PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Tuesday, 14 February 2006

MEMBERS FOR ALGESTER AND MUDGEERABA ...... 1 ASSENT TO BILLS ...... 1 ASSENT TO BILL ...... 1 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) ...... 1 NOTICE PAPER ...... 1 PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCT, SECURITY PLAN ...... 2 MOTION OF CONDOLENCE ...... 2 Death of Mr J Melloy ...... 2 PETITIONS ...... 6 PAPERS ...... 6 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 9 Changes in Ministry ...... 9 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 10 State of the State ...... 10 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 13 Queensland Economy ...... 13 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 15 Multiculturalism ...... 15 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 15 Health System ...... 15 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 16 Ministerial Expenses ...... 16 SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE ...... 16 Report ...... 16 OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION ...... 16 Report of Expenses ...... 16 OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY ...... 17 Report of Expenses ...... 17 PRIVILEGE ...... 17 Private Members’ Statements ...... 17

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2006 Table of Contents — Tuesday, 14 February 2006

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 17 Health System ...... 17 Doctor Graduates ...... 18 Coalition Agreement ...... 18 Doctor Graduates ...... 19 Three-Cornered Contests ...... 19 Doctor Graduates ...... 20 Coalition Shadow Ministry ...... 21 Ambulance Levy, Mareeba ...... 21 Nurses ...... 22 Doctor Graduates ...... 23 PRIVILEGE ...... 23 Queensland Treasurer ...... 23 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 24 Multiculturalism ...... 24 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 24 Federal Industrial Relations Legislation ...... 25 Tarong Power Station ...... 26 Young Drivers ...... 26 Queensland Health ...... 27 Foster-Carers ...... 27 Queensland Health ...... 28 MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ...... 29 Health System ...... 29 Bundaberg Base Hospital ...... 30 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 31 Member for Robina ...... 32 Nursing Home Places ...... 32 Coalition Water Policy ...... 33 Burdekin Falls Dam ...... 34 Doctor Graduates ...... 35 Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer ...... 36 Nursing Registration; Environmental Protection Agency ...... 37 Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department ...... 38 Road and Rail Infrastructure ...... 39 BREAKWATER ISLAND CASINO AGREEMENT AMENDMENT ...... 39 First Reading ...... 39 Second Reading ...... 39 INALA SHOPPING CENTRE FREEHOLDING BILL ...... 42 First Reading ...... 42 Second Reading ...... 42 RETIREMENT VILLAGES AMENDMENT BILL ...... 43 First Reading ...... 43 Second Reading ...... 44 CHILD EMPLOYMENT BILL ...... 46 Second Reading ...... 46 SUCCESSION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 68 Second Reading ...... 68 Consideration in Detail ...... 79 Third Reading ...... 80 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 80 REVOCATION OF MARINE PARK ...... 80 ADJOURNMENT ...... 87 Gladstone Harbour Oil Spill ...... 87 Disability Services ...... 88 Water Charges, Lockyer ...... 89 Proserpine Hospital ...... 89 Mooloolaba Spit ...... 90 Sams, Mrs Diane ...... 90 Currumbin Electorate, Youth Community Spirit Awards ...... 91 Miami State High School ...... 91 Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Football Federation ...... 92 Cooktown, Sealed Road ...... 92 14 Feb 2006 Legislative Assembly 1 TUESDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2006

Legislative Assembly Mr SPEAKER (Hon. T McGrady, Mount Isa) read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 am.

MEMBERS FOR ALGESTER AND MUDGEERABA Mr SPEAKER: I wish all honourable members a very happy St Valentine’s Day. I am sure that there will be love and affection from both sides of the chamber. Honourable members, please join with me in welcoming back to parliament and congratulating our two new mums—Karen Struthers, the member for Algester, who had a son, Alexander, and Di Reilly, who had a daughter, Annika.

ASSENT TO BILLS

GOVERNMENT HOUSE QUEENSLAND 9 December 2005 The Honourable A McGrady, 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: 8 December "A Bill for An Act to amend particular Acts administered by the Minister for Transport, and for other purposes." "A Bill for An Act to amend the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1963." "A Bill for An Act to amend the Plant Protection Act 1989, and for other purposes." "A Bill for An Act authorising the Treasurer to pay amounts from the consolidated fund for departments for the financial year starting 1 July 2004." "A Bill for An Act to authorise preventative detention in connection with terrorist acts, and for other purposes." "A Bill for An Act to provide water efficiency labelling and the making of water efficiency standards." "A Bill for An Act to amend legislation administered by the Attorney-General, and for other purposes." "A Bill for An Act to amend legislation about natural resources, and for other purposes." The Bills are hereby transmitted to the Legislative Assembly, to be numbered and forwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment, in the manner required by law. Yours sincerely (sgd) Governor

ASSENT TO BILL

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have to report that on Thursday, 8 December 2005 I presented to Her Excellency the Governor Appropriation Bill (No. 2) for royal assent and that Her Excellency was pleased, in my presence, to subscribe her assent thereto in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty.

NOTICE PAPER Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, a new Notice Paper has been produced today. It combines information previously contained in two separate documents—the Notice Paper and the Daily Program. The Notice Paper is now the only agenda document for the business of the House. The new Notice Paper incorporates the sitting program and contains more detailed information about the orders of the day. The electronic version of the Notice Paper provides links to bills, explanatory memoranda and debates. This is part of an initiative to deliver more modern, user-friendly and integrated documents relating to proceedings of the House. It has only occurred following extensive consultation with honourable members and other stakeholders, who supported the proposal. The Clerk and I welcome further feedback from members about the new Notice Paper. 2 Motion of Condolence 14 Feb 2006

PARLIAMENTARY PRECINCT, SECURITY PLAN Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have issued a memorandum to all honourable members advising that I have approved a revised general security plan. As part of implementing the revised general security plan all existing parliamentary access cards are to be replaced. The effect is to reduce the number of access cards on issue to those with a frequent need to access the parliamentary precinct. The general security plan sets out my policy decision about who can be issued with a parliamentary access card and the access permissions for particular categories of access card. I remind honourable members that all current access cards must be returned by this Friday, 17 February, when existing cards will be deactivated. I trust that all members will appreciate the need for this course of action. I ask all honourable members to arrange for access cards to be replaced by the end of the week.

MOTION OF CONDOLENCE

Death of Mr J Melloy Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.35 am), by leave, without notice: I move— 1. That this House desires to place on record its appreciation of the services rendered to this state by the late John Melloy, a former member of the Parliament of Queensland. 2. That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to the family of the deceased gentleman the above resolution, together with an expression of the sympathy and sorrow of the members of the Parliament of Queensland, in the loss they have sustained. Mr John Melloy, or Jack as he was better known, was born on 10 November 1908 in Brisbane and educated at Brisbane state primary and secondary schools. He was a dental technician from 1924 to 1950. He married Elizabeth Maude Garner in 1933. Following his service in the Australian Army Dental Corps as staff sergeant from 1942 to 1946, Mr Melloy went on to work as a trade union organiser, an Industrial Court advocate and an air cargo officer. He was the founding president of the Dental Technicians Association of Queensland, which was formed in 1958, and became a life member of this association. Mr Melloy was the president of the Australian Labor Party branches at Banyo, Wavell Heights and Buranda. He was also president of the Bowman federal district executive from 1948 to 1950, vice-president of the Griffith federal district executive from 1952 to 1954 and president of the Lilley federal district executive from 1955 to 1957. Following a long relationship with the Australian Labor Party, on 28 May 1960 Mr Melloy was elected as the member for Nudgee at the state election. In his maiden speech in this House on 23 August 1960 Mr Melloy registered the complaints of local farmers, including the proposal to relocate the Brisbane Markets to their current site at Rocklea and the need for reticulated water in the Nudgee district as farmers had to cart water for their crops and household requirements. He also argued for the need for a commission of inquiry into the meat industry, criticising the high cost of meat, particularly in Brisbane. Mr Melloy was a member of a parliamentary delegation to Japan and South-East Asia in 1972 and was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 1975 to 1976. Prior to his retirement on 12 November 1977 Mr Melloy was also a delegate to both the Australian Constitutional Convention and the Australian Regional Conference of the Australasian Parliamentary Association. Mr Melloy’s funeral service was held on 11 January 2006 at Metropolitan Funerals, Aspley. I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy and that of this House to his children and their families. Mr Speaker, I knew Jack Melloy very well as many others in this House did, including you. He could be defined by that Australian colloquialism as a good bloke. He was a very decent man. One of the things that I admired about him was that he was one of those many Labor members who spent years in the wilderness as they never formed government. He was one of those members who was elected in 1960 and retired in 1977 and who never had the good fortune to serve in a Labor government. That, of course, was one of the disappointments that they all felt. He was loyal as the deputy and he was also one of those people who kept the fire burning, the light burning. He never gave up the faith. He never gave up his belief in the Labor Party and what it stood for. I recall when Dr Dennis Murphy and I were involved in the reform of the Labor Party. It was a difficult and traumatic time for the party, as many members will recall. Jack Melloy was one of those decent people who always held the Labor view. He was very much like the Leader of the House’s father, Evan Schwarten. He did not agree with everything that I did when I was one of the reform leaders, but, nevertheless, his heart was with the Labor Party. The same goes for Jack Melloy. He certainly kept that flame burning. He was one of the people who did it the Labor way and he is one of the people that this Labor government is very proud of. 14 Feb 2006 Motion of Condolence 3

Elaine Darling, his daughter, was a very successful federal member of parliament. Vicky Darling, his granddaughter, works in my office as one of my policy advisers and is one of my best. I know that they will be sadly missing their father and grandfather. Elaine’s sister was a candidate as well. I know his family will be missing him. I simply say that the Labor family loved him and will miss him, too. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.39 am): John—or Jack—Melloy was born on 10 November 1908 in Brisbane. He died in Redcliffe on 6 January 2006—not a bad innings, I would say, by any set of circumstances at 98 years of age. He was the son of Charles Frederick and Ada Louisa Crampton. On 24 June 1933 he married Elizabeth, better known as Maude, Garner, who sadly passed away in 1997. Again, there was a long and devoted marriage between Jack and Maude dating some 64 years. They had two sons and five daughters. One daughter is Elaine Darling, the former member of the House of Representatives for the federal seat of Lilley. He was educated at Brisbane state primary and secondary schools. Jack Melloy was a dental technician by profession and was founding president and life member of the Dental Technicians Association of Queensland. He acted as the union representative on various dental committees. He served as staff sergeant for the Australian Army Dental Corps from 1942 to 1946 and after the war years he worked for two years as organiser and Industrial Court advocate for the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union. Jack Melloy joined the Australian Labor Party in 1922 and was a very active campaigner, having held more than 20 ALP campaign and organisational positions during his membership time. He was president of the Banyo, Wavell Heights and Buranda branches of the ALP. He also served as president to the party’s Bowman federal district executive and Griffith federal district executive. Jack Melloy sought election into local government and federal government, but in 1960 he successfully won the state seat of Nudgee for the ALP and held the Nudgee seat until his retirement in 1977. He was made a life member of the ALP in 1984. As a trained dental technician, Jack Melloy served as the shadow minister for health from 1967 to 1972 and he was a strong advocate for better dental services and a better hospital system. In 1974, after a disastrous Labor campaign which saw the Labor Party holding only 11 seats in the state parliament, Jack Melloy successfully beat Keith Wright and former Labor leader Jack Houston in a three-way tussle for the party’s deputy leadership. Jack Melloy was deputy leader to Tom Burns from 1974 to 1976 during one of the Labor Party’s darkest times numberswise in state parliament. He served as Deputy Leader of the Opposition from 1974 to 1976. He was a delegate to the Australian Regional Conference of the Australasian Parliament Association in 1977 and in the same year he was a delegate to the Australian Constitutional Convention. Whilst Jack Melloy retired from the state parliamentary scene in 1977, he was still actively involved in politics all his life. In 1980 he assisted his daughter Elaine Darling to win the federal seat of Lilley, a seat which he himself had sought back in the 1950s. His children have been active in state politics and some of them have sought elected representation or have held executive positions within the ALP organisation. Jack Melloy has been described as a dedicated and trusted old-style Labor man who was a persistent campaigner and a loving family man. Tom Burns was quoted in the Courier-Mail on 7 January as saying— Jack Melloy was the sort of bloke you could trust—in politics that’s not always there. One of my staff members who has been around on the political scene for a fair while said to me this morning that she could remember Jack Melloy from the time when she was very young. She described him as a great old bloke, a real gentleman. I think that seems to be the general feeling about Jack Melloy that I have heard from the people I have spoken to. Jack Melloy is survived by his children John, Elaine, Lynette, Carol, Noela, Geoffrey and Christine. On behalf of the opposition, I pass on our condolences to his family. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (9.43 am): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I rise today to pass on to the family and friends of the late John ‘Jack’ Melloy our sincere sympathies for their sad loss. Jack Melloy was born in Brisbane on 10 November 1908. His parents were Charles Frederick, who was an English engineer and seaman, and Ada Louisa Crampton. Jack was educated in Brisbane and, after leaving high school, became a dental technician. Dental health was a passion of Jack’s and, as a member of parliament, he constantly questioned the lack of funding in the state’s dental services. Jack was the founding president, secretary and subsequent life member of the Dental Technicians Association of Queensland and served as the union representative on various dental committees. He also served as a staff sergeant in the Australian Dental Corps during the Second World War. On 24 June 1933 he married Elizabeth Maude Garner. It was a marriage that lasted until Maude’s death in 1997. They had two sons and five daughters. Jack worked as a trade union organiser and Industrial Court advocate in the early fifties and was an air cargo officer from 1956 to 1960. Jack Melloy, above everything else, was a Labor Party man. He joined the ALP as a 14-year-old and held more than 20 campaign and party positions throughout his life. He first ran for public office as a councillor in 1949 but was unsuccessful. He twice failed to win the federal seat of Lilley in 1955 and 1958. Jack finally won the state seat of Nudgee in 1960, beating future 4 Motion of Condolence 14 Feb 2006 lord mayor Frank Sleeman in preselection, and I believe the Hon. Rob Schwarten’s father, Evan, was on that preselection committee. Jack served as the state member for Nudgee from 1960 until his retirement in 1977. His maiden speech was a passionate one and its concluding line was— So the day will come when the people of Australia will thank heaven for the existence of the Australian Labor Party. Now, I do not necessarily agree with that statement and its sentiment, but it indicated his deep belief and commitment to his party, something that I think people would appreciate. Jack served as the shadow minister for health and was the ‘vice-captain’, so to speak, of the 11 representatives from the Labor Party from 1974 until his retirement. He was a vocal spokesperson for health issues in Queensland, but the moment that grabbed him the biggest headline was in 1975 when he was reprimanded by the Speaker for wearing a short-sleeved safari suit—those icons of Queensland at that time—and was rather unkindly labelled by the former member for Townsville South as a ‘hippie’ and a ‘bagman’. After his retirement Jack worked tirelessly on ALP campaigns, and working on his children’s campaigns when they ran for office must have been some of his proudest moments. In 1980 his daughter Elaine won the seat of Lilley, the seat he had run for and lost twice in the 1950s. Jack was awarded ALP life membership in 1984 and worked on polling booths right up to the last state election campaign in 2004. Jack Melloy made a substantial contribution to this state and is an example to politicians of all persuasions with his commitment, dedication and passion for what he believed in. Jack is survived by his seven children. My colleagues and I join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in extending our sympathies to his family and friends. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (9.47 am): It is a privilege to speak to this condolence motion for Jack Melloy, who served as the member for Nudgee from 28 May 1960 to 12 November 1977. At the outset and on behalf of my constituents, I want to pass on our condolences to Jack’s very large extended family, many of whom are with us here in the gallery today. Jack Melloy was a thorough gentleman and a great advocate for his constituents. He is well remembered for his relentless campaigning for improved conditions in our public hospital system. He was a staunch defender of workers rights and was justifiably proud of the many personal representations he made in an endeavour to improve the lot of many of his constituents. Jack’s first speech gives a good insight into the priorities he had for his electorate. He raised concerns about the plight of farming communities, industry development issues, the impacts on families of rising meat prices and the cost of housing. He also talked about housing shortages and the impact this had on poor families. In short, Jack was a member for the battlers and he faithfully pursued this objective throughout his 17 years in this chamber. During his term as a member of parliament, Jack achieved the high honour of serving as the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party under Tom Burns. He also served as shadow minister for health and police and was chairman of the ALP parliamentary health committee. He played an active role in internal party politics, having first joined the Kangaroo Point branch of the Labor Party in 1927. Up until his death he had 78 continuous years membership of the party. Jack’s contribution to the Labor Party was recognised some years ago when he was awarded a prestigious life membership. Jack’s extended family is steeped in Labor politics. His daughters Elaine Darling and Lyn Kally have served as elected members—Elaine as the federal member for Lilley and also as a councillor on the Caloundra City Council and Lyn as a councillor on the Esk Shire Council. Jack’s daughter Noela Pemberton and his granddaughter Liz Pommer have also run as endorsed candidates at state and local authority elections. Other family members, including Christine Melloy, John Melloy, Geoff Melloy, Carol Dyer and granddaughter Vicki Darling, have also been active participants in the political arena at various levels. I vividly recall my first meeting with Jack. It was an otherwise uneventful Saturday morning in 1976 when I answered a knock on my parents’ front door in Banyo. I was greeted by a local ALP branch official who told me that, as a member of an ALP affiliated union, I was eligible to vote in a preselection ballot to select the party’s next candidate for Nudgee. Excited by the prospect of participating in such an event, I drove to a residence in Walton Street, Banyo, and there to greet me was a somewhat distinguished gentleman with a good handshake and a welcoming smile. It was, of course, Jack Melloy, who was in his final year of public life. History records that Ken Vaughan won that preselection ballot and, as fate would have it, I joined the party some four years later and went on to succeed Ken a little over 17 years later when he, too, retired as the member for Nudgee. Jack Melloy was a true Labor stalwart. Many of his achievements and contributions to public life have been well documented here today. I want to add just a few of the personal experiences I had with Jack during my time as the member for Nudgee. Jack loved political life. He lived it right up until his death at the age of 97. He was always fond of telling stories about his early political initiation, campaigning with his father on election day. Jack would always enjoy telling how, as a five-year-old, he would stand outside polling booths waving a red flag at passers-by and handing out the Labor candidate’s how-to-vote card. 14 Feb 2006 Motion of Condolence 5

Jack could best be described as a dapper dresser. On most occasions he wore a suit and hat and pioneered the wearing of the infamous safari suits in this parliament—an event which stimulated the ire of the Speaker, causing Jack to be ejected. He loved the old-style campaigning techniques of street meetings and doorknocking. Ken Vaughan vividly recalls one street meeting outside the shopping centre at Geebung. Jack wanted to alert the entire neighbourhood situated on the hill behind the shops that he was campaigning in their area. So he turned up the volume of his PA system to high and proceeded to blast the shops and the neighbourhood with Labor Party policy on all sorts of issues. It was so loud that a number of shopkeepers and local residents came out of the shops shaking their fists and shouting at him to turn it down. Ken says they packed up the gear quick smart and moved to another location hoping that they had not lost too many votes in the process. Jack worked on every one of my election campaigns. His favourite booth was at Nudgee State School and we always rostered him on for a morning and afternoon session, which he looked forward to with gusto. Unbeknown to Jack, we would always ensure that we had additional booth workers on duty when he was doing his roster. That was no reflection on Jack’s capacity to do the job; it was simply that he was so well known and respected that he would inevitably be drawn into long conversations with local residents which limited his ability to hand out how-to-vote cards. One of the most frightening experiences I had with Jack was on polling day during the 2004 state election. I was at the Nudgee State School booth just before the close of the poll and to my horror I looked up and saw Jack jogging—almost running—towards the booth looking quite distressed. I raced to meet him and through gasping breath he explained that he had forgotten to vote and as he could not find his car keys he had chosen to run all the way from home to the polling booth so that he would not miss out—a distance of well over a kilometre. Thankfully, he got inside just before closing time. It was within a few short weeks of this incident that I found myself visiting Jack in Prince Charles Hospital. He had suffered a mild heart attack and had been fitted with a new pacemaker. At the time I wondered whether the great effort he had made to cast his vote had contributed to this misfortune. My other fond memory of Jack was his love of visiting Parliament House. He loved this place and the people who worked here, particularly the catering staff. He made regular visits for many years just to catch up and have a chat with his old friends. For a period of several months one year he made a habit of wanting to meet with me for coffee in the Parliament House cafeteria. On numerous occasions, invariably during question time, an attendant would pass me a note from Jack saying that he was waiting in the cafeteria to have a cup of coffee. As members will appreciate, party whips are not too impressed with members who absent themselves from the House for lengthy periods, particularly during question time. But I had a duty to fulfil. On every occasion I received Jack’s note I would quietly slip out through the back of the chamber and go and have a quick cuppa and a chat with him. He loved it and I am glad I made the effort to do that while he was still healthy enough to visit this place. These are just a few of my memories of Jack Melloy: a great Queenslander, a great politician, a father, a family man and a friend to so many people. On behalf of the constituents of the Nudgee electorate, I again pass on my condolences to Jack’s family and record again our recognition of the great contributions Jack made as the state member for Nudgee and as the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party. May he rest in peace. Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (9.53 am): It is with great honour that I join my parliamentary colleagues today to pay tribute to a man who made a difference in our community. Mr Jack Melloy is remembered fondly by those who knew him. He was a gentle man, a devoted husband and father of seven children, a distinguished and honourable member of this House, and a hardworking member for his community throughout all of his adult life. The Melloy legacy continues to live on through Jack’s descendants, including his son John and his wife, Pamela, who reside in the Sandgate community. The next generation in granddaughter Vicky Darling and her husband, John McDermott, and their two young children, who also reside in the Sandgate electorate, gives reassurance that Jack Melloy’s legacy continues on through the generations. Many of Jack’s descendants have inherited his special characteristics, including his passionate concern for the worker and for those who are less fortunate in our society. The Labor Party is richer for the contribution made by Jack and this continues with his children and grandchildren making significant contributions in their own way to the Labor Party movement and to the communities in which they live. Our world is richer for Jack Melloy being an important part of it for 97 years. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (9.56 am): Jack Melloy’s electorate encompassed part of the seat of Nundah to which I was elected in 1991, but most of my contact was with two of his children, Elaine and Noela. Jack, always the thorough gentleman, is fondly remembered by community groups, individual constituents whom he helped and branch members. At his funeral, which I attended, his family and friends spoke affectionately of their father. I pass on my condolences to his family. Motion agreed to, honourable members standing in silence. 6 Papers 14 Feb 2006

PETITIONS

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

North South Bypass Tunnel Ms Bligh from 485 petitioners requesting the House to oppose the proposal by the Brisbane City Council to construct an unfiltered road tunnel, currently described as the North South Bypass Tunnel as part of TransApex.

Mount Cotton Quarry Mr English from 1,184 petitioners requesting the House to: not approve the inclusion of the drafted new quarry operation known as Key Resource Area 71 for Mt Cotton; not approve any expansion of the existing Mt Cotton Quarry operation in the State Development Plan; and to consider permanently preserving for the heritage of Queensland the 200 hectare property 195-203 Gramzow Road (Mt Cotton).

Adoption of Children Act 1964 Mr English from 333 petitioners requesting the House to ensure that sections 39AA, 39B, 39C and 39D of the Adoption of Children Act 1964 are included in the current review of the Act to allow Queenslanders affected by these laws an opportunity to seek fairness and balance in the legislation and condemns the current barbaric legislation that is harsher and more restrictive than legislation operating in any other Australian jurisdiction.

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 December 2005— • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Sullivan from 280 petitioners regarding the international campaign against whaling 13 December 2005— • Response from the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General (Mrs Lavarch) to a paper petition presented by Ms Bligh from 23 petitioners regarding anti-terrorism legislation • Mental Health Court—Annual Report 2004-05 • Murray-Darling Basin Commission—Annual Report 2004-05 15 December 2005— • Response from the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development (Mrs Keech) to a paper petition presented by Mrs Scott from 30 petitioners regarding the Board of Directors of the Logan and District Services Club 16 December 2005— • Letter, dated 15 December 2005, from the Premier and Treasurer (Mr Beattie) to the Clerk of the Parliament enclosing a copy of a letter from the Commonwealth Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties listing the proposed international treaty actions tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 29 November 2005 and the National Interest Analyses for the proposed treaty actions listed • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Ms Lee Long from 1033 petitioners regarding the Kuranda Range Road upgrade 20 December 2005— • Report by the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing (Mr Schwarten) on an overseas Trade Delegation to the United Arab Emirates from 14-20 November 2005 21 December 2005— • Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Research Foundation—Annual Report 2004-05 • Childrens Court of Queensland—Annual Report 2004-05 • Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee—Report No. 52—Meeting with the Queensland Ombudsman; Meeting with the Queensland Information Commissioner—29 November 2005 • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Mr Wellington from 312 petitioners regarding the Kenilworth—Eumundi Road • Report by the Deputy Premier (Ms Bligh) on an overseas Trade Mission to the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Russia and Germany—10-21 November 2005 22 December 2005— • Magistrates Court—Annual Report 2004-05 • District Court of Queensland—Annual Report 2004-05 • Office of the Public Advocate Queensland—Annual Report 2004-05 • Office of the Adult Guardian—Annual Report 2004-05 • Guardianship and Administration Tribunal—Annual Report 2004-05 • Response from the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to a paper petition presented by Ms Lee Long from 1364 petitioners concerning the deaths of Mrs Vicki Arnold and Julie-Anne Leahy 23 December 2005— • Priorities in Progress Report 2004-05 • Health Rights Commission—Annual Report 2004-05 and late tabling statement • Townsville Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2004-05 and late tabling statement 14 Feb 2006 Papers 7

4 January 2006— • Response from the Premier and Treasurer (Mr Beattie) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Finn from 892 petitioners regarding fuel prices in Queensland • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Miss Roberts from 958 petitioners regarding proposed routes for a new highway between Cooroy and Curra • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to an E-petition sponsored by Ms Jarratt from 107 petitioners regarding a request for consultation with the Whitsunday community in relation to the proposed installation of traffic lights on Shute Harbour Road • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Ms Male from 404 petitioners regarding a request to upgrade the main road west of Conondale • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Ms Jarratt from 1403 petitioners regarding a request for consultation with the Whitsunday community in relation to the proposed installation of traffic lights on Shute Harbour Road 6 January 2006— • Response from the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines (Mr Palaszczuk) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Shine from 182 petitioners regarding the proposed use of treated sewerage wastewater in the State’s water supply • Interim government response from the Acting Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Ms Bligh) to Select Committee on Travelsafe Report No. 43—Driving on Empty: Fatigue driving in Queensland 9 January 2006— • Redcliffe Hospital Foundation—Annual Report 2004-05 • Late tabling statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) regarding the Redcliffe Hospital Foundation Annual Report 2004-05 10 January 2006— • Response from the Acting Premier and Treasurer (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Mr English from 16 petitioners regarding daylight savings policy 12 January 2006— • Response from the Acting Premier and Treasurer (Ms Bligh) to a paper petition presented by Mr Wellington from 273 petitioners regarding a request to remove the investigation area at Bridges (Yandina) from the South East Queensland Regional Plan 16 January 2006— • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to a paper petition presented by Miss Simpson from 3123 petitioners and an E-petition sponsored by Miss Simpson from 289 petitioners regarding the intersection of David Low Way, Menzies Drive and Mudjimba Beach Road at Pacific Paradise 18 January 2006— • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to two paper petitions presented by Mr Caltabiano from 57 and 70 petitioners regarding the TradeCoast Central development application and a proposal to construct an access ramp from the Gateway Motorway at Hendra • Response from the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Lucas) to an e-petition sponsored by Mr Hayward from 55 petitioners regarding staffing in the Department of Main Roads 19 January 2006— • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to two paper petitions presented by Mr Pitt from 78 and 34 petitioners regarding flying foxes in Edmonton • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to an e-petition sponsored by Dr Flegg from 20 petitioners regarding the National Trust of Queensland Act 1963 • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to an e-petition sponsored by Dr Flegg from 43 petitioners regarding Little Goat Island • Erratum to the Explanatory Notes to the Property Agents and Motor Dealers and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2005 tabled on 29 November 2005 20 January 2006— • Response from the Minister for Health (Mr Robertson) to a paper petition presented by Mr McArdle from 51 petitioners regarding the effects of Myodil and a request for action to assist sufferers 31 January 2006— • ANZ Executors and Trustee Company Limited and its Controlled Entity—Financial Report for the year ended 30 September 2005 1 February 2006— • Statement of Reasons pursuant to s138(4) for the exercise of powers with respect to water under s138(1) of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 in relation to the Moranbah Pipeline Projects • Response from the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations (Mr Barton) to a paper petition presented by Mr Lingard from 752 petitioners and an e-petition sponsored by Mr Lingard from 45 petitioners regarding metal trade stacks at Yeronga TAFE, Park Road campus 7 February 2006— • Response from the Minister for Police and Corrective Services (Ms Spence) to two a paper petitions presented by Mr Wellington from 1869 and 1431 petitioners requesting an increase in the police presence in the Nambour CBD and the establishment of a 24 hour police beat 8 February 2006— • Report on an overseas trip by the Minister for Education and the Arts (Mr Welford)—Queensland Ministerial Mission for Education and the Arts, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Italy, Germany 2005 Report, 7 to 16 December 2005 13 February 2006— • Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions—Annual Report 2004-05 8 Papers 14 Feb 2006

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS The following statutory instruments were tabled by the Clerk— Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000— • Commission for Children and Young People Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 303 and Explanatory Notes for No. 303 Terrorism (Preventative Detention) Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 306 Land Tax Act 1915— • Land Tax Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 307 Electrical Safety Act 2002, Queensland Building Services Authority Act 1991, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— • Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 308 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statements for No. 308 Public Records Act 2002— • Public Records Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 309 Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004, Education (Accreditation of Non-State Schools) Act 2001, Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, Public Service Act 1996, Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982— • Education and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 310 Youth Participation in Education and Training Act 2003— • Youth Participation in Education and Training Regulation 2005, No. 311 Education (General Provisions) Act 1989— • Education (General Provisions) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 312 Youth Participation in Education and Training and Another Act Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 313 Health Act 1937— • Health (Drugs and Poisons) Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 314 Building Act 1975— • Standard Building Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2005, No. 315 and Explanatory Notes for No. 315 Child Care Act 2002— • Child Care Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 316 and Explanatory Notes for No. 316 Liquor Act 1992— • Liquor Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 317 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 318 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 319 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 320 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Amendment Regulation (No. 4) 2005, No. 321 Environmental Protection Act 1994— • Environmental Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 322 Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002— • Plumbing and Drainage Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 323 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991— • Uniform Civil Procedure Amendment Rule (No. 4) 2005, No. 324 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991— • Uniform Civil Procedure Amendment Rule (No. 5) 2005, No. 325 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973, Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2003, Electoral Act 1992, Evidence Act 1977, Freedom of Information Act 1992, Integrated Planning Act 1997, Justices Act 1886, Justices of the Peace and Commissioners for Declarations Act 1991, Land Court Act 2000, Property Law Act 1974, Recording of Evidence Act 1962, Small Claims Tribunals Act 1973, Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991— • Justice and Other Legislation (Costs and Fees) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 326 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— • Transport Operations (Marine Safety-Examining and Training Program Approvals (Recreational Ships and Personal Watercraft)) Standard 2005, No. 327 and Explanatory Notes for No. 327 Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994— • Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 328 and Explanatory Notes for No. 328 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994, Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995— • Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Regulation 2005, No. 329 and Explanatory Notes and Regulatory Impact Statement for No. 329 Nature Conservation Act 1992— • Nature Conservation Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 330 14 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 9

Stock Act 1915— • Stock Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 2005, No. 331 Plant Protection Act 1989— • Plant Protection Amendment Regulation (No. 3) 2005, No. 332 Sugar Industry Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 333 Water Act 2000, State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999— • Water and Other Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2005, No. 334 and Explanatory Notes for No. 334 Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995— • Workplace Health and Safety (Codes of Practice) Amendment Notice (No. 4) 2005, No. 335 Wagering Act 1998— • Wagering Amendment Rule (No. 1) 2005, No. 1 Transport and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 2 Transport Legislation Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing certain provision, No. 3 Transport Infrastructure Act 1994— • Transport Infrastructure (State-controlled Roads) Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 4 Health Services Act 1991, Occupational Therapists Registration Act 2001— • Health Legislation Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 5 Natural Resources and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing remaining provisions, No. 6 Valuers Registration Act 1992— • Valuers Registration Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 7 Fair Trading Act 1989— • Fair Trading Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 8 Justice and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2005— • Proclamation commencing certain provisions, No. 9 Rural and Regional Adjustment Act 1994— • Rural and Regional Adjustment Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 10 Duties Act 2001— • Duties Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 11 Integrated Planning Act 1997— • Integrated Planning Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2006, No. 12 Central Queensland University Act 1998— • Central Queensland University Statute No. 1 (Membership of Convocation) Repeal Statute 2005 Central Queensland University Act 1998— • Central Queensland University Statute No. 2 (Conduct of Council Elections) Repeal Statute 2005 PAPER TABLED BY THE CLERK The following paper was tabled by the Clerk— Member for Barron River (Dr Clark)— • Report on Parliamentary Gender Workshops held in Papua New Guinea and Tonga

