toll are all exhausted and where much more prescriptive regulation is required if we are going to eat into the hard core. I have spoken to a number of parents who have lost children in Hervey Bay. The depth of the tragedy that comes from knowing that a child is no longer here because of some insane act of driving troubles them more than death by disease. That is because disease happens and people accept that there is a randomness about it, but it is generally not brought on by people’s own behaviour. With those few words, I wish to commend the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill to the House. Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (8.52 pm): I am pleased tonight to speak to the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill. A lot of issues are covered in this bill we are debating tonight. Obviously, it is all about improving road safety in Queensland, which I think everybody aspires to. It does not matter what side of politics someone is on or their attitude; everyone would agree that one death is too many. However, we also have to consider the facts. The reality is that we have made some great gains in road safety in this country over a number of years. When we consider the population growth, the increase in the number of cars on the road network and the increase in the number of people who have access to vehicles, the reality is that the number of fatalities and accidents is down. A lot of work has been done by a lot of people, governments and groups over the years to improve safety. One of the concerns I have—and we must consider this—is that when there is a problem we tend to go to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, everyone is tarred with the same brush and we must all abide by those rules. I speak, for instance, of the speed limits. On some of the roads they are down to 40 kilometres an hour when quite clearly people could go faster than that. I think we are looking to be a little bit overcautious in a lot of ways. We do not want people to have accidents, that is for sure, but the precautionary principle is often taken a bit too far. That needs to be considered as well. The cars have improved. The sorts of cars we had many years ago did not have the braking capacity, the steering capacity or the stability of the cars we drive today; they are so much more superior. Of course they go faster and quicker. The reality is that we need to be able to train our young people to manage those vehicles, and I believe that is being done. While our roads are improving in many cases, they are also deteriorating at a faster rate because there is heavier transport, a greater volume of transport and more commerce on our roads. Therefore, good roads are put in place and soon after they deteriorate to a stage where they have a lot of bumps in them and so forth. People who are not accustomed to that sort of driving can find themselves in trouble. I do not know how often it happens, but the roads in my electorate of Warrego have some long stretches—as far as you can see. They are magnificent roads but then in a matter of a few years we find that they have deteriorated again. We are constantly trying to improve the road network and hopefully keep our people safe. One of the issues that is not part of this bill but is related to it is that of the road train logbooks. I hope the minister has taken note of this. There are going to be some serious problems in relation to road trains. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Order! I remind the member that that issue is before the House on a notice of motion moved by the member for Gregory. Mr HOBBS: Thank you for raising that point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was hoping you would, because now I have the minister’s attention. I hope the minister takes into consideration the enormous problem we will face. There are going to be bananas by the side of the road as well as stock pulling up by the side of the road. It is going to be very difficult. Mr Lucas: I am happy to deal with it all in the debate. 376 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

Mr HOBBS: I hope you are happy to deal with it in the debate because there are going to be a lot of problems. Mr Lucas: There is no change to the law—it is only the addition of demerit points for fatigue over an hour. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have drawn the member’s attention to the fact that there is a disallowance motion before the House in relation to matters raised. Mr HOBBS: I thank you for your protection. A little bit of the history should be talked about in relation to roadside drug testing. This bill will put in place a process to carry out drug testing. There has been a long, ongoing debate in relation to how we do it, how we are able to accurately test people who have drugs in their system. In the past, obviously alcohol testing has been done and proven over many years. However, drug testing has been a serious problem. For many years people have been high on drugs and have been able to get away with driving on our roads and causing accidents involving themselves and others and the government has not been able to come up with a process to combat it. I was on the Travelsafe Committee many years ago and we started work on it even then. The issue at that time was about how we test people. With the blood tests that are done the blood must be taken away and tested in a clinical situation so that there is no deterioration in the quality of the blood. Obviously, now we have moved on to saliva testing and that will be an improvement. We still have blood testing as a backup if an offence has been committed. I presume it is a bit like alcohol testing. If someone is quite intoxicated, they are taken to the local hospital or whatever and blood testing is carried out there. I presume the same will happen in relation to drugs. Many people have driven on roads when they should not have. In the old days the only test was to get people to walk a straight line. Even if they failed that test, it could not really be proven that they were on drugs. We certainly should implement any process that will improve our road safety. One of the reasons why it has taken so long, and it is disappointing to say this, is that I think the government has been a bit reluctant to push into the drug scene. It has been around for quite a while that Labor is a bit soft on drugs. I think— A government member interjected. Mr HOBBS: The statement I am making is quite fair. However, I do realise that it has evolved eventually and that the government had to do it. The testing process with saliva has probably helped the government realise that it had to do it. CARRS-Q has undertaken research into the incidence of drug driving in Queensland. How much more testing do we have to have? We have been doing it for years and years and years. Just get on and do it. It is happening, which is good to see. There are a number of other issues in this bill that need to be talked about, particularly in relation to learner drivers. I see a number of changes were made to the regulation in relation to learner drivers. It reduces the learner licence age to 16 and extends the minimum learner licence period to 12 months. It requires learner drivers to record 100 hours of certified, supervised on-road driving experience to facilitate this. The learner licence will be valid for three years. The third point requires motorbike learners to hold a provisional car licence for 12 months prior to gaining a motorbike learner licence. I agree with that to a certain degree. However, what happens if people cannot afford to buy a motorcar? What if a young kid—a girl or a boy—wants to buy a scooter because that is all they can afford? Should there not be a system whereby they can get a licence? Mr Lucas: Young drivers are 2.5 times more likely to be killed in an accident than older drivers. For motorcycle riders the statistic is horrific. Mr HOBBS: I know it is horrific, but is it— Mr Lucas: And you cannot have that 100 hours supervised on a motorcycle; it is not possible to do that. The only way they can get that operating experience is by having a licence for a year. I know it is not popular but it has to be like that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hoolihan): Thank you, Minister, but could the member direct his remarks through the chair. Mr Lucas: I made an interjection and he accepted it. Mr HOBBS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I accept your ruling. However, there was a little bit of discussion in the House. The minister has given an explanation in response to the request that I made. I think it helps the debate to understand the process. What the minister says is quite valid, there is no doubt about that, but it is one of those balancing acts that there has to be. That means a kid has to go and buy an old car. Do they go out and buy a WB ute with a V8 in it that will go 17 times faster than the scooter? Mr Lucas: Well, they cannot do that because they have a V8 in it, and they are not allowed to have it for the first three years. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 377