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Changes in Ministry Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.59 am): I table for the House the Queensland Government Gazette setting out changes in ministry, appointments of parliamentary secretaries and administrative arrangements. I seek to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. I wish to inform the House that, on 2 February 2006, Her Excellency the Governor— (a) Accepted the resignations of— The Honourable PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE, as Premier and Treasurer; The Honourable ANNA MARIA BLIGH, as Deputy Premier and Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation; The Honourable THOMAS ALFRED BARTON, as Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations; and The Honourable HENRY PALASZCZUK, as Minister for Natural Resources and Mines. and 10 Ministerial Statement 14 Feb 2006

(b) Appointed— The Honourable PETER DOUGLAS BEATTIE, to be Premier; The Honourable ANNA MARIA BLIGH, to be Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation; The Honourable THOMAS ALFRED BARTON, to be Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport; and The Honourable HENRY PALASZCZUK, to be Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Water. I also inform the House that in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001, Her Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council, appointed— Karen Lee Struthers MP to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport; Lindy Helena Nelson-Carr MP to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier in North Queensland and to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads; Neil Stuart Roberts MP to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation; and Andrew Peter Fraser MP to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier and to the Minister for Health. Finally, I wish to inform the House that, in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001, Her Excellency the Governor, acting by and with the advice of the Executive Council, approved Administrative Arrangements Order (No. 1) 2006.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

State of the State Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.59 am): On this—the first day of parliament for 2006—I think it is important to look at the current position of our great state and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. This is an assessment of the state of the state. There can be no doubt we are currently experiencing the most sustained period of growth and prosperity ever recorded in our state’s history. The economy is booming. It is stronger than at any other time in recent history and stronger than any other state in Australia. Our economic growth rate this financial year is forecast to be 4¼ per cent—easily eclipsing the national figure of three per cent. Consumer and business confidence is high, and so it should be. The most recent edition of the Deloitte Queensland Stock Index reveals that in December the total capitalisation of Queensland listed companies on the Australian Stock Exchange grew by $1.1 billion to a staggering $40.7 billion. Mr Speaker, there is even better news. I can also reveal today to parliament a major multimillion- dollar announcement that has been made this morning that reinforces our reputation as a hub for business and industry. Queensland Rail has signalled its intention to undertake expansion of its freight business through the acquisition of almost all of the above rail assets of the Australian Railroad Group, ARG. Under the terms of the $446.5 million deal, QR will purchase ARG’s above-rail assets such as rolling stock, terminals, yards, depots and customer contracts in Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia. In other words, QR has gone national. ARG is jointly owned by Wesfarmers and United States based Genesee Wyoming. If QR is to survive, prosper and continue to contribute healthy dividends back to Queensland taxpayers, it must look beyond traditional state borders. This deal will mean QR can offer customers a world-class freight service that runs across Australia from the west coast to the east coast. With this acquisition, QR will become one of the major rail freight organisations in Australia—delivering a range of flow-on benefits to our economy. When I was secretary of the Queensland Railway Station Officers Union 28 years ago, I had a vision that QR had to go national to survive. It is a vision shared by the transport minister, Paul Lucas, and by QR. Let me make this point: if we do not go national, third-party access will ensure that we will lose jobs in Queensland Rail in the future. This is about job security for Queenslanders, and my government has delivered it. I want to make this point and I want to make it very clear: the $446.5 million that I mentioned will be borrowed and therefore it will be serviced out of the venture itself. So there will be no money going out of health or education. This will be self-funding, and that is the beauty of it. We see Toll’s and Patrick’s argument. But instead of having one private monopoly operating in Australia, we will have QR operating on a competitive basis. That is the strong vision that this Labor government has had for Queensland and we are delivering. I seek leave to incorporate details of the announcement in Hansard. Leave granted. 14 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 11

QR TO UNDERTAKE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR FREIGHT EXPANSION QR (Queensland Rail) will undertake a multi million dollar expansion of its freight business announcing today it intended to acquire almost all of the above rail assets of the Australian Railroad Group (ARG). Under the terms of the $446.5 million deal, QR will purchase ARG’s above rail assets such as rolling stock, terminals, yards, depots and customer contracts in Western Australia, New South Wales and South Australia. ARG is jointly owned by Wesfarmers and United States based Genesee Wyoming. In a separate announcement today investment bank Babcock and Brown indicated it will acquire ARG’s below rail assets in Western Australia. QR has entered into a long term access agreement with Babcock and Brown. Premier Peter Beattie said QR would now offer customers a world-class freight service that ran across Australia from the west coast to the east coast. "The Australian rail industry has changed substantially providing QR with opportunities to expand its freight business interstate and ensure the organisation’s continuing viability and value in the long term," Mr Beattie said. "If QR is to survive, prosper and continue to contribute healthy dividends back to Queensland taxpayers, it must look beyond traditional state borders. "Rail is a national industry and QR must be able to take advantage of opportunities in the national marketplace in the same way that its competitors are doing. "With this acquisition, QR will become one of the major rail freight organisations in Australia, reinforcing our reputation as a hub for business and industry and delivering a range of flow-on benefits to our economy." "QR hauls more bulk freight than any other rail company in Australia but its business is very much centred in Queensland. "Major freight companies have been calling for more competition in rail and this is about a genuine alternative north south and east west rail freight business. Minister for Transport and Main Roads Paul Lucas said the acquisition would help ensure QR could compete effectively in the national marketplace. "The acquisition of ARG is a unique opportunity to establish a truly national offering for QR’s customers. "Being such a decentralised state, Queensland is massively reliant on freight competitiveness and you’ll not have freight customers prepared to put their national business on the line if they can’t have confidence that one company will haul it all itself. "Already QR has secured 12% of the Hunter Valley coal market. Profit from these operations goes to the state for our schools, hospitals, policing and other important initiatives. "More than $8 billion will be invested in rail infrastructure and rollingstock for both the south east Queensland Citytrain network and the central Queensland coal systems over the next five to ten years," Mr Lucas said. QR Chairperson Bronwyn Morris said Australia’s rail freight industry was experiencing increased competition. "There is a strong market need for another major operator to provide rail haulage customers with a real choice. With this acquisition QR will be well positioned to take its place among the major players in this market," Ms Morris said. QR Chief Executive Officer Bob Scheuber said the move was a significant step forward in implementing QR’s national freight strategy. "The acquisition builds on a number of aggressive initiatives we have undertaken to challenge for a greater share of the national rail and land transport market," Mr Scheuber said. "The strategic acquisition of ARG enables us to provide a seamless freight service from Perth through to Cairns and gives us the opportunity to expand our world-class expertise in hauling bulk and non-bulk freight. "Together with the purchase of CRT earlier this year and the expansion of our operations into the Hunter Valley, this acquisition will give us a strong platform to secure our bulk freight business and significantly expand our container freight and integrated logistics business," he said. Mr Scheuber said QR’s national freight strategy aimed to ensure a secure and sustainable future for its business and employees, as well as a long term return on investment for its shareholder, the Queensland Government. Mr BEATTIE: The latest data shows also that in Queensland in the past 12 months public and private investment, exports, dwelling investment and retail trade have all continued to record strong growth. Our unemployment rate is at the lowest levels in a generation. In fact, I just happen to have a newspaper article from this very day nine years ago that indicates just how far we have come. I table a front-page article in the Courier-Mail on 14 February 1997 which shows unemployment at a record 10.3 per cent under the previous coalition government. It was the highest unemployment rate in Australia. The article states that the then Liberal Treasurer, Joan Sheldon, claimed the figure was unacceptable. However, rather amazingly, she also claimed that coalition policies were working— 10.3 per cent! Heaven help us if the current coalition ever comes up with any policies and is given a chance to put them in place. Who knows how high unemployment might climb under a coalition! In stark contrast, it is obvious that our policies do work. The latest figures released just last week reveal that the trend unemployment rate is five per cent—the lowest level in more than 30 years. Through innovative Smart State policies such as Breaking the Unemployment Cycle and our record investment in education, training and infrastructure we have created an environment for job creation in business and industry. We are spending more than $8 billion on infrastructure projects around the state this year alone. Work is well underway on projects in our $55 billion 20-year South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and through our Office of the Coordinator-General we are currently working to help facilitate more than 100 significant projects from cruise ship terminals through to new power stations. 12 Ministerial Statement 14 Feb 2006

However, we would not have been able to provide these opportunities without strong and responsible financial management by my government. As a result, not only is our economy the best in the country but we also have the best books. On the weekend Moody’s Investor Services once again reaffirmed our AAA credit rating, noting that our economic expansion and population growth continued to outpace that of the rest of the nation. We have consistently delivered strong surpluses and other independent economic commentators have even rated our performance among the best in the world, and that is where Queensland should be—not having an unemployment rate of over 10 per cent under those opposite. We want to be amongst the best in the world, and that is where we are. However, we do not shy away from the fact that there are some challenges. Earlier this month the federal president of the Australian Medical Association said that all Australian states were experiencing real difficulties in keeping their public hospital systems functioning. Queenslanders have made it clear that they want a better health system, and we are doing everything we can to make that happen. That is why we are working hard to implement a record $6.4 billion over the next five years in areas such as elective surgery, intensive care, mental health, emergency departments and cancer and cardiac services. It is why a few weeks ago the Minister for Health, Stephen Robertson, and I announced another $272 million over three years to provide better pay for our senior doctors. And it is also why I have been so vocal in trying to get a fairer deal from the Australian government. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting on Friday the Prime Minister clearly stated he recognised that one of the big problems we had was a shortage of doctors. They were his words, not mine. So let us hear no nonsense from those opposite. The Prime Minister said at our joint news conference— I might also mention in the health area if I can go back to that again that we recognise that one of the big problems is the shortage of doctors. I table for the information of the House the COAG communique which deals with the initiatives that have come out as a result of that meeting and the push from Queensland. At the Council of Australian Governments meeting on Friday the Prime Minister clearly stated he recognised, as I said, that one of the big problems we had was a shortage of doctors. Our ‘325’ advertising campaign to get more doctors trained—that is Australians trained in Australian universities to treat Australians—has been successful in drawing national attention to this issue. At COAG we had three major breakthroughs: agreement to urgently address health university places across the country; an increase in the quota of full fee-paying medical places for domestic students—this could result in up to 60 extra students graduating as doctors from the University of Queensland each year; and the creation of a national assessment process for overseas trained doctors. We are yet to get the figure. That is why I want all Queenslanders to support our ‘325’ campaign so that we get a maximum number of doctors being trained in Queensland in our public hospitals and universities. This is a major step in the right direction in providing a national solution to what is a national problem. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! It is St Valentine’s Day today—I love you all. But if you start playing up, you will be going for a walk. Mr BEATTIE: I just hope that one day we can get some bipartisanship to look after Queensland patients, instead of the opposition— Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Callide, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr BEATTIE: If there were a gold medal for whingeing in the Commonwealth Games, the opposition would win it. You whinge; we work. Let us get on with the good things about Queensland. There are other challenges ahead. Late last year the Queensland population topped the four million person mark— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We have four million people, Mr Speaker. I am happy to go out and explain it to him. We are growing at such a rapid rate that as early as 2027 we could overtake Victoria to become the second largest state in the country. While this growth brings opportunities, it also brings pressure and pressure brings challenges. That is why we are continuing to work to make sure we get the basics right in key areas such as water, education and transport. Through our Water Plan 2005-2010 we are focusing on infrastructure, fairer pricing structures, comprehensive catchment based water resource plans, regional supply strategies, making smarter use of existing supplies by reducing water use, adopting conservation measures and re-using and recycling water, protecting water quality, and investing in education and new technology. 14 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 13

We have also initiated a whole-of-government water task force to accelerate the delivery of infrastructure such as the western corridor recycled water project. This will make up to 130,000 megalitres of treated recycled water available for industrial development. We are also providing additional funding to councils to help address issues such as leaky pipes—currently, the equivalent of 75 Olympic swimming pools a day are being wasted. We have also committed to a new dam and have brought forward the preconstruction work of Cedar Grove weir on the Logan River. Once completed, it will deliver around 12 million litres of additional water every day to the rapidly growing urban areas around Beaudesert. In education, we have another 25 schools offering prep for the first time this year as part of the phase-in process. These schools join 97 others throughout the state that already have prep classes. Approximately 2,700 children are expected to participate in prep in 2006—an increase of about 700 on 2005 prep enrolments. Our government’s initiative to introduce prep will ensure we give young Queenslanders the very best start to school by helping them to make a smooth transition to year 1 and setting them on the path to lifelong learning. As part of the initiative, we have spent almost $59 million to build and refurbish classrooms throughout Queensland. In transport, we are undertaking a record $10.5 billion five-year Roads Implementation Program with the support of the Australian government. In south-east Queensland alone we have committed to more than $24.5 billion in transport projects over 20 years as part of our historic South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan. We are building the Queensland of today and the Queensland of tomorrow. We are undertaking these initiatives as well as working with the community to continue to plan for growth through the South East Queensland Regional Plan, Blueprint for the Bush and various regional planning initiatives across the state. Since our government was elected, we have spent more per capita on our state’s capital program than any other state in the nation. We have increased funding for health by 64 per cent or $2.1 billion, education by 55 per cent or $2.3 billion, and welfare and housing by 139 per cent or nearly $800 million. I highlight these and the other achievements I have listed today not for credit or praise. We are simply doing the job Queenslanders expect from a good government. I highlight these achievements because they illustrate how our diverse multicultural state has grown and continues to grow under our Labor government. I highlight the strong state of our state because it clearly shows that Queensland still remains the best place to live in Australia. I encourage our private sector to continue to invest in the way that it is. I highlight these achievements because they clearly illustrate that my government is providing the leadership and stability to build Queensland now and into the future. Only our government can provide this sort of leadership. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the Deputy Premier, a photographer from the Financial Review has sought permission to take some photographs in the chamber. I have given him approval.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Economy Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (10.13 am): Nothing is more important to Queensland families than a strong, thriving and prosperous economy. On any measure, the Queensland economy is booming. Queensland’s strong economic performance was confirmed just last week with the release of the latest state accounts figures. Real gross state product in Queensland grew by 0.8 per cent in the September quarter to be four per cent higher over the year. In the rest of Australia, economic output rose by 0.7 per cent in the same quarter to be just 2.5 per cent higher annually. Growth in consumer spending in Queensland strengthened for the third quarter in a row, in the September quarter 2005, reaching 1.3 per cent compared with a much more subdued growth of 0.5 per cent in the rest of Australia. Higher incomes and household wealth and exceptional labour market conditions have driven household spending in Queensland. Business investment grew by 5.4 per cent in the September quarter—its fastest rate of growth in more than a year and more than double the 2.5 per cent growth in the rest of the country. Both non-residential construction and investment in machinery and equipment in Queensland increased during the quarter. Since re-election in February 2004, the Beattie government has implemented an impressive program of taxation reform. It is a program that has put money back into the pockets of families and that has given even more reason for businesses to create jobs and investors to invest in Queensland. The 2005-06 budget delivered a land tax relief package that substantially increased the tax-free thresholds and introduced a new simplified tax structure which reduced effective tax rates for all land tax payers. The tax-free threshold of $450,000 for resident individuals is by far the highest of any state in the country. At the same time, additional land tax relief was provided for caravan parks and to owners of 14 Ministerial Statement 14 Feb 2006 homes where working arrangements or letting are incidental to the owner’s residential use. This land tax relief package will save taxpayers $200 million in 2006-07. But this government has not only been cutting tax rates. In many instances, we have cut whole taxes. Over the last 18 months the government has abolished four taxes—credit card duty in August 2004, debits tax in July 2005, and lease duty and credit business duty only last month. Another four taxes are scheduled for abolition over the next five years beginning with higher duty and marketable securities duty on 1 January next year. The abolition of these eight taxes will not only save taxpayers $850 million a year by 2011-12; it will also reduce the amount of red tape faced by Queensland businesses. As a responsible government, we have not shied away from raising taxes where that has been for a higher public purpose. To assist in the funding of the government’s $6.4 billion health package, increases in transfer duty commencing 1 July this year were announced in October. At the same time, the principal place of residence household threshold will be increased to $320,000—again ensuring protection for low- and middle-income earners in the housing market. This tax increase should, however, be seen in perspective. Even with the transfer duty changes, the initiatives of the last two years will save Queensland taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars this year. Queensland has the lowest tax collections per person of any mainland state of Australia, and our taxation as a proportion of GSP is well below the weighted average of other states and territories. By way of example, on a per capita basis a person in New South Wales will pay nearly $600 more this year than a Queenslander in state taxes and Victorians will pay $300 more per head. Because of the government’s program of tax reform over the last two years, Queensland is, and will remain, a low- tax state. Upon re-election two years ago, the government immediately set about making homeownership more affordable, especially for prospective home buyers in the wake of escalating prices arising from the property boom. Within three months of re-election, the government had significantly extended stamp duty concessions for first home buyers. No stamp duty is now payable on the purchase of a first home valued up to $250,000, and a first home transfer duty rebate is available for purchases between $250,000 and $500,000. Queensland is also the only state in the country to provide home buyers generally with a principal place of residence transfer duty concession. It does not end there. Because of the good performance of the WorkCover scheme and measures introduced by the government to reduce workplace incidents, the average WorkCover premium fell from $1.57 per $100 of wages in 2004-05 to $1.43 per $100 of wages in 2005-06. Queensland also now has the lowest general rate of insurance duty in Australia, making insurance more affordable for Queensland families and business. At the same time, reforms introduced by our government have contributed to a fall in compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance premiums. In April 2004 the lowest premium was $351. In April this year the lowest premium will be $291.20. It is a fall of $59.80—for the average motorist, almost $60. All of these incentives have stimulated our growth. As well as attracting more than 1,000 new Queenslanders a week, we have an unimagined record low level of unemployment. Last month was the 15th consecutive month that our unemployment rate has been at or below five per cent. It is the best we have seen in more than three decades and a very far cry from the 10.3 per cent which the coalition presided over. Mr Copeland interjected. Ms BLIGH: All of this data points to one of the strongest economies that Queensland has experienced in decades. What does all of this mean to ordinary Queenslanders and their families? In short, a strong economy means opportunity. It means the opportunity to own their own home. It means the opportunity to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. Mr Messenger: The opportunity to die on the waiting list. Ms BLIGH: It means job security and it spells future prosperity for Queenslanders and, importantly, for their children. I note the comments from those opposite. What distinguishes us from our opponents is that we never, ever lose sight of the importance of economic prosperity, of job creation and of job security for ordinary Queenslanders and their families. Mr Messenger interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Burnett, I warn you under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: Our government’s economic performance speaks for itself, and we have never been more determined to build on that performance and build on that strong foundation. 14 Feb 2006 Ministerial Statement 15

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Multiculturalism Hon. CP CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Small Business, Information Technology Policy and Multicultural Affairs) (10.20 am): The Beattie government strongly supports multiculturalism. The Centre for Multicultural and Community Development at the University of the Sunshine Coast, together with Griffith University’s Multi-faith Centre, is organising a national symposium for the 21st of this month to be held at the Nathan campus of Griffith University. The Beattie government is sponsoring this event, which will feature speakers from the University of Western Sydney, Victoria University, the University of Technology, Sydney, the Australian Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at our own University of Queensland, the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, UNESCO and the Human Rights Commission. This national symposium is also being supported by a range of other universities from around the nation; the Indigenous Learning, Spirituality and Research Centre at Central Queensland University; the Local Government Association of Queensland; the National Council of Churches in Australia; and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. The Beattie government is proud to be an official sponsor of this symposium because it will foster an intelligent and reasoned dialogue about incidents interstate and the importance of maintaining an inclusive culture in this nation, in this state and in our communities. I launched the Multicultural Action Plans for 26 Queensland government departments in December last year to ensure the integration of multiculturalism into the core business of Queensland government departments. This will help ensure workforce equity and diversity in the public sector, cross- cultural training for staff and increased staff awareness about multiculturalism and the Queensland government multicultural policy. The action plans will also ensure the provision of information in multilingual formats, promotion of the use of interpreters and mechanisms for improved consultation with stakeholders from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. On top of our election commitment funding increases and the successful Queensland Multicultural Festival and the Premier’s Multicultural Photographic Awards, this government is also funding a Muslim Community Engagement Strategy. In March I will be taking staff from Multicultural Affairs Queensland, the Anti-Discrimination Commission and Queensland police to visit Sydney where we will be briefed by local officials, the New South Wales Crime Prevention Unit and Community Relations Commission on the incidents that occurred last year that were widely reported. We will continue to maintain the very excellent, culturally inclusive reputation of the Smart State that so clearly benefits our international trade, business, industry and education sectors as well as our families and communities. The Beattie government is proud of our continued support for all people who come to call Queensland home, irrespective of their religion, birthplace or language. The legacy of our Labor forebears holds true today—we enact democratic and principled policies and a commitment to advancing the lives of all citizens but especially the disadvantaged and those who have suffered injustices. These are Labor ideals that members adhere to and that continue to inspire and motivate us.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Health System Hon. S ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.24 am): The Beattie government is getting on with the job of rebuilding our public health system. Despite a challenging start to the year, I am more determined than ever to build a system that we can be proud of and have confidence in. Significantly expanding our workforce so that our system can treat and care for more Queenslanders lies at the heart of our rebuilding process. However, a chronic national shortage of doctors has hampered our ability to adequately staff many of our hospitals. States waging bidding wars for medical staff will go down as the most shameful legacy of the Howard government. While last week’s COAG meeting achieved a good outcome for our medical schools, it will be close to a decade before the benefits flow through our hospitals. That is why our government has worked tirelessly to immediately attract doctors from interstate and abroad on the back of some very strong incentives. In ongoing discussions with key stakeholders, including the AMA and unions, it was our aim to produce the most attractive packages possible for our doctors. We have delivered. 16 Office of the Leader of the Opposition 14 Feb 2006

Two significant pay increases in a matter of months has elevated Queensland as the most competitive place for doctors to live and work. Since last October, Queensland Health has signed a new agreement for salary and conditions for the employment of visiting medical officers worth over $100 million over four years, a new enterprise bargaining agreement and additional enhancements for Queensland Health doctors, worth approximately $633 million, and now additional enhancements for senior Queensland Health doctors worth another $272 million over three years. That represents a total investment in our doctors of over $1 billion. It shows that we are serious about retaining our current medical workforce and recruiting more doctors to fill vacancies throughout the state, including our rural and regional communities. Based on publicly available award rates, Queensland is now ahead of the pack for all levels of senior doctors. Doctors have received pay increases of up to 60 per cent since October. For instance, a middle of the range intensivist working in a large regional hospital and earning $224,000 a year before the current agreement will now receive around $360,000. We are not relying entirely on financial enhancements. We continue to work with doctors and their representatives to find ways to improve working conditions in Queensland’s public hospitals. In this area, the Premier and I recently announced that highly experienced clinicians will soon be appointed to clinical chief executive officer positions at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, the Princess Alexandra Hospital, and the Rockhampton and Cairns base hospitals. The CEOs will work alongside the district managers and provide clinical leadership at these hospitals and have a broader role in the context of clinical services in the south-east corner of Queensland, provincial central Queensland and across the tablelands and Innisfail. They will be accountable for the effective executive management and clinical leadership of health services in their areas of responsibility. The Beattie government will continue working around the clock to develop a clinical workforce of sufficient numbers and skills to provide quality health care to the people of Queensland. The landmark agreements reached with doctors in recent months demonstrate our determination to get the job done as a priority.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Ministerial Expenses Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (10.27 am): I wish to table the public report of ministerial expenses for the period 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005. The public report gives maximum transparency to the community regarding the expenses of ministers, parliamentary secretaries and their offices. This report shows how my government continues to be efficient and yet frugal in its expenditure patterns. Expenditure has increased by only $274,000 or 1.9 per cent compared to the same period last year. This increase is considerably less than the CPI of 2.8 per cent for the same period. Compared to last year, there have been savings across a wide range of cost categories including communications costs, domestic travel, charter, domestic official duties and consumables. Only moderate increases in salaries costs have occurred principally due to enterprise bargaining, pay rises for all staff and incremental pay increases for some staff. Higher overseas travel costs reflect our strong presence in foreign markets with trips increasing in the comparative period from eight to 11. Increases in other administrative charges and a corresponding reduction in depreciation costs are the consequence of a change in asset costing methods being adopted across the public sector. I believe that this report clearly shows that expenditure is being maintained at a reasonable level. I table the report.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Report Hon. KW HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.28 am): I lay upon the table of the House the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee’s Alert Digest No. 1 of 2006.

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Report of Expenses Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.28 am): I lay upon the table of the House the report of the expenses of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition from 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005. 14 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 17

OFFICE OF THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY

Report of Expenses Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (10.29 am): I lay on the table of the House the public report of the office expenses for the office of the Leader of the Liberal Party for the period 1 July 2005 to 31 December 2005. PRIVILEGE

Private Members’ Statements Hon. KR LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (10.29 am): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. Once again the government has used the standing orders to prevent the opposition making any statements within this House. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no matter of privilege.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. The minister and his colleagues have consistently accused public servants of keeping him in the dark about the true state of Queensland’s dilapidated health system. I draw his attention to a briefing note that he was given by his department just four days after he became minister and on the eve of the Redcliffe by- election. In that briefing note he was told that there were— Inadequate resources to meet demand for mental health services Insufficient paediatric cover Insufficient staff to meet demand for maternity services Insufficient administrative support staff available for clinicians Need for additional intensivist for intensive care service Difficulties in recruitment of medical staff for emergency and paediatric areas Difficulties in recruitment of nursing staff Increased aggression towards staff resulting from increased waiting-times in emergency departments. I again remind the minister— Mr SPEAKER: Come to the question, Leader of the Opposition, please. Mr SPRINGBORG: This was prepared in relation to the Caboolture-Redcliffe district. After that, how can the minister or his colleagues claim that they have been kept in the dark in relation to anything regarding Queensland Health? Mr ROBERTSON: In response to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, I have never, at any stage, suggested with respect to Caboolture, Redcliffe or, indeed, any other health service district in Queensland that they were not suffering shortages of clinical staff, whether they be doctors or nurses. If honourable members go back through the parliamentary record since I became the Minister for Health they will see that both the Premier and I on a number of occasions—in speeches in this House, in public statements and in media releases—have been talking about the clinical workforce shortages right throughout Queensland, Australia and, indeed, internationally. So anything that the Leader of the Opposition brings forward today is, frankly, not new. We have been out there talking about these workforce shortages from day one. As a result of that, we have ensured that the districts have been as proactive as possible to fill those vacancies where they can. When there is a shortage of doctors, not just here in Queensland and not just nationally but internationally, it is difficult; it is hard. We have seen that in places such as Caboolture. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South. Mr ROBERTSON: Members opposite carry on like that, and yet what we saw at COAG last Friday was the Prime Minister finally putting up his hand and admitting that there is a national shortage of doctors in Australia as a result of the failure of the federal government— Opposition members interjected. Mr ROBERTSON: Members need only to go to the COAG communique to see that. Those opposite are in absolute denial. One thing that we will never hear from anyone opposite is ‘doctor shortages’ and ‘federal government’ in the one sentence. They just cannot utter those words, because they are in denial. 18 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006

Mr McArdle interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Minister for Health, take your seat, please. Member for Caloundra, you have been warned and I warn you again under 253. If there are any more disturbances from you, I will be asking you to leave the chamber. Mr ROBERTSON: The simple fact is that we have acknowledged workforce shortages in health from day one, and we have been working flat out, through international recruitment campaigns, to bring overseas trained doctors to fill the vacancies which Australian trained doctors should have been filling— if we had had a sufficient number of places and our universities graduating the right number of doctors to fill those positions. That was indicated by the outcome of COAG, at which the federal government finally admitted that the responsibility lay fairly and squarely with Canberra. Doctor Graduates Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. How many medical students graduated from Queensland universities last year and how many medical students are expected to graduate in 2010? Mr ROBERTSON: The simple answer is not enough. I refer the member to this document. Let the facts speak for themselves. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Callide, you have been warned once under 253. If there are any more, you will be on your way out. Coalition Agreement Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Bearing in mind the fact that the Liberal Party and the National Party are still opposing each other on major policy issues, is the Premier aware of any agreement to form a coalition while they are in opposition? Mr BEATTIE: I think it is important that the people of Queensland have a debate before them about not just the achievements of Queensland, which my government has delivered, but what the alternative government offers. I think it is important that we put these before the people of Queensland today. I table three documents. The first is entitled ‘Attaining Government Agreement’, which was signed by the National Party and the Liberal Party. The second is entitled ‘Operating in Parliament Agreement’. The third is headed ‘Coalition in Government Agreement’. The National and Liberal parties have tried to keep all of these secret. I table those documents for the information of the House in the interests of the debate to which I just referred. Those opposite are not ready to form government. They need at least another term in opposition because they cannot control themselves. If those opposite cannot govern themselves, they cannot govern Queensland. Let us look at these agreements that they tried to keep secret. The first one, ‘Attaining Government Agreement’, talks about a memorandum of agreement and a private agreement, but nowhere does it talk about a coalition agreement. Mr Quinn interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Liberal Party! Mr BEATTIE: There is one called ‘Operating in Parliament Agreement’, but it does not talk anywhere about a coalition agreement. Let us look at some of the detail in the ‘Attaining Government Agreement’ which highlights why the opposition is not ready to form government in this state. It states— The Parties will present voters with a statewide policy— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! First of all, I am not going to have you being treated differently. In the words of your colleague, you must refer to members by their position, not ‘Pete’. He is the Premier of this state. Mr BEATTIE: Thank you. I should highlight to members that the agreements were actually signed by Lawrence Springborg, Bob Quinn, Michael Caltabiano and Bruce Scott. So if the Leader of the Opposition wants to know who signed it, I can say that they all did. So he cannot think that he is going to get out of it. The ‘Coalition in Government Agreement’ states— The Parliamentary Leader of the Party with the most Members shall be the Premier and the Leader of the Coalition, while the Parliamentary Leader of the other Party shall be the Deputy Premier and Deputy Leader of the Coalition. But in opposition, Jeff Seeney is in fact the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Mr SPEAKER: Mr Premier, the ‘member for Callide’. 14 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 19

Mr BEATTIE: Why is the member for Callide the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Because he is paid $26,325 a year for it. But he does not want Bob to do it. So they have an agreement but they do not give him the money. Clause 1.13 states— There will be certain agreed issues that can be legitimately considered as matters of conscience and in votes on such issues each member will be entitled to vote in accordance with the dictates of his or her conscience. The Premier and Deputy Premier in consultation will be entitled to declare those issues that are issues of conscience. What they do not have here are the issues— Mr Lucas interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Transport! Mr BEATTIE: What they do not have are the issues: daylight saving, tree clearing, IR, gun control, shopping hours—all the sorts of things on which they will need to have a conscience vote. The other extraordinary thing is that it states— The Coalition Parties agree to identify and nominate the best available candidate— That means three-cornered contests. Doctor Graduates Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I ask: how many internship training positions are available for doctor graduates in the public system this year and how many will be available in the year 2010? Mr ROBERTSON: I have to admit something today. Today is, in fact, my birthday. As I do, once a year on my birthday I usually consult my stars in the Courier-Mail. It says today— It’s Valentine’s Day and much as you would like to hear you’ll enjoy the attention of several sexy people, it won’t happen. Mr QUINN: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the standing orders on the issue of relevance to the question. An opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: You were provoked, alright. You will be provoking me shortly. That is your final warning. Mr ROBERTSON: The simple answer to that question is the same as for the previous one—not enough. That is why we started this campaign for 325 new doctor positions for our universities. Members opposite have been in absolute denial about the doctor shortages affecting not just Queensland but all of Australia and internationally. Those opposite have done everything to obfuscate and deny the shortages. Why? Because it is their own government in Canberra that is responsible for those shortages. It is their own government that capped the number of graduate places at our universities while our population continues to increase and while our population continues to age. As a result, what do we have now? We have shortages not just throughout Queensland but right throughout Australia. I draw the honourable member’s attention to a press release put out on 1 February by the acting Victorian Premier. He said— This week 406 medical graduates start their rounds at Victorian hospitals, but the State Government claims at least another 240 doctors are needed. We can also look at Western Australia. The AMA has put out a press release just recently indicating that one of the great challenges that Western Australia is facing is a shortage of doctors. Western Australian doctors say— Overcrowding in Perth emergency departments has reached crisis point forcing elective surgery to be delayed. The AMA has attacked the government for refusing to admit the service is struggling, saying that overcrowding this summer is among the worst on record. They go on to say what? That the reason for that overcrowding is a shortage of doctors in Western Australia. We are getting on with the job. That is why early last year the Queensland government—no other government has done this—put its money where its mouth is. Some $60 million will be spent and 235 new places— Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Mansfield, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from Fig Tree Pocket State School in the electorate of Indooroopilly, which is represented in this place by Mr Lee. Three-Cornered Contests Mr REEVES: My question without notice is to the Premier. I draw the attention of the Premier to statements by the Liberal leader that in the event that the Liberals and Nationals win government the National Party leader will be the Premier. Has the would-be Premier demonstrated leadership qualities on the important issue of three-cornered contests and made clear what his position is in this regard? 20 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006

Mr LANGBROEK: Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 113 which states that questions should be put to a minister about public affairs with which a minister is officially connected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! With all due respect, I take your point of order. The Premier has been asked a question as leader of this state. Mr BEATTIE: I can understand why the Liberal members want to hide the fact that they have run into a three-cornered contest. Do you want to be leader as well, Mr Speaker? Can I come back to the point. The reality is that both the National Party and the Liberal Party are not fit and not ready to govern Queensland. They cannot agree amongst themselves. How about the agreement which is headed ‘Attaining Government’ which those opposite all signed. At 4.6 it states— Both parties agree that any Election ‘Leaders’ debate held during the campaign will only be conducted on the condition that both Parliamentary Leaders of each of the Liberal and National Parties participate. What those opposite actually want is a three-cornered contest in the debate. What they want is a National Party leader, a Liberal Party leader and me. I am quite happy to take on both of them. It would be an extraordinary set of circumstances were there a three-cornered debate in the contest for the leadership of this state. What it shows is that those opposite are not fit to govern. Let us look at the issue of three-cornered contests. The Leader of the National Party made this a leadership issue. He went around and talked about one conservative party. What did he say? On 16 April 2003 on 4BC Mr Springborg said, ‘Three-cornered contests are over.’ At the Queensland Press Forum on 12 November 2004 Mr Springborg said, ‘Three-cornered contests are a recipe for disaster. Make no mistake about that.’ In the Courier-Mail on 28 February 2005 Mr Springborg said, ‘It will be the fault of the Liberal Party organisation if we have an outbreak of three-cornered contests.’ Mr Springborg goes on in the Courier-Mail on 22 November 2005 to say, ‘It’s unfortunate that some people believe that three-cornered contests are a good idea.’ On 7 February 2006 Mr Springborg, the Leader of the Opposition, said, ‘Three-cornered contests were not the preferred option. They pose some difficulties but they are a small number in the overall number of seats.’ There are three-cornered contests in Mudgeeraba, Broadwater, Redlands and Hervey Bay. What this shows is that there is no leadership opposite. If those opposite cannot govern themselves in opposition, they cannot govern Queensland. They cannot and have not been able to form a coalition of any substance. I have proved that through the three documents I tabled this morning. This great state of Queensland needs stability, certainty; it does not need a rabble who cannot agree on fundamental things while in opposition and suggest the nonsense of a leadership debate involving three leaders. Sooner or later those opposite have to work out who is going to be the real Leader of the Opposition. They cannot both sign an agreement which says that they are both going to come to a leadership debate. That has to be the most ridiculous statement about an election campaign that I have ever heard. The bottom line is simple: if they cannot govern themselves, they cannot govern Queensland. Doctor Graduates Dr FLEGG: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Given that the minister was unable to tell us how many medical school graduates there will be in Queensland in 2010, I direct him to page 234 of the Forster report which states that the number of medical school graduates will more than double between the years 2004 and 2010 from 232 in 2004 to 540 in 2010. Does this not make a mockery of the minister’s advertising campaign for an additional 325 graduates since almost all of these numbers are already in the system? Mr ROBERTSON: The simple answer is no. What we are dealing with is the legacy of a lack of growth in graduate places in our universities for 20 or 30 years. We are dealing with a population that has doubled over a period when the number of doctors coming through our universities has flatlined. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr ROBERTSON: That is the legacy of a decade of underfunding and poor planning by the member’s counterparts in Canberra. Those opposite stand condemned for their failure to utter one word about the federal government’s inability, incapacity and absolute refusal until recently to increase the number of places in our universities. That is why last year the Beattie government had to put its money where its mouth is. The $60 million that should have been going into our hospitals was put into increasing the number of graduate places at Griffith University by 235. Why? Because the federal government had failed to act for so long. I also note the other nonsense of the members opposite alleging that those graduates that are coming out of our universities are not staying with Queensland Health. It is a popular lot of nonsense. Mr Malone: That’s right. 14 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 21

Mr ROBERTSON: Just confirmed by the member for Mirani. I will provide a bit of advice to the member for Mirani: do not believe your own spin. Some 85 per cent of last year’s interns have decided to renew contracts with Queensland Health and 56 per cent of second-year doctors or junior house doctors have decided to continue working in our public hospitals. Opposition members: Half. Mr ROBERTSON: I am sure at some stage those opposite might actually admit that there is a private health system out there as well that employs these people. I will provide figures. The fact is that 51 of the 58 medical students who graduated from James Cook University at the end of last year accepted positions in Queensland public hospitals. The seven who did not actually came from down south and returned home. Similarly, some 203 of the 215 medical students who recently graduated from the University of Queensland accepted jobs with Queensland Health to work in our public hospitals. Another 47 intern positions are being filled by medical graduates from interstate and New Zealand. They are the facts, not the nonsense perpetuated by members opposite. Coalition Shadow Ministry Ms NOLAN: My question is to the Deputy Premier and Treasurer. Who has shadow responsibilities for these portfolios? Ms BLIGH: I am very pleased to take the question. It is a very reasonable question. When I was given the honour of taking on the Treasury portfolio, I did wonder who was the shadow Treasurer. So I went and had a look— Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Moggill and member for Robina, I warn you both under standing order 253. Ms BLIGH: So I went and had a look on the font of all wisdom, springborg.com. What springborg.com told me on the page for the Leader of the Liberal Party was that the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Robina, is the coalition shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for finance. That seems pretty straightforward: the member for Robina is the coalition shadow Treasurer. I was a little curious to find that just a couple of weeks ago the member for Robina was issuing press statements which listed him on the banner as the Liberal shadow Treasurer and the Liberal shadow minister for finance. In some 320 words the press release did not mention the word ‘coalition’. A little odd I thought. But then we went further into springborg.com onto the profile for the member for Callide where the member for Callide is described currently as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Leader of the Nationals, shadow Treasurer and shadow minister for finance. If it takes two of them to do the job, that is what it takes. I am happy to deal with both of them. But it gets a little more confusing, because it is not just the shadow Treasury that there is some doubt about. The member for Callide is listed as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Again, that seems pretty straightforward. However, a series of press releases have been issued from the opposition, curiously with the member for Callide’s photograph at the top of them. The press releases are headed ‘The Nationals’ with a photo of the member for Callide—no sight of any photograph of the supposed leader— in which the member for Robina is listed as the deputy coalition leader. So what we have is a deputy opposition leader and a deputy coalition leader. The reasonable conclusion here is that the opposition is not a coalition and the coalition is not the opposition. I think that is a reasonable conclusion. It is not the only area of confusion though, because there is more confusion. If one goes again to the springborg.com profile of the member for Callide, it says— Jeff was born in Monto and has lived in the electorate of Callide all his life. However, if one then goes to the parliamentary page for the member for Callide, it says that he was born in Brisbane. So these people do not even know where they come from! It is a bit like Ken and Barbie. What we have is two Jeffs: we have rural Jeff and urban Jeff, city Jeff and country Jeff. It is not that those opposite are not ready for government; they are not ready for opposition— Time expired. Ambulance Levy, Mareeba Ms LEE LONG: My question is to the Premier. When the Premier introduced the compulsory ambulance tax in July 2003 he promised every Queenslander that they would have access to ambulance services, remembering that some people are paying many times over. Yet a seriously injured Mareeba man who presented at the Mareeba Hospital on the afternoon of a working day recently was asked by hospital staff if he could find his own way to the Cairns Base Hospital, down the winding Kuranda Range Road, after being advised that no ambulance would be available until the next day. Mareeba is the centre of a large rural community, yet no ambulance could be found until the next day, 22 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006 and I ask: will the Premier now admit that not only is the health system in a shambles but his government’s delivery of ambulance services is failing the people of Queensland and the ambulance tax is nothing more than a rip-off by this government? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Tablelands for her question. I will go through the various elements of the question. I obviously do not know the details of the particular case. I am quite happy to have the Minister for Emergency Services, Pat Purcell, find out what the circumstances are. There are two things that need to be said about this. Firstly, the ambulance levy is working. We are injecting more money into the Ambulance Service than at any other time in the history of Queensland. End of story. The member talks about representing Atherton and the tablelands. When I was a kid I used to front up at the Atherton ambulance and I would find really good people—lovely people—spending most of their time running chook raffles and chocolate wheels to try to fund the ambulance. Secondly, while they were really good people, they did not have the training and skills that paramedics have today. Recently, I announced an additional 144 paramedics as part of our determination to ensure that when people get first access to the Ambulance Service it can actually save their lives. It was no good in those days. They were good people in those days. I knew them. Many of them were family friends in Atherton and were lovely people, but if someone had a heart attack their first intention was to get them to a hospital. Today, paramedics can actually save their lives with defibrillators and other things on the way to the hospital. Anyone who knows anything about medicine will know that those first few seconds are absolutely vital. When there is a lack of oxygen to the brain, that is when people need a paramedic. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Do those opposite mind for once? It is actually not their question. I know they have no manners, but have some courtesy for the member for Tablelands. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I am actually trying to give an answer. All you do is smirk over there. You smirk; we work. Getting on with it, the important thing is this: we are providing the Ambulance Service with real money to train paramedics to save lives. That is the difference. I do not know the particular case. We are a growth state. Yes, there will be areas where there is pressure. The minister will find out about this matter in Mareeba and he will deal with the member specifically. Let me come back to the levy. I know that there are some people on the tablelands who have particular objections to it, and as recently as last year I was there and I met a number of them. The reality is this: the ambulance levy is going totally into the provision of ambulance services to the extent that the general revenue still has to top it up. We are a growing state. We have four million people. We are the growth state with 1,500 people coming here every week. Yes, there will be pressure on the system. But we will do everything we can. Long term that levy is going to ensure that we continue to deal with the growing pains that Queensland has had. The minister will come back to the member with the details. If there are other matters, I am happy to take a letter from the member. Nurses Ms MOLLOY: My question is to the Minister for Health. Earlier the minister outlined how the state government is improving the pay and conditions of doctors to make Queensland public hospitals a more attractive employer for doctors, and I ask: can the minister outline what the Beattie government is doing to make our public hospitals a much more attractive employer for nurses? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the member for Noosa for the question. I acknowledge the fact that as a former Victorian nurse she is the kind of person that we are trying to attract to Queensland. I want to place on record the government’s appreciation for the hard work being done by nursing staff in Queensland’s public hospitals and other healthcare facilities. Nurses play a vital role in the delivery of high-quality health care to Queenslanders, and we value their work very highly indeed. Doctors have been very much in the spotlight lately, but I want to assure the nursing fraternity as well as honourable members that this government is working just as hard to improve the pay and conditions of nurses. We are committed to retaining our current nursing workforce as well as making Queensland Health a much more attractive employer of nurses. To this end, the government is currently engaged in enterprise bargaining negotiations with the Queensland Nurses Union and we are committed to improved outcomes for nurses. Already nurses have received an immediate four per cent per annum or $30 per week increase, whichever is the greater, backdated to 26 October last year as part of their interim agreement of 2005. This is only the beginning of our efforts to recognise the contribution nurses are making in Queensland Health. Negotiations are continuing between representatives from Queensland Health and the Queensland Nurses Union for a longer-term agreement. These negotiations have focused on addressing issues such as attraction and retention, including competitive wage rates for nurses, an enhanced clinical 14 Feb 2006 Privilege 23 career path, professional development and improved workload management. I want nurses in Queensland Health to know that we are acutely aware of the contribution and commitment that nurses make on a daily basis to deliver quality health outcomes for the community. Without their efforts, we would not be able to provide the level of care we have achieved at this point in time. As outlined in the health action plan, we are addressing nursing shortages by trying to recruit 500 additional nurses over the next 18 months. To date, we have already attracted expressions of interest from 126 nurses living in Australia or overseas who want to work for Queensland Health. As negotiations for a replacement agreement continue, we are also committed to and actively working towards improving the working conditions of nurses. A number of priority areas for nursing have been identified by the nursing interests based bargaining committee that need to be addressed in both the short and long term. These include recruitment, work/life balance, models of contemporary practice, education and training, and workload management. We are very serious about achieving positive outcomes for our nurses, and I want to assure them and this House that I will continue to work along with the Queensland Health executive team to deliver improved outcomes for our nursing workforce. Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Callide, I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from the Fig Tree Pocket State School in the electorate of Indooroopilly, which is represented in this place by Mr Lee. Doctor Graduates Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Health. Given that the minister is unable to indicate how many internship places Queensland Health will have in 2010 and given that, according to the Forster report on page 235, Medical School graduates by 2010 will more than double to a figure of 540, doesn’t the minister’s complete lack of knowledge of the numbers involved make a mockery of his campaign for an additional 325 graduates when he has no idea if they can be trained in the public health system? Mr ROBERTSON: They just do not get it, do they? We are dealing with a legacy of 20 years and 30 years of insufficient training places for doctors in this state, which is why we have to rely so heavily on overseas trained doctors. Why is it that the only group in Australia that does not think we need more doctors is the opposition? They should ask the people of Caboolture whether they think we have enough doctors. They should ask the people of Maryborough, the tablelands or Kingaroy whether they think we have enough doctors. Why is it that the opposition is the only group of people who are in denial? Frankly, I find it rather amazing that the opposition is in denial, given that it was only 10 years ago when they were in office that the then state development minister, Mike Horan, said that Queensland’s 140 hospitals would collapse without foreign trained doctors and that we needed more locally trained graduates. That state government approached the then federal health minister, Dr Wooldridge, who said to then Premier Borbidge that he would reject the Borbidge government’s request for an extra 30 medical student places at the University of Queensland despite agreeing that rural Queensland faced a profound shortage of doctors. That is what the opposition said when it was in office 10 years ago. What has changed is that the situation has only got worse. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Queensland Treasurer Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.03 am): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly rising. Earlier we had information tabled in this parliament from the Premier stating that the member for South Brisbane is now the Treasurer of Queensland. This morning, 14 February 2006, the TeamBeattie web site states the following about Peter Beattie— He has been Premier of Queensland since June 1998 and also Treasurer since July 2005. On the same web site, with regard to the member for South Brisbane, it states— She has been Minister for Finance— Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition! Mr SPRINGBORG: This is a point of clarification. Who is the Treasurer? Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, take your seat. This is becoming quite frivolous and I am not going to tolerate much more. You have been warned for the final time, Leader of the Opposition. 24 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Multiculturalism Mr CHOI: My question without notice is to the minister for multicultural affairs. What is the Beattie government doing to promote respect for religious differences? Mr CUMMINS: I thank the member for his question and commend him for his dedication and commitment to this government and multiculturalism. The Beattie government, through its Multicultural Assistance Program, continues to fund and support a wide range of activities promoting understanding between cultural and religious groups. Whether it is through research, festivals, workshops, conferences, community events or educational forums, there is constant activity in our communities to support cultural and religious diversity. The way we deliver government services to our diverse cultural groups is continually improving as we work with those groups to better understand their needs. As part of our Australia Day activities we hold multifaith ceremonies. Later this year another interfaith symposium will be held. In September last year the Premier announced a $700,000 Muslim Community Engagement Strategy and Grants Program. Today, I am pleased to announce that applications open next Monday for the grants program to support community relations activities promoting interaction, understanding and acceptance between Muslim communities and the broader Queensland community. The grants program, worth $245,000, will also fund research initiatives into issues identified as significant by our Muslim community. Funding will be provided for research into unemployment within the Muslim community, the impact of media coverage on the Muslim community and issues of identity and integration for young Muslim people. I encourage all members to tell all interested community organisations to submit a proposal for funding. Interested groups should contact Multicultural Affairs Queensland on 1800053739. While I am speaking about religious differences and understanding of those differences, I think we should be asking some questions. In today’s Australian, this opposition’s conservative mate, Danna Vale, turned the abortion debate into a race debate. Are those opposite prepared to condemn their federal colleague on this matter? It was blatant racism. An abortion debate was turned into a race debate. We hear nothing from the members opposite. Given the fact that members of the parties opposite were preferencing One Nation ahead of Labor in 1998 and that a former minister of the Borbidge government who sat in cabinet with those opposite tried to do a preference deal with One Nation in Cairns, just where do they sit now? Just last year the Leader of the Liberal Party was trying to court the former One Nation member for Gympie. The members opposite should show us their multicultural strategy and show some leadership and denounce the divisive views of their federal colleague and the dirty deals done with One Nation in the past. It is time for those opposite to show where they stand on multiculturalism. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Mr COPELAND: My question is to the Minister for Health. I refer to reports in today’s media of yet another emergency department doctor’s resignation from Caboolture Hospital, indicating that the situation at that hospital is actually getting worse and not better, and I ask: when can the people of Caboolture expect their hospital to be fully operational or is it the case that the minister simply has no idea how to fix our ailing health system? Mr ROBERTSON: I have said from the beginning of the problems that have arisen in Caboolture that it would take months to restore full services to the Caboolture emergency department. Why? Because we have a significant shortage of appropriately qualified doctors not just here in Queensland but throughout Australia. In terms of all the efforts that we have made to attract doctors to Queensland and in particular to Caboolture Hospital and more particularly to the emergency department at Caboolture Hospital, one of the things that has struck me is the fact that if you speak with members of the college of emergency surgeons they will tell you that they have training places available but they cannot attract doctors into that particular stream of medicine. In terms of emergency department doctors, one of the issues that they have put forward is the lack of opportunities for those doctors to earn good money in the private sector. That is why we put our money where our mouth is—by significantly increasing the pay for senior doctors who work in emergency departments and ICU units. That is why we put in place a significant plan— Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Member for Chatsworth, this is your final warning. 14 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 25

Mr ROBERTSON:—that will improve their role in the decision-making processes in our hospitals. Of course, it is interesting to note the prescription offered by the opposition spokesperson for health. On 13 October last year, he had the following to say about the pay for doctors— I don’t think we want to see the Government simply backing down to every pay demand in the public sector. You know, the Government will, at times, have to draw the line. Of course, the opposition spokesperson changed his opinion pretty smartly within weeks, because on 24 November in the Townsville Bulletin he stated— The better qualified doctors are going to other states and countries because they are losing their pays. Despite the contradictory position advanced by the member for Moggill, we have delivered for those doctors quite significantly—another $270 million in increased pay and conditions. Earlier today I indicated what that meant at one senior level. A doctor at that level has gone from receiving a salary package of about $224,000 to $360,000 as a result of the efforts that we have made to try to attract doctors to emergency departments like the one at Caboolture Hospital. We have put our money where our mouth is, but unfortunately it is going to take some time to attract those doctors that we may have lost over the last number of years from other parts of Australia. It is going to take some time. I apologise to the people of Caboolture for that. But we are working flat out because, like the member for Pumicestone, I want to see services restored at Caboolture Hospital as soon as possible. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for Ferny Grove, I welcome into the chamber the participants in the Legal, Constitutional and Administrative Review Committee’s Voices and Votes youth jury. Welcome to the Parliament of Queensland. Federal Industrial Relations Legislation Mr WILSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport. Queensland recently lodged its High Court appeal against the Howard government’s new nutcracker industrial legislation. Can the minister inform us about the court case being prepared to defend Queensland workers and their families? Mr BARTON: I thank the member for the question, and of course I would like to comment on that. The federal government’s draconian new industrial relations law will come under scrutiny at the highest level in a few months time when the High Court hears challenges against the validity of the law. Most states either have launched or are planning a High Court challenge, and the court has tentatively set down 8 May as the date to begin hearing them concurrently. We look forward to running a very strong case on behalf of Queensland workers, families and, indeed, businesses. Legal advice is that there are very strong grounds to argue that the federal government’s industrial relations laws are unconstitutional without challenge, focusing on issues surrounding the Australian Constitution, states rights and the intent of the corporations power. There are grounds to argue that WorkChoices gives the federal government undue control over the normal activities of the states by subjecting employment relationships entirely to federal control. The corporations power in the Constitution was never intended to be a Trojan Horse to take over the states. If these laws are not overturned, they will set a precedent that will allow the federal government to interfere in almost all spheres of state jurisdiction—indeed, potentially the greatest act of constitutional vandalism since Federation. It is an abuse that will hurt Queensland workers and Queensland families by driving down wages and conditions and will result in uncertainty, confusion and unnecessary complexity for Queensland’s employers. Queenslanders can count on the Beattie government to continue to lead the charge against these harsh laws. The question needs to be asked—and in the interest of the state I invite the opposition leader to clearly detail the National Party’s and the opposition’s position on this matter: does the National Party continue to oppose the federal industrial relations laws or has it bowed down to the Liberals? We saw the Nationals come in here last year and vote against the federal government’s industrial relations laws, say publicly that they were opposed to them and say that they would not support them. Yet they have been absolutely silent since then, despite the fact that I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition at that time—I think it was 23 November—with not a word back directly to me. I do not mind if he does not write to me, but the public of this state deserve an answer on exactly where the Queensland Nationals stand on this. Are they going to stand up for the important issue of states rights or are they going to continue to bow down to their Liberal colleagues in here? We are not sure whether they are in coalition, whether they are working together or whether they will be working together, but it is pretty apparent that the supposedly once great Queensland Nationals have bowed down to the Liberal Party, nationally at least, and that the state Liberals by their silence are acquiescing to the federal Liberal Party on this most important issue. 26 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006

Tarong Power Station Mrs PRATT: My question is to the Minister for Energy. Tarong Power Station has been instructed to stop drawing water from Wivenhoe Dam to ensure the preservation of Brisbane’s water supply. With Boondooma Dam being down to roughly 30 per cent capacity and not, as stated by the member for Chatsworth, considered to be a reliable and realistic option on which Tarong Energy could base its future power generation, what arrangements have been made to ensure uninterrupted power generation continues at Tarong Power Station? Mr MICKEL: I did notice there was some media commentary last week from the member for Chatsworth, who I understand in an earlier life was an engineer. His accusation against the government was that I was wanting to keep the lights on ahead of wanting people to drink water. Mr Schwarten: So? Mr MICKEL: That is what I thought. The point is this: without energy, without electricity, there would be no water. That is a self-evident fact. I will not pass judgement on the professional qualities of the member for Chatsworth. I will leave that to my colleague the member for Lytton. The point is that the issues that the member for Nanango has raised are serious. The Deputy Premier and I have considered this matter at length. The issues in going from Wivenhoe to Boondooma, as you know as the local member, are quite serious. So the board made recommendations to us after we wrote to them I think late last year. It is true that in recent days the Deputy Premier and I have directed the Tarong board to draw its water from Boondooma Dam. There are outstanding issues with that and that will take that water supply through to 2008, but we are monitoring that. The Deputy Premier and I are not just going to say, ‘That is the end of the issue.’ We will continue to monitor that. We will continue to meet with the Tarong board about that. I am sure, like the people in Nanango and the people throughout south-east Queensland, that what we are hoping for this February-March is a wet season that will give us rain where it is needed: in the catchment area. On water issues—and I do not want to go over ground that belongs rightly to my colleague—I do want to thank the people of south-east Queensland for the excellent way they have responded but so, too, Tarong Energy. When we look at the way it is engaged in water conservation at that plant, we can see that it has done a magnificent job. The honourable the Premier has announced another initiative. He is putting dollars towards a water recycling initiative. So we have a number of strategies on the go. Water recycling is one of them. It is one that we have woken up to and one that we have put dollars towards. This is the contrast: we have the plan and the policy and those opposite are not ready with anything. All their accusation was was that I want to put energy before water. They do not have a policy. They do not have a coalition. We are taking this plan very seriously, but the opposition has no plan and is not ready for government. Time expired. Young Drivers Mr PEARCE: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Young drivers are 2½ times more likely to be killed on our roads than the rest of us. I know the minister has released a discussion paper which provides details on a number of initiatives that could be introduced to help save young lives. Could the minister please inform the House of any progress on this issue? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question. Of course, he is well known as the chairman of the parliamentary Travelsafe Committee and has done an outstanding job in that area when it comes to dealing with issues on our roads and transport generally. Young people account for 13 per cent of the people on our roads yet 28 per cent of our road toll. Too many young people are dying and they are dying at 2½ times the rate of the rest of us, and that is totally unacceptable for the people who are in the prime of their lives. The main causes of death and injury in relation to young drivers are lack of experience, alcohol and drugs, inattention and speeding. So many of those are eminently preventable. Last year I released a discussion paper that is the most comprehensive discussion paper that has yet been released in Australia and, indeed, not only canvasses all the issues but also talks about pros and cons and gives people an opportunity to ask, ‘How would you do it this way? How would you do it that way?’ Something we all agree on is that we want fewer youth fatalities on our roads, but the parliament passing a law that says we will have fewer youth fatalities does not change the situation. It is a three- pronged approach. First of all, it is a question of what government can do in terms of legislation. But no legislation will be the be-all and end-all of dealing with young fatalities on our roads. Secondly, it is the role of the community, including parents, to play an increasing role in the education of young people and in supporting them. That goes for not only supervising them but also showing courtesy to young drivers when they are on the road and understanding that they are still learning. Thirdly, and just as importantly, 14 Feb 2006 Questions Without Notice 27 it comes down to the issue of young drivers themselves. They have a role and we should never, ever in this House, no matter whether it be in relation to young drivers or in any other area, neglect the area of personal responsibility. What we are trying to do is put 30-year-old heads on 17- and 18-year-old shoulders. The simple fact is that a 17-year-old who is a motor accident risk becomes a 30-year-old who is statistically the same as the rest of us. What we need to do is talk about those initiatives. I have been gratified at both Toowoomba and the Gold Coast to see a number of government and coalition members, whom I thank for their attendance and their contribution. We have a number of other fora that will be running throughout the state. It will be lovely to see members there if they can make it. This is about hearing from young people. It is about hearing from parents, driver educators and the whole community. There are a number of issues on which we will need some discussion about how they might work and whether they are feasible. What we do not want to do is solve one problem by creating another one. What we do not want is for our police in high-speed car chases to get young people who might be breaking the law in a technical way but at the same time not be able to deal with them in other ways. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to actually do something. It also dovetails with the Queensland Road Safety Summit to be held next week in Parliament House. Queensland Health Miss SIMPSON: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Given the avalanche of advertised positions for senior bureaucrats in Queensland Health over the past months, I ask: how many bureaucrats have been employed by Queensland Health over the past six months and how many doctors have been employed over the same period? Mr ROBERTSON: Had the honourable member opposite been listening last year, she would know that I provided the House with an update of the reduction in bureaucrat positions in Queensland Health. We were tracking above the recommended decreases that came out of the Forster review. Had she been paying attention, she would have known that there has been a reduction in real terms in bureaucrat positions far exceeding those coming out of the Forster report. The member in her question talked about advertising. I have just been handed a press release put out today by the Leader of the Opposition which uses quite unfortunate language, as he does. He continues to bring down standards in this place. He said that we have lied about our knowledge of the problems at Caboolture. I expect that what he is leading up to in terms of this offensive document, as he continues to call us liars at every possible point, is that we did nothing about it. Let the record show the frequency of advertisements taken out in not just the Courier-Mail but also interstate newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the Sunshine Coast news, the Weekend Australian and other papers for vacancies in the Caboolture emergency department. The record shows that in February last year, in May last year and in October last year advertisements were placed nationally and internationally for vacancies at the Caboolture emergency department. In addition to that, the following advertisement was sent out to every member of the College for Emergency Medicine to their home address— Miss Simpson: So how many bureaucrats have you employed? Mr ROBERTSON: Don’t be so rude! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Maroochydore, you have asked the question. Allow the minister to answer. Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The minister is not answering the question about how many bureaucrats have been employed. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr ROBERTSON: Sit down. Stop wasting my time. This advertisement was sent to the home address of every member of the College for Emergency Medicine not just in Australia but in New Zealand as well. In addition to that, recruitment firms were sent the advice of these vacancies on a regular basis so that they could recruit internationally. If the offensive press release from the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we did nothing about the vacancies at the Caboolture emergency department, the facts prove otherwise. Foster-Carers Mrs DESLEY SCOTT: My question is directed to the Minister for Child Safety. I am aware there is a growing need nationally for more foster-carers and more options for children and young people in care with challenging and complex behaviour who cannot live at home because of abuse or neglect. What is the department doing to meet this demand in Queensland? Mr REYNOLDS: I welcome that very important and very timely question from the member for Woodridge. I note her very keen interest in child protection as she is the chair of my legislation 28 Questions Without Notice 14 Feb 2006 committee. Today I am announcing a major Beattie government initiative which will inject $117 million into the community sector across Queensland over the next three years to provide more foster care and residential care options. The funds right the way across Queensland are going to 83 services run by non-government organisations throughout the state. These agencies will assist us by delivering a range of services that meet the individual needs of children and young people in care. The services include foster and relative or kinship care, specialist foster care, residential care and supported independent living for young people under 18 years who have moderate to extreme support needs. As Minister for Child Safety, where possible, we endeavour to maintain the family unit, but if this cannot be done without compromising child safety then we do look at alternatives. Most children in care will find the family environment provided by foster-carers is best for them, whereas some children with complex needs will need specialist residential care. A particular young person’s age, behaviour or previous experiences may preclude placing that young person in a traditional foster care arrangement. They may need residential care, where a funded service provides supported housing tailored to meet the needs of the young people who will be living there. This type of care could include the provision of live-in rostered care workers or, where independent living is deemed appropriate, regular visits by support workers or other services. This funding plan will also help to establish specialist foster-carers to cater for children who require tailored family based living environments or support. Indeed, almost $16 million per annum has been allocated across the state to establish over 180 places for children with complex or extreme needs. We have also had a specific focus in this funding round to find better ways of caring for Indigenous children and young people who are significantly overrepresented in the child protection system. We have had many submissions in that regard. I very much welcome the new services that we will be having across the state. I acknowledge all of our foster-carers this morning. We know that they are the mainstay of our child protection system. In that regard, foster care and relative care organisations will receive a $12.6 million funding boost this year as part of this funding round. The community sector is our partner. It is a legitimate partner in the delivery of our foster care services. This $117 million announcement is unprecedented and will be very valuable for the state of Queensland. Queensland Health Mr McARDLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. How many doctors have resigned or not renewed their contracts with Queensland Health over the past six months? Mr ROBERTSON: Obviously I do not have those figures to hand, nor would any reasonable person expect me to have that information available. But what I can inform the member of is that we are relentless in our attempts to recruit new doctors to Queensland Health. Over the last number of years we have seen an increase in the number of doctors employed by Queensland Health—just as we have seen an increase in the number of nurses employed by Queensland Health and an increase in the number of allied health professionals employed by Queensland Health. Had the member been paying attention, he would have known that we have some quite definite election commitments that we deliver on each and every time. One of those election commitments is increasing our clinical workforce. As the member may have noticed if he had taken the time to read the Forster report, there are recommendations to further increase that clinical workforce, which is why we have been doing things like putting on the table a significant amount of money—now $1 billion of new money—in wage increases for our doctors over the last number of months. That puts us in a much better position—a much more competitive position—not just nationally but also internationally to recruit more doctors to Queensland Health because our commitment is to continue to increase the number of doctors employed by Queensland Health across a range of specialities. As will be seen when the initiatives that we have undertaken take effect—and this is not just in terms of salary increases but putting clinicians in positions of decision making, such as they have been calling on the government to do—we have been delivering on those points. We are reaching agreements with the AMA on each of the points that it has brought up over a significant amount of time. The AMA recognises, and unfortunately you do not, that our efforts are all about attracting more doctors to Queensland Health and to places such as Caloundra, the very place that you have been talking down for the last number of months—your own home patch, your own local hospital. You will say and do anything to talk down the valuable work being done by the doctors and nurses at Caloundra Hospital, and you stand condemned for the statements that you have been making. You are an absolute disgrace! Mr SPEAKER: The time allocated for question time has expired. 14 Feb 2006 Matters of Public Interest 29

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Health System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 am): At not one stage this morning did we hear from the tired old government opposite a solution to the health problems in Queensland. At no stage this morning did we see the vision— Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I will come to that. At no stage this morning did we see the effectiveness of an action plan which is going to correct the 7½ years of neglect of health in Queensland under the Beattie Labor government. Queenslanders in the community today are asking a very simple question: what happened to the best public hospital system in Australia, which was inherited by this government in 1996 and which has been systematically driven into the ground every week, every month and every year since? What has happened to it? Why has it been ground into oblivion? That is what we have seen. This morning we saw the most pathetic performance ever from a health minister. He got up and thought he could be a smartypants. He stood up and mouthed the rhetoric that he has been stuffing himself full of in the time that he has been the health minister. It is the sort of rhetoric that we see from the Premier and the Deputy Premier when it comes to addressing important issues. Queenslanders have heard it all before. They have had it up to here. They have had a gutful of rhetoric, they have had a gutful of nonsense, they have had a gutful of lies, they have a gutful of promises and they have had a gutful of failure. Every time there is a problem in our public health system, this government promises another action plan. We see the government making an emergency injection of funds, but nothing is ever fixed because it has not fixed the structure. What is the latest way of fixing the health system in Queensland? It is stupid stunts, stupid badges and stupid, misleading, distorted graphs. That is what we are seeing in Queensland under this clown performance of those who sit opposite and pretend to be a government. The indignity we saw the other day of the Premier of Queensland admitting his own failure in the health system and turning up to COAG with an insulting, misleading, deceptive badge on his lapel and thinking that he was going to be treated as a serious premier, a serious state leader, has left Queenslanders shaking their heads. Mr Caltabiano interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Delusional. Mr Horan: The yellow ribbon. Mr SPRINGBORG: Then there was the yellow ribbon, which is the greatest insult to the people of Caboolture, who have suffered systematically at the hands of this government by its neglect. Where were the members for Pumicestone and Glass House in all of this? They were putting glossy brochures around their electorates saying, ‘We’re very strong advocates for the Beattie Labor government up here in Pumicestone and Glass House. We tell the Premier everything that’s going on.’ Then the Premier says, ‘I rely on really, really strong and effective local members like Ms Male and Mrs Sullivan. They keep me well informed.’ Well informed? The whole hospital is turning into chaos. The mayor, the opposition and the media are telling the local members what is going on, and the local members are putting out letters to members of their electorates in absolute denial. That is not the mark of a person who is fit to be a member of parliament. At least the member for Pumicestone had the courage to turn up at the meeting. She was not able to tell the people anything, but the member for Glass House headed for the hills and has not been heard of since. Then we have the Premier engaging in a one-man protest against himself by wearing a yellow ribbon. Maybe it should go with a yellow spine when it comes to these sorts of issues. What we have to see from this man is fewer stunts and a bit more substance. It is deeds, not words, that make the difference. Having some sort of copycat, Bill Clinton, ‘I share your pain’ attitude is not going to fix the problem for the thousands of Queenslanders who are languishing on our unacceptable hospital waiting lists or for the hundreds of thousands of Queenslanders who are unable to get on the waiting lists. All of the stunts and the silly badges on lapels, which we have seen this morning in some sort of coordinated protest against their own inaction in government, will deliver no more doctors, no more nurses and no more operations. When the health minister stood in parliament this morning to answer questions about the basics, such as how many medical graduates will be coming out of Queensland universities in 2010, he could not tell us. Mr Caltabiano: No idea. Mr SPRINGBORG: He had no idea. We asked him how many medical graduates came out of Queensland universities last year, and he could not tell us for the parliamentary record. We asked the minister how many training positions are currently in Queensland public hospitals and how many will be there in 2010. He had no idea. He was subsequently asked about the number of resignations of doctors, whether they be interns, registrars, staff specialists or VMOs, and he had no idea. Mr Caltabiano: No idea. 30 Matters of Public Interest 14 Feb 2006