Mr HOBBS: Maybe a six cylinder with a bit of zip in it. But even six-cylinder cars today go like the V8s used to in days gone by. I am sure many members opposite would have experienced that and you, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you would have occasionally put the accelerator down. Mr Lucas: We are not petrol heads like you. Mr HOBBS: I do not know about that. That is just the way kids are. I know it is a problem, but I do not know whether we ought to bring everything back to the lowest common denominator. I also make the point that we have made vast improvements in relation to road safety. While one death is always too many, the reality is that I do not know whether we should throw out the baby with the bathwater all the way through. There are a lot of other amendments in the bill, particularly in relation to the speed camera program. The minister’s second reading speech says that the speed camera program has delivered significant road safety benefits. Let me point out that it has also raised significant revenue benefits. Ms Jarratt: Talk to your shadow minister; he agrees with it. Mr HOBBS: The shadow minister was one of the people who brought it in originally. By the same token, I think the minister opposite will receive much, much more revenue than it did in those days. I am sure that Treasury would be very, very happy with what the minister is providing for it through speed cameras. Mr Lucas: That is not correct. I remember very clearly us moving an amendment, which you guys accepted, to hypothecate the money received from speed cameras. Treasury did not like it, of course, and that money now goes directly into road safety issues. The law provides it. It does not go to Treasury. Mr HOBBS: I am sure that it does provide a lot of money, but the reality is that it is being taken from motorists. Ms Jarratt: Who are breaking the law. Mr HOBBS: We have ended up with— A government member interjected. Mr HOBBS: I am not entirely opposed to speed cameras, but I do not think they should be used for that particular purpose. We have to make sure that we— Mr Lucas: You voted for it. Mr HOBBS:—certainly use it. In many instances on some of those roads—I am speaking about roads out my way because they are the ones I know quite well. Ms Jarratt: They know you too, maybe. Mr HOBBS: Maybe they do. I use an airplane so I am not greatly worried about it up there. They will not catch me up there. Mr Lucas: Now, listen, don’t you get on your airmanship. We do not want to get on your airmanship; it is not a strong point. Mr HOBBS: At the end of the day at least there are no roos and no policemen up there, and you can go as fast as you like. On the roads I am very responsible. Do not forget that cruise control makes it a lot better. I do the job and make sure that I am within the limits. However, in many instances I really believe, and certainly many of my constituents believe, that a lot of those roads can have a higher speed limit. I know the department comes back and says that we have this national standard that the roads have to be a certain width and everything else. The reality is that a lot of those roads are better than they are down south in places such as South Australia, where they do 110, and here we are back on 100. I think there has to be a big effort to try to increase the speed limit on some of those roads where the road is capable of sustaining those speeds. I do not think we need to go back to the lowest common denominator all the time. We can help people as much as we can, but you cannot help everybody. At the end of the day we have to do what I think the majority of people require. That is certainly one of the instances that I think is important. Another issue in this bill is the medical fitness requirements. The minister and I have had some discussions on this in the past in relation to some issues, and I think some of those issues have been recognised. I do not think that the minister was right originally when we had that discussion. In fact, I am sure he was not right. However, I believe things have moved on and the system is probably improving. I do not think it is fair for John Citizen to walk in to get his or her licence renewed and suddenly find the licence is taken from them and they are on foot. This is what was happening. I think people need to be well aware of those issues. I hope the minister does respond to this issue because it is very important that he does respond to this. 378 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007

We need to ensure that people are fully informed of what they have to do and the medical requirements they have to fulfil. If, for instance, someone has a medical condition and there are only two or three places in Queensland where they can go to get tested for this condition, it makes it very hard if suddenly—whether you here in Longreach, Charleville or Rockhampton or Townsville—they have to come to Brisbane to get a test. They should come— Mr Lucas: What can I do about that? If there is a question over their driving risk in the meantime, should I let them drive? Mr HOBBS: The minister is talking about very few people. He has to make sure that people are fully informed about this issue. People are not fully informed about it. That is the point. The minister has to make a bigger effort to inform people that they have to fulfil these requirements. I had a case where a person went in and then suddenly he is on foot. At great cost he had to try to fix it up. He probably really was not a threat to anybody. I do not doubt that he had a medical condition. We cannot bring everything back to the lowest common denominator. We have to give people time. Mr Lucas: Well, the obligation is a continuing obligation. Secondly, transport department officers are not experts. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Jones): Order! I call the House to order. Let the honourable member be heard. Mr HOBBS: A sound judgement. I think it is very important though that people who have a problem are given some time. For instance, if they were told, ‘Sir or madam, you have two weeks to fix up this situation. You are current until then,’ at least it would give them some time. Mr Lucas: In appropriate circumstances. I can tell you of situations where people have deliberately driven when they are unsafe. Anita Roland has lost one son and has another son a paraplegic because that happened. You have to be very careful. I take your point about being sensible about it. I will deal with it in more detail later. Mr HOBBS: I would appreciate it if the minister could look at that. If there is some sort of mandatory time limit then at least they would not have their licence taken from them when they walk in the door to apply for a renewal. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr HOBBS: I did not mean to. I was only going to talk for five minutes. I commend the bill to the House. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (9.11 pm): I will try to make a short contribution to the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006. It is one of those debates—and we see them more regularly than people in the community realise—where everyone in the chamber supports the legislation before us for consideration. It will improve road safety in our communities. We have all been touched to a greater or lesser degree by the tragedy of road deaths. I know all of us have lost friends, have lost family in road accidents. Mr Lucas: That terrible accident on the Gore Highway with those Rugby players. Mr COPELAND: That is exactly right, Minister. I was going to come to this a little later but I will start with it. I would like to place on the public record my thanks to the minister for coming to visit my electorate last week to investigate the Gore Highway, which is a national road that has had a significant number of fatalities on it in recent years. I know that the minister flew in to Millmerran and drove to Pittsworth and then back to Goondiwindi through Millmerran to investigate that road. Unfortunately, I was not able to join him because of prior commitments. The visit was certainly appreciated by the community. I know that it would have given the minister a firsthand look at the problems that we face on the Gore Highway. The only addition I would make is that I probably would have preferred the minister to fly into Toowoomba and have driven from Toowoomba to Pittsworth because the Toowoomba to Pittsworth section of the Gore Highway is a stretch of road that needs attention. A particular bone of contention for me has been the intersection between the Wyreema Connection Road and the Gore Highway at Drayton where we have had a number of deaths. It is the very corner of my electorate and also the electorate of Toowoomba South and almost the corner of the electorate of Darling Downs. That section of road, particularly from Toowoomba through to the Millmerran shire southern boundary, really does need attention. The minister had a firsthand look at that on Tuesday of last week. I would also like to add my voice to that of the member for Toowoomba South who has since 1996—and for me it has certainly been since my election in 2001—highlighted the issue of the second range crossing in Toowoomba. We simply need to have that project go ahead. I know the minister recognises that as well and has been doing what he can. I would certainly urge him to continue to do that. 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 379

There has been recognition from all sides of politics at a state and federal level and certainly at a local government level that that project really needs to go ahead. I do note the work that has gone into that already. We need to get that bypass in. I note that during the member for Toowoomba South’s contribution the minister mentioned the potential of the Charlton Wellcamp industrial area. That has enormous potential. Once the second range crossing goes in Toowoomba will become a real distribution hub for the south-east corner of Queensland with our unique location at the intersection of three major highways going south, north and west. Once we get that not only will the amenity of Toowoomba city, the safety of residents and the livability of our city be improved but also the economic viability of the transport companies that use that road and the safety of the motorists who use that road will be vastly increased. We do not often get people advocating for a public-private partnership or a toll road. That is actually one that consideration can be given to. The transport companies will make savings once that second range crossing is in place. There will be an alternate route for those who do not want to use it if it is a toll road. It is certainly one of the considerations. I think the residents of our communities and the communities to the west of Toowoomba that utilise that road would be amenable to considering that, particularly if it means that that project can be built. I will turn to the licensing provision in this bill. Everyone in the chamber is supporting this. I think that is a noteworthy achievement. Some of the changes will, I am sure, be unpopular with some people, particularly those young people who are trying to get their licences. I think that it will produce better drivers. We will have better young drivers as a result of the changes that will go through. I have long been a supporter of strengthened driver training for our young people. I note that the Travelsafe Committee has looked at this over a number of years. There has been some conflicting evidence, I guess it is fair to say, about the worth of defensive driving courses and those sorts of things. I actually believe that it can only be a good thing for people to do extra driver training. While there may be some down sides, I think that the more skills that young people have when they are licensed the better it will be for those young people and members of the community at large. I lived in the Netherlands for a year when I left school in the mid-1980s. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr COPELAND: Prior to my employment for Royal Dutch Shell. I was simply a young person going to Europe. Before I left a lot of my peers here were going through the licensing regime, including me. I have to say that it was pretty easy to get a licence. One pretty much turned up and got issued with it and that was it. When I was living in the Netherlands I was struck by the difference for my peer group there who were also being licensed and the difficulty they had. It was not unusual to have to be tested 14, 15, 20 or 25 times before they got their licence. The training regime that they had to go through was extraordinary given what I had come from in Australia. I think that really was telling. The standard of driving was better. In some of the European countries there are no speed restrictions, for example. There is a very different attitude to driving. I think the better driver training that we can provide for our young people then the better road safety record we will have. I note the comments by the member for Warrego that in some cases it may be appropriate to raise the speed limit on some of our roads. That is something that we should look at. It is appropriate speed in appropriate conditions that is the problem. It is not necessarily just saying that speeding is bad. Speeding in inappropriate areas is bad. I think on some of the highways, particularly in the western areas, there is an argument for that. I think that that is something that we should look at. We should not simply say, ‘Speed kills. We should not have anything other than 100 kilometres an hour.’ Ms Jarratt: Except for the animals, Stuart. Mr COPELAND: That may well be an issue. It is appropriate speeds at appropriate times in appropriate conditions. Dusk and dawn is an issue in western areas. It is something that we need to continue to look at. As the safety features of cars improve it is something that we can continue to look at. The changes in the bill will affect learner licences. It will reduce the age to 16 and extend the minimum learner licence period to 12 months. It will require learner drivers to record 100 hours of certified, supervised on-road driving experience and require motorbike learners to hold a provisional car licence for 12 months prior to gaining a motorbike learner licence. I think they are all worthwhile changes. I shudder at some of the motorbikes. They are terribly dangerous things to be driving in traffic. We need to make sure that those people in particular are well trained and well licensed. The bill also changes in large part the way that provisional licence holders operate. There will be the compulsory display of P-plates and peer passenger restrictions between 11 pm and 5 am for holders of a first stage provisional licence who are under the age of 25, which means that the driver will only be able to carry one non-family member passenger under 21 during these times. That is a very valuable thing. Having been a young bloke, when you get a whole heap of young people in a car everyone gees everyone else up and that is when you start to get into trouble. That is where we have seen, unfortunately in recent times, large numbers of fatalities in vehicle accidents. Of course there was one in 380 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 20 Feb 2007 northern New South Wales where I think five young people were killed. Out of all of the changes, that is going to be a significant one for reducing those large numbers of deaths in single-vehicle or two-vehicle accidents. It is practical to specify that it is peer passengers, not family passengers, because we have to recognise the practicalities of young people driving with their family members and ensure that those restrictions are not there. There are also restrictions being placed on high-powered vehicles for first and second stage provisional drivers under 25. I clarified some of these provisions with the minister’s advisers earlier tonight in the chamber. I would ask the minister to maybe detail what those changes will be. It is very difficult to specify the changes. I note that, for example, petrol turbo engined vehicles will not be available for young people to drive. That is fine when talking about something like a Subaru WRX Impreza, which is pretty much the weapon of choice for a lot of young male drivers. If talking about something like a Smart car, which is a very small turbo engined vehicle that could not be considered a high-powered vehicle, then that may not be— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr COPELAND: That is why I ask if the minister can look at those. The other area where I know the government