Mr SPRINGBORG: The member for Chatsworth has got it. The minister had no idea. He is the health minister for Queensland! He had no idea how many doctors resigned last year. He had no idea how many medical students were in Queensland based universities. He had no idea how many students will be there in 2010. He had no idea how many training positions there were for these students in 2005 or how many there would be in 2010—none at all! There was just a misleading graph—and this is supposed to be a Smart State! In a Smart State, with the education minister sitting very close by, one would have thought the ministers could have said, ‘Look, the X and the Y axis is wrong. Distortion is really not the best way to do it.’ But, no, they are all complicit in distortion and dishonesty. That is the way that this government does things. It has no substance. That is why it has lacked the trust of the electorate at large. It is about time we started to see something substantial come from this government because, at the end of the day, we know that the university places are there and that they are being ramped up. We also know that it is the state government’s responsibility, through our large tertiary training hospitals and our small regional hospitals, to ensure that when those medical students come out of university they are trained in specialist areas or generalist areas. We know that. That is the role of those training hospitals. They have been run down and degraded by this government over a long period of time. That is why the doctors are leaving. At no stage today did the minister tell us why, if things are so hunky-dory, we have a mass exodus of doctors, whether they are staff specialists, VMOs or others, from the health system in Queensland. At no stage did he say why. I will tell members the answer: they do not want to work for this government. They are sick of the blame game. They are sick of being marginalised, they are sick of being bullied, they are sick of being maligned and they are sick of being treated as a cost centre to be pushed around by people who are more interested in earning their stripes and appeasing the minister, who is more interested in appeasing the Premier, than they are in actually delivering for Queensland. That is what we have. Mr Caltabiano: Maybe he wants the top job. Mr SPRINGBORG: Maybe he wants the top job. It does not matter who takes the top job in Queensland; nothing changes because they are still the same bunch of failures when it comes to these sorts of issues. We want an end to the blame game. We want an end to the excuses. Queenslanders deserve better. The reason the health system is in crisis is the same reason our water infrastructure is run down, our roads are in crisis, our Ambulance Service is in crisis and a range of other basic utilities and infrastructure are in crisis. This government has ignored the basics. This government has been interested in constructing a bureaucracy and a process which is about appeasing the needs of the government rather than meeting the needs of the community at large. The coalition in Queensland has a plan to fix it. It is a plan based on our track record. When Mike Horan became health minister we took over a situation in which there was an unacceptable delay in the number of people requiring urgent elective surgery. By the time we left office the reduction was significant—from around 40 per cent to two per cent. Under this guru of a health minister and under this Premier, who is also a guru of spin, we have seen the category 1 urgent elective surgery waiting list blow out to about 20 per cent in the last quarter. That is unsuccessful. We have a plan based on our performance, based on our track record, which is about remedicalising health in Queensland, about putting back local control and empowerment and about sitting there and administering this. Anyone who doubts our record should look at it. When it comes to infrastructure I ask: has this government ever built a billion-dollar road in two years and four months? Never, never, never. Bundaberg Base Hospital Hon. NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (11.40 am): In this first sitting week of 2006 I would like to place on record in this House the progress that is being made at our Bundaberg Base Hospital as Queensland moves forward from the health problems of 2005. Bundaberg’s hospital was the worst hit because of the Queensland Medical Board’s tragic mistake of allowing Dr Patel to operate in Queensland. His appointment to Bundaberg hurt many people and it hurt our hospital’s reputation, resulting in the loss of doctors, nurses and allied health staff who just did not want to work in the terrible atmosphere that remained. However, as tragic as the Dr Patel issue was, it has brought into the open the problems that have been growing within Queensland Health and in our hospitals for many years. It has brought out clearly our dependence on overseas trained doctors because of the grossly inadequate number of doctors being trained in Australia. Consequently, it has brought about the most comprehensive changes, the biggest injection of money and the strongest commitment of any state government in history to building a better health system for all Queenslanders. Already our hospital in Bundaberg that employs 54 doctors and 366 nurses has turned the corner. Recruitment is going extremely well. The Acting District Manager, Monica Seth, is doing a fine job. Our Director of Medical Services, Dr Beresford, has been recruited from Perth. I believe Dr Beresford came 14 Feb 2006 Matters of Public Interest 31 out of retirement to help rebuild staffing levels, hospital services and morale at our hospital. His dedication is much appreciated. We also have a new Director of Accident and Emergency, Dr Sweetman, who is a specialist in this field and has also come from Perth. A new Director of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dr Betts, has also started, as has a senior medical officer in psychiatry, Dr Zaman. I am advised that a further 29 doctors have accepted contracts and are awaiting start dates, including two orthopaedic surgeons. As well as that, seven graduate nurses started in January. However, recruitment is not the only indication that our hospital is moving ahead. Fifteen medical students from the University of Queensland have chosen this year to attend a rural clinical school of medical training based at our hospital. Recently, our base hospital made up the extra funds to keep the Heartstart program going in Bundaberg following the withdrawal of some of the private funding. Our hospital, which last year recorded in excess of 27,000 in-patient days and 188,000 outpatient treatments, will also now be accepting all maternity patients in Bundaberg. The family unit at our base hospital has an experienced team of 37 midwives who specialise in every aspect of pregnancy and birthing. It has always been an integral part of bringing local babies into the world, with over 700 babies born at the Base each year. Following the recent commercial decision by a private hospital to close its birthing unit, our base hospital has again shone. It has, at very short notice, adjusted its programs within its family unit and will now provide for all Bundaberg, Burnett and district mothers from yesterday. All of this good news coming from our hospital, together with good positive coverage in the News- Mail, which is enhanced even further by the positive news coming out of COAG meetings last week, is lifting confidence throughout our community and lifting some of the stress from our dedicated and loyal staff. This government is moving forward to overcome the problems of the past, to provide justice for those patients and their families who have suffered because of the actions of Dr Patel and to provide all Queenslanders with a better health system. The opposition now has the choice of moving forward with us in a positive way for all Queenslanders or continuing to stumble along in the past, being negative on every issue, name-calling and playing blame games. But their continued attempts to blame this government for the problems within Queensland Health are just not credible when the findings of the Forster inquiry clearly acknowledge that those problems have been there over successive governments, both Labor and coalition. Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (11.45 am): I rise this morning to further inform the House and my community about the status of the Caboolture Hospital emergency department. The Goss Labor government built the Caboolture Hospital in 1994 and its services have been growing to provide our community with the best care possible. It is an excellent public hospital and I want to take this opportunity to thank the doctors, nurses, allied health staff, workers from all departments, administrators and the many volunteers who work hard at this facility day in and day out. Working in a hospital is a tough job. Their job is made tougher by the fact that everything that occurs at Caboolture now seems to be under the scrutiny of the media. Currently, doctors from Queensland Health, Mater Medical Services and CareFlight are working together to provide the senior doctors needed to run a reduced emergency care service. I thank all those doctors for agreeing to treat patients in our area. There is a perception in the community that there are not enough funds to pay doctors. This is not the case. Just this month $272 million was announced on top of last year’s $633 million enterprise bargaining agreement to increase the salaries of our doctors and make us competitive with the rest of Australia. The problem we have at Caboolture Hospital is a lack of senior emergency department doctors. Last year Queensland Health wrote to all senior doctors who are fellows of the College of Emergency Medicine in Australia and New Zealand advising them of potential vacancies at Caboolture with no success. The government utilises several local and international specialist recruitment agencies, including the AMA, working both locally and overseas to recruit more doctors for Queensland—and Caboolture in particular. In January the government recruited an additional 260 doctors for Queensland public hospitals, but unfortunately none of them applied to work in Caboolture. The doctor shortage is an Australia-wide phenomenon and can be traced back to the federal government’s practice of limiting the number of doctor training places at universities over the past decade and its reluctance to fund clinical training places in hospitals. That is one reason why Queensland is forced to rely heavily on overseas trained doctors and why Queensland Health was forced to reduce services at Caboolture. Last week the Premier went to the Commonwealth of Australian Governments meeting with all other state and territory leaders and met with the Prime Minister to discuss emerging health issues and potential solutions. The Premier was successful in getting the Prime Minister to admit that the Commonwealth has not trained enough doctors to meet the needs of Queenslanders. To this end, the Commonwealth has allocated an additional 60 full fee-paying student places in Queensland and will 32 Matters of Public Interest 14 Feb 2006 consider the request for an extra 325 doctor places by June. The Premier also made the Prime Minister admit that he has not provided enough funding for aged care places. In Queensland, 120,000 beds every year are taken up in Queensland hospitals by people who should be in a nursing home bed. For the past couple of weeks the federal member for Longman, Mr Mal Brough, has been quoting health funding, yet he represents a federal government that has failed to match Queensland’s contribution to the Australian Health Care Agreement by $1.6 billion over five years. Like his fellow Queensland Liberal MP Bruce Flegg, Mr Brough is part of the problem, not the solution, and it is about time he faced up to the Commonwealth’s responsibilities. I would like to remind the House of some of the initiatives of the state government during the past year: a $6.4 billion health action plan to finance widespread reforms and restructuring; training nurse practitioners; 235 scholarships to train doctors at Griffith University at a cost to the state of over $60 million; almost $4 million in new funding to relieve pressure on healthcare services in Redcliffe and Caboolture districts; and a new cardiac rehabilitation service which will support 600 people per year. Mr Springborg has publicly asked what I have done during the duration of the problems at Caboolture. I have spoken to the health minister, the Deputy Premier, the Premier and the Minister for Emergency Services about this matter. I have also met with the Director-General of Queensland Health and have been to the hospital to meet with doctors and nurses. I have attended meetings of state, federal and local government elected representatives for the Caboolture area to work on the problem of attracting emergency doctors to Caboolture and have written to the federal health minister, Tony Abbott, to ask for an urgent upgrade of training places for doctors and to reconsider their approach to health funding. But what have Lawrence Springborg and the Nationals done? Have they put out the call for their federal colleagues to train more doctors? No. Have they been working with doctors to encourage them to come to Caboolture? No. Have they asked John Howard to provide more incentives to encourage doctors to open 24-hour clinics in the Caboolture area to relieve the burden of emergency departments? No. The Nationals have done nothing. It is time Mr Springborg and his colleagues stood up for the people of Queensland and started working with the government. He is once again only interested in petty political point-scoring rather than working to deliver for our community. I will continue to work for the residents of Caboolture and the surrounding areas to try to get this emergency department back up and running. But it is up to all of us to work together, to put politics aside and to focus on the needs of our communities. I will continue to do that. Member for Robina Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.50 am): Members of this House will recall that last year I was accused of bribery. The issue was initially raised in the House by the Minister for Energy and was supported by a parliamentary motion proposed by the Premier. There was an allegation made for base political purposes. It was a claim absolutely without merit, made with reckless disregard for the truth and with reckless disregard for the honour of this parliament. A thorough investigation by the Queensland Police Service has demonstrated the stunning hypocrisy of those involved. Notably, the commissioner expressed his concern about the way in which the police were being used for political purposes. Apart from the conduct of those involved, there are aspects of this investigation that do not reflect well on the administration of justice under this government. Those matters are as follows. How is it that such allegations can be raised in this House when they are without merit and without foundation? I am advised that the Commissioner for Police appointed a senior officer to lead this investigation. I understand that this officer and his investigating team came to the conclusion, after interviewing the member for Gympie, that the facts alleged by her did not and could not constitute an offence. I understand that the member for Gympie was made aware of this fact and complained to the Premier and that the Premier personally contacted the commissioner. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! I have been advised by those at the table that this matter is before the members’ ethics committee. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow the Leader of the Liberal Party to continue. Mr QUINN: I take your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. Nursing Home Places Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (11.51 am): There is a famous Hollywood movie called Broken Arrow. One of the stars is John Travolta. It features a terrorist group’s attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon. In the early part of the movie one of the characters says something along these lines: ‘I don’t know whether I should be concerned that we have lost a nuclear weapon or concerned that we actually have a term for it.’ I know how that actor feels. 14 Feb 2006 Matters of Public Interest 33

Speaking with doctors, nurses and other staff at Redlands Hospital I hear concerns about ‘bed blockers’. ‘What are ‘bed blockers?’, I hear members ask. ‘Bed blocker’ is a term that refers to people who are in acute care beds when they should be in a nursing home. As that actor said, I do not know whether to be concerned about the fact that people are taking up acute care beds when they should not be or concerned that it is so common that we have a term for it. The acute care beds are being used because the Howard government has failed in the area of aged care. There are simply not enough nursing home beds in the Redlands. Every week in my office I field complaints from families who are trying to find beds in nursing homes for their loved ones. Residents of the Redlands regularly complain about the waiting lists in local nursing homes. Residents of the Redlands can obtain nursing home placements in regional centres but not close to home in the Redlands. This is a travesty. The pain and hardship that this shortage causes local residents is to be condemned. I have spoken to those running the nursing homes in my electorate who are trying to obtain approval for more beds and they have complained about the Howard government’s lack of compassion. Many residents of the Redlands are suffering because the Howard government has forced them to make the awful choice between trying to manage their elderly family members at home or placing them in a nursing home many hours away. I feel for these families. I know the pain that this awful decision causes the families of our elderly. The other impact of the Howard government’s negligence is being felt in our hospitals. There are many elderly people who have medical conditions and these people deserve the best care. These people will obtain great care in our hospitals. This is happening now. However, once the acute phase is over these people should be able to readily access care in our nursing homes. Because of the Howard government’s laziness this is not happening. The opposition often complains about waiting lists for surgery in our hospitals. One reason for these delays is that beds are not available for post-operative care because of Howard’s lack of compassion and lack of spending in our nursing homes. Our brothers, our sisters, our friends, our loved ones cannot have their surgery because John Howard and his government do not value the elderly. Howard is quite happy to let elderly people wait in hospitals because he is too cheap to fund sufficient nursing home beds. I am proud that our public hospitals are able to provide the support that these elderly people need. It must be acknowledged, however, that there is a flow-on effect of the Howard government’s negligence which is felt in the homes of the people who are on the surgical waiting list. I am not trying to blame Howard entirely for waiting list delays. Our Premier, Peter Beattie, and health minister, Stephen Robertson, have announced a raft of reforms to improve our public health system. I call on John Howard and his government to play their role and fund more nursing home beds to allow our elderly people to find places in nursing homes. Time expired. Coalition Water Policy Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11.55 am): Over the coming months I will be making a number of policy statements in this parliament setting out the position of the Queensland coalition on a range of water issues. Today I will focus on the Beattie’s government’s new water taxes and the water reform process. The National Water Initiative focuses on a broad range of water management issues and aims to achieve better environmental outcomes, better water accounting and monitoring, an expansion of permanent trade in water and secure water access entitlements. Very few of these aims have become realities for most Queensland water users, with the Beattie government’s water planning process years behind schedule. The Beattie Labor government has seized on the National Water Initiative as an excuse to use water as a revenue raiser and introduce new taxes. It has used this agreement as an opportunity to pass on the costs of its own inefficient bureaucracy to water users. Despite very few benefits becoming apparent from the water reform process, a series of water resource charges, including a $4 a megalitre allocated and $100 per licence, have been introduced. Irrigators and licence holders all over the state are refusing point blank to pay these unjustifiable new taxes, and so they should. The Queensland coalition strongly supports water reform to ensure our scarce water resources are used more efficiently. We recognise that the National Water Initiative allows state governments to recover some of the costs of water planning and management. We support the National Water Initiative. But water reform should not be just about governments recovering costs for an inefficient bureaucracy. So far Queensland water users have had significant costs imposed on them in the name of water reform but have seen very little benefit. 34 Matters of Public Interest 14 Feb 2006

The Beattie Labor government has made no serious attempt to ensure that the state government water management and planning services are more efficient than they have been in the past. In fact, the evidence points to the opposite. Worst of all, the new charges are in no way based on or conditional upon achieving any beneficial outcomes. A coalition government will scrap Labor’s new unfair and unjustified water taxes. There will be no additional water resource charge for water users who are already paying increasing water prices under the new price paths. Irrigation revenues have already increased by 70 per cent from $30 million in 2000 to $42 million last year. This will increase even further when the new five-year price path starts on 1 July this year. These new higher water prices will represent a significant burden for Queensland irrigators. We will strongly argue that they satisfy the National Water Initiative requirements and the COAG requirements. A coalition government will implement our long-established policy of capping irrigation water charges at the lower bound level. Water price rises will be capped at the level at which the costs of operating the water storage and delivery infrastructure are fully recovered. There will be no rate of return extracted from irrigators for historical investments and we will not be part of any national agreement that requires such a return. The COAG agreement recognises the need for community service obligation payments for older established irrigation schemes. We will continue to use CSOs to ensure that Queensland water users in these areas will not be charged beyond their capacity to pay. In any new water pricing regime there has to be a consideration of the economic capacity of the long-established irrigation schemes to pay water charges that are far in excess of what was ever envisaged when such schemes were built. A coalition government will adopt this basic concept. We will insist that any national agreement recognises this as an essential principle. We will not see the economic viability of Queensland communities and Queensland irrigators who depend on these long-established irrigation schemes destroyed for no beneficial outcome. The coalition will also scrap Labor’s $100 per licence tax on water licences. We would instead adopt a one-off fee on new licences so the state government can record their location and issue the appropriate licence. The water reform process will hopefully bring significant benefits to the community as a whole. However, water reform also imposes significant financial burdens, and under the Beattie Labor government that burden has fallen unfairly on Queensland irrigators. A coalition government will share equitably the cost of water reform rather than use it as an opportunity to introduce new taxes and entrench costly inefficiencies in water management. A coalition government will achieve environmental and economic sustainability in water management, and in so doing we will ensure fairness to Queensland water users and cost efficiency in water management. Burdekin Falls Dam Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (12.00 pm): On 4 January this year pumping commenced from the mighty Burdekin Falls Dam into the Ross River Dam. With water in Ross River Dam down to puddle proportions, the Burdekin Falls Dam became a liquid lifesaver as up to 120 megalitres of water a day made its way into Townsville and Thuringowa via the Haughton River pumping station and the 34-kilometre long Burdekin pipeline. Pumping continued for 21 days before the skies opened up and Burdekin Falls Dam water was no longer required. It was predicted late last year that Townsville would have no choice but to turn to the Burdekin to supplement supply early in 2006 despite the daily pumping cost, and that is exactly what happened. But how fortunate Townsville is to be able to call on a water source as vast as the Burdekin Falls Dam. We may be situated in the dry tropics, but not many cities in Australia can lay claim to being drought proofed to the same extent as Townsville-Thuringowa. As we had been forced to turn to the Burdekin for just the second time since the dam was finished in 1987, it was only natural that a large amount of media attention would ensue. What a shame that in the midst of all of the dam hype everyone was being given credit for its existence except the very government and the people who made it happen. It is amazing how history can become blurred, even in a relatively short time frame. The Burdekin Falls Dam is there today because a federal Labor government committed to it and then put up the money—$130 million—to build it. Taking inflation into account, that $130 million would be closer to $200 million or more in real terms today. Prior to the 1983 federal election, Bob Hawke committed to building a dam on the Burdekin. In 1984 he honoured that pledge and construction began. It was completed in 1987. In more than 50 years of lobbying, cajoling and broken promises, no other government had been prepared to lay money on the line for a dam on the Burdekin. Certainly, once federal Labor put money where its mouth was the Bjelke- Petersen government built the dam village and paid for the infrastructure, but without that $130 million from a Labor government for the dam wall and associated saddle dams the Burdekin Falls Dam might still have been just a pipedream. No Australian dam has since been built with federal government money. On 7 January a feature about the Burdekin Falls Dam in the Townsville Bulletin was somewhat disappointing in its direction, but I am pleased to say that three weeks later the paper ran another feature story on the dam which was much more on target. On 18 January the Townsville Bulletin 14 Feb 2006 Matters of Public Interest 35 published a letter from Rob Talbot of Charters Towers which dumped bucketloads on the heads of Burdekin Falls Dam pretenders. I will read three extracts from Mr Talbot’s letter to the editor. He said— On August 10 1983 then Prime Minister Bob Hawke announced in a speech to the Townsville Regional Development Board that federal funds were being allocated for construction of the Burdekin Falls Dam. Joh Bjelke-Petersen was nowhere in sight, nor were any plans for the Queensland Government to continue work on the Burdekin Dam. Listen up people, the Burdekin Dam, which is the only thing standing between us and economic ruin during extended dry seasons, was a Labor Party initiative, begun by a Labor government in the ’50s, scrapped by the incoming conservatives and kept as an election carrot from then on. It took another Labor government to deliver it for us. It is hard to come to terms with the gullibility of the member for Charters Towers, who responded in the Townsville Bulletin to Mr Talbot’s letter by denying Bob Hawke credit in the dam saga and saying the real heroes were the taxpayers. Yes, it certainly was funded with taxpayers’ money, but how many government sponsored projects and services are not? Taxpayers pay for pretty much everything, but governments decide how that money will be spent. The fact is that the Hawke government was the only government that made and kept a promise to build the Burdekin Falls Dam. Many people dedicated a large part of their lives to battling long and hard for a dam on the Burdekin. To highlight some and not others is to risk leaving out those also deserving of recognition. However, it would be remiss of me not to make special mention of the late Frank Rossiter, chairman of the Burdekin Dam Committee, and the former federal Labor member for Herbert, Ted Lindsay. Frank Rossiter never gave up on his outspoken quest for the dam, and the unstinting efforts of Ted Lindsay to keep Bob Hawke to his funding promise were absolutely critical. For every Burdekin Falls Dam advocate, there were dozens of doubters who had just about given up on seeing it ever happen. But it did happen, and farmers in the Lower Burdekin and residents of Townsville and Thuringowa can thank their lucky stars that federal Labor was victorious in 1983. Doctor Graduates Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (12.04 pm): At a cost of some $150,000 plus to Queensland taxpayers, we have seen ads run in newspapers around Queensland. I note that the Minister for Health was proudly displaying these ads in the chamber today. These ads are a disgrace. They are dishonest. They are deceptive. They are designed to fool the people of Queensland and to shift the blame onto the federal government for a crisis in our emergency departments that has nothing to do with medical school places and which is a Queensland problem from years of maladministration and poor policy in Health by the present Beattie government in this state. This morning in the chamber we asked the Minister for Health a number of questions. One of the first ones was a very simple question: how many medical graduates were there in Queensland in 2004 and how many will there be in 2010? We know how many there will be in 2010 because they have already had to start medical school. Mr Caltabiano: I bet you he had no idea. Dr FLEGG: He had no idea! He did not have a clue! Here he is spending Queensland taxpayers’ money on false advertising, yet we ask him a simple question about how many graduates are already in the pipeline to come into Queensland in 2010 and he did not have a clue. In fact, if he had read the Forster report he would realise that Mr Forster even wrote it down for him on page 235. We followed that with another question to him in relation to how many places he would have for interns in 2010. Peter Forster told the minister that he would have 540 graduating medical students in 2010. Those medical students can never practise as a doctor in the state of Queensland unless the health minister and this government find an intern position for them. Do members know what his answer to the question this morning was? When asked how many intern positions his government will be providing in 2010 he said ‘not enough’! The answer was ‘not enough’! He did not have a clue. Then he went on to imply that intern positions were somehow something to do with the federal government. The minister should have perhaps consulted with the Premier, because when the 60 new full fee- paying positions came out of COAG the other day the Premier said that just these 60 positions—not the 325 that we see on the ridiculous badges—would strain the public hospital system in Queensland if the public hospital system had to train them as interns. What a joke! Here we have over the next five years a doubling of the medical graduation numbers when the system cannot even cope with training an extra 60 interns and we are wearing badges saying that, on top of the doubling, we want another 325 places even though we cannot train them and even though they will never be able to work as doctors in this state. Mr Terry Sullivan: That’s not true. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection, because we had occupational therapists graduating in Queensland and, because of the decay of the public hospital system, they were unable to get clinical placements and they could never be registered as occupational therapists or work here or anywhere else because they could not get a clinical placement. What this government is trying to do is to make that happen to doctors—that is, to graduate out of medical school but not be trained as interns. 36 Matters of Public Interest 14 Feb 2006

Let us have more of a look at the graph that the government has put out. I did not do any maths at university but I did a bit at school, and I know a dodgy graph and dodgy statistics when I see them. Let us look at the axis. The first inch represents two million Queenslanders. The second inch represents half a million Queenslanders. Let us look at the scale on them. The graph does a comparison over 20 years, but it starts them on totally different scales so that one histogram is a different height to the other. The biggest con of all in this false advertising campaign—in fact, the minister for consumer affairs ought to look at this—is that it uses medical graduates, not medical school places, to attack the Commonwealth government. The Commonwealth government does not give graduates; it gives medical school places. But the state government did not say ‘medical school places’ in its ad because it is not an attractive graph. That graph shows that medical school places have increased in Queensland dramatically more than the population of Queensland has increased. Time expired. Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (12.10 pm): I wish to speak about something that I believe may dispel some of the doom and gloom that we have heard since 11.30 am. One of the issues that we all support in our communities is detecting and fighting various forms of cancer. Today, I want to speak particularly about breast cancer and prostate cancer. In this House there are members who have suffered from various forms of cancer and who continue to fight this insidious disease. The Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors, the Hon. Warren Pitt, is hopefully winning his fight and the member for Aspley, Bonny Barry, is continuing her own fight against breast cancer. By any measure, BreastScreen Queensland, which is administered by Queensland Health—and I will deal with that matter later—has been very successful in detecting breast cancer in women who have regular mammograms. I have every reason to thank the wonderful people who work in that area. I believe their work is the real reason for the successful campaign to reduce the incidence in women of death from cancer. A statistic that is of concern is that one in 11 women will be diagnosed with some form of breast cancer during their lifetimes. BreastScreen Queensland is administered and staffed by Queensland Health and receives Commonwealth funding. In November the Rockhampton unit was responsible for the diagnosis that my wife, Elizabeth, was suffering from breast cancer. The amount of assistance and support that is given by BreastScreen—remember, administered by Queensland Health—and the Queensland Cancer Fund to the many women who have suffered from this disease is amazing. An even greater concern is that more men will die from prostate cancer than women will die from breast cancer. When I speak to my many male acquaintances, they tell me that they have a real fear of contracting prostate cancer, but that they have a greater fear of the method of detection. I understand that a funding proposal for a prostate cancer screening program is being considered by the federal government. I call on all men throughout Queensland and the rest of Australia who fall into the age group that is of concern to support and take part in any program. It may save their lives. On her first visit to BreastScreen, Elizabeth was provided with information and support by the medical staff. As I was in this House at the time, a very supportive woman from Yeppoon, who had been through the mill, offered to accompany Elizabeth. From then on, Elizabeth has had almost continuous support both from BreastScreen and the doctors who operate in that area of Rockhampton. A surgeon was present at the time of Elizabeth’s diagnosis. By the way, he was a visiting surgeon. We have had his continuing support and guidance and the full range of Elizabeth’s supporters have contributed to her almost complete recovery. I have always been supportive of people who suffer the anguish and worry of this disease but, believe me, when it touches your life, you fully understand that anguish and worry and appreciate the many groups that are there to assist. I think it was ironic that during 2005 I was asked to be a model for a Queensland Cancer Fund calendar for 2006. I never dreamed that I would need the assistance of the fund so soon. I congratulate the owners of one of those calendars as their support has been needed. It may even have some historical significance one day. Elizabeth would have received the same excellent treatment by the same surgeon at the Rockhampton Base Hospital that she received at the Mater Hospital, but that would have taken a place that was needed by another person. Because we have the capacity to pay for private health insurance, we have tried not to become an additional patient for Queensland Health when there are many people who have a greater need. From the time of Elizabeth’s operation it has been the little things that have mattered—continuing support from BreastScreen, community health, the Queensland Cancer Fund, other women who have suffered the disease and even the Zonta Club, which provides a comfort cushion to all women who have had a mastectomy. That support has made Elizabeth’s recovery so much easier. I call on all members—indeed, all Queenslanders—to continue their support for these great and necessary services. 14 Feb 2006 Matters of Public Interest 37

From here on my aim is to promote support for the Queensland Cancer Fund and to endeavour to raise prostate cancer awareness so that men receive the same level of diagnosis and treatment that women receive for breast cancer. I say to all the men in this House—and to all the men in Queensland— to get off their backsides and do something about it, because a DRE may save their lives. Nursing Registration; Environmental Protection Agency Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (12.14 pm): The state of Queensland’s health services is a matter that is important to many Queenslanders. That level of importance was certainly demonstrated during question time this morning. Although many people have aired their views on the practice of the doctor’s registration board, I want to take this opportunity to share with members the recent dealings that one of my constituents had with the Queensland Nursing Council. I do not intend to identify the person involved, but I am happy to provide particulars to the Minister for Health or his senior department staff if they are interested in following up this matter. The letter I received from my constituent states— I wish to bring to your attention my dilemma as an experienced Registered Nurse from England. I moved to Flaxton in August last year on a nursing visa with my husband and 2 children and we were given permanent visas. Due to settling the children into their new life and renovating our farm I applied for nursing registration for Queensland at the beginning of November, assuming I would have my registration by the end of December. However, I am still waiting for the Queensland Nursing Council to process my application and in the meantime, have been offered 2 part-time positions as a Practice Nurse which I am unable to take up. This letter is dated 13 February. The letter states further— (I will mention my application was returned to me 3 weeks ago because I had used white out on one word—which was at their request.) I find this situation incredible when Queensland is known for its chronic shortage of experienced Registered Nurses. Add the fact my nursing qualifications and training were thoroughly scrutinized by the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council prior to gaining my nursing visa then it borders on the ridiculous. I am now ringing the Queensland Nursing council on a weekly basis in which they refuse to give me any information on when I will gain registration. My potential Practice Managers have also emailed them to no avail. I find this situation unacceptable when I am willing and able to work. I would be so grateful if you could help me in this matter. Best regard. After discussing my constituent’s predicament with my colleague, the Independent member for Nanango, she advised me that she also had a constituent in a similar situation whose registration is still not resolved satisfactorily. The other matter I wish to share with members is the state environment department’s decision to remove long-established campers rubbish collection facilities from some forest camping grounds in my electorate. This was done without appropriate or apparent notice to the local council or the local community and created a situation during the peak Christmas-new year period where the Kenilworth township experienced an overflow of rubbish discarded inappropriately in public and private bins by frustrated campers. I understand that the situation led to the Kenilworth local rubbish transfer station having to be opened just so that the refuse could be disposed of safely. I mention today this unpleasant incident because I believe that the situation could have been alleviated if the state government management staff involved in this decision to remove the long- established rubbish collection facilities had, before making that decision, contacted the local council and informed them of their pending decision. We in the hinterland of the Maroochy shire in the electorate of Nicklin are proud of our camping facilities. I take this opportunity to urge all ministers and senior public servants who are paid to act in management positions to consult other members of the community who may be impacted by their decisions. I do not believe that a complaint of this type should have to be made to the minister for the environment. I am aware that in January the Kenilworth Chamber of Commerce wrote to the minister for the environment, Desley Boyle, echoing their complaints and their concerns. Why did they have to do that? Because it appears to me that the local management staff in the department were not prepared to inform the local council and were not prepared to consult the local community and inform them of their pending decision. Surely, if the government is prepared to pay people to act in senior management positions and make these sorts of decisions, then those senior management personnel have a responsibility to be answerable for their decisions. I hope that, as a gesture of goodwill, the minister will respond appropriately to the chamber of commerce and the Maroochy Shire Council and make a token offer of financial reimbursement to the council for the cost and inconvenience that was incurred by the council simply because a senior department staffer was not prepared to contact the local council and the local community and inform them of the possible implications of their decision. Time expired. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! Before I call the honourable member for Pumicestone, I would like to acknowledge in the public gallery students, teachers and parents from the Buderim Mountain State School in the electorate of Kawana, which is represented by Minister Chris Cummins. Welcome. 38 Matters of Public Interest 14 Feb 2006