is looking at exemption is turbo diesels, and of course I think that is a practical thing to do because turbo diesels are more than anything for efficiency purposes rather than performance purposes. V8s are also outlawed. A lot of the grey imports seem to be very popular with many young men in particular. It is going to be a difficult area to regulate. It is going to be a difficult area to enforce and to be consistent in the outcome. Again, it is one area that will mean some real meaningful change to road safety. There are also changes to mobile phone use and late-night driving restrictions. I want to turn to the changes regarding drug testing. This is long overdue and something that we have needed to do for some time. The latest statistics regarding the percentage of accidents involving drug drivers is absolutely frightening. Some 28 per cent or something like that of accidents are accidents where drugs were involved. That is just frightening. It also reflects an attitude in the community, and I have spoken about this numerous times when it comes to the attitudes that we have towards drugs and so-called recreational drugs—that is, in some way drugs are not harmful. We have all got the message that drink driving is dangerous, but too many people, too many young people in particular, think that drugs are not harmful and that they can still go out and drive if they have had a smoke of pot or whatever it might be. It certainly impairs the judgement and is very dangerous. I am very glad that the changes regarding drug testing have been introduced in this bill. I think that that is long overdue. I hope that the government enforces it with all its might in the same way that drink driving has been enforced. Attitudes towards drink driving have changed dramatically since the time I first got my licence, for example. The final point I want to touch on relates to speed cameras. The member for Toowoomba South touched on this as well, but when the member for Gregory was the minister for main roads he introduced speed cameras. I remember that being a controversial move at the time. There is still some controversy. I know when I am driving along the highway and see one, I always panic and curse and hope that I have not been speeding when I go past it. Touch wood, I have not been caught too often. They do play a valuable role. The high visibility of any speed reduction measure reduces general speeding within the community. Speed cameras play a role there. There is one particular road in my electorate that has been of some concern. It is a local road, but that may well be an area where a couple of days with a speed camera—it is Ballin Drive—may well curb the behaviour of people who are taking a short cut and speeding through what is a suburban street. I have constituents who simply will not let their children go out and play in the yard because of their concerns about them going on the road and the dangers associated with the people who speed along that road. I think that there are a lot of worthwhile changes in this bill. Some of the changes may be unpopular, but whatever we can do to reduce the road toll I think is a good thing. We need to continue to monitor all of these changes. If further changes need to be made—if further modifications need to be made—then we certainly need to do that as well. Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.25 pm): Most members would know that our family has had firsthand experience of the devastation that accidents can bring when our three-year-son Joshua was killed in an accident some time ago. These things can take a great many years to get over. One young Queenslander killed on our roads is one too many, and I applaud these changes in general that the minister has brought in with this legislation. I think we do need to get tough on abhorrent driving behaviour. There are a couple of issues I want to mention. I noticed in the media some criticism of the committees of this parliament. I only have experience of the Travelsafe Committee, having been the deputy chair for the last two committees. In fact, I requested to stay on Travelsafe because I am so passionate about this area. I would like to pay a special tribute to our chairman, Jim Pearce, who has just done a magnificent job, and the research and support staff. The Travelsafe Committee has brought to the table lots and lots of good suggestions which have been forwarded through to the minister. It has brought down some great reports. Getting tough on drink drivers was tabled in October 2006, Driving on 20 Feb 2007 Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 381 empty: fatigue driving in Queensland was tabled in October 2005 and, before my time, reports on novice drivers and riders were tabled in December 2003. Let me just give a plug for the Travelsafe web site. If people want to see the work of the House, go to the Travelsafe web site and look at the significant input that members of this House have made to this area of road safety. The Motorcycle Riders Association of Queensland has contacted me. It has some concerns about the legislation producing simply fewer riders rather than better riders, and I will talk about that a little bit later on. As a motorcycle rider—and I want to say I am not a new-age motorbike rider; I have been riding since I was 17—one of the things that many people do not understand— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr FOLEY: I will take that interjection from the minister. That is right; very good. In fact, I know a few of the guys in the God squad. One of the significant factors of course with motorcycles—and this is reflected in cars as well—is what we call the power-to-weight ratio. It is no good just saying a motorcycle of this particular cc, because some of the very small bikes these days are just absolute pocket rockets. What this really comes down to I guess in some respects is that the bill, as stated in the second reading speech, aims at improving road safety in Queensland. One could look at this and say that that is entirely a motherhood statement because it is, but I do not think that too many members of the House would disagree with the need for it. Random roadside drug testing is something that we have been talking about for quite some time, and I will talk about that a little bit more as well. In 2005 alcohol and other drug use was identified as a contributing factor in 114 deaths on Queensland roads or almost 35 per cent of the Queensland road toll. This is just nothing short of distressing and absolutely terrible. One of the problems that has been experienced in the past—prior to this bill coming in—is the inability on the part of the police to be able to bust people who are drug driving. Under current legislation, a police officer has to suspect that a driver is under the influence of some sort of drug purely by observing behaviour. I am sure most members would agree that that is far too arbitrary and subjective. We really need far more of a clinical regime of testing rather than an observational one, which could be hard to justify in courts. I notice that there has been a 26 per cent decrease in road user fatalities. However, young drivers aged between 17 and 24 years are still 2½ times more likely to be killed in crashes compared to drivers aged over 25 years. So we are still experiencing that horrible phenomenon of watching the news at night and seeing that yet another young person has ended their life, and probably the lives of quite a few of their few mates, by wrapping their car around a power pole because they were trying to be heroes and were driving stupidly. I want to touch on the issue of P-plates. I remember as a young guy of 17 getting my licence in Brisbane and having to wear the horrid P-plates. It was a little bit like wearing braces on your teeth. You were glad when they finally came off and you felt like you were a real driver. Some restrictions have been spoken about tonight—peer passenger restrictions, high-powered vehicle restrictions, mobile phone use restrictions and restrictions on loudspeakers. When I first read that in the minister’s second reading speech, I thought he was referring to young guys driving round in cars with stereos that were worth more than their cars. But I see that that is a reference to the loudspeaker function in terms of bluetooth technology. Whilst people might whinge about these restrictions, their whole aim is increased road safety. Fixed speed cameras is an interesting issue. The weekend before last, I went down to Lismore, as a minister, to conduct a wedding of one of my children’s friends. As soon as we were over the border and into New South Wales, we were into a fixed speed zone. All of a sudden everyone is saying, ‘Watch out, slow down, fixed speed cameras.’ So there was a sense that those cameras had automatically enhanced road safety, because people were used to the fact that if they drove fast in those areas they were likely to get booked for speeding. So what is the solution? It is very simple: do not speed and you will not get fined. I love the proverb, ‘Better 1,000 times careful than once dead’. I think that is a very significant quote when it comes to road safety. Another quote I have come across is that accidents, particularly street and highway accidents, do not happen; they are caused. I think we have to be very careful. The Motorcycle Riders Association of Queensland is concerned that there is no evidence to support the initiative on motorcycle riding and licensing because there is little in the way of published evaluations of the effect of the minimum age for motorcycle licensing. The association is concerned that the report rather loosely concludes that it is likely that minimum age restrictions can play a valuable role in a training and licensing system by both reducing the amount of riding and by reducing the level of risk associated with riding. This statement also highlights a recurring theme in the report, which again clearly seeks not to produce safer riders but fewer riders. There is no doubt that the riding of a motorcycle and the driving of a car are two entirely different experiences and require two entirely different skill sets. Certainly from the perspective of the Australian Motorcycle Council, rider training and education is an extremely important part of any comprehensive motorcycle strategy. Training should be considered not only for novice riders but also as a whole-of-life experience that riders can take throughout their whole riding career. 382 Adjournment 20 Feb 2007

I return to the issue of motorists and drug-impaired driving. In some respects, this is the new kid on the block in terms of road safety. Although we have thought a little bit about people smoking dope and driving for quite some time now, when we start to talk about drugs such as crystal meth—ice—and other illicit drugs, we realise that it is an entirely scary prospect that people would drive motor vehicles under the influence of those sorts of drugs. A lady called Dr Jane Mallick is the Director of the Australian Drug Foundation’s Centre for Youth Drug Studies. I encourage all members to look at the foundation’s web site. It is conducting a nationwide survey of people aged over 17 years so that they can have their say on drugs and driving. The drug-driving facts are absolutely without question. The stimulants—or uppers—will speed up a person’s brain and body. Depressants—or downers—will slow down a person’s brain. There are narcotic analgesics, which can affect a person through impaired coordination, slowed reflexes, blurred vision, sleepiness and unpredictable moods or behaviour. Of course, that is a scary proposition when we talk about combining those effects with road rage. Other drugs that are of particular concern are what people call recreational drugs, such as marijuana, hashish, hallucinogens, LSD, mushrooms, solvents and inhalants. The list goes on and I will not bore the House any further. But all of those drugs can lead to impaired coordination, nausea and vomiting, unconsciousness, muscle weakness, impaired reaction times, poor vision and an inability to judge distances and speed with distortions of time, place and space. So it is bad enough that young people can get into a car and think that they are 10-feet tall and bulletproof, let alone those same young people impairing their driving skills even further by using illicit drugs. When I refer to illicit drugs, my real concern is multiple drug use. During a night people can smoke dope and take some ice or something like that. The use of a combination of drugs can lead to very extreme and varied effects, such as dramatically slowed reaction times. With regard to motorcycle safety, this legislation contains good initiatives in terms of equipment. I turn now to mobile phones. What a crazy business it is that people drive around using mobile phones. Recently I saw a young guy sending a text message while he was driving, which is pretty stupid stuff. Then such drivers wonder why things go badly wrong. In terms of drug driving, I would also like to pay tribute to Herschel Baker, who is my local chairman of Australian Parents for Drug-free Youth. He has made himself a very frequent flyer to my office. He continually pushes the message of the need for drug testing in driving. I will assure Herschel that he will be very pleased with some of the outcomes of this legislation. In closing, licensing is a difficult area, because we can have stupid drivers at the age of 18 and they might still be very stupid drivers at the ages of 25, 30 and even at 85. We cannot legislate against stupidity, but I think this legislation goes a long way towards nursing young Queenslanders through those dangerous years when the testosterone starts flowing, when they get their licences and they think that they are 10-feet tall and bulletproof. Again, people might baulk at the changes that the legislation makes, but on balance I think the legislation makes significant leaps and bounds in terms of enhancing road safety. I commend the minister for a good job. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Foley, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. PT LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Acting Leader of the House) (9.38 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Patel, Dr J, Compensation Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (9.38 pm): This morning the Attorney-General continued the cover-up and rip-off of Patel victims. He provided some details but failed to disclose the total amount of money paid to the victims because he is ashamed. The Attorney-General is ashamed because one in eight applicants—or 48 victims out of 383—to the special mediation and compensation process has been rejected. The Attorney-General’s department has used false and fraudulent Queensland Health medical records in making its decision to reject the compensation claims of those 48 victims. Legitimate claims for compensation have been rejected and many victims will miss out on any compensation at all. The Attorney-General is also ashamed because there is no appeal or review process in place. If the victims want to obtain compensation, then expensive civil action is their only option. The Attorney-General is also ashamed because the widows of victims have not received fair compensation. A payout, which basically covers only legal and funeral expenses—a maximum of $10,000—is not fair compensation for Patel widows. The Attorney-General is also ashamed because he refuses to answer letters and faxes from legitimate Patel victims, including Ian Flemming. I table letters from Ian Flemming. Tabled paper: Copies of correspondence from Mr Ian Fleming of Queensland Patient Support Group Inc to Premier dated 6 December 2006 concerning patient support group funding of costs. Tabled paper: Correspondence from Mr Fleming to Mr Rob Messenger MP dated 16 February 2007 concerning Attorney General correspondence and visit. 20 Feb 2007 Adjournment 383

The Attorney-General is also ashamed because of victims such as Peta Van Loon. I table a statement from Peta Van Loon, who is a mother of three and whose operation went horribly wrong. She has been left with half a bowel, chronic pain and no hope of a normal sex life. Tabled paper: Notes from an interview of Ms Leean Van Loon conducted by Ms Melinda Bradford at the Burnett Electorate Office dated 15 February 2007. Peta has received from this government only the princely sum of $5,200, less Medicare payments, while her Brisbane based lawyers, Carter Capner, are paid somewhere between $5,500 and $6,500. The injustice must be fixed. An independent judicial review must and should be established to examine the victims’ complaints. In the meantime I am referring this matter to the CMC for investigation and I would like these questions answered. Have victims’ medical records been fraudulently altered by either Patel or Queensland Health employees or both? Have false or fraudulent medical records been used in determining victim eligibility for compensation or compensation payouts? Why has this government created a system where lawyers get paid more than the victims? Mr Deputy Speaker, the fact remains that if you were a patient at the Bundaberg Hospital between April 2003 to March 2005 then you could have been treated by Patel or junior doctors supervised by Patel and no official record will exist of that treatment. This government is hiding behind the secrecy provisions in the Patel mediation process as well as false or fraudulent medical records in order to cheat the victims of Australia’s worst health disaster out of fair compensation. The Patel victims must be allowed to speak out freely about their experience to an independent judicial authority. The government has threatened to take victims’ payments away from them, even if they disclose their settlement to their local member of parliament. They have asked that I bring their story to parliament. Cerebral Palsy League, Colour Your Day Appeal; Brisbane Bullets Mr HINCHLIFFE (Stafford—ALP) (9.41 pm): Earlier today I was thrilled to be part of Craigslea State School’s face painting world record attempt, which was part of the Cerebral Palsy League’s Colour Your Day Appeal. The league is well known for the outstanding services it provides to children and adults with cerebral palsy and their families. As a parent and former student, I am keenly aware of the Craigslea State School community’s support over many years for the Cerebral Palsy League and students with a disability. That support continued today with the breaking of the Guinness World Record for the number of faces painted in one hour, with the students involved raising $650. A Polish record of 406 was smashed at Craigslea today, with 500 students and supporters having their faces painted by five teachers in one noisy and frantic hour. I was very proud that that number included me, both my sons and seven of their fellow students who have cerebral palsy. The school’s local member, my colleague the member for Aspley and parliamentary secretary to the minister for education, acted as a witness and oversaw a strict count of the faces. I congratulate the student leaders on their role in a successful event and principal Hugh Goodfellow and his deputy, Lyn Green, on their leadership of the keenly involved staff. I also congratulate Cerebral Palsy League CEO, Bruce Milligan, and his team for a great event which involved the whole school. Finally, I congratulate the parents involved—including those like me who added to the number of faces painted—especially Gavin Forde and Annette Richardson, who play a very active role in the support of the Craigslea State School’s commitment as a wonderful environment for their children living with cerebral palsy. It would be remiss of me if I failed to mention another wonderful event tonight. The Brisbane Bullets have been successful in winning their first semifinal game against the Sydney Kings with a score of 91 to 84 tonight. They were successful at Boondall. I wish them well on continuing towards achieving another NBL title. Bradfield Scheme Mr FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.43 pm): I rise to give some more consideration to the vast number of opinions that have been cast around this place on the Bradfield solution. I mentioned in parliament the week before last that, as people were developing webbed feet up north and down here we are drier than a ute full of dust, one of the things I would like to see is a pipeline come straight down the rail corridor. There has been a lot of talk about evaporation and rerouting rivers. If we could tap the headwaters where there is significant water and bring that water down a pipeline along the rail corridor, one of the advantages of the rail corridor is that it is fairly level to cater for trains, there is already a cleared path and, of course, piping the water down completely defeats the argument of water evaporation. The water can also be branched off at any time. We have a wonderful rail network already going from Brisbane to Cairns, so I commend to the minister for transport that pipes could in fact be put on rail carriages and taken up north and then as that pipeline is built the trains would travel increasingly shorter distances to drop off pipes. None of these 384 Adjournment 20 Feb 2007 things come cheap. Infrastructure costs a great deal of money, but I would really love to see that solution. In fact, if that can then be coupled with recycling—and I am an unashamed fan of recycling— water can be added to the pipeline, as it is a vein structure, and taken out as required. Mr Horan interjected. Mr FOLEY: Leave the sewage out but recycle the other stuff. That is my idea of it. One of the other things that happens with pipes is what is called the Venturi effect. If you have ever studied a carburettor in an engine, you would understand what I mean. If you are taking water out of one end of a pipe and putting water in at the top end of a pipe, it creates a life of its own with a suction effect. Any kid who has ever emptied a baby bath with a hose in the backyard would understand the whole principle. The more simplistic among us would say that Queensland is on a lean and if we take water out of the top it will simply roll down to the bottom. Of course that is not true. There are many technologies that could be employed—pumps would boost things along the way, and they could be solar driven or wind driven or driven by any number of means. We have built dam infrastructure where it does not rain, and that is a tragedy. What we have to do is take water from where it does rain and bring it down to the drier parts of the state. I commend the Foley version of the Bradfield solution, and I look forward to wearing the T-shirt with the water minister.

Ipswich Motorway Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (9.47 pm): Delays in making a decision on fixing the Ipswich Motorway will result in a major cost blow-out. There is no sane reason why funding should not be allocated immediately to fix long-term safety issues which place lives at risk every day of the week. An independent study has proven the state government’s preferred option for fixing the Dinmore to Goodna stretch of the Ipswich Motorway is $1 billion cheaper than the federal government’s proposed half northern bypass. A bypass will not stop people from using the Ipswich Motorway and consequently the hot spots still need to be fixed. Road safety is a critical issue for the Queensland government and the community, with 336 fatalities in 2006 and 6,257 people seriously injured on Queensland’s roads—and that is 2005 data. Properly maintaining and improving the road environment is essential in order to mitigate safety risks. I reiterate that the federal government’s inability to make a decision is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. There are a myriad road upgrades where this money could be very well spent. Had the federal government acted in 2003, the project would be half finished to date and millions of dollars saved. The state proposes widening the Ipswich Motorway to six lanes and establishing a network of service roads to carry motorists during construction of the upgrade of the Ipswich Motorway. Upgrading the existing motorway includes the ability to rebuild more than 90 per cent of the route away from traffic, and this could be done in stages to minimise inconvenience to motorists. Work on the Wacol to Darra section of the Ipswich Motorway, including the Centenary Motorway interchange, is scheduled to start by the middle of this year. At present bottlenecks occur from Sumners Road to the Ipswich Motorway during peak times. The western suburbs are growing rapidly, and more and more traffic chaos is becoming the norm. The more people choose to stay away from the Ipswich Motorway, the more will take the alternative route along the already overloaded Centenary Highway to the parking lot along Milton Road. The Queensland government sees urban congestion as being a systems-wide issue requiring a commitment from all levels of government to a total network approach. Addressing infrastructure bottlenecks in urban areas would improve the economic performance of national urban corridors and associated networks and therefore benefit national productivity. Queensland spends much more on state funded roadworks than it collects from motor vehicle registration revenue. This financial year will see $846 million collected in registration, with Queensland’s expenditure on state and local roads exceeding $1.5 billion. There have been decades of federal government underinvestment. Queenslanders expected the Australian government to use its surplus to redress its neglect of Queensland’s national road network, but as history suggests it looks as though these major funding holes can only be filled by a federal Labor government.