Caboolture Hospital, Emergency Department Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (12.20 pm): At the end of December I received a call from a Caboolture journalist who asked me to confirm Dr Bruce Flegg’s statement that the Caboolture Hospital emergency department would close. After weeks of misleading statements by the Liberals over Little Goat Island, I was not about to believe anything they said but I certainly said that I would check. I called the office of the health minister, Stephen Robertson, about the information and a senior staffer told me later that he had contacted Queensland Health and was assured that the closure was a rumour and that the emergency department would remain open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I naturally then wrote a response to Dr Flegg and suggested that he and his Liberal mates stop scaring people about a closure. Let me place on record some quotes from statements through the minister’s office from Queensland Health at that time: ‘Queensland Health has rejected claims that the state government is planning to close the emergency department’; ‘Queensland Health has denied a rumour’; ‘Queensland Health confirmed today that the Caboolture Hospital emergency department will continue to operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week’; ‘It will not close and will be manned by medical staff 24 hours a day’; ‘There is no intention of closing any emergency departments’; and ‘Media reports that the hospital emergency department will be closed and elective surgery frozen are incorrect.’ Why wouldn’t I believe this information? After all, we had Bundaberg and then we had two major health inquiries. Queensland Health has been in the spotlight for a number of months now. The state Labor government built the Caboolture Hospital in 1994 after years of National and Liberal Party promises. It was worth fighting for then and it is certainly worth fighting for now. The Caboolture Hospital emergency department needs to reopen and it needs to open 24 hours a day. Nothing less is acceptable and people are very concerned about it. I have been personally speaking to the director-general on this matter and have been constantly meeting with the health minister, Stephen Robertson; the Premier, Peter Beattie; and Deputy Premier, Anna Bligh, and they are working day and night on achieving reopening the Caboolture Hospital emergency department 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people and their staff for their diligence in this matter. We have actually made some headway. At some point there was the concern that the emergency department would not reopen for some months, but it did open part time quite quickly with the help of the Mater and CareFlight—and my thanks must go to them for helping out in this difficult time. I would like to sincerely thank the Caboolture Hospital staff who continue to work in these strained times and the ambulance officers and the many others who have helped out. Also I thank the many residents who have contacted me with their concerns, and most are showing great patience while we work on restoring the emergency department to its full capacity. The heart of the health problem is not money. The state government has ensured that there is money to pay our doctors, and we are advertising extensively to encourage doctors to come to Caboolture. The problem is the shortage of university places to train more doctors which has been capped for some years by the federal government. But I must say that it is refreshing to see one Liberal who is prepared to finally recognise the problem and to act. At Friday’s COAG meeting the Prime Minister accepted the Premier’s concerns that not enough Queenslanders are being trained to treat us. A meeting in June will confirm the final number of extra HECS places. I would like to say thank you to the Prime Minister for the beginning of a far- sighted decision. After all, training more home-grown doctors is the only long-term solution to the national doctor shortage. I will not blame-shift. I have asked the Queensland Liberals to join the state government and now the federal government to continue to work to ensure that we are not caught short of doctors again. Please stop using the hospital for political point-scoring and become part of the solution. Sacking Queensland Health workers and putting their families on the dole will not provide more doctors. Hospital boards which left this state with a huge debt of over $313 million are not the answer. We should ask ourselves: how many doctors could that money have secured? Closing down hospitals like Jeff Kennett did in Victoria is certainly not the answer. We will not be doing any of those things. I would like to conclude by sharing some good news about the Caboolture Hospital. Southern X- Ray Clinics in partnership with the state government have provided a new state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging, MRI, machine. This scanner provides doctors with a more detailed image of neurological, abdominal and musculoskeletal areas and provides for a better diagnosis. Up to 20 patients a day are able to access this latest technology and now will not need to travel to Brisbane. It is radiation free which makes it safe for all users. I will continue to fight for more resources for the electorate of Pumicestone. Time expired. 14 Feb 2006 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Amendment 39

Road and Rail Infrastructure Mr CALTABIANO (Chatsworth—Lib) (12.25 pm): There have been record levels of underspending in infrastructure over the past eight years under this government’s jurisdiction. That started when the government inherited in 1998-99 a budget for transport in this state of $1.165 billion and a budget for main roads in the same year of $1.039 billion. What has happened in subsequent budgets under this Labor administration whilst our state has been growing? In 1999-2000 the Main Roads budget went down to $780 million. In 2000-01, it went down to $762 million. In 2001-02, the state budget went down to $738 million. In 2002-03 there was a further decline to $726 million. This failure to invest in our infrastructure over a considerable period of time has led to major shortcomings in the infrastructure for Queensland. The amount of $7.3 billion was promised by this government in its year-on-year, five-year projections through the Main Roads budget. What did the government actually deliver? Just $5.8 billion—an underspend in our road network across Queensland of $1.5 billion. The failure to deliver infrastructure when it is needed to service a growing state is best illustrated by the failure to build the new Gateway Bridge. This government was advised in 1998 that the new bridge would be required by 2005 as it would be at capacity—and, yes, it is, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker English, coming from the Redlands. So where is the duplication? It will not be completed until 2011-12 if the government keeps its promises because no tender as yet has been let, and the congestion continues to rise. The Queensland coalition will be rolling out a positive program of infrastructure development across Queensland. Last week we saw the first tranche of that positive program announced when a fast-tracked Sunshine Coast rail link from Caloundra to Maroochydore was announced. The coalition will have the full rail link completed in 10 years—a decade ahead of the Labor government’s proposal. The fast-tracking would see the Beerwah to Caloundra section completed in five years and the Caloundra to Maroochydore section completed five years later by 2015. The total cost of the five plus five project is estimated at $1 billion and would finally connect the Sunshine Coast to the south-east Queensland corner with a high-speed rail service. The Sunshine Coast region cannot wait until after 2025 to have a significant public transport connection completed. By then that region’s population will be well over half a million people, and if a start is not made in the near future that region will be gridlocked as we are here in Brisbane today. The Labor government has failed the state on vital infrastructure projects such as the Sunshine Coast rail link. There is a lot of talk and little action from the other side. They cannot and will not build the infrastructure for our growing state for the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr English): Order! The time for matters of public interest has expired.

BREAKWATER ISLAND CASINO AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

First Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (12.30 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984, and for another purpose. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation) (12.30 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Amendment Bill 2006 represents a major step forward in the delivery by the state government to the people of Queensland, particularly the people of Townsville and the greater north Queensland region, of significant tourism infrastructure in the form of a Townsville ocean terminal. Generally, the bill will amend the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Act 1984 (the agreement act), authorise the making of changes to the Breakwater Island Casino Agreement (the agreement) and remove an existing Henry VIII provision in the agreement act. Specifically, the bill will: • give approval to the amendment of the agreement (through a replacement agreement) via a schedule to the agreement act which, once signed, will have the force of law and will: 40 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Amendment 14 Feb 2006

• in part, provide the legislative framework for the planning and development of a Townsville ocean terminal, the surplus casino land and the future development area; • include deeming provisions in relation to other legislation to facilitate the establishment or reconfiguration of tenure and other arrangements for the future development area (including the Townsville ocean terminal) and the surplus casino land; • in respect of the surplus casino land and the future development area schemes, the approval of each scheme as a preliminary approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 will have the effect of the scheme overriding existing planning instruments but only to the extent that there is an inconsistency with a particular planning instrument; • refine the limits and application of other legislation with respect to the Breakwater Island Casino-Hotel Complex (complex); and • update the agreement and make it more consistent with other recently amended casino agreements including authorisation to terminate the founder concept and update references to other laws. The bill will also: • remove an existing Henry VIII provision in the agreement act with respect to the ancillary agreements so as to comply with fundamental legislative principles and cease those agreements from continuing to have the force of law; and • repeal all current regulations made pursuant to the agreement act which will not affect the agreement as made. The bill is required for a number of reasons, the more significant of which can be summarised as follows: (1) The bill reflects the ongoing work of the Queensland Office of Gaming Regulation in its negotiations with casino licensees to update and keep consistent the four casino agreement acts and casino agreements. This is the third major review of the casino agreement acts and casino agreements which, for example, facilitate the phasing out of the founder concept and address the changed ownership structure of the Breakwater Island Casino. In relation to the founder concept, and consistent with the first two reviews, the need to maintain continuity of a core group of significant investors in casino projects as reflected by the founder concept is, from a policy perspective, considered to be no longer necessary. In relation to the ownership structure, this has changed over time with Jupiters Ltd now owning all of the units in the Breakwater Island Trust. It is therefore considered appropriate that Jupiters Ltd be included as a party to the agreement; (2) The bill is required to ensure that the agreement act is consistent with fundamental legislative principles. The chair of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has expressed the view that Henry VIII provisions subvert the legislative power of the parliament and as a consequence are considered to be a breach of fundamental legislative principles. Section 5 of the agreement act can be described as a Henry VIII provision and the bill will remove this provision; and (3) The state has now finalised its negotiations with Tabcorp-Consolidated Properties Group as the preferred developer of a Townsville ocean terminal which is to be a state owned asset. Further, the state will be entering into the proposed development agreement with Tabcorp-Consolidated Properties Group. One of the conditions precedent to the proposed development agreement is that the amendments to the agreement to facilitate the Townsville ocean terminal and the associated development, as authorised in the bill, be formally entered into. The introduction of the bill into the Legislative Assembly and its subsequent enactment and execution by the state and other parties of the amendments to the agreement is therefore required. The amendments to the agreement act, and authorised amendments to the agreement as reflected in the bill, will assist Tabcorp-Consolidated Properties Group in facilitating the development of land within and surrounding the complex, including the surplus casino land and the reclamation and development of the future development area (including the Townsville ocean terminal), consistent with the planning and development mechanisms outlined below. The surplus casino land and the future development area are intended to be developed into an integrated commercial and residential development and a landscaped residential development respectively, consistent with Tabcorp- Consolidated Properties Group’s master plan. The land on which the casino complex is situated and the surrounding areas can be divided generally into three separate parcels. There is the land on which the casino complex is situated, the land which is surplus to the complex which is known as the surplus casino land, and the future development area which includes the Townsville ocean terminal. The land on which the complex is situated is to continue to be administered and developed under the agreement act, consistent with other state casino agreement acts. The surplus casino land is to be developed in accordance with the Surplus Casino Land Scheme, which will be established under the agreement act. The Surplus Casino Land Scheme will specify levels of assessment for development (including material change of use and reconfiguration of lots). The 14 Feb 2006 Breakwater Island Casino Agreement Amendment 41 agreement act will deem the Surplus Casino Land Scheme to take effect as a preliminary approval under the Integrated Planning Act 1997, will have a specified currency period of 10 years and will override existing planning instruments but only to the extent that there is an inconsistency with a particular planning instrument. The Townsville City Council will become the assessment manager for all future development in the surplus casino land. Also, the agreement act will allow for the development of a surplus casino land port protection code, which is intended to minimise the impact of the operations of the Townsville Port Authority on the surplus casino land. The future development area including the Townsville ocean terminal is to be developed under a combination of the following pieces of legislation: (1) State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, whereby it is intended that: • the future development area project will be declared of state significance; • an environmental impact statement will be prepared with respect to the future development area project which will address the requirements of state and Commonwealth agencies; • state and local government agencies will review the EIS including the scheme for the future development area project; • the public will be able to make submissions in respect of the EIS including the scheme for the future development area project; and • the Coordinator-General will make a determination in respect of the EIS including the scheme for the future development area project. (2) Agreement act, whereby it is intended that: • an application for approval of the scheme, which does not require public notification, is submitted to the Deputy Premier as Minister for State Development, Trade and Innovation; • if the scheme is approved, the Deputy Premier’s decision will not be subject to third-party appeal rights on the basis that such an application under IPA would involve either exempt development or code assessable development; • the approved scheme would take effect as a preliminary approval under section 3.1.6 of Integrated Planning Act 1997 with a specified currency period of 20 years and will override existing planning instruments but only to the extent that there is an inconsistency with a particular planning instrument; • the local government area is deemed to extend to include the area the subject of the approved scheme; • the Townsville City Council’s planning scheme is deemed to apply to the area the subject of the approved scheme to the extent specified in the agreement act; • the Townsville City Council becomes the assessment manager for subsequent development applications in respect of the area the subject of the approved scheme; and • similar to the surplus casino land, the agreement act will also enable the development of a code which will apply to the future development area (called the future development area port protection code) which is intended to minimise the impact of the operations of the Townsville port on the future development area. (3) Integrated Planning Act 1997, whereby it is intended that: • a code assessable development application for a development permit for operational work in respect of the land platforms (involving detailed engineering drawings for the land platforms and the subdivisional works on the land platforms) is lodged with the assessment manager, being the Townsville City Council with the chief executive of the Townsville Port Authority, the chief executive responsible for the administration of the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 and the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service being referral officers or agencies; • if development approval is granted, the assessment manager’s decision would not be subject to third-party appeal rights as the development application does not involve impact assessable development; and • development applications for material change of use, reconfiguring a lot and operational work on the developed land platforms are lodged with the assessment manager. When the agreement act was passed in 1984 it was contemplated that the area named as future development area by the bill could be developed. This bill provides for the development to take place in a manner that has proper regard to environmental considerations, and appropriate conditions will be included in any project approval. Further, provision is made in the agreement for port protection codes, which are intended to minimise the impact of the operations of the Townsville Port Authority on the surplus casino land and the future development area. 42 Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 14 Feb 2006

Another effect of the new agreement is that the Judicial Review Act 1991 will not apply to certain decisions made under the agreement with respect to development of the complex and any determination to approve the Future Development Area Scheme. The exclusion of that act’s operation is consistent with the approach adopted for other casinos and the existing limitations contained within the agreement act and the agreement. Specifically, the exclusion of judicial review is an approach that has been previously agreed to by parliament on the basis of the significant costs and capital requirements for such development and the need to limit the ability of third parties to unreasonably delay the development and operation of such projects. Also, any determination to approve the future development area scheme is not subject to third- party appeal rights on the basis that such an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 would involve either exempt development or code assessable development. The development of the casino complex will continue to be regulated through the agreement. This approach is consistent with the underlying principle that the regulation and control of hotel-casino complexes, including development proposals, is to remain the responsibility of the department that administers the Casino Control Act 1982. For the areas within the surplus casino land, the Surplus Casino Land Scheme is deemed to be a preliminary approval for the purposes of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. Additionally, the future development area scheme, when made by the minister, will also have the effect of a preliminary approval for the purposes of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. In this way, the bill will recognise and apply Integrated Planning Act 1997 principles. It is expected that the Townsville ocean terminal, in which this government will invest $15 million, will boost tourism in the Townsville area and will provide economic benefits to the city. Mr Wallace: Hear, hear! Ms BLIGH: I note the support for the project from the member for Thuringowa. In addition, the proposed development of the terminal and the associated developments are likely to have a positive impact on government and casino revenue. The government has made a commitment to the economic development of regional Queensland. The development of the Townsville ocean terminal will provide opportunities to increase economic benefits to regional areas. The certainty of berth availability to both military and cruise vessels will provide for a more sustainable source of demand for tourism and hospitality infrastructure and services in and around Townsville. This is a timely amendment and will have a positive roll-on effect for Queenslanders as a whole, enhancing Queensland’s current position as the premier tourism state in Australia. This bill provides a number of legislative amendments that are necessary to streamline and modernise the act, but it also reaffirms this government’s priorities of increasing economic development and strengthening regional Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Rowell, adjourned.

INALA SHOPPING CENTRE FREEHOLDING BILL

First Reading Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (12.41 pm): I present a bill for an act to provide for the freeholding and divestment of perpetual leases under the Housing Act 2003 in the Inala Shopping Centre. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. RE SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (12.41 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. Today I am pleased to introduce the Inala Shopping Centre Freeholding Bill 2006. I have to say that, after at least five years of trying to find a way through this, I am delighted to have got it to this stage. This bill provides an opportunity for lessees of perpetual town leases at the Inala Shopping Centre to acquire freehold titles to their lands under a self-governing community titles scheme. The bill will also allow the Department of Housing to terminate its involvement in the management of the centre. 14 Feb 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 43

Management of a commercial shopping centre is simply not part of the department’s core housing activities. The department has, for a number of years, sought to divest itself from its role in the centre and to place it in the hands of private operators in the belief that its future as part of the Inala and surrounding community is better secured under contemporary tenure and management arrangements. The department has been the de facto manager of the centre and, in that role, has provided essential services such as car park maintenance, security and cleaning of common areas. Rents collected under the leases have not always covered these expenses. The centre consists of 20 perpetual town leases used for commercial and retail purposes, a public road used as a car-parking area and freehold land vested in the department. The centre was developed in the mid-1960s under a special provision in the State Housing Act 1945 which allowed the department to make land available for commercial and business purposes under state leasehold arrangements. The leases originally required the lessees to build their own improvements on the land. The leases are now subject to the Housing Act 2003 but are largely governed by the Land Act 1994. Although the leases form part of the one shopping centre, they cannot be converted to freehold land under the Land Act 1994 or the Housing (Freeholding of Land) Act 1957. Members can see how complicated it has been. As time has passed, the prevailing land tenure arrangements have proved an obstacle to the development and management of the centre. The centre has effectively developed into two separate parts—a modern northern part and an underdeveloped southern part—and there has been no forum for collective decision making by lessees relating to matters concerning the development and progress of the centre. With this background, the department has actively sought the agreement of lessees to put the land tenure arrangements in the centre on a modern footing. The lessees have now all agreed to convert their leases to freehold land under a layered community titles scheme that will be governed by the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. Such an arrangement will allow the lessees, as freehold lot owners and members of a body corporate, to set their own budgets for common expenses and to make collective decisions relating to the future of the centre. A layered community titles scheme has been adopted as a means of allowing the southern lot owners to form a subsidiary body corporate that can make decisions relating to their part of the centre without the involvement of the northern lot owners. However, decisions relating to the common property and other matters relating to the centre as a whole can effectively be made by all lot owners as part of the principal body corporate. All lessees were encouraged to obtain independent legal and financial advice in relation to their rights and obligations under the conversion process and under the proposed community titles scheme. To acquire freehold title, lessees must, once the community titles scheme has been established, pay to the department an amount equal to the unimproved value of their leased lands as set under the Valuation of Land Act 1944 as at 30 June 2003. If a lessee does not pay the conversion cost, the freehold lot will still be vested in the lessee but subject to a charge allowing the department to sell the lot to recover the conversion cost and interest. To ensure there is fairness in the allocation of costs of the body corporate, any lessee in the subsidiary community titles scheme who is aggrieved by the way in which lot entitlements have been allocated can apply to the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 for an adjustment of those entitlements. The bill provides that, if a specialist adjudicator makes a determination, the department will, if an application to the commissioner was made within three months after the commencement of the scheme, pay the costs of the adjudication. The bill provides the opportunity for lessees in the Inala Shopping Centre to finally acquire freehold title to their lands as part of a self-governing community titles scheme. Such a scheme will bring the centre into line with other multiownership commercial and business centres. I commend this bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Langbroek, adjourned.

RETIREMENT VILLAGES AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Albert—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (12.47 pm): I present a bill for an act to amend the Retirement Villages Act 1999. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. 44 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006

Second Reading Hon. MM KEECH (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development) (12.47 pm): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The objectives of the bill are to regulate and promote fair trading practices in the operation of retirement villages. For the first time, the Retirement Villages Act will expressly recognise the protection of consumers as a primary objective. That objective is consistent with the government’s commitment to protecting vulnerable Queenslanders, and there is no group more deserving than our retirees. The bill promotes fair trading practices in the following ways: • consumer protection has been added as one of the main objects of the act; • voting rights have been clarified, particularly for residents unable to attend a meeting, and access to the dispute resolution tribunal will be made easier for residents who are too elderly or intimidated to pursue this process themselves; • residents will have greater involvement in the village budget-setting process, receive greater disclosure of financial information, and there will be stricter guidelines for increases to fees and charges; • the work required to physically reinstate the condition of a unit has been clarified; • residents’ liability to pay fees and charges will be capped at a maximum of nine months after they vacate a unit even if it remains unsold; • The form and content requirements in relation to the residence contract and public information document, which detail the rights and obligations of the residents and operator, have been tightened; • The application of the act to freehold villages has been clarified, including giving recognition of the role of the body corporate in such villages; and • Where appropriate, residence contracts entered into prior to the act commencing have been changed to bring them in line with postact contracts. The bill provides certainty for residents in terms of their financial and other obligations, and brings greater transparency, consistency and accountability to operators’ budgeting decisions. Background The Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2006 (the bill) amends the Retirement Villages Act 1999 (the act). The act, which commenced on 1 July 2000, regulates the retirement village industry in Queensland. The industry is comprised of almost 200 registered retirement village schemes which provide for the accommodation, social and recreational needs of persons 55 years and over. In return for paying an ingoing contribution and entering into a residence contract, persons obtain a right to reside in the village and receive services. Depending on the terms of their contract, a resident may acquire freehold title to the unit or be granted a lease or licence over the unit. During their occupancy, residents pay ongoing general services charges which are used to maintain the village capital items and cover recurrent village expenses. The acquisition and replacement of capital items is funded by the operator. Upon leaving the village, the unit is reinstated to facilitate its resale, and the proceeds of this sale fund the payment of an exit entitlement to the resident and an exit fee to the operator. The exit fee represents the operator’s profit. When the act was introduced, the then minister gave an undertaking to review its effectiveness after its first year of operation. The review of the act commenced in September 2001. Over 150 submissions were received, and the key issues were discussed by a ministerial reference group. A draft bill was released for further consultation in February 2005, and over 80 submissions were received in response to that draft. To address issues raised in these submissions, and following discussion and negotiation with industry representatives, changes, which significantly boosted resident protections and rights, were made to the draft bill. Key Provisions of the Bill Consumer protection has not previously been one of the act’s express objects. To address this, the bill prescribes that there will be two primary objects for the act—the first being consumer protection, and the second the continued viability of the retirement village industry. This will ensure that these key matters are taken into account in deciding how provisions of the act are to be interpreted in future. As the act now stands, residents play no role in setting the budget for the village, and the only accounting information they are entitled to receive is bare financial statements. As a result, any tough budget decisions made by the operator can be both unexpected and alarming for residents. To address this, the bill requires an operator to provide residents with draft yearly budgets, and to then meet with residents to discuss these budgets before they are finalised. The bill also requires the operator to provide residents with quarterly financial information, explaining variations between the yearly budget 14 Feb 2006 Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 45 and the actual expenditure incurred. That will provide residents with more information and some influence over the financial affairs of their village. Under the act, a resident’s liability to continue paying their general services charges continues even after they leave their unit so long as the unit remains unsold. In cases where there is difficulty selling the unit, the amount of accrued general services charges may substantially reduce the exit entitlement that the resident will receive once the unit is eventually sold. That is despite the fact that former residents have little or no influence over the factors that affect the speed of resale. To address this, the bill will cap accrual of general services charges after nine months from when the unit is vacated, or at the date it is resold, whichever occurs first. If the unit remains unsold nine months after vacation, responsibility to pay the share of charges for the unit will then shift back to the operator. There are presently differing standards to which a vacated unit is required to be physically reinstated in preparation for resale, depending upon whether the contract for the unit was entered into before or after the act commenced. The bill will prescribe one standard for all units, and this new standard will clearly put the focus on returning the unit to a marketable condition to ensure a swift resale. When the unit is resold, the operator is entitled to receive an exit fee. For contracts entered into after the act commenced, this fee is calculated as at the day the resident vacates the unit. For contracts entered into before this, the calculation date is whenever the sale of the unit is eventually realised. Most operators calculate their fee by using a percentage which increases over time, and so where a unit takes a long time to resell, the exit fee payable under a pre-act contract may be significantly higher than under a post-act contract in the same circumstances. To address this, the bill changes the exit fee calculation date for pre-act contracts to bring it in line with the calculation date under post-act contracts. A resident’s right to reside in a retirement village is created by entering into a residence contract, although it is not uncommon for a relative or new spouse of a resident to start living in a unit without becoming a party to that contract. In such a situation, should the contracting resident die or move to a nursing home, the relative or spouse has no right to continue living in the unit, and may be removed immediately. To address this, the bill gives that relative or spouse a right to remain in the unit for up to three months to put their affairs in order, provided they have previously lived there for at least six months. In certain circumstances, the relative or spouse will also be entitled to a first option to enter into a fresh residence contract over the unit. The rights and obligations of a resident and the operator are contained in the residence contract and the public information document. To ensure there is full and accurate disclosure of these rights and obligations to residents, the bill introduces a number of changes. First, the operator must specifically tell a potential resident the date upon which the cooling-off period for the contract ends. Second, the operator must advise a potential resident of any material inaccuracy in the public information document, and then correct this as soon as possible. Third, the operator must ensure that the costs involved in providing future facilities are explained more fully in the public information document. Given the older ages of most residents of retirement villages, the present dispute resolution process has sometimes been criticised as being intimidating and complex. Many residents have expressed reluctance to pursue their rights in a dispute because they fear the stress of a tribunal hearing. To address this, the bill allows a number of residents all having the same dispute with the operator to bring a single group action. A spouse or close family member of a resident will now also be entitled to represent a resident before the tribunal, and at the tribunal’s discretion a lawyer or any other person may appear on their behalf. In addition, where the tribunal makes a finding against the operator and requires the operator to pay costs of the dispute hearing, the bill prohibits those costs being passed on to residents. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Ms KEECH: I acknowledge the support of honourable members. One of the most contentious issues at many retirement villages is how items of expenditure are classified. If the operator decides an expense relates to capital improvement, that expense will be financed by the operator. However, if the operator decides the expense is for the repair or maintenance of a capital item, then it will be paid by the residents. To provide more certainty and consistency across villages, the bill allows the government to introduce approved guidelines to identify key expenditure items as being either capital or maintenance related. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my speech in Hansard. Leave granted. These guidelines will be developed in consultation with both resident and operator stakeholders. The definitions in the act for “capital”, “maintenance” and other important terms are also expanded in the bill to provide operators with greater direction in classifying expenditure. There is presently a lack of certainty as to whether residents voting at a village meeting are entitled to one vote per person or one vote per unit. To provide certainty and protect single-occupants of retirement villages, the bill prescribes a per-unit voting system. However, the bill also allows the residents, by special resolution, to adopt the per-person system if that is better suited to their particular village. 46 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

Finally, although the act specifically applies to both leasehold and freehold retirement villages, many of the provisions are difficult to apply to a freehold situation. To address this, the bill clarifies how the act should apply in various situations arising at freehold villages, particularly with regard to the responsibility of a body corporate. Consultation Extensive consultation has been conducted at all phases of the review process and on the bill. Many submissions were received from residents of villages and their families, individual village operators, and from the lead stakeholder groups, the Association of Residents of Queensland Retirement Villages (ARQRV) and Aged Care Queensland Incorporated. Other interested groups, including the Queensland Law Society, and the Pensioners and Superannuants League have also made submissions. The issues raised in all the submissions were carefully considered in finalising the bill. This bill will not only protect the rights of residents of retirement villages but also provide a legislative framework that will allow the retirement village industry to continue to develop and expand. I am proud to introduce the Retirement Villages Amendment Bill 2006 because it demonstrates this government’s commitment to ensuring appropriate consumer protection for a vulnerable segment of our population, without compromising the viability of this important and growing industry. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs Stuckey, adjourned. Sitting suspended from 1 pm to 2.30 pm.

CHILD EMPLOYMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 29 November 2005 (see p. 4392). Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (2.30 pm): It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Child Employment Bill 2005. The objective of the bill is to safeguard children working in Queensland. In achieving this the bill and the proposed regulation will provide safeguards to ensure that work does not interfere with children’s schooling and that children are prevented from performing work that may be harmful to their health or safety or to their physical, mental, moral or social development. During 2002 to 2004 the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, the Children’s Commission, undertook a review of child labour in Queensland. In April 2005 the government responded to the recommendations of the review. Generally, the government supported the intent of the recommendations and improved the development of stand-alone legislation to fill gaps where existing legislation is considered inadequate to protect children—that is, people under the age of 18—at work. I was pleased to do some work with a number of people and put together a submission to the review undertaken by the Children’s Commission. I congratulate the commission on the fine quality work that it has done in providing a very sound basis for the legislation that is before us today. The bill and the proposed regulation will apply to all children under the age of 18. However, the bulk of the provisions relate to children of school age or younger—that is, those younger than 16 years or who have yet to complete year 10 of their compulsory schooling. I will focus particularly on the proposed regulatory regime for child employment which will be a mix of the bill and the accompanying regulation. One of the major purposes of the bill and regulation is to provide safeguards to ensure that work does not interfere with children’s schooling. While the bill and regulation prescribe limitations and protections that apply to work performed by all children, specific restrictions are placed on the types and amount of work that may be performed by school-age and young children. To this end, the bill defines a school-age child as being under 16 and required to be enrolled for compulsory schooling under the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989. A young child is defined as a child who has not reached the compulsory schooling age—that is, they are under age six. The bill creates an obligation for employers to obtain consent from a parent of a school-age child before that child commences work. Naturally, this provision does not apply if the child is employed by their parent. Parental consent must be provided in the form approved by the Department of Industrial Relations. Information in the consent form will include the date of birth of the child and the details of hours when a child is required to be at school. The bill creates an offence against an employer who employs a child at a time when that child is required to be at school as advised by the parent in the approved consent form. While the bill provides for limitations and protections to apply to work performed by children, the proposed regulation prescribes what those limitations and protections are to be. The restrictions included in the regulation to help students manage their work and school commitments spell out the details. These include the types of work that may be done at certain ages, total hours of work, days on and times at which work may be performed, shifts per day that may be worked, rest periods between engagements and supervisory requirements. It will be an offence for an employer to require or permit a school-age or young child to perform work contrary to these restrictions or limitations. The specific restrictions in the regulation for school-age 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 47 and young children in respect of minimum ages of workers and the types of work that may be done are as follows. Firstly, a general minimum age of 13 years is prescribed for commencing work unless otherwise specifically permitted by the proposed regulation. Secondly, children at least 11 years of age may perform delivery work—work which is defined as delivering newspapers, advertising materials et cetera—between 6 am and 6 pm. Thirdly, children of any age may perform voluntary work. The specific restrictions in the regulation for school-age and young children in respect of hours of work that may be performed are: firstly, school-age children may work no longer than 12 hours during a school week, 38 hours during a week that is not a school week, four hours on a school day and eight hours on a day that is not a school day; secondly, school-age children may not perform work between 10 pm and 6 am; thirdly, school-age children may not work more than one shift per day—I note that this provision may be overridden if the relevant award or agreement provides otherwise; fourthly, school-age children must not commence work within 12 hours of last finishing work with the same employer; and, fifthly, school-age children must be appropriately supervised by an adult—for example, a school-age child involved in the exchange of money should have an adult supervisor nearby and in regular contact with them. The regulation also provides other protections. However, these are afforded to all children and not just those who are yet to complete compulsory schooling. Employers also have additional record- keeping requirements when employing children. For instance, employers of school-age children must keep the parental consent form and contact details for the child’s parent and a person nominated by the parent. The net effect of these changes and the changes otherwise outlined by the minister in his second reading speech will ensure that young workers are protected and that their studies will not suffer. It is a very serious and genuine attempt to assist young people and their parents to strike an appropriate balance between the natural interest and inclination of young people to seek out part-time and casual work in their younger years and the requirement that the education and schooling of our younger generation remains of primary importance not only in their minds and their parents’ minds but also in the minds of others in society. These young people will be the future generation of adults who will supervise and look after the state of Queensland and also Australia. I am happy to support this bill given the sentiment underlying the legislation. I believe it is an excellent piece of legislation that will serve the community well. I commend the bill to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr O’Brien): Order! Before calling the member for Hinchinbrook, I recognise in the public gallery students from the Buderim Mountain State School in the electorate of Kawana, represented in this House by Chris Cummins. Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (2.38 pm): In speaking in the debate on the Child Employment Bill I would really like to recognise the contribution of young people in Queensland. They play a very significant and integral role in carrying out tasks in workplaces within the state. They fill many holes in the broad spectrum of activities. They do an excellent job. Providing an incentive for them to go on to do further work is extremely important. We do not want to see their schooling jeopardised by the desire to take home some money and have some funds in their pockets. Sometimes there are demands placed on them by their families to add funds to those of the bread winner. In rising to speak in this debate, I would like to acknowledge what the young people of this state do. The Child Employment Bill applies to children who are under the age of 18. Under the bill there are certain requirements for children aged 17 and 18 in relation to the way they go about their work, but more importantly this bill is about children who are under the age of 16. The bill includes protection for unpaid and volunteer workers and exclusions relating to collecting donations, apprenticeships, traineeships and work experience which come under other legislation. These are extremely important components, and what young people face in the workplace is becoming more mixed and more varied all of the time. The intention of this bill is to ensure that work performed by children under the age of 16 in particular is not detrimental to their schooling or the health and safety of their physical, mental, moral and social development. To a large extent, I am in agreement with the intent of the bill. But, at the end of the day, there are requirements that have to be met in terms of younger people, and this bill is attempting to do that. I am pleased to see the member for Moggill come into the chamber, because some time ago he presented a bill which had very close connotations to this bill. In 2004 he introduced the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill. I do not think that there is a great deal of variation between the two bills, but at the time the government voted down that bill. It is a pity that politics are being played with regard to young people, their future employment opportunities and regulations that require that they are not being unduly or unfairly treated. These regulations are designed to ensure that their school activities are kept up to speed and that they are not required to do jobs that are far too onerous for them. The bill’s regulations prescribe the type of work, hours and work conditions that the businesses have to comply with. The bill also includes the entertainment industry. This is of more concern to the younger age group—for example, children who are as young as six. The regulations ensure that they 48 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006 are not brought into a situation which could compromise their future. Parental consent is required for school-age children—that is, children 16 and younger. The bill also prohibits employment when they are required at school. That is acceptable to the opposition. The chief executive officer of the Department of Industrial Relations has to approve the child’s date of birth, the details and hours required at school, the name of the employer and the consent of the parent. I was very concerned about this proposal, and they were issues that I raised with ministerial staff in the green paper. However, my concerns have been put to bed to a large extent in that the form will be quite simple. Anybody who wants to employ a person who is under the age of 16 will be able to send this form off to the parent of the young employee. The parent will fill the form out and that form will be returned to the employer. The form will identify the types of issues we have spoken about—the date of birth and so on—and will also verify that the young employee has to comply with the requirements of school, detailing the hours of school with the consent of the parent. However, I do have concerns about this. Sometimes when an employee is required to do it quickly—and I know this is the case with tax file numbers and the forms that have to be filled out—it takes a lot longer than one would hope to get that information back. One can give the form to the young employee and tell them to take it home to their parents but sometimes it can take a week before that form comes back. In the interim, the employer is in breach of the act if he does not have a signature from the parent of the young employee. Of course, there are other issues such as a special circumstance certificates where a child is living independently of their own parents or does not have a parent. What happens then is that the chief executive officer of the Department of Industrial Relations has to approve the child to work where it will not interfere with their schooling. That might be an even more convoluted process compared to the parental consent process. Very often job opportunities could be denied to people if we cannot find some simple mechanism to get around this particular problem. If we find that there are difficulties with getting these forms back and employers are in breach of their requirements, hopefully we will develop some other mechanisms to ensure that we find a solution to the problem. There are also work limitation notices. The chief executive can issue work limitation notices on the grounds that the work will not interfere with the child’s schooling or is harmful to their health or interferes with the safety of their physical, mental, moral and social development. That is fine, but there can be some slight infringements in these areas. If we get very specific and put it into legislation, unfortunately we will get to a point sometimes where people can be denied a job opportunity because of a work limitation notice that can be put together by the chief executive of the Department of Industrial Relations. The bill generally, as I have said, is being supported by the opposition. There are inspectors. The cost of these inspectors is unknown, but it will be an additional cost burden that the department will, I assume, have to recoup. Under the IR Act, there will be a range of powers dealing with the seizure of evidence. There is no limitation on who may commence the proceedings, and that is also of some concern. It is like a third-party endorsement almost. The industrial relations department can issue a special circumstances certificate relaxing restrictions on the specific child’s case when the primary issue in this legislation is taken into account. That does give room to compromise when a difficult situation develops relating to the employment of a young person under the age of 16. I turn now to extended unpaid leave for parents with children at school. It appears that this legislation has been turned into an omnibus bill as we have a part 7 amendment to the Industrial Relations Act. There are some minor changes. It is of some concern that these acts have been mixed together, and I am sure that other speakers from the coalition side will be raising these issues. Just how much can be afforded by employers? It is important that problems associated with people who need additional time and leave are addressed, but very often that can be coordinated between the employer and employee. It is of some concern that we have this thrown into the Child Employment Bill. I want to raise some issues that came out of the Alert Digest from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. The Alert Digest says that the committee refers to parliament the question of whether committing such large sums of the operative provisions of clause 9 to regulations is, in all circumstances, an appropriate delegation of legal power. We have had an indication of what is intended, but certainly a raft of regulations will be introduced in accordance with what is intended by the introduction of this bill. The Alert Digest stated further— The committee draws to the attention of Parliament the fact that the maximum level of penalty provided exceeds that favoured by the committee. I know that the ministerial staff say that the penalties contained in this legislation are consistent with those contained in other industrial relations legislation and that a financial penalty is always an encumbrance on those people who unfortunately breach provisions contained in legislation. However, I believe that the penalty imposed by this legislation is out of step with the activity that would be considered to be in breach of the legislation. In general, the opposition does not have any major concerns about the legislation. In some instances—and I do not say in all—it gives employers confidence, because under this legislation they will have a piece of paper from parents that says, ‘The child is under the age of 16. We give our consent. 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 49

The things that we are concerned about will be addressed’ and so on. But in those instances where large numbers of short-term employees are required, for a person to gain employment it could take a longer time than is desirable to obtain parental consent and a special circumstances certificate. That may not necessarily be the fault of the employer; it could be more to do with operational issues, particularly in relation to certain areas of Queensland. I am aware that sometimes it takes employers a long time to get information to the parents and to then receive consent from them. Generally, I support the legislation. There are a number of issues of concern which I am sure other members of the coalition will raise in their contributions. With those words, in principle I commend the legislation the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.52 pm): I rise to support this legislation and to pass on some comments that I have received from people in the community about the legislation, in particular in relation to those provisions that relate to changes to leave entitlements for employees. When I read this legislation I wondered whether it will come into sharper focus when the federal industrial relations laws start to bite in a year or two. I am still of the opinion that the impact of the federal industrial relations legislation will not be felt in the short term but will be in the longer term. Young people will require empowerment in terms of their ability to negotiate in the workplace and there will also be a need for employers to consider properly the needs of young workers, particularly where there is a disproportionate negotiating power between young workers and their employers. I would also like to recognise that the member for Moggill introduced legislation intending to protect children in employment. However, that legislation was defeated on the floor of the House. This legislation will introduce a very overt obligation on employers to prevent children from performing work that could be harmful to their health, their safety and their physical, mental, moral or social development. Although that is a very broad application, it is necessary. The employment prospects for young people are changing and certainly the areas of work to which they are being given access have broadened. I note with some relief that the definition of ‘work’ in terms of a child does not include domestic work. I think in the minister’s second reading speech there is a reference to domestic chores, which is a little bit American for me. Kids are fairly quick on the uptake and nothing would give them more pleasure than to come home and say, ‘I don’t have to wash up or take out the rubbish and I don’t have to feed the dog because those jobs are covered in legislation and you can’t make me do them.’ I am pleased to see that the minister, in his second reading speech, recognised that those jobs are a contribution to the home rather than work. Although we would like to think that kids will not do that, by their very nature if that type of work was included they would pick up on it—not because they would read the legislation but their mates would tell them about it—and we would have a revolt at home. I also note that the legislation differentiates between a child under the age of 16 and a young child aged less than six. The legislation also excludes from application a number of activities in which children of all ages are involved. One such activity is collecting donations. I think that is important, because a lot of kids get involved in a very positive way with seeking donations from the community for activities— even school fundraising. Some people might regard that activity as inappropriate at times, but provided the children are properly supervised and are not out on the streets on their own collecting donations, I think it is a very healthy contribution to their school community. Apprenticeships and traineeships are already covered under other legislation. Work experience is also excluded. The regulation-making powers that are conferred by this bill are significant. It is that sort of information about which employers will most likely seek clarification at an early stage. Although the regulations prescribe the minimum age and the type of work that school-age children and young children can do, they will prescribe the number of hours and times at which work may be performed by school-age children and young children and matters in relation to supervision. They will also regulate the working conditions for children in particular types of businesses, including in the entertainment industry. The regulations will also allow for the relaxation or the further restriction of child employment conditions in the future, because industry and employment environments change. However, I think there needs to be a very efficient dissemination of information in relation to changes that are brought in by regulation because often people are not made aware of them. The bill requires that parents give parental consent where their school-age children or young children are working except in the circumstances where children are outside parental control. Unfortunately, that is a necessary recognition in this legislation. It is in those areas where I think this legislation and the industrial relations legislation will have to work in tandem to protect children from exploitation. I say that with some sadness. This legislation also prohibits the employment of children when they are required to be at school. Given the earn or learn path that the Queensland government has taken, that is a necessary provision in this legislation. The legislation contains some exclusions in relation to the ability of children to work in family businesses. I think that is important. Some cultures are much more inclined towards full family involvement in the family business. I know that a lot of Asian families adopt an inclusive attitude in that even quite small children contribute to the family business and they do so in a positive way. However, 50 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

I am sure that, in those circumstances where they believe that a family member or a relative may be suffering as a result of their obligations to work in the family business, there will be avenues available to families by which those obligations can be examined and perhaps arbitrated. The legislation also deals with the specific minimum ages for workers and the type of work that can be done. In general, a minimum age of 13 years is prescribed for commencing work unless otherwise specifically permitted by the proposed regulation. I think 13 is still quite young. As a society we tend to be requiring our children to grow up too quickly by getting them into employment at a very early age without them really enjoying the possibility of expanding their own personal horizons in terms of gifts and skills. Getting them into employment early can be positive—I am not saying it is not positive—so long as it will enhance the child’s prospects in the years to come as well as enhance them personally and emotionally. Children at least 11 years of age may perform delivery work—that is, delivery of newspapers and advertising materials—and there is a prescribed period of time from 6 am to 6 pm. The requirement that parents be involved in the employment of children at that age is important because of the safety risks. The legislation also recognises that children of any age can perform voluntary work. The regulations will restrict the hours of work that children can perform. School-age children can work no longer than 12 hours during a school week, 38 hours during a week that is not a school week, four hours on a school day and eight hours on a day that is not a school day. School-age children may not perform work between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am. That is a very important preclusion. I know of one business, a major chain, who had school-age children as shelf fillers. Those children would commence work in the middle of the evening and they were not permitted to leave that premises until sufficient work was done—and that could be midnight. They were locked in. This information came to me in very disappointing circumstances. This legislation will preclude that continuing to happen where the child is under 16. I think that is a step forward in terms of the inability of an employer to require young people to work during hours that disadvantage them in terms of their ability to properly study and assimilate schoolwork. Frankly, the employers were employing young people to their own economic advantage because they were paying them quite a small wage. School-age children may not work more than one shift per day unless the award or relevant provision agrees otherwise. There are a number of takeaway places that allow young people to have split shifts and those split shifts would not be to the detriment of the young people and their ability to perform at school. I think it is important that there is an obligation on an employer not to have a child who should be at school working during school hours. I think that is a very clear-cut obligation in the legislation. I fully support the safeguard in this legislation that places an obligation on an employer to take all reasonable steps to ensure a child at work is not subjected to deliberate and unnecessary social isolation, bullying or other frightening or humiliating behaviour. I concur with that 100 per cent. I would love to know how it is going to be achieved on a practical basis. I think every single one of us in this chamber has heard of incidents involving young people who have been inappropriately treated in the workplace. Sadly, we often hear about it well after the event when the young person has either matured slightly and spoken about it or in some inadvertent way let their parents know that the bullying occurred and then the parents come and see us. It is essential that the young people who are in employment not be bullied, but it is really hard to put an old head on young shoulders and for that person to be able to stand up to those people who are the problem. I wish the minister and his officers every success in achieving that goal. An employer must give a child induction training, including workplace health and safety training appropriate to the child’s age, and an employer must ensure that the child employment guide is displayed in the workplace or is immediately available to a child. As I said, these are extremely important obligations placed on an employer. I do wish the minister every success, particularly in relation to inappropriate behaviour and attitudes towards young people in the workplace. The legislation also provides employees with a right to request an extension of the period of simultaneous unpaid parental leave to a maximum of eight weeks, an extension of the period of unpaid parental leave by a further continuous period not exceeding 52 weeks and a return to work on a part- time basis until the employee’s child reaches school age. These issues were not picked up in the federal industrial relations legislation. I had some employers express concern after the fact—actually it was only a week or so ago—with the federal legislation in the new allocation of leave available to employees in terms of compassionate leave and other categories of leave. I think some employers would express concern about these leave provisions. However, the saving is that the extension is in unpaid leave and therefore one would expect the employer to have the financial ability to fill that position, particularly in roles that are not specialised. Mr Barton: The employer also has to agree. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Thank you. With regard to parental leave or any extension of leave, the obligation on an employer to inform an employee while they are out of the workplace of changes within the structure of the employment position is important for both parties. An employee who is away for 12 months must reasonably expect, particularly in a dynamic industry, that their place of employment may 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 51 change and so their employment role may also change. The legislation requires an employer to take reasonable steps to provide an employee who is on leave information about the effect the changes will have on their position and it will provide an opportunity for the employee to discuss the effects that the change will have on the employee’s position. I think that reflects a good understanding of the interplay between an employer, an employee and a place of employment. My hope is that it will result in continuing positive relationships between employers and employees particularly where the place of employment could be stretched with an employee off for a protracted period of time, albeit for good reason. Again, I reiterate that this legislation is important. I think it is an important adjunct to the federal government’s industrial relations legislation by which I believe young people were disempowered in their ability to negotiate in the workplace. These additional protections I think are welcome. I am sure that, given the minister’s consideration of matters to date, should there be any deficiencies or inadvertent consequences that they would be reviewed on a regular basis. I support the legislation. Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (3.08 pm): This is my first speech in the parliament as a mother and it gives me great pleasure to be focusing on a bill that is related to children and youth. What a wonderful opportunity this is. I would hope that my young son, Alexander, grows up with good Labor values, that he becomes a good employee in the workplace in whatever career he gets involved in and that he is treated with respect—and that he comes home and works for mum as well! There is no doubt that this Child Employment Bill will put in place much stronger safeguards for children working in Queensland. Members on both sides have commented on that, and it is good to see the bipartisan support for the changes that the minister is seeking through this legislation. Many thousands of young people in Queensland take part-time and casual jobs while they are at school, and many of them have good experiences. It gives them good training and good learning experiences. They become a bit independent of their parents and are not dipping into their parents’ pockets all the time for money. They get some great opportunities but some of them, sadly, as we have heard from other members, are mistreated. They are not valued or respected and they have a really hard time. So it is important that we have support services like the youth employment service and others that help out. It is also important to have a strong trade union movement backing young people, which it does. I commend its efforts on the changes that we have before us today. I commend the efforts of the minister, his staff and the departmental officers who have brought this legislation before us. I have mentioned the bipartisan support and how positive that is. I have not heard many opposition speakers so far, but none of them have commented on the savaging of the industrial relations system federally. That is going to have a massive impact on young people and none of them so far have spoken about that. I urge opposition members who are speaking in this debate to call on John Howard to have a major rethink of those savage laws that have been introduced. We will find in the not-too- distant future that young people will be particularly vulnerable, as are women and other workers, under those conditions. They should not come in here today and say, ‘Poor young people, they do get a hard time in the workplace,’ and be all sympathetic when they are not looking at the federal scene and the major impact that the WorkChoices package will have. That package is not about choice. We all know it is about a lack of flexibility and further exploitation. That will have a huge impact on young people. The need for this bill flows from the 2002 to 2004 review by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian into child labour in Queensland. That was excellent work. I want to commend it for that work, because that has led to recommendations which have been picked up by the Department of Industrial Relations in consultation with the relevant industrial organisations, including unions, government departments and others. It is true to say that this bill is part of an overarching, holistic response that includes not only a legislative response but also service responses and broader non legislative measures that are needed to provide those safeguards. As the minister pointed out in his second reading speech, this bill has been drafted to apply to a broad definition of work rather than employment. So that provides further safeguards. This definition has been modelled on provisions in the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 and the Contract Cleaning Industry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act 2005, ensuring protection for employees and dependent contractors. This definition covers unpaid or voluntary work because it is common for children to perform work under such arrangements, and the lack of paid wages should not override the need to safeguard Queensland children. These provisions are particularly important in a climate where this government has implemented some of what I think are the most positive reforms for young people in education. The Education and Training Reforms for the Future package, which Minister Tom Barton worked on with the former education minister, Anna Bligh, and now with the current education minister, Rod Welford, particularly the learning and earning arrangements that will be in place in Queensland and that we have currently in a not-so-formal way, have provided and will continue to provide wonderful opportunities for young people to be working, going to school, or going to TAFE to learn trade skills in a much more flexible way than they ever have before. However, it is particularly important that there are safeguards when they are out in the workplace either volunteering in some form of work experience or formal training or employment. 52 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

I commend the efforts of the minister. He certainly knows his stuff. He understands the industrial needs. He understands the needs of workers. He can also balance that with the rights of employers in a very positive way. I certainly commend his efforts in this regard. I urge members of the opposition to continue their support for this legislation but do not forget what John Howard has done federally. That will savage the rights of workers, including young people, for many years to come if we do not get a Labor government that will pull things back and return us to a position in this country where we have respect for workers, where we have a good balance between employers’ rights and workers’ rights, and where we can have a fair and efficient system—a system which we have had for many years in this country. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (3.14 pm): As the shadow minister said, the opposition is supporting the provisions of the bill. I would say to the minister, however: welcome to the 20th century let alone the 21st century, because for the past seven years this state has not had a child labour law. We must be one of the only constituencies in the world, including much of the Third World and the impoverished world, that has not protected the children in our society here in Queensland with a child labour law specifically dealing with the age issues related to children. I note comments from the member for Algester that she is pleased with the bipartisan support. Of course there is bipartisan support because we want to see the children of Queensland protected. We are not happy that they have not been protected for the last seven years but perhaps it is better late than never. Ms Struthers: You’re all talk and no action. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection. In fact, we had all the action. We introduced this bill back in 2004. Mr Barton: It was a stunt. Dr FLEGG: Well, we introduced this bill back in 2004 because for five years those opposite could not get their act together and put in place a law to protect the children in this state. It was this government—the Beattie government—that repealed our child labour law in 1999. Here we are in 2006 and it is only introducing it a year and a half after the Liberal Party introduced its own bill. Some of the comments that I made in my second reading speech when I introduced our bill— Mr Rowell: You could have amended it. Dr FLEGG: I take that interjection from the member for Hinchinbrook. I think at the time we invited the government. We were so keen to see the children of this state protected by legislation that we would have welcomed some amendments to our bill rather than have those opposite use their numbers to defeat it and ensure that for another year and a half there was no legislative protection in place for the children of this state. I said in my second reading speech that it has been six years since this government repealed the child labour laws which related to minimum work age and the minimum basic protections for children in the workplace, yet the minister was telling us that he cannot show us the bill and he has not done anything because he is still considering his response. It is now seven years since those laws were repealed. I note the comments made by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee that this bill is very similar and that it in fact bears significant similarities to the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill that I introduced on 24 November 2004. It goes on to make the point that the major difference between the two bills is that in the bill that we introduced that was voted down by the numbers of those opposite the provisions necessary to protect children in the workplace in this state were spelt out in clauses in the legislation, as they should have been in this bill, but that the government has chosen to spell out very little in legislation but grant these powers to govern by regulation. Point No. 10 from the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee states— The committee refers to Parliament the question of whether committing such a large part of the operative provisions of cl.9 to regulations is, in all the circumstances, an appropriate delegation of legislative power. The clauses necessary to protect children in the workplace should have been part of this legislative response. With regard to clause 36 the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee goes even further to state— However, that is subject to the significant caveat that until the details of the regulations envisaged in the bill are actually determined by regulation no final assessment can be made in that regard. Not even the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee can work out what provisions the government intends to introduce to protect children. It is fair to say that, in many respects, these provisions are not introduced under this bill. We may not see them for another 12 months, and it may be another 12 months—eight years since the original repeal by this government—before we actually see the full intent of what the government intends to do in relation to protecting children. Let us have a look at some of the provisions that are in the bill. As we said at the beginning, we are supporting this bill because it is essential that some protection be enacted in Queensland. It has to be said, on reading this bill, that this is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for employers. This is red 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 53 tape-ville, if you like. We did not introduce parental consent into our bill. It is going to complicate matters considerably for employers. In any case, the provision that is lacking—and I hope the minister will take it on board, and I hope it will appear in the regulation—without which children in the workplace in Queensland cannot be protected, is that there is no blue card provision. There is going to be parental consent, but the parents will not know if their child is working for a paedophile or not. A blue card provision— Mr Shine: Are you advocating that? Dr FLEGG: Absolutely. Mr Shine: So all employers should have a blue card. Dr FLEGG: Employers who employ children under 16 should have a blue card. A person has to have a blue card to teach a Sunday school choir. If blue card provisions are imposed on people from all sorts of walks of life—teachers, school bus drivers and Sunday school teachers have to have them— where are the paedophiles going to go? They are going to take advantage of the loopholes that the government has left where they can deal with children but they do not have to have a blue card. The loophole now is if someone employs children. I hope that the minister will take that on board, and perhaps that might be addressed in his regulations. I note that the minister has defined a child as somebody under 18. I do not think that is in dispute. Most of the restrictive provisions, such as parental consent or a special circumstances certificate if a child is living independently, are for children under the age of 16. It is very clear that when this sort of red tape and bureaucracy is brought in employers faced with the choice of employing someone who is 16 or employing someone who is 17 are going to have a preference to avoid the red tape and employ someone who is 17. I find the red tape to be discriminatory in terms of people who choose to employ young people. I congratulate the member for Algester on the new arrival in her family. I cannot say that I am speaking as a mother, but I can certainly say that I am speaking as a father. Three of my four sons have entered the workforce within the age groups that are envisaged in this bill. Work can be a very positive influence and a very positive experience as people are growing up and during their formative years and it should not be discouraged by this sort of red tape. One of the biggest areas of concern I have in relation to this issue—and personally I find it one of the most disturbing things—is when there is a suggestion of exploitation, particularly when it comes to people who are defenceless, especially children. One of the major concerns that moved me to introduce the bill in 2004 was that it was not clear that children in this state were protected from exploitation in the adult entertainment industry. Quite clearly, children under the age of 18, not 16, ought never, under any circumstances, be employed in the adult entertainment industry. I do not understand—and perhaps when the minister makes his comments he might enlighten us—why such provisions are not contained in this bill. There is no clause in this bill prohibiting the employment of children under the age of 18 in the adult entertainment industry, and that is not good enough. There is reference in the explanatory notes to the fact that this issue may or may not be dealt with adequately because we do not know until the regulations are implemented. Why would the government wait another 12 months to put into the regulations a prohibition on children working in the adult entertainment industry when it could simply have been written into this legislation? Mr Barton: You’re the one who’s saying it’s going to take 12 months. Dr FLEGG: It says 12 months in the department’s notes. With those provisions and reservations, we are pleased to see that the government has finally introduced some measures to protect children in the workplace. We would much rather have seen a lot of these things spelled out in the legislation. With those remarks, I conclude my speech. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.25 pm): It gives me great pleasure to support this legislation. In his second reading speech, the minister covered the bill very well and leaves little for me to add. Being on his legislative committee, I would like to say a few words. I was particularly appreciative of the comments of the members for Algester and Gladstone when they indicated the difficulties that young people will have under the federal IR laws. They brought that to the attention of the House quite well. I can only reiterate that it would be difficult to imagine a young person, a 16-year-old, trying to bargain their way with a multinational or an employer of any description, for that matter. Over the last three or four years two of my children have also entered the workforce on a part- time basis when they obtained jobs after school. I think the need for this legislation is apparent. There is a great temptation on the part of young people, because of subtle pressure from employers or the desire of young people to earn as much money as they can, to work too long. This might be to please the employer or it might be out of fear that the employer will penalise them with shorter hours or no hours at all if they do not work the longer hours required. For whatever reason—be it voluntary or imposed upon them—I think it is important for the law to give a lead in this regard. 54 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

Likewise, I would like to acknowledge that there are positive influences associated with the employment of young people. The pocket money that they receive is essential for their wellbeing and their ability to live in this 21st century. It also, of course, provides good training, discipline, punctuality, teamworking experience and so on. Because of the growth of the part-time job industry, particularly involving young people, in the 21st century, it is very important that legislation be enacted to keep up with those changes in society. I want to bring to the attention of the House a couple of points that I think are very positive. First of all, dealing with the age of young people the bill refers to, there is provision that the minimum age will be 13. Of course, that does not apply with respect to delivery work where 11-year-olds can undertake that work—for example, delivering newspapers, letterboxing brochures and things of that nature. However, it does provide that voluntary work can be done at any age. In terms of hours of work, the principal provisions provide that school-age children shall not work more than 12 hours per week or four hours on a school day during a school week. They shall not work between 10 pm and 6 am, and they shall only work one shift per day. They are not to recommence further shifts within 12 hours of the previous shift. I think these are essential, common-sense provisions that will be accepted well by young people, their parents and employers. Some general provisions also appeal to me, for example, that young people will be appropriately supervised. This is essential, particularly when security in terms of armed robberies and so on is taken into account. There has to be parental consent. Honourable members might think that is obvious. That is an important provision to see in the legislation, especially in the case of breakdowns in families. There is a provision that children are not allowed to be employed when they are supposed to be at school, in other words, during school hours. It does allow prescription by regulation, preventing children from being employed in certain areas of employment, for example, adult entertainment. I congratulate the minister and his department on the work that has gone into this legislation. I would also like to congratulate him on the liberalisation contained in the part of the act dealing with the amendment to the Industrial Relations Act concerning carers and bereavement leave. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (3.30 pm): I rise to support in part the Child Employment Bill 2005, a well overdue piece of legislation. Safeguarding our children has always been a top priority for those on this side of the House. I am a firm believer that we should encourage our young people to get involved in the workplace from an early age. As a parent, I believe employment for young people is an important stage in their development, but no child should be working in an unsafe workplace. It is about time that safeguards for our children are put in place. I support the view that work should not interfere with children’s schooling. I also support any legislation preventing children from performing work that may be harmful to their health or safety or to their physical, mental, moral or social development. I commend the common-sense approach to prescribing the minimum ages and type of work in which school-age and young children can work. I appreciate the introduction of limitations on the number of hours and times at which work may be performed by school-age and young children. I support the proposed regulations about work conditions for children in particular types of businesses such as the entertainment industry. These reforms gain our support because—and I point this out because the Australian Labor Party will fail to acknowledge this— many of these initiatives have been plucked directly from the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill 2004, a private member’s bill introduced by the member for Moggill, Dr Bruce Flegg. I am glad to see those opposite have finally seen sense. In fact, the all-party Scrutiny of Legislation Committee acknowledge this at points 5, 6, 9 and 10. Point 5 states— Insofar as it deals with child employment, the current bill bears significant similarities to the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill 2004, a private member’s bill introduced by the Member for Moggill, Dr B Flegg ... Point 6 states— The two bills differ in that whilst the earlier bill incorporated most of the detail about the employment restrictions in the bill itself, cl.9 of the current bill essentially leaves that process to regulations. It seems to question whether this bill is actually as good as the bill that the government failed to support. Point 8 states that most of the detail of the restrictions will be set by regulations rather than being stipulated in the bill itself. Point 10 states— The committee refers to Parliament the question of whether committing such a large part of the operative provisions of cl.9 to regulations is, in all the circumstances, an appropriate delegation of legislative power. Back in November 2004 my learned colleague the shadow minister for health, Dr Flegg, introduced a bill to provide protection for Queensland children in the workforce. We suggested this back in 2004 because Queensland had not seen any legislation specifically aimed at the protection of the rights of children in the workplace since 1999. The bill we sought to introduce back in 2004 aimed at bringing the state of Queensland in line with the rest of Australia, if not many other countries mentioned by my colleague the member for Moggill, by introducing a minimum work age and basic protections for children’s rights in the workplace. The opposition has wanted to introduce these safeguards for some time now. But because we, the opposition, suggested it, the current Labor government did not care to 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 55 support these initiatives. Because those opposite wanted to take the credit, these safeguards have been sitting on the Australian Labor Party drawing board rather than in the workplace, protecting our children. This shameful delay was caused by the Beattie government, which also maintained that the election in 2004 was about children, child safety and their welfare. However, when given a chance to actually do something for children instead of just words, it squibbed it. This is the government that has delayed any measures being introduced to restrict the number of hours a child works during the school term. This is the government that has delayed any measures being introduced to prevent the sexual exploitation of underage workers in adult entertainment venues. This is the government that could not recognise the need to safeguard our children in the workplace until it had our material to plagiarise. Despite the time—the seven years since the 1999 review—it has taken Labor to act on safeguarding our children in the workplace, the drafting of this bill is not without flaws. I would like to flag several concerns I have with the bill—the reasons why the current bill is not receiving my unequivocal support. I share the concerns of the shadow minister for health that there are no blue card provisions for employers under this bill when so many other people in contact with children have to have blue cards. I support a range of restrictions being placed on employers in relation to the employment of children, but I question whether it is appropriate for those restrictions to be set out in regulation and not in this bill itself. Until the contents of the regulations are examined it is difficult to reach a complete opinion as to the appropriateness of the scheme introduced by this bill. This sentiment is also echoed again by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee at points 36 and 38 in its report. Point 36 states— To the extent to which it actually governs the subject, the same could be said for the current bill. However, that is subject to the significant caveat that until the details of the restrictions envisaged in the bill are actually determined by regulation, no final assessment can be made in that regard. Point 38 states— The contents of that regulation will need to be examined before a final view can be reached on the appropriateness of the overall legislative scheme introduced by the bill. I also want to quote from the explanatory notes. The member for Moggill mentioned that he had concerns about the codes of practice taking 12 months to develop. I thought the minister took issue with him. The minister’s own explanatory notes state— The Bill and proposed Regulation will be supported by two new mandatory Codes of Practice which will be developed in the 12 months following the introduction of the Act. These relate to the employment of young people in the entertainment industry (including a prohibition on minors working in adult entertainment) and a specific workplace health and safety code for young workers. That obviously means that for the next 12 months minors will still be able to work in the adult entertainment industry with no protection provided by this government. Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the concern noted by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee relating to clauses 33 and 34. The bill, in its drafting, effectively provides for the reversal of the onus of proof. I have concerns whenever there is a reversal of this important legal principle. Once again, this bill will gain my reserved support subject to the concerns I have raised. Our children deserve the basic protections this bill affords them. Furthermore, let it be known that members on this side of the House have their priorities right and will continue to support reform in areas that need it, no matter who introduces it. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (3.37 pm): I rise to participate in the debate on the Child Employment Bill 2005. I congratulate the minister on introducing this legislation. I certainly look forward to the regulations when they are presented finally. I would also like to congratulate the Liberal Party for, in my view, prompting the government to introduce this type of legislation. It was not so long ago that we were debating a bill that was introduced by the member for Moggill which had, in my mind, very similar aims and objectives to the intent of this current bill, the Child Employment Bill 2005. I know it has the primary object to safeguard children working in Queensland and to ensure that Queensland employees can continue to enjoy a fair and balanced industrial relations system, regardless of developments at the federal level, by providing extended family provisions as minimum entitlements and providing for some technical amendments. I look forward to seeing how things unfold as a result of the court challenge in relation to the federal legislation and the outcome of the Queensland court hearing. One issue I wish to touch on is a matter which has also been raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. That deals with the range of restrictions which are to be covered by way of regulation. I note that at page 2 of the Alert Digest No. 1 of 2006 the committee has gone into detail in identifying the provisions of clause 9 and then referring to concerns. Point 8 states— The committee notes that cl.9 of the bill, which imposes on employers a range of restrictions in relation to the employment of children, essentially provides that most of the detail of the restrictions will be set by regulations, rather than being stipulated in the bill itself. The committee then goes on to say— The Explanatory Notes address this issue in some detail. The committee refers to Parliament the question of whether committing such a large part of the operative provisions of cl.9 to regulations is, in all the circumstances, an appropriate delegation of legislative power. 56 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

I repeat my concern that sometimes I feel it is a little bit too easy to have important material covered by regulation rather than covered by the bill which would give every member a chance to stand up, speak, debate and vote on the provision. The only way we can debate regulations is when a motion is moved relating to that regulation. Sometimes regulations are not as thoroughly analysed as the material in the bill. While I congratulate the minister for introducing this legislation and I look forward to it finally passing through all stages of debate, I record my reservations about significant material being contained in regulations. I believe where appropriate this material should be contained in the bill itself. I commend the bill to the House. Ms CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.40 pm): I am delighted to speak in support of the Child Employment Bill. The Child Employment Bill is designed to protect all children younger than 18 years of age, although the bulk of the provisions relate to children who are yet to complete compulsory education. The greater protection afforded these younger workers has been developed in recognition of the fact that, because of their young age, they are potentially more vulnerable to unscrupulous employers. This bill is also designed to ensure that the work young people undertake is not likely to be detrimental to their education. I want to look at the way the bill acknowledges the vitally important role parents play in safeguarding their children. In recognition of this fact, the legislation has been drafted in such a way that ultimately parents decide whether or not their children should work. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that an employer cannot employ a school-age child without the consent of a parent. Parental consent is only required where the child is yet to complete compulsory schooling. Children who have completed the compulsory schooling phase of their education are not required to obtain parental consent before pursuing work. The legislation also recognises that many different family circumstances exist. Because of this, the legislation has been drafted broadly so that persons exercising parental control over a child are able to provide parental consent. This includes persons regarded as parents under Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditions or customs. Where a child lives independently of his or her parents or where a child does not have a parent, the child or an adult acting on the child’s behalf should apply to the Department of Industrial Relations for authorisation for the child to work. Without the authorisation of the Department of Industrial Relations in situations such as this, an employer must not employ the child. Not only does the requirement for parental consent protect the child against unscrupulous employers; it also protects employers, as the parent must provide the employer with information about when the child is required to be at school. The parent is also required to advise the employer of their child’s date of birth. To ensure that all parties are protected at all times, parents have a responsibility to notify employers should a child’s circumstances change. The government is concerned about the welfare of children workers and students but ultimately recognises that parents have a responsibility and a right to be involved in their children’s education and how they participate in the very early stages of their working lives. I believe the minister has introduced a wonderful bill. It strengthens our commitment to ensuring that workers entering the workforce are entering safe workplaces. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (3.44 pm): I will make a small contribution to the debate on the Child Employment Bill 2005. In principle, I welcome the introduction of this bill from the perspective that it provides further protection for young people. It is obvious that this bill is designed to ensure that our children are protected from unscrupulous and hazardous work practices and that their schooling remains their top priority. I note that this bill takes into account the review undertaken by the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. The children’s commission recommended the development of stand- alone legislation to fill the gaps where existing legislation is considered inadequate to protect children— specifically, persons under the age of 18 years—at work. The majority of the provisions of this legislation relate to children who are of school age or younger—in particular, those 16 years of age or younger or who are yet to have completed year 10 of their compulsory schooling. More and more school-age children are seeking employment. Indeed, many of our major employers in various sectors—particularly the fast-food sector—depend heavily on this group to fill staffing rosters. In my area during school holiday times schoolchildren are a major or essential part of the workforce in the primary production and horticulture sectors. Whilst the initiative of these young people is to be admired, we need to be sure that their employment conditions and hours of work do not interfere with their primary commitment to completing their education. This bill and attendant legislation will in future prescribe minimum ages, types of work and the hours and times of work and will require parental consent for children to work. It will also, except in special circumstances, prohibit a child from missing school because of work, ensure adequate record keeping of a child’s employment and detail acceptable working conditions. Thankfully, we have come a long way from the days when children as young as five were sent down into coalmines for 12 to 15 hours a day. Far be it from us to even consider such a comparison today. 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 57