Coolum Ambulance Station Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (9.51 pm): I wish to raise the issue of the chosen site for the proposed new Coolum ambulance station. Concerns have been put to me that the current site does not comply under the Coolum Land Use and Transport Study and, what is worse, it is too far removed from the closest access point to the Sunshine Motorway and will be immediately opposite residences on the adjacent hillside and housing estates. The QAS originally announced that the station would be built opposite the existing Woolworths complex on South Coolum Road. 20 Feb 2007 Adjournment 385

What concerns me is that the QAS has said that it based its decision on the new road network as set out in the Coolum Land Use and Transport Study, which shows a road from South Coolum Road directly onto the motorway. Quite possibly, the QAS was incorrectly advised when it purchased the land, because whilst the site in question was deemed to be compliant with the Land Use and Transport Study, this road link does not appear on a development application currently sitting before Maroochy council. If the QAS had conducted a thorough investigation prior to its purchase of the site, it would have discovered that the site is part of newly designated land under the urban footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan. As such, it has no designated land use other than rural. The consequence is that, if the state government elects to build on the site, it then elects to give the land a designated use and thereby influence all future use. Building on this site will create a precedent that could be used in the Planning and Environment Court, allowing developers to determine the future use of the entire length of disused cane farm land along South Coolum Road. I do not believe that that is fair or honourable. If the state government goes ahead on the proposed site, it will be in direct conflict with the principle behind the South East Queensland Regional Plan and lead to a flow-on effect of undesirable commercial and industrial development on unused cane land in residential areas. Therefore, I request that the minister investigates the basis upon which the decision to purchase this particular site was made. It is not just important but essential that the government’s decision-making processes are based on a correct premise and are open and transparent to scrutiny. The most important factor to be considered in this matter is the saving of lives. We all know that seconds count when an ambulance is in response mode, as it can mean the difference between life and death. There is no time to waste and none to spare. Therefore, I urge the Minister for Emergency Services to immediately review the decision and locate the new Coolum ambulance station to a more suitable site. In closing, I congratulate and thank the Coolum Advertiser and, in particular, Christine Hogan, a long-term Coolum resident and local journalist, for their diligent research and for drawing my attention to the potential problems this decision will create.

Community Living Association Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (9.54 pm): The Community Living Association supports young people with an intellectual or learning difficulty in the transition towards independent living. Last week the association released a compelling research report titled Journeys of exclusion. The report chronicles the life experiences of 43 young people with intellectual disabilities after they left the care and protection of the state. It paints a disturbing picture of abuse, neglect and disadvantage for a group of young people with an average age of just over 20. Some of the more revealing and disturbing statistics include that, of the 43 participants, 29 are female and 17 of them have 26 children between them. In those families, there have been 12 child protection orders and 22 child protection interventions. On average, 2½ years after exiting care 40 per cent had to acquire accommodation in boarding houses and 30 per cent in homeless shelters. Seventeen per cent had been charged with a criminal offence—some of those were very serious offences—and one was in prison. Significantly, over 70 per cent of participants had been the victim of a crime. It is this last statistic that really captures and highlights the vulnerability of the group of young people studied in the report. They are like ships lost at sea and the case to provide them with more support and guidance in their times of need is compelling. The Journeys of exclusion report provides an overview of the research and literature that shows clearly that people with an intellectual disability are especially vulnerable to victimisation and abuse, exploitation, isolation and poverty. However, the real impact of the report lies in the personal life stories of the young people who formed part of the study. They are stories of homelessness, sexual exploitation and assault, loneliness, lack of contact with family members, lack of healthy and supportive relationships, getting involved with manipulative people and drugs. Many of these young people are easily led and, at this transitional stage in their lives, simply do not have the capacity to make informed or rational decisions about their wellbeing. With appropriate levels of support, many can live independent lives and build the skills, resilience and personal relationships needed to enjoy a decent quality of life. The Journeys of exclusion report outlines a number of recommendations to government on the needs of vulnerable young people with intellectual disabilities and how they can make the transition from care to independent living. Key amongst them is the need for some form of program to provide ongoing and transitional support. I hope that this issue will receive due consideration by the government. I commend the report to members of this House. It highlights the plight of an almost forgotten group of people who desperately need our support. 386 Adjournment 20 Feb 2007

Brisbane Road Car Park, Mooloolaba Mr DICKSON (Kawana—Lib) (9.57 pm): With regard to the Brisbane Road car park at Mooloolaba, I can accept that there may have been an error in the process for expressions of interest for the development of the site. However, I cannot accept that this error has not been satisfactorily explained. In January the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Sport, Andrew Fraser, confirmed that he will not grant a retrospective exemption for a process that occurred eight years ago. The Maroochy community is demanding open and transparent local government. Why have they not been informed that, due to the minister’s decision, the contract is dead and what the council now intends to do? Maroochy mayor, Joe Natoli, who was divisional councillor at the time of the car park tender process, ex-CEO of Maroochy council, Kelvin Spiller, former chairman of town planning, Herman Schwabe, and former general manager of town planning, Magdy Youssef, have a lot of explaining to do. They should have monitored the project and ensured that the correct procedure was followed. If this was an error, why wasn’t the council of the day and the Maroochy ratepayers not advised? The following questions need to be answered. One, which council officer or manager was responsible for overseeing the expression of interest process at the material time? Two, who signed off on 16 days for the expression of interest, as opposed to the legal requirement of 21 days? Three, was the chief executive officer consulted? Four, was any councillor past or present involved in the process? Five, was this a once-off oversight or has this error occurred in other expressions of interest? If so, how many times has the mistake been repeated? Six, when was it finally recognised that the expression of interest period was too short? Seven, who recognised the mistake, and what was then done? Eight, was the error immediately reported to the CEO, the mayor or another councillor? If so, who? Nine, when was the full council first advised of the blunder? Ten, was council’s solicitor consulted or outside legal advice sought? Eleven, why has it taken so long for this blunder to emerge? Twelve, has there been a cover- up? Thirteen, when did the council decide to apply to the minister for a retrospective exemption? Fourteen, why was the contract not rescinded or other action taken immediately upon the illegality being identified? Fifteen, why were Maroochy ratepayers not told about this blunder? Councillors cannot comment on this issue as they are bound by a confidentiality contract. However, I must also compliment councillors Paul Tatton, Jenny Mckay, Errol Middlebrook, Zrinka Johnston and Barbara Cansdell for standing up for their community. They should be congratulated by the people they represent. They voted against this contract and they can be trusted. The CMC has been given a copy of these questions and I am sure that the Sunshine Coast community will be waiting with great anticipation for the