I believe anything that can be done to enshrine acceptable practices and impose penalties for abuse is worthy of consideration. Workplace health and safety is not only a legal responsibility but also a moral obligation. As a community we are all accountable to see that it is properly implemented and followed. Many school-age children who are seeking their first part-time job are unaware of their rights or an employer’s responsibilities and will often overlook or be unaware of how taking a job may interfere with their schoolwork. In their eagerness to earn an income they could agree to hours or times of work which would impact on their schoolwork and attendance. Let us face it, a good job is much more enticing than going to school. By legislating standard acceptable terms it is to be hoped that this will be avoided in the future. The requirement for parental consent for a child to be employed also places primary responsibility to monitor their child’s working times and hours where it should be: with the parents. I believe that is important. We should never advocate or legislate a situation where the state takes over this responsibility. The powers of the state should only be used to define what are standard acceptable conditions and to ensure the requisite penalties are in place and sufficient to deter any deliberate breaches. I am pleased that this bill seems to reflect that position. I have strong reservations about the implementation of the legislation and how it will work in practice. Unfortunately, in my role as shadow minister for child safety I have witnessed firsthand the results of a department struggling to deal with its information management requirements and a lack of progress in instituting workable reporting and responsorial systems. Given that this legislation makes it a requirement that the chief executive for industrial legislation will be required to approve all authorities to work, I would welcome further detail from the minister on how this will be managed and what time frames will be stipulated for processing and approval of an authority. For example, I am interested to know what procedures will be in place to allow a young special circumstance person applying for a job on a Monday to commence work as soon as possible without undue delays. A specific situation would be children who are in the care of the child safety system in out- of-home care or in foster care. I would hate to have a vulnerable young child being disadvantaged further by being ineligible for short-term immediate employment because of overzealous implementation. These are our most vulnerable children and they are the children who need the most encouragement to work. I certainly do hope that there are processes and situations put in place that will assist these children with gaining the work, because that is an area that I do have some concerns about. A very popular means of earning an income for many school-age children in my electorate of Burdekin is picking and packing mangoes during the December school holidays. As was evidenced this year, employment during the picking season can be sporadic and many employers can only work on a day-to-day basis. What does concern me is that if there is not some latitude or tolerance from the chief officer regarding the nature of the employment both young people and employers will miss out, and it is an area that is desperately looking for employees. The bill also serves the dual purpose of safeguarding employers from inadvertently breaching prescribed conditions and hours. It will shift the responsibility from employers to parents to make sure that times worked are not during school hours and will remove the necessity for them to become employment police. This aspect, I believe, will be welcomed. There are far too many areas where excessive red tape is being put upon employers and small businesspeople, and these are the people that we need to encourage. Quite often jobs may only involve one to two weeks work, with work needed to commence immediately. While I certainly welcome this bill as a safeguard to protect school-age children from unscrupulous business owners and as a safeguard for employers, I do not want children to miss job opportunities such as these. Likewise, I would hate to see reliable and honest employers suffer because of the necessary paperwork that cannot be processed in time, and also the impost of a great deal of unnecessary paperwork. Apart from this reservation, I welcome in principle this bill because it strengthens a parent’s responsibility, it protects employers and it ensures that our youth will not be taken advantage of and will retain school and their education as their top priority. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (3.53 pm): This bill really is fantastic legislation that has been brought into the Queensland parliament. It is great Labor legislation. The Child Employment Bill is an exercise in common sense. It helps young people with their work and with their studies. It also helps parents by not impacting on those mums and dads who run a family business or who quite rightly believe that young people should do a few chores around the house to earn their pocket money. In fact, I hope my two children will read this speech and actually earn their pocket money around the house as well. The Queensland government is committed to developing legislation to protect children in a workplace that could potentially be harmful to their health and safety or their physical, mental, moral or social development. Our government, the Beattie Labor government, realises that where a child works for their parent or another close adult family relative such as a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling or stepsibling in their family business the same level of regulation should not be necessary, and this is a sensible decision and one that has been made on the basis that the parent or close relative should have the child’s best interests at heart. 58 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

It is not the government’s intention to interfere unnecessarily with the family unit. The government is more concerned with protecting children from unscrupulous employers and ensuring that they get the best possible education that our government can offer. Therefore, the chores performed as a function of family life have deliberately been excluded from the definition of work in this bill. However, the family business exemptions found throughout this legislation do not diminish existing parental obligations in any way. Of course, where a child is subject to abuse within the family unit, existing legislation affords a range of protective measures. The bill before us acknowledges, though, that children working for family businesses traditionally have not been subject to the same regulation as other children in paid employment. For instance, minimum age prohibitions and restrictions upon permissible hours of work do not apply where the child works for a business owned solely by a parent or a close adult relative. In addition, parental consent requirements do not apply where the child works for his or her parent. The bill’s common-sense provisions relating to children working within a family unit recognise that often such work is done as a chore or a family obligation rather than as true paid employment. It acknowledges that parents usually know what is best for their children, especially when it comes to juggling work and family matters. Many family businesses are successful because of the commitment of the family to pull together and achieve success. They all work very hard and the family has an opportunity to work together in many small businesses, which is a great benefit to many young people to relate to customers, understand the concept of business management and gain invaluable experience. The dedication of families I have witnessed in my own electorate enables families to interact closely, particularly in their family businesses. There are many of these family businesses in my electorate of Bundamba that contribute not only to the Ipswich economy but also to our community. I thank the minister for bringing this bill into the House and also his staff and the departmental officers, and I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (3.56 pm): It gives me pleasure to rise to support the Child Employment Bill. I do not think anyone in this House would have any problems supporting its prime objective, which is to safeguard children working in Queensland and ensure that work does not interfere with their schooling. I do not think there would be anyone who would suggest that anything should interfere with a child’s schooling. It is the most essential part of their growing up. They need their schooling to enter into the workforce later on. One thing that I really support in this bill is the realistic approach to children working in families. When I was a child growing up in my family unit we were raised as part of that unit to know that we did what we could when we could. As we grew up, we learnt to make our bed, wash up and wipe up. We did not get paid for anything along those lines, but we did if we did something above and beyond that ordinary family scenario. For example, my parents purchased a shop and when we went to work in the shop for half an hour after school or whatever we did in fact get some remuneration. Unfortunately for me, I tended to take my payment in lollies—which was a bad thing at the time; I look back and really regret that—but we did get paid in some form or another. My brother, however, shovelled his under the carpet and I am sure that he still has his first penny. Needless to say, there was this commitment to do work from a very young age and we would not always expect money. My own children could not wait to go and get a job, whether that be delivering papers or packing boxes of fruit and vegies at the local grocer. They would have been out there at eight years of age if they could have been. The point is that they are very young when they go out to work. I also know from experience that there are employers out there who will use nothing but younger kids because it is very cheap. They do work them long hours. They can seem very intimidating. They may believe they are not, but a 40- or 50-year-old big man raising his voice to a young child is nothing short of intimidating, and it happens and it happens quite often. I know there are kids who are terrified to say no because they are frightened that if they do they may lose some of the hours they work or they might even be sacked altogether. Perhaps at times the younger workers might not be as strong as their employers thought. Those workers could be put in danger. We all know that the minimum working age is 13 years. Children of 11 years of age may carry out delivery work such as delivering newspapers between 6 am and 6 pm. To be quite honest, I do not think any of my kids got out of bed at six. I still do not think they can and some of them are in their 30s. Although children can carry out voluntary work at any time, there need to be rules to govern that work. This bill addresses that matter. I cannot do anything but support school-age children not working any longer than 12 hours during a school week, four hours on a school day or eight hours on a day that is not a school day. They can work 38 hours a week during their holidays. I think those hours are pretty reasonable. I really do not think that any parent would want their kids working long hours during the week. We all know they get tired very quickly through not only working but also running around at school and attending classes. Under this legislation children must not commence work within 12 hours of finishing work with the same employer. I am aware that that occurs. I know of one young child who has three jobs. The combined number of hours worked by that child would probably outnumber what is allowed by this legislation. Also under this legislation young workers must be appropriately supervised by an adult in 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 59 situations where they handle money, which is more than appropriate. If those workers were not supervised, other staff members could pocket money and heap the blame for any cash shortfall on that young person. I like the fact that this bill allows children to work and protects them from exploitation. It allows a work ethic to be instilled in children. Work never hurt anyone. There are people of all ages who opt out of employment in any way, shape or form and choose to live off unemployment benefits. We know that there are many people who want to work but for various reasons—whether they be health reasons or lack of work—they cannot work. But there are those people who willingly choose not to work and survive on the dole. That begs the question as to whether or not unemployment benefits should be offered. I think that most people believe that an unemployment benefit should be offered as a safety net to those people who really need it. However, I think over the years some people have lost sight of the real reason unemployment benefits are offered and regard them as a right. I am a little concerned that the paperwork involved in this legislation will create an added burden on employers. These days, no matter what we do paperwork seems to be created. Every time rules and regulations change, we cut down another tree. I find that really disturbing. I also note that it is fine for kids living on farms or whose family is involved in a business to work. I do not know anyone on a farm who abuses their kids. I know that I was up at five o’clock every morning to milk cows because my father used to have to go away to work. He came home only on weekends so it was up to us kids to run the farm. To us at times that was quite a burden and perhaps we did not have any social life. But I do not personally think that did us much harm. Again, I think a young person working in those circumstances has instilled in them a pretty good work ethic. I do not know of anyone who operates a farm who abuses their children in that way. I have never seen it occur. One thing I noted in the bill—and the member for Moggill touched on this matter—is that minors are prohibited to work in adult entertainment. That is just so right. But what really worries me is that the minister in his second reading speech stated— The legislation will be supported by two new codes of practice which will be developed in the 12 months following the introduction of the act. I have to question that. Why are those codes of practice not being introduced now? Why is it going to take 12 months to develop those codes of practice? Adult entertainment can be a bit dicey. I have to ask why these provisions will not be supported for 12 months. One thing I do know is that education has to be prioritised over any work that is done. I appreciate the effort that has been put into formulating the bill to ensure that education takes precedence. Finally, I make the comment that this bill is very, very similar to a bill that was introduced by the member for Moggill. We have seen that happen so often in this place: a bill is introduced by a member of the opposition and it is defeated soundly, yet a few months later the government introduces legislation of a similar nature. That is a work practice that verges on plagiarism. The truth is that a good idea should be supported regardless of who puts it forward. This parliament should govern for Queensland, not act along party lines. People do not care from which side of parliament the idea comes, as long as it is a good idea and it is acted upon. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (4.06 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise to join this debate. I would like to compliment the minister, the Hon. Tom Barton, for introducing this legislation. It has been warmly received in my electorate. As the previous speaker mentioned, education is extremely important to our children. Unfortunately, it is a fact of modern life that in many cases our children’s education is being compromised by their desire to earn money or, in some cases, by the inappropriate action of some employers. I say ‘some’ because it is certainly not all and certainly not the majority. I go around to a lot of high schools in my electorate and speak to principals. On numerous occasions they have discussed with me the impact that the hours children are working is having on their education. In some cases children are skipping school in order to go to work. In other cases children are coming to school extremely tired. When those children have been asked by staff members why they are tired they say, ‘I was working very late last night.’ To an extent it is unfortunate that we have had to introduce this legislation. I would like to think that the world is a much better place than it is. The fact is that it is a rough world out there and in many instances our children’s education, which is really the key to their future, is being compromised by their work practices. I also believe that the situation will get worse, particularly owing to Howard’s industrial relations agenda. Just last week I received a phone call from a young worker in my electorate who has to clean shops as part of his duties. His hands are reacting badly to the chemicals that he uses. He approached his employer and asked if he could have some rubber gloves and his employer said no. I am talking about safety equipment—nothing more, nothing less. This man’s employer was refusing to provide that equipment. This man phoned me to ask me what his rights were. I outlined what his rights were and a range of strategies by which he could enforce his right to be given personal protective equipment. I also had to preface what I said to him with the comment that when Howard’s industrial relations reforms roll 60 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006 out, if you are dismissed for trying to enforce your rights you will not have any right of appeal. You will not be able to make a claim for unfair dismissal. The world is a nasty place now and the world is getting nastier all the time, particularly owing to Howard’s industrial relations agenda. The workplace that our children are entering is a very murky world in which people have rights, but they should be careful if they enforce those rights because punishment could be meted out for doing that. I would like to put on record the support I have received for this legislation from Faye Conley, the principal of Carmel Catholic College. Mr Fenlon: A fine principal, indeed. Mr ENGLISH: Yes, a fantastic lady. We have had numerous discussions about the impact that children’s work is having on their education. It is a very short-term view for children to take, to chase the dollar now at the expense of their education. I would like to compliment the minister. I commend Faye Conley and educators like her for their enthusiasm for their craft and the value that they put on education and instill in our children. I commend the bill to the House. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.10 pm): I rise to speak to the Child Employment Bill. I congratulate Bruce Flegg. I think he did a wonderful job of drafting the original bill that has virtually been plagiarised. Mr Shine: You haven’t seen anything like it. Mr RICKUSS: I have so. I congratulate the member for Moggill. I think he has done a wonderful job on this bill. I must admit that the young people of Queensland do wonders for our economy. There is the fast-food industry, seasonal work in regional Queensland, jackaroos and jillaroos. It is great for some of the young people of Queensland who have done those sorts of jobs. Mr Shine: Farm labourers. Mr RICKUSS: Yes, there are plenty of young farm labourers. Unfortunately, it has taken a long time for this bill to come before us. It has been seven years since the act was repealed. The length of time it has taken to draft another bill shows the competency of this government. There are quite a few things missing from this bill, unfortunately. We have not seen the form that the workers are required to fill in. We are assured it will be simple. We have not seen the regulations, which is also unfortunate. The purpose of this legislation is to safeguard children working in Queensland. Everyone is quite happy about that, I am sure. I am interested in the meaning of ‘parents’. Perhaps the minister can clarify. Clause 6(2) of the bill states— However, a person standing in the place of a parent of a child on a temporary basis is not a parent of the child. There seems to be a difference between that and clause 6(3), which states— A parent of an Aboriginal child includes a person who, under Aboriginal tradition, is regarded as a parent of the child. I am a bit concerned about children living with uncles and aunts and other relatives, which happens quite a bit in the bush—parents often send their kids to live with their uncles and aunts in town. I feel that could be a problem with the bill. I would not like to see any reverse discrimination. That is all I would like to say about that point. The bill defines ‘work’ and talks about voluntary work. I do not know whether there are that many kids who play truant to be voluntary workers. I do not know whether there are many truants who do paid work, for that matter. Some of the finer details of the bill are interesting. There are restrictions to safeguard working children in relation to the conditions they work under. All members of parliament have to agree with this. The bill sets out the authority needed before school-age or young children can work. I just hope this provision does not cause any delays and disadvantage children from doing an odd job for two or three days. I think it could unfortunately disadvantage some people who do need jobs and they may miss out. Clause 11 of the bill states that school-age children must not work during school hours. I do not think that many truants actually do work. I think we should refer this matter to the education minister to chase up some of his truants. There could be an issue there. Clause 12 of the bill provides that the chief executive may authorise a child to do particular work. I am still at a loss as to whether the director- general will be prioritising these types of forms on a daily basis. It would be interesting to see how many of those go through. I think that is something we will have to look at once the legislation is passed. There are enforcement issues in part 3. Division 1 sets out the functions of an inspector. I would like the minister to clarify whether we will actually need any new inspectors. If he asks the inspectors, they are going to say that they are working a full complement. If we are not going to need new inspectors, I do not know where they are going to find the time to do this job. It is going to be a real problem. I support the legislation, but I hope it will not disadvantage some of the young people who are supposed to be advantaged by this legislation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lee): Order! Before calling the member for Capalaba, I remind members that the convention of this place is for honourable members not to pass between a speaker on their feet and the chair. I know that it is the first day back at school and people do get mighty thirsty after lunch, but I would appreciate it if members on both sides of the House could adhere to that convention. 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 61

Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (4.16 pm): I welcome the opportunity to participate in this very important debate this afternoon. I congratulate the Queensland government in honouring its commitment to safeguarding children working in Queensland. By introducing the Child Employment Bill 2005 this government is clearly devoted to putting in place suitable mechanisms to protect children from abuse and exploitation in the workplace and is also devoted to the state’s children maintaining a balance between their work and education commitments. Currently there is no specific legislation prohibiting or regulating child labour in this state. The now repealed Children’s Services Act 1996 provided for limited protection of children in employment. However, it has now been replaced by the Child Protection Act 1999. As a consequence there are gaps in current legislation concerning the employment of children. The proposed regulatory regime for child employment is made up of both this bill and an accompanying regulation: the Child Employment Regulation 2005. Jointly with the regulation, the Child Employment Bill is designed to further protect and safeguard the rights of children working in both paid and unpaid employment in Queensland. Extensive consultation has taken place with key stakeholders from unions, employer organisations and governments in the formation of this bill. Public consultation was sought via the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian releasing a discussion paper about issues affecting Queensland children and young people in the workplace. It was consistently noted from the sources providing comment that young people are typically in a disadvantaged bargaining position when it comes to negotiating their employment conditions. This is obviously no surprise to most people in this House. The bill also amends to the Industrial Relations Act 1999. I do not intend to go into much detail about that except to say that these amendments are again in line with this government’s devotion to continue legislating to improve work and family provisions for all Queenslanders, including children. We hope that families, including all age groups, can continue to enjoy a fair, balanced IR system in our Smart State regardless of the careless, ill-thought-out and haphazard IR developments at the federal level. The main focus of my contribution today is the rights of our children in the workplace. The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian review found that young people in the workplace were more likely to suffer exploitation over their working hours and pay, sexual harassment, workplace accidents and bullying. This government is not prepared to sit back and let this situation continue as it is simply unacceptable and we are here to make the changes necessary to protect the wellbeing of our kids and their future. Children and young people face a broad range of experiences at work. The requirements contained in this bill will apply to all children under the age of 18. However, the bulk of the provisions relate to children who are of school age—that is, those younger than 16 or who have yet to complete year 10. I was reading an article in the Courier-Mail which commented that one in 10 children aged between 12 and 16 works more than 15 hours per week. These are the children I stand here today and speak out for. These are our neighbours’ children, our own children, our friends’ children and, most importantly, these children are the future of our society and we need to take care of them. There can be no viable argument about requirements pertaining to the employment of children such as the requirement for employers to obtain parental consent to employ children under the age of 18, the requirement of an employer to make it possible for a child at work to contact their parents any time as required, the requirement that employers safeguard a child while at work or the requirement that an employer keep records about child employment. No sensible person can argue against these provisions in the bill. I will move to some of the specifics. This bill indicates that a general minimum age of 13 years is prescribed for commencing work unless otherwise permitted by the proposed legislation. School-age children also have access to precise and clearly defined regulations in respect of the number of hours they can work on any given school day or week. This bill is also aimed at preventing children from performing work that may be harmful to their health or safety or their physical, mental, oral or social development. The provisions I have outlined here today are only some amongst many of the positive aspects contained in this bill. What this government wants for Queensland children is decent jobs and working conditions. As parents, we all want our kids to have decent jobs that challenge and reward them. No parent ever wants their children to be exploited, especially during their most vulnerable and formative years. A severe, traumatic work experience in this age group could have ongoing detrimental effects that could be life altering for a child trying to find their pathway in life. As further evidence of this government’s dedication to our youth, the Beattie Labor government funded the Young Workers Advisory Service. This organisation provides important work related and child focused support and efficacy services. After visiting its web site, I became familiar with many cases involving exploitation of our young people in the workplace. The YWAS openly states that it hears horrible stories of child exploitation in the workplace day in, day out and of young people not having a 62 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006 fair go. Scenarios like this one I am about to mention is taken from the YWAS submission. A young female was directed to open her bakery workplace at 4.30 in the morning before school—while every one of us in this House is probably still asleep. She felt tired and sick during school hours, she was unable to focus and unable to concentrate. She is also worried about her safety as it is still dark when she goes to work. Another young male aged 15 was working in the hospitality industry. He arrived to start work at 9 in the morning, the time at which he was rostered on. His employer told him to sit down and wait for an hour because it was not busy enough for him to start. Obviously he did not get paid for that hour. The list just goes on. These are all extracts taken from the Young Workers Advisory Service submission titled ‘Queensland Review of Child Labour’. I encourage those interested members to visit the web site. Unlike the federal government, this Labor government is doing its very best to protect our children in the workplace. When Mr Howard revealed his WorkChoice package for Australians, he may as well have said, ‘Take the job or get the sack.’ Workers will get penalty rates and conditions only if their bosses agree. It is a frightening reality under this system that regardless of age you are on your own and your boss will hold all the cards. As concerned parents, we need to consider what this will do to our young people in this great state. It is incomprehensible that the federal Liberal government could be so out of touch that it can seriously think our teenagers have the life skills necessary to confidently and, importantly, competently bargain with their potential employers for their working conditions. The situation is just ludicrous. A government should be moving towards a system that protects the vulnerable, not one that exploits them. If this situation were not so serious, it would be considered a joke. Thanks to the federal government and its ridiculous IR system, it will expose this nation’s youngest workers to a no-win, impossible and intimidating employment situation. For young people, work is a great way to meet other young people, earn some extra pocket money and learn new life skills. It is important that they know what their rights are in the workplace. This bill recognises the rights of young people to work and their right to a safe, positive work experience. I personally feel passionate about this issue because I am a father of three beautiful young girls, two of whom fall into the age group which this bill is aimed to protect. I am proud to be part of this government and have a hand in putting this legislation in place. I am proud to be part of a government that recognises the importance of protecting young workers from abuse and exploitation. In doing so, we are protecting and preserving their right to enjoy and utilise their education, recreation and family time. This government is about promoting a healthy lifestyle for Queensland families, and that is exactly what the Child Employment Bill is all about. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister and his staff for their work in putting the details of this bill together. I wholeheartedly support the bill before the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (4.26 pm): I rise to speak to the Child Employment Bill 2005. In doing so, I must extend my gratitude to the minister for making his staff available for a briefing this morning. I also thank my coalition colleague the honourable member for Hinchinbrook for inviting me to participate. He has already raised some issues the coalition has with this bill, as have other members on this side of the House. When I read the minister’s second reading speech on this bill, I must admit I was surprised to see that a large chunk of it is based on the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill brought into this House by my learned colleague the honourable member for Moggill. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee makes note of this similarity in issue No. 1 of the 2006 Alert Digest, which states— Insofar as it deals with child employment, the current bill bears significant similarities to the Industrial Relations (Minimum Employment Age) Amendment Bill 2004 ... It further states— The two bills differ in that whilst the earlier bill incorporated most of the detail about the employment restrictions in the bill itself, cl.9 of the current bill essentially leaves that process to regulations. Yet here we are today debating a piece of legislation which tinkers around the edges and removes vital components of a previously well-thought-out private member’s bill. This is becoming a recurring trend and typical of the incompetence of this Labor government. The bill and proposed regulation intend to prescribe the minimum ages for work and the types of work in which school-age and young children can work; prescribe the number of hours and times at which work may be performed and other matters such as supervisory requirements at work for school-age and young children; require parental consent to be given for school-age and young children to work except where those children live independently from their parents; prohibit the employment of children when required to be at school; require employers to keep specific records about child employment; and make regulations about the work conditions for children in particular types of businesses including in the entertainment industry. The regulation, according to the amendment brought into the House today, will be introduced in July. I understand that this regulation is only at the draft stage, so it is to be hoped it will be ready soon because that will not give a reasonable time frame for all of the separate items to be properly absorbed and administered here. I am advised that the bill and the proposed regulation will be supported by two new mandatory codes of practice which will be developed in the 12 months following the introduction of 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 63 the act. These include a prohibition on minors working in adult entertainment and a specific workplace health and safety code for young workers. The bill also makes amendments to the Industrial Relations Act 1999 as a consequence of an August 2005 decision of the full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the family provisions test case. What I do find disconcerting is primarily the fact that clause 9 of this bill seeks to remove out of legislation and place into regulation the imposition of restrictions in relation to the employment of children. This bill before us today does not go far enough. It does not provide any detail—no, not a single detail—relating to what restrictions will be imposed by the regulations on the employment of children. How is it that the Labor government can expect to introduce this legislation when it refuses to address any detail? We all know that the devil is in the detail, and right now those on the other side of the House are certainly hiding it. I have some concerns in relation to this bill because it fails to provide essential determinants to assess the potential impacts it will have on young people—the future of this state. We do not know what impositions the Labor government will place on employers as to what type of work children can do, the minimum age they must be, the way in which they can work and the times at which they can work. This Labor government is more than happy to impose penalties for breaches by employers and yet it will not be transparent about its expectations. Through delegating legislative power to regulation this bill is treading on dangerous ground. It goes too far by applying penalties which could be deemed excessive for the level of delegation. In fact, the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee specifically referred to parliament ‘the question of whether committing such a large part of the operative provision of clause 9 to regulations is, in all the circumstances, an appropriate delegation of legislative power’. I would also like to raise the matter of clauses 33 and 34. In our legal system we are all entitled to the presumption of innocence and yet this bill, like so many others, seeks to reverse this pivotal concept. The justification for reversing the onus of proof is not proven in my eyes, and on this basis I believe this clause of the bill should not be supported. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee further raised the question of whether, in the circumstances, this reversal of onus is justified. I am well aware of the vulnerability of youth in their adolescent years. Despite their belief that they are grown up and invincible, this must be contrasted against the temptation of employers to hire young, fit staff who do not cost high hourly wages. Reading this bill together with recent media articles about child employment brought back a flood of memories of personal experiences from a long, long time ago. My mother passed away after a short battle with leukaemia whilst I was in my early teens, and it became necessary for me to seek part-time work, which I found at a local delicatessen over weekends while I completed my secondary education. This was no ordinary delicatessen. A vast array of foods was on offer. Amongst other items, there was a huge selection of cheeses and processed cold meats. Under the guidance of the parents of this family owned and operated small business I learned the importance of friendly customer service, performing tasks quickly and efficiently, stacking fridges correctly, practising health and safety procedures with regard to food handling and using my brain to add up purchases using pen and paper. I remember feeling as though I had something to contribute. I felt part of a team, and the income earned was, of course, most helpful to me and my family—all very comforting after the loss of my beloved mother. Our family moved to another suburb and I again found work in a delicatessen—this time for an older couple. Here I was to experience sexual harassment and an attempt at improper touching by the male owner when I was in the storeroom. Fortunately, I had the confidence and courage to remove myself from this frightening situation and report it to another employee, who then reported it to the man’s wife. The wife, a very outspoken European woman, I am told berated him thoroughly and I was not accosted again while I worked there. The reason that I include these personal experiences is to highlight the vulnerability of young people in employment but, more importantly, to outline the enormous benefits to young people through learning skills and building confidence that they can use to access gainful employment in adult life. Education is of paramount importance, but we must also accept that much can be learned by our youth through working in a part-time job. Many young people have aspirations to buy a car when they are able to gain a driver’s licence, and this quest for independence not only drives their commitment to maintaining a job but also engenders a strong sense of responsibility and, hopefully, a sense of maturity. The unknown restrictions of the regulations of this bill will certainly have an impact on youth and, to a lesser degree, employers. Why will those on the other side of the House not be truthful and acknowledge this impact? I raise the concern highlighted again by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee— ... subject to the significant caveat that until the details of the restrictions envisaged in the bill are actually determined by regulation, no final assessment can be made in that regard’. Very few issues have received more attention in recent years than child welfare and safety, and that includes child labour. In Australia we have a far different situation to the common images that come to mind, such as children working extensive hours on sewing machines, hooking rugs or stitching footballs. 64 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

Workers under the age of 18 play an essential role in most of the developed world, and legislation needs to be in place to protect them from physical, social and economic harm. In fact, Queensland has a high percentage of youth in the workforce: 57 per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds. Teenage consumers have become a sought-after demographic market by merchandisers. For most of our youth, to be in the purchaser bracket requires at least some paid employment. There is also another side to the exploitation of youth. While Queensland does have child protection laws in relation to prostitution and working where alcohol is served, young people are still allowed to work as topless waitresses or in peep shows. As recently as Sunday, 12 February 2006 we have reports in the Sunday Mail regarding the distressing circumstances of a young woman who has broken out of this exploitative cycle. We are also presented with reports of young children, some as young as eight, selling themselves on the streets of this city for a few meagre dollars. These at-risk children have often found themselves on the streets for a variety of reasons, but we need to recognise that they are being failed by the child protection laws. The risk of children working, especially those under the age of 16, raises a raft of concerns which include the risk of physical harm, the threat to educational opportunity, the threat to a healthy childhood and the risk of exploitation. Since the Queensland Children’s Services Act 1965 was repealed in 1999 there has been no specific legislation to protect child workers in Queensland. It has taken over six years and was the catalyst of the member for Moggill’s private member’s bill to kick-start this Labor government into gear and realise this type of legislation is vital for the protection of child workers. It is obvious that children in the workforce, especially those under the age of 16, need specific legislation to protect them from exploitation and to ensure that their education is not suffering as a result. The fundamental role of this state government should be to protect children. It should be ashamed it has taken so long to embark on this legislation as the first step since the 1965 act was repealed six years ago. It has permitted child workers to be exposed for six years to no minimum work age and being susceptible to participation in inappropriate work for inappropriate lengths of time or overnight. Why has the state government not addressed the loophole with its blue card system which makes children vulnerable through a lack of restrictions applying to those who supervise and are coworkers of children in the workforce? The bill introduced by the member for Moggill aimed to further strengthen the child protection laws by requiring the immediate supervisor of children under the age of 14 to have a blue card. This is a vital precaution as predators will be seeking other opportunities where they can have access to our children. This again has been highlighted in recent times with attempted abductions throughout this state with the return of our children to our schools. With the reservations mentioned above, I commend the bill to the House. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (4.38 pm): I rise today to support the Child Employment Bill 2005 and welcome the debate here in the parliament. It was a debate that was first foreshadowed by the Premier and the minister for training and industrial relations on Labour Day last year. I note in passing that it was a piquant time to announce that intention, being that Labour Day is an institution in Australian society and certainly one of those institutions that faces destruction by the changes wrought by the federal government in relation to workplace relations in this country. It will be, sadly, another institution of Australian life that will be rendered no more, as have so many other institutions in this country during the last 10 years of the federal government. This is an important bill in providing a legislative and regulatory framework to protect the rights of young people at work and to make sure that the balance between their welfare, education and ability to earn an income is reached in a purposeful manner. I make these remarks in the context in which the consumerism and pressures that all of us face—the relentless marketing that we find through myriad media these days implores all of us to buy more and spend more in buying it—are certainly faced by young people as well. Young people trying to make the most of the opportunity to learn and to study are faced with those pressures and so many of them also face consumerist pressure that is relentlessly pounded upon them, along with, in many cases and more relevantly, the need for many of them to earn an income to support their existence to enable them to keep learning at an educational institution. Within that context, the introduction of this bill and the framework around it is certainly timely and welcomed by all members of the House. I note that the debate today has been conducted in somewhat of an unseemly context of credit claiming which I propose to leave to one side, apart from saying that the argument about the content of regulations to lie underneath the bill today is probably, at best, misplaced. If we reflect upon the fact that many of the jobs that many of our contemporaries today hold and the type of work they do, that certainly was not imaginable five or 10 years ago, or even longer. The idea that the nature and the prescription of matters reflected in this bill should be frozen in time in legislation and not included in regulation is something about which I would have a different view. Regardless of that and beside that point, the content of a regulation is, as ever, always subject to disallowance, scrutiny and oversight in the ultimate sense by this parliament. The idea that the question posed by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 65 an absolute is, I think, at best mischievous. It was a question referred to the parliament and it is a question that I am sure will be resolved resolutely by the parliament at the conclusion of this debate. In closing, I might also reflect upon the fact that, as the youngest member of the House, these issues are perhaps, in at least a temporal sense, closer to me than to some others. Within that context, I note and welcome the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia has seen fit to preselect in the electorate of Mount Coot-tha for the next state election someone younger than me, which is quite welcome. An honourable member: Will this bill apply to them? Mr FRASER: Only just! I look forward to pitting my worldly experience and years on this earth against the enthusiasm and energy of a younger challenger. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (4.42 pm): I rise to participate in this debate on the Child Employment Bill 2005. In common with the member for Capalaba, my erstwhile colleague, I have children. But he only has a small family. He mentioned having three kids; I am a father of six. I am not even a Catholic, so that is either good planning or stupidity. Mr Terry Sullivan interjected. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I take that interjection from the member for Stafford. I have teenagers in the workplace, and I certainly have had mixed feelings. If each member of this House is honest with himself or herself, we would admit that we can theorise about things as they apply to us until it is actually our children involved in the workplace and then all of a sudden we begin to get very cautious about these things. One thing I am completely sure about is that kids do need to be taught the value of money and also the value of a good work ethic. I am very pleased to say that my teenagers certainly have a good work ethic. That has been part of their training. As we have raised our children we have always worked on the principle that we do not pay pocket money unless they do jobs. We have always paid pocket money at half their age. If a child is 10 they get $5 a week et cetera. The exploitation of children, particularly in terms of child labour, really is a worldwide problem. We see kids being exploited in sweatshops, as the member for Currumbin talked about. We see kids involved in manual work in the fields. There is no doubt at all that some horrible things occur, especially in Third World countries. In conducting researching for this speech I have become aware of children breaking bricks near a place called Pagla Ghat in Bangladesh. The children breaking up bricks earn the equivalent of five to 10 pence for a day’s work. Coming back to Australia, lots of kids do work in our society. In after-school hours kids help with household chores, run errands and look after younger brothers and sisters. Sometimes it is hard to draw the correct line between work and child labour. Children working for very long hours and sacrificing time and energy that they might otherwise spend on schoolwork or productive play can be a very negative formative experience for their childhood. Children working long hours are missing out on the vital opportunity that education provides. I am particularly thoughtful of some of the fast-food chains that have kids doing closes on weeknights. That can be a major problem with kids being far too tired for school the next day and so forth. Whilst that may not be particularly emotive in terms of exploitation compared with kids in sweatshops stitching up footballs, nonetheless it is a significant problem. The International Labour Organisation estimated in 2002 that the number of children worldwide who are economically active—I think that is a very quaint little term and I shudder to think of kids being economically active, but perhaps that is some sort of a definition—in other words, doing some kind of work, amounted to 352 million. Of those, 211 million were aged five to 14. Whether this activity constitutes child labour depends both on the nature of the work and the age of the child. The International Labour Organisation has counted 246 million children worldwide as actual child labourers. Around 16 per cent of the world’s children are caught up in child labour and around one in 12 children are engaged either in hazardous work or in the very worst forms of child labour. Earlier speakers have talked about prostitution. I am rather appalled to read statistics that the average age of kids entering prostitution is 12 to 13 years in some places and much younger in other places. That is an absolutely horrible statistic. On the brighter side, looking at the history of unions—and members opposite would give a hearty ‘Hear, hear!’ to this—I see that they were started in England in the times of John Wesley to get kids out of coalmines as they were being exploited. It is a wonderful ideal to bring parity and fairness to those industries. Children are the true innocents of our society. They deserve and they need our protection. I am very thrilled with the protections provided in this bill. The bill provides the requirement of parental consent to be given for school-age and young children at work. I think that is an excellent suggestion. It prohibits the employment of children when they are required to be at school. I have some concerns with that in that some kids simply do not want to be at school. The whole earn and learn strategy has thrown an interesting light on that. The restrictions on work performed by school-age and young children do not apply to any work performed in the entertainment industry or in a family business—that is, businesses or corporations owned solely by a close adult relative of the child. 66 Child Employment Bill 14 Feb 2006