truth. AusLink Ms van LITSENBURG (Redcliffe—ALP) (9.58 pm): I rise to speak about the AusLink road and rail network and the sad state many of those roads are in. This is despite the commitment that the Labor government has made to improving all of our road and rail systems. The Queensland AusLink road network needs to be brought up to nationally agreed standards to bring it up to the standard of roads in other states. This still leaves our roads well below the national highway standards in other OECD countries. This would be bad enough, but the huge growth that Queensland is experiencing, particularly in the south-east, makes this lack of maintenance and capital funding of road and rail infrastructure not only unsafe but negligent. Urban congestion is a systems-wide issue which needs commitment to a total network approach from all levels of government. During the 2004-05 to 2008-09 funding period, the Queensland government will spend $7.3 billion on road maintenance and infrastructure and a further $2.95 billion on rail. That is a total of $10.25 billion. In this same period, even though it brags about its huge surplus, the federal government funding for AusLink is $15 billion for the whole country. Queensland’s share of this is $268 million. This puny amount allocated to Queensland does not even touch those congested areas around Brisbane, let alone the rest of the state. Given this situation I was very surprised recently when our local federal member, Teresa Gambaro, pushed to spend $500,000 of black spot funding on placing a third set of traffic lights in a single block on a state road that the Queensland government had just announced it would be spending several million dollars on. Obviously the federal member for Petrie does not see upgrading roads as a priority. It is the Beattie Labor government that has commenced the duplication of the Houghton Highway in my electorate which will enable my constituents to travel to and from Brisbane more easily. I thank the minister for transport for his public support for this project. However, to reach their destination, many need to use the Gateway. This is an AusLink road that is in need of upgrading due to the growth of the northern suburbs in recent years. As a result, the Gateway has become a car park during peak periods. The federal government has seen fit to contribute only $8 million of the $1.88 billion required to upgrade the Gateway even though it approved the master plan for the airport, which contributes significant traffic volumes to the Gateway. Time expired. 20 Feb 2007 Adjournment 387

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (10.02 pm): Tonight I speak about the Beattie Labor government’s appalling treatment of staff within the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. The most recent example relates to the establishment of Biosecurity Queensland. The Beattie Labor government has said very little about this new biosecurity agency, which was its one and only primary industries policy during the last state election campaign, and staff are very concerned about how the agency is shaping up. In an article in the Queensland Country Life on 8 February this year, one frustrated DPIF staff member spoke about the disillusionment among ground staff saying, ‘There is a very serious problem facing the future biosecurity of Queensland’s livestock industry with the government’s approach to key staff involved in setting up Biosecurity Queensland.’ Instead of dealing with the criticisms in a mature and accountable way, the response from DPIF management, presumably approved by the minister, was to issue memos warning staff not to speak to the media and labelling the whistleblower as cowardly and in breach of the department’s code of conduct. In May this year I highlighted the fact that at the time only stock inspectors in the south-east region had received vital training on how to use respiratory gear to protect them from bird flu virus with inspectors in the rest of the state left to fend for themselves. Within days the Beattie Labor government had started a witch-hunt to find out who blew the whistle about the lack of training to use the respiratory gear. Who could forget what happened when the coalition leaked details of former primary industries minister Gordon Nuttall’s planned 10-day trade trip to the Americas in late 2005? It was the trip that Premier Beattie personally approved but which never went ahead after sustained parliamentary pressure. Again though, the reaction from the Beattie Labor government was swift. On the same day the CMC was releasing its report recommending that prosecution of Mr Nuttall should be considered, the director-general of the DPIF was issuing a memo to staff to advise them that he had hired a special investigator to help find out who leaked the details about Mr Nuttall’s American trip. Who knows how much this witch-hunt cost because when I asked the question on notice, the minister point-blank refused to answer the question. A lengthy coalition freedom of information battle in 2004 finally uncovered a briefing note which revealed DPIF staff were told to shred documents and wipe from their computer drives any reference to politically sensitive research that revealed that the Beattie Labor government’s vegetation policy would cost landholders as much as $900 million. Then, of course, there have been the many rounds of voluntary early retirements which has led to an exodus of experienced staff. About 300 VERs have been offered since 1998-99. Last year a staff culture survey delivered a damning indictment of the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, with morale plummeting in the wake of repeated budget and staff cuts. Rural Queenslanders inject about $11 billion a year into the state’s economy, but primary industries and the public servants who work to support these industries have been treated with absolute contempt by Labor. It is time the Beattie Labor government stopped shooting the messenger and started taking on board and addressing legitimate concerns and criticisms of hardworking staff at the coalface. Gold Coast City Council; Redistribution of Boundaries Mr GRAY (Gaven—ALP) (10.05 pm): I rise tonight to express my concern with respect to the Gold Coast City Council’s current redistribution of boundaries, particularly the proposals before council for the redistribution of the current division 5, which is contained within the electorate of Gaven. My electorate has two major clusters of residents that have a strong community of interest. At one end of the electorate is the historic township of Nerang. Under the current distribution of boundaries, the township of Nerang is represented by three councillors. The obvious opportunity existed in the current redistribution proposals to bring together the township of Nerang into one division. Not only has this not been proposed, but again Nerang residents will be used to make up the numbers across other divisions. Many strong community groups exist in Nerang and they have worked hard to meld Nerang into a cohesive community. The Nerang Community Association, the Nerang scouts and guides and many sporting, charitable and cultural organisations are but a few. I and many others have worked for the past 20 years to meld together and provide services to the other hub of my electorate, the Helensvale, Pacific Pines, Gaven, Oxenford and Studio Village suburbs. The residents of these suburbs shop at Westfield Helensvale and other local centres. They are serviced by the Helensvale Library, the Helensvale Community Centre and the Helensvale Residents Association and many residents attend the Helensvale senior citizens activities. Again, there are many sporting, cultural and service clubs that support this cohesive community. Under the proposals before the Gold Coast City Council, this large cohesive area is to be split in two with the residents of Helensvale being removed from their links and the service of a single councillor to be linked with the residents of Paradise Point and South Stradbroke Island. These areas, and the wonderful people in them, are not only separated by a lake but also by a major bay channel. Further, the areas do not relate in any current service sense. This is sheer lunacy. These changes fly in the face of 388 Attendance 20 Feb 2007 the community of interest tenet of redistributions. Even worse is the fact that no consultation took place with the affected communities before these proposals were drawn up. I thought that this was an essential requirement of any redistribution proposal. While the process is not yet complete, a valuable opportunity has been lost. Gold Coast City Council residents despair at the actions of their council. I seek leave to table the Gold Coast City Council documents on which my comments are based. Leave granted. Tabled paper: Three electoral boundary review maps for the Gold Coast City Council. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 10.08 pm.

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