On reading the second reading speech I note that these codes relate to the employment of young people in the entertainment industry. I am very pleased with this next section which includes a prohibition on minors working in adult entertainment. I could not speak too strongly on that point, as most members would be well aware. A specific workplace health and safety code for young workers is certainly a step in the right direction. There are a couple of other things that I want to touch on. Specific regulations for school-age and young children in respect of hours of work that may be performed are 12 hours during a school week, 38 hours during a week that is not a school week and four hours on a school day. As a father of teenage children, I have to say that even working four hours on a school day is quite a pinch when kids in secondary education also have to fit in a meaningful level of school work. But I think it is a start. Children are able to work for eight hours on a day that is not a school day. School-age children may not perform work between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, and that is going to knock out some of the closes for some of the larger fast-food outlets. School-age children must not commence work within 12 hours of last finishing work with the same employer. We see a lot of problems with kids as they transition from their middle teens to year 12 and they are in the routine of working a part-time job. Unfortunately, to work a part-time job has become the norm. That did not happen when we were children. School-age children transitioning into year 12 need a lot more time to study. I see those part-time jobs competing with the expectations of a good outcome for the children’s year 12 studies. A number of members have raised the concern that this legislation will create more paperwork for businesses. That is a real concern for anyone who owns a small business. There is no doubt about that. When we look at the basic pieces of information contained in the list such as name, address, home and business phone numbers, parent of the child et cetera—and I will not go into the list for the sake of time—there is nothing in that list that troubles me with respect to what is required to be kept by an employer. One of the questions I would put to the minister is: what security provisions are there for those documents? I would have concerns if other people had access to those records and therefore had access to personal phone numbers et cetera. I would encourage the minister to frame the provisions in relation to access to those documents very tightly so that people who are out to harass and exploit children even further in the work environment simply cannot do so. I conclude my remarks by saying that more and more it is a fact of life that young workers have a number of jobs. My eldest daughter has a main job and a part-time job. We need to make sure that we frame the legislation properly to provide for kids. I will never forget when I was in my accountancy practice hearing a story from a lawyer colleague of mine. A particular young lad was working part time in a fruit shop in Melbourne. It was a cash-under-the-counter job. The young lad was killed in a accident while trail bike riding one weekend. When his lawyer went to wind up his estate he simply asked his parents, ‘Did your son have any part-time jobs?’ The parents said, ‘He worked at XYZ fruit barn.’ The lawyer went to XYZ fruit barn and said, ‘We want to make a claim on his life insurance under the compulsory superannuation you have been paying him.’ Because it was a cash-under-the-counter job he was not even an official employee. That ended up costing the owner of the store some $50,000. These are the very reasons we need solid laws to protect people. We also do not need to make those solid laws a rod for the back of small business either. It is about getting the mix right. I commend the bill to the House. Anything that is good for kids has my vote. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (4.53 pm): I rise to support the Child Employment Bill, which is before the House. Last night I was at a meeting of a local secondary school. The principal and the dean of studies spoke about the problem of students working long hours and the negative effect that that has on their studies. They mentioned the late shifts that many students, particularly year 11 and 12 students, are asked to undertake at local fast-food outlets. Students are falling asleep in class the following day. One of the manual arts teachers mentioned that he found that it was dangerous for some students to operate the machines in the workshop because they were so fatigued after spending long hours at their so-called part-time work. I say so-called part-time work because many of these students are working more than 20 hours a week, including the late shifts to which I referred. Many employers do not acknowledge that the student is first and foremost a student. It has been said to many of our young people, ‘You are an employee first and you have to fulfil the responsibilities of this job.’ If they refuse they are sacked. There are many employers, particularly in fast-food and retail outlets, who make very few allowances for exam weeks, assignments or special school events such as formals or school award nights. Many of these young people are given significant responsibilities. They can be asked to lock up late at night, to balance a till, to make a reconciliation of stock and to return keys to a location that is sometimes not the outlet location. The hourly rate which they are paid does not take into account these responsibilities. 14 Feb 2006 Child Employment Bill 67

I was talking to one of my constituents, a parent, in the last 24 hours. She said that she had phoned the manager of a local outlet where her son was working to complain about the long shifts and extra shifts that her son was being asked to work. She found herself speaking to an 18-year-old who had been working at the fast-food outlet only six months longer than her son. This 18-year-old university student was struggling to survive given the financial demands of our current tertiary system, which is forcing our university students to work extremely long hours. This legislation goes a long way to supporting the basic determination that our young people are first and foremost students preparing for the full-time workforce. In recent years under the Americanisation of our workplaces the wellbeing of our young people has been considered secondary to forcing low wages on these workers. This has to change. This legislation is starting to make that change. The lowering of wages and the inflexibility of rosters is having an adverse effect on young people’s studies. Two other factors are exacerbating this problem. They are the extension of trading hours and the increasing demands being placed on our education system. When I went to school many of my fellow students left school in year 8 and got a good trade that took them through to the top of their profession. Others left at year 10 and found the same thing. Our society is demanding longer and more complex training for our young people, and we have to give them the time to be students first. I want to clarify my position in case people think that I do not support young people doing part- time work. It is quite the contrary. I believe there are very positive aspects associated with young people having part-time jobs. They need to learn the meaning of customer service; they need to learn how to deal with all sorts of people who are their customers—the general public; they need to learn how to handle money and stock in a responsible manner; they need to learn to be more thorough, hygienic, polite, punctual and responsible; they need to learn the value of hard and sometimes menial work; and they need to understand that financial reward is dependent on personal effort. But they are students first and foremost. I was intrigued by part of the member for Moggill’s contribution where he called for all employers engaging young people to hold a blue card. I am wondering what the reaction of the Queensland business council, the Confederation of Industry and small business groups would be to the comments of this potential Leader of the Liberal Party in this state. Previous speakers have spoken about their own children and their own experiences, and I will share similar experiences. My children have worked in retail and fast-food outlets, in bottle shops and as labourers and bar workers. As a child I worked in our family business. Our family put family commitments first, school—both studies and extracurricular activities—second and the job third. Our young people today can be tempted by the lure of what appears to be a reasonable income. If the job overtakes their studies it will be to their long-term detriment because they will not achieve in their studies what they would have otherwise achieved. There are a range of other matters that could be discussed under the industrial relations legislation, under which the work conditions of young people need to be improved. I have hinted at some of them in this speech, but they can be fleshed out at a later date. There is a question that I would like clarified by the minister if possible. I would like the minister to reassure us that school based apprenticeships and vocational education block studies do not come under this legislation, that they are in fact treated separately and that we will not unintentionally catch some very good training schemes in this legislation. I would also ask the minister and the department to monitor the implementation and practices of this legislation to check on two things: firstly, that employers do not try to circumvent this legislation by surreptitious means and, secondly, that there is no unintentional negative effect on our students. I understand there has been some discussion on the topic of limiting the number of work hours that a student can undertake in terms of the definition of ‘school day’ or ‘school week’. If it is defined as a school day, Fridays may be affected in a manner that is detrimental to students. It could be that the definition of limiting total hours within a school week could be a better definition, but that is something that I am certain the department and the minister will keep an eye on. There has been broad support for this legislation throughout this debate from all sides of the parliament. I think that reflects the care and concern that all members of this House have for our younger people. We do want to see the economy grow and we do want to see our young people gain skills in the workforce, but we want to ensure first and foremost that our young people have a life as young people. They are students first, not full-time workers. I support the bill before the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Terry Sullivan, adjourned. 68 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006

SUCCESSION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 1 December 2005 (see p. 4645). Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (5.01 pm): The Succession Amendment Bill introduces the new concept of court authorised wills for minors and for people lacking testamentary capacity. This is arguably the most significant and innovative aspect of the bill as it provides a means by which a will can be made to give effect to the testamentary wishes of a person who, though still alive, does not have the legal capacity to make a will. A person under 18 who is not married cannot make a valid will. This means that if an unmarried minor dies before reaching the age of 18 their estate will be dealt with according to the rules that govern what happens to a person’s estate when they die without a will—that is, the intestacy rules. The bill enables the court to authorise a competent minor to make a will, and that is in clause 9 of the bill. The concept was first implemented in South Australia and has since been implemented in Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Based on interstate experience, the jurisdiction is likely to be invoked infrequently but when invoked it will be in circumstances where the court’s jurisdiction is very much needed. The jurisdiction might be used where a minor is suffering from a fatal illness and has sufficient estate to make the application worthwhile—for example, where he or she had received a substantial inheritance or damages award—and wants their estate to be distributed other than in accordance with the intestacy rules, which might benefit only the minor’s parents. The minor may want their estate to go to one parent only—for example, where the minor is estranged from the other parent—or to a sibling or to a carer. Before authorising a minor to make a will, the court must be satisfied that the minor understands the nature and the effect of the proposed will and the extent of the property to be disposed under it and that the will reflects the minor’s intentions. The registrar of the Supreme Court must be a witness to the will and must retain it in safe custody. A person who lacks testamentary capacity cannot make a valid will. This capacity requires a testator to know and understand the nature of what they are doing. The testator must also understand the extent of the property they are dealing with by will and be able to comprehend and appreciate the claims to which they ought to give effect. A person who lacks testamentary capacity may never have had the capacity to make a will or they may have lost that capacity—for example, through injury or disease. The bill enables the court to make a will in specific terms on behalf of that person who lacks such testamentary capacity. This mechanism gives effect to a person’s known or ascertainable wishes and avoids reliance on intestacy rules, which may not operate to benefit those whom the person wanted to benefit had he or she had the capacity to make a will and in circumstances where the person became incapable of making an updated valid will which obviates the need for an overlooked spouse, child or other dependant to bring a family provision application after the person has died. This concept already operates in the United Kingdom, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and the Northern Territory. A statutory will was drawn up by a Victorian court recently when the daughter of Mrs Maria Korp successfully applied to have Mr Joe Korp removed as a beneficiary from his wife’s will. This is a high-profile and extraordinary example of the circumstances in which the statutory will provisions could be used. There is no restriction on who may bring an application for a court authorised will. However, having regard to interstate experience, it is expected that most applications will in fact be brought by the person’s spouse, a family member or guardian. The bill establishes a two-stage process whereby an applicant must first seek leave of the court to apply for a court authorised will. This process ensures the bona fides and the appropriateness of the applicant’s proposal can be rigorously assessed by the court. The requirement for leave is intended to perform a screening function to allow only adequately founded applications to proceed. A leave application must be accompanied by comprehensive material, including evidence of the following: the person’s lack of testamentary capacity and the likelihood of acquiring or regaining it; the size and nature of the person’s estate; the person’s testamentary wishes; the terms of any previous will; the likelihood of someone bringing a family provision application in respect of the person’s estate; the circumstances of any other person for whom the person lacking testamentary capacity might reasonably be expected to make provision under a will; and any other persons who might be entitled to claim on intestacy. The two-stage process also affords an opportunity for persons with an interest in the proceedings—for example, the person alleged to lack testamentary capacity and family members et cetera—to be represented and heard at an application for leave hearing. The court cannot grant leave unless the following is satisfied: the applicant is an appropriate person to make the application; adequate steps have been taken to allow all persons with a proper interest in the application to be represented; there are reasonable grounds for believing the person does not have testamentary capacity; the applicant’s testamentary proposal is or may be what the person would have done if he or she had testamentary capacity; and it is or may be appropriate for an order to be made in relation to the person. 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 69

Before it makes an order, the court must be satisfied that the person is in fact incapable of making a will and that the proposed will reflects what he or she would have done if in fact they had that capacity. The court must also be satisfied that the appropriate steps have been taken to allow representation of all persons with an interest in the application. The will must be signed by the registrar of the Supreme Court and retained by the registrar until further court order, the death of the testator or the testator regains testamentary capacity. In summary, the concept of statutory wills is all about giving the greatest possible effect to a person’s known testamentary intentions and to achieve certainty before the person dies. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this bill into the House. I also thank her staff and the departmental officers, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (5.08 pm): I am pleased to rise to speak on the Succession Amendment Bill and support the shadow Attorney-General in his support of this bill. It seems a long time ago—in fact, December it was—when he gave us such an invigorating summary of this bill. I am sure that the member for Southport remembers that. Can I say while I am able to that I am going to lament the passing of the full bench of the members for Southport, Kallangur and Mackay as they have now been broken up and congratulate the member for Mackay on his elevation to the ministry. We certainly enjoyed their interjections, especially during the shadow Attorney’s speech on the succession bill. This bill introduces court authorised wills for minors and people who lack testamentary capacity. This brings the legislation into line with the Marriage Act. Under the Marriage Act, a minor can marry if they apply to the court for an order to do so before they have attained majority. That is to say that one can marry once they have turned 18 or at the age of 16 or 17 so long as they have the consent of a judge or magistrate to do so. This legislation will bring into line legislation regarding wills so that those couples who are married where one or both partners are under 18 can have a will. Similarly, under this legislation those who have been married but who are no longer married and are under 18 can also have wills. The bill makes a range of other amendments, including the provision for the will not to have to be signed at its foot or end. The legislation also replaces the substantial compliance requirement for the execution of wills. This requirement is replaced by the testamentary test. The bill also allows for the admission of less evidence for the interpretation of wills. I think that is important. A will is a document that should show the clear intention of a person when they were alive about how they would like to see their assets divided in the event of their death. At times, the more evidence there is perhaps the more the interpreters of wills tend to look for things that are perhaps not there and the less original is the intention that is actually provided. The bill also contains a raft of new laws regarding the effect that the institution of marriage has on a bill. As I mentioned before, when looking at the interplay between marriage legislation and wills one sees that some very interesting circumstances arise. The more this interplay is cleaned up, the better. This legislation also contains a number of new rules regarding beneficiaries under wills, the role of interpreters in wills and new provisions as to who is allowed to see the will in the event of the death of the testator. All in all, this legislation follows some of the recommended changes to this area of law. I believe it does a very good job. I commend the bill to the House. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (5.10 pm): I, too, rise to speak in support of this bill. In my contribution I would like to concentrate on the law of wills. Succession laws—laws relating to wills, the administration of deceased estates, family provision et cetera—were imported into the Australian colonies from English law and initially were uniform. However, over time the succession laws applying in each jurisdiction changed and diverged with the result that there is little consistency between succession laws across the states and territories. In 1991 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General initiated the uniform succession laws project with the objective of examining all of the succession laws in their entirety across the nation with a view to developing recommendations for up-to-date succession laws based on common underlying principles. In 1992 the Queensland Law Reform Commission was asked to coordinate the project in order to ensure that the project maintained an Australia-wide focus and was regarded as an undertaking of all the Australian jurisdictions. In 1995 the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws, chaired by the QLRC, was established to guide the project and to examine four discrete areas of succession laws: the laws of wills, family provision, intestacy and estate administration. It is interesting to note the history of the law of wills itself. The national committee concentrated on the law of wills as its first project and the draft Victorian wills legislation was used as the basis for discussion and consultation. Extensive consultation was undertaken in each jurisdiction by the corresponding member of the national committee. For example, the QLRC conducted public consultation on the law of wills by releasing an initial issues paper in 1994 and a subsequent working paper in 1996 to individuals and organisations with an interest or expertise in the law of wills. 70 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006

In 1995, following the initial consultation stage, the QLRC, on behalf of the national committee, prepared a report on a number of significant issues relating to the law of wills, which was forwarded to SCAG in October 1996. In 1997, following SCAG’s consideration of the 1996 report on the law of wills, the national committee decided to prepare a consolidated report for SCAG which would include draft model wills legislation based on the national committee’s recommendations. It was intended that the model provisions could form the basis of legislative reform in any jurisdiction interested in adopting the proposals recommended by the national committee. In December 1997 the national committee presented a final report to SCAG on the law of wills. The report was tabled in the Queensland parliament on 27 January 1998. Over the course of 2004-2005 the Department of Justice and Attorney-General used the draft model wills legislation as the basis for consultation with key stakeholders, including the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association of Queensland, the Public Trustee and the judiciary. This bill is the end product of this consultation. In December 1997 the national committee presented a final report to SCAG on family provision. The report was tabled in the Queensland parliament in January 1998. In July 2004 the national committee presented SCAG with a supplementary report on family provision. This report took account of changes in the law in several jurisdictions since the original report was completed and contained model family provision legislation. That report was tabled in the Queensland parliament on 22 September 2004. Once the bill is passed, the department will be in a position to examine the national committee’s recommendations regarding family provisions. This will involve consultation with key stakeholders, including once again the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association and the Public Trustee, on the national committee’s model family provision legislation. The review of the administration of estates has been divided into two parts: a review of the general law relating to the administration of estates in Australia and the recognition of interstate and foreign grants of probate and letters of administration. A discussion paper on the general law relating to the administration of deceased estates was released in June 1999 and a discussion paper on the recognition of interstate grants and the resealing of interstate and foreign grants was released in December 2001. It is anticipated that a final report and draft legislation will be completed by April 2006. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission is leading the next part of the project. In May 2005 it released an issues paper on intestacy for public consultation, which closed in June 2005. It is anticipated that a report on intestacy will be available with draft legislation in December. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (5.16 pm): In 1991 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General initiated the Uniform Succession Laws Project. In 1992 the Queensland Law Reform Commission was asked to coordinate the project. In 1995 the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws, chaired by the Queensland Law Reform Commission, was established to examine areas of succession law. That included wills, family provision, intestacy and estate administration. In December 1997 the national committee presented a consolidated report on the law of wills, including draft legislation to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. In 1997 the Queensland Law Reform Commission also presented a report to the Attorney-General which focused on the impact of the national committee’s recommendations on Queensland’s Succession Act 1981. This bill will give the courts much more discretion than they have had in the past. Succession law will not be so prescriptive and as a result, some would suggest, even unfair in certain circumstances because a fairly rigid set of rules had to be applied. As I said, as a result of this bill the court in these situations will have much more discretion. The bill implements the first-stage recommendations of the uniform succession laws project regarding the law of wills with several modifications recommended by the Queensland Law Reform Commission. Key changes effected by the bill include the introduction of court authorised wills for minors and people who lack testamentary capacity, replacing the substantial compliance requirement for the execution of wills with a testamentary intention test, removing the requirement that a will must be signed at the foot or the end of the document, introducing provisions to allow the admission of limited evidence to aid in the interpretation of wills, new rules about the effect of marriage on wills, new rules about beneficiaries who witness wills, amending the provisions dealing with gifts to interpreters of wills, and new provisions about who is entitled to see a will on the death of the testator. That is a fairly important provision, because in my years of practice it was the bane of my life. People came along to get copies of wills. The only way they could get them was if they applied for probate. If those people applied for probate, that would then become a public document and they could get a copy of it. If they did not apply for probate—that is often the case with small estates—it was up to the executor of the estate as to whether copies of the will would be supplied to people who may have thought they should be beneficiaries or who were just curious about exactly what was involved in the will. They may have been children and so on. Sometimes there were problems within families where the executor—whoever it might be—would not supply copies of the will to people who thought they were entitled to a benefit from the will. 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 71

The most significant and innovative aspect of the bill is the new concept of a statutory will for people who lack the capacity to make a valid will. A person who lacks testamentary capacity to make a will may never have had the capacity or may have lost the capacity due to injury, illness or disease. That would include things such as Alzheimer’s disease or, unfortunately due to the volume of road accidents that we see today, a brain injury acquired as a result of an accident. Currently, when a person dies their property is distributed in accordance with intestacy rules. In the case of a person who has lost capacity, the person may have previously made a valid will which is no longer appropriate due to a change in circumstances, for instance the subsequent birth of a child who is not mentioned in the will. In these circumstances, the child would have to bring a family provision application for a share of their parent’s estate. That is a rather expensive process. The statutory will provisions offer a solution in situations where a person’s known intentions would otherwise be given effect but for unforeseen circumstances or events, for instance accident or illness, as I have already mentioned. Under this bill, there is the ability to obtain limited evidence to aid in the interpretation of exactly what should happen with the estate. The bill establishes a two-stage process whereby an applicant must first seek leave of the court to apply for an order. The requirement for leave is intended to perform a screening function to allow only adequately founded applications to proceed. A leave application must be accompanied by comprehensive material, including evidence of the person’s lack of testamentary capacity—that would probably include things such as medical certificates, medical records and so on—the likelihood of the person acquiring or regaining capacity, the size and nature of the person’s estate and the person’s testamentary wishes. Once leave has been granted, the next stage is for the court to consider the actual application. Before it makes an order, the court must be satisfied that the person is in fact incapable of making a will and that the proposed will reflects what he or she would have done had they had capacity. The court must also be satisfied that the appropriate steps have been taken to allow for representation of all persons with an interest in the application. That would involve serving all of those people with a notice of the application to be heard in court so that they could respond to that notification. The bill creates a right for certain categories of people—for instance, possible beneficiaries or other potential claimants against the estate—to see and take copies of the will of the deceased person. That will take a lot of aggravation out of the current situation. It is intended to ensure that persons with a proper interest can see the contents of a will whether or not the will is admitted to probate, at which stage it becomes a public document. As mentioned by previous speakers, there has been consultation with the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association of Queensland and the Public Trustee. They are generally accepting of the bill and are keen to see these reforms introduced. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOOLIHAN (Keppel—ALP) (5.23 pm): I commend the Attorney-General on the introduction of the Succession Amendment Bill 2005. I would like to deal with some of the background to testamentary capacity, with which wills deal. Many members have indicated that they would like to speak to this bill. However, a number of lawyers in the House would really identify with some of the difficulties that have always been experienced in the execution of wills. As we have heard in part, testamentary documentation and the laws in relation to testamentary dispositions—or wills—originated in England and came in through New South Wales. A number of pieces of legislation have dealt with testamentary capacity. The original act, which was amended by the original succession bill, had about 32 pieces of legislation attached to it. One thing that Queenslanders really need to take from this legislation, which makes a will more readily understood and more effective, is the knowledge that, statistically, there are estimated to be no more than 40 per cent of Queenslanders who have a valid will. That is a terrifying number when we consider some of the problems that can arise, particularly today with not only married couples with children but also blended families with stepchildren, step-stepchildren and all varieties of relationships. Mr Lawlor: They’re a nightmare. Mr HOOLIHAN: I take that interjection from the member for Southport. For practising lawyers who are required to make a will, there are formal requirements for actually making the will and for its execution. The execution requirements for a will were so draconian that to depart even slightly from them could result in the will being ineffective. I recall that some years ago a major firm in Queensland had a word-processing package which had an attestation clause, which is required at the footer of each will. They had left out a line which read who, in the presence of each other, had signed the will. That related to witnesses. They had to re-execute several thousand wills because nobody had bothered to read through the document and look at the wording. The uniform succession laws project has produced a document and legislation that will be of great assistance to Queenslanders. No longer will there be a substantial compliance requirement for execution. Instead, there will be a testamentary intention test. The current test is that a person must sign a will in the presence of two witnesses who are present at the same time and who, at the request of the 72 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006 testator and in each other’s presence, sign the will. If a person is momentarily distracted, even by taking a call on a mobile phone, there may not be an acceptance that that person has understood the will and, consequently, they may not be a valid witness. This change that is included for a testamentary intention test in actual fact fixes that to some degree. It shows that the testator needed to have the intention, and they can make or acknowledge their will in the presence of two or more witnesses. Those witnesses must sign, but they do not have to sign in the presence of each other. The testator can go to the witnesses and indicate that it is their signature and their will, and those witnesses can then sign. They do not even need to know that it is a will and they do not need to sign at the foot of the will. They were real problems in relation to a valid will. A four-page will required the signature of the testator and both witnesses at the foot of every page. This has now been varied so that the signatures need not be at the foot of the will. In actual fact, the testator or a person directed by the testator can sign or acknowledge the will as their document. They have to sign it with the intention of executing it. And there goes the attestation clause. I would say that practising lawyers out there will be jumping for joy that they do not have to spend so much time reading every single word to make sure that wills meet the formalities. One of the other things that the amendment does, and it is particularly relevant to superannuation, is that an appointment by a will in exercise of power of appointment is not valid unless it is executed under this section. Under superannuation law a separate direction can be made which can be signed as for a will, and that power is binding on the trustee of the superannuation fund. The amendments now allow that power to be done in the will, and it does not have to be signed in the same way as a will. If the will sets it out, then the appointment would be valid even though the section does not deal with that particular application. Another problem that occurred with wills, and with witnessing particularly, was that any witness to a will could not take anything under a will as a beneficiary. A witness was completely excluded, and the spouse of a witness was also questionably excluded. As a result of the amendments that have now been introduced, it need not necessarily be void. If at least two witnesses who are not interested witnesses sign the will, then the third person who signs as a witness is not held out from taking any benefit under the will. The beneficiaries can also give consent to disposition which was not available under the current law because once they had witnessed it they were automatically excluded. The testator also must know that a witness will receive a disposition and make that will freely and voluntarily. One of the things that has always concerned me as a practising lawyer is that there is no central registry for wills and the operation of wills. If a person died, unless you have a copy of the will with the date that it was made and who holds the will there is no central repository. One of the provisions of the new act relates to the registrar holding wills that are signed by order of the court or signed by minors pursuant to an order of the court. I would like to recommend to the Attorney-General—and I have spoken to the Attorney-General about this—that some consideration under the Succession Act be given to a central repository. This may need to be done in conjunction with the Queensland Law Society. I am quite certain that it would support this proposal. All lawyers when executing a will, or having a will executed, would notify a central registry as to the name of the person, their address, the date that the will was executed and the name of the firm that holds the will. That way, when you come to apply for probate and you have to go searching for a will, you can go to the central registry and find out whether or not there is a will and who holds it. That already exists in relation to the Public Trustee. Those practising lawyers who sit in this House will be aware that the Public Trustee has a very extensive database of wills that have been executed with the office. That is available to anyone who wants that information. As a matter of fact, it is required to be disclosed in any application for probate that a check has been made with the Public Trustee as to the existence of wills. Certain of the other aspects of the legislation allow for a court to rectify the terms of a will to give effect to the instructions of a testator. Very often because of the wording that is used—and some people will make a will according to their own ideas about the English language—when it comes to trying to decipher what is in a will it just does not make sense. There is provision in the amended act to rectify, and there has to be an application made within six months of the death or the court may extend that time. There is also provision for protection of the personal representative. If the personal representative has started to distribute information under the will or detail under the will and someone brings an application to rectify, then the personal representative is protected in relation to what has been distributed. One of the other good things in relation to the changes is the outline as to distribution and shares, how the actual disposition of land and separate property is set out and how it is to be interpreted by the personal representative. Before I came to this House, I practised in the area of succession law for some 25 years. On reading the Succession Amendment Bill, I was very pleased to see that some sanity had come into the operation of the succession law. I commend the bill to the House. 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 73

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! Before calling the member for Nicklin, I remind honourable members when they are moving about in the chamber to be respectful of the speaker who is on his or her feet and not get in between the Speaker and the person on the floor. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (5.35 pm): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. In speaking to the Succession Amendment Bill 2005, can I say that this is yet another example of how our ministers of government, irrespective of the political persuasions of the respective governments in Australia, are able to sit around a table and work together to make some good laws for all Australians. No longer can people in Queensland, New South Wales or Western Australia think they are isolated. Today more than ever people are travelling and they are travelling frequently. They are setting up house in one state and then a short time thereafter relocating to another state. This is a great example of our state and Commonwealth Attorneys-General sitting down around a table and coming up with a common-sense decision to improve the legislation so that there is a more consistent approach to dealing with laws in Australia. So often people travel to Queensland, and we all know of many examples where new arrivals to Queensland come with a different understanding of the laws in Queensland. They have to then re-educate in a simple, or sometimes expensive, way to come to grips with the new laws as they apply in Queensland. So I again congratulate the minister for bringing this legislation into the House. I also congratulate the other Attorneys-General for their willingness to work together. Again, I think it is a good news story. I want to specifically mention the amendments which deal with the significant change from a requirement for a substantial compliance with the legislation to a more general compliance which is simply about the testamentary intention test. I believe this is common sense that we all need to reflect on. We have all heard of someone who has made a will, has passed away and when their will is looked into people who say, ‘That is not really what the person who passed away wanted to happen,’ notwithstanding all the evidence, the letters and the other documents which are able to be produced to the court to support the intent of the person who made the will. Unfortunately, until now the courts have had a very strict interpretation of the need for compliance with our succession law in Queensland. Again I say to the Attorney-General that this is common sense; this is good law. I am very pleased and I believe all Queenslanders will be very pleased that a more sensible approach than the current substantial compliance test has been decided upon. The last matter I want to raise is I would ask the minister to consider reporting to the House perhaps in 12 months time on how the new amendments have been applying in Queensland—for example, whether there have been any hiccups or minor changes. I think it is important that when changes are introduced into legislation there needs to be a report- back mechanism whereby ministers automatically come back and give a brief report to members on how the new law in Queensland has been applying. Perhaps it could simply be given by way of ministerial statement. I urge the minister to talk with her ministerial colleagues about modifying our system of reporting back to the House on how some of our new laws are applying. The member for Keppel spoke about a central registry. I certainly would like to see the Attorney- General and the community consider this further. There certainly are benefits. I know many people have had many sleepless nights trying to find a will. A central registry certainly has an attraction. But if it is to happen, the issues of cost and management would certainly have to be thoroughly investigated. It certainly is a new concept with merit, and I commend the member for Keppel for raising the matter in the chamber. I hope that other members are prepared to consider it. I commend the bill to the House. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (5.40 pm): It is a pleasure to participate in the discussion of the Succession Amendment Bill this evening and to listen to the contributions made by members, particularly those who have had experience in the drafting or interpretation of wills or the administration of estates over the years. I am delighted to speak firstly, I suppose, because I have the privilege of being on the Attorney- General’s legislative committee. It is a great committee led by a very able Attorney, who is becoming recognised as a very innovative lawyer in Queensland and who I know is making and will make her mark on the legal history of Queensland. She has already done so in terms of her gender in the practise of law and in this parliament and I wish her well. I wish her a very long and satisfying career as Attorney- General or whatever other position the people of Queensland will benefit from in terms of her public life. I have had a long interest in this area of wills. It is a fascinating, riveting subject for the parliament to be discussing. I first studied this area in 1968 or 1969, during my third year of law school, I think. It was the one subject in those days that I did excel in, for a reason I will not go into but it is quite legitimate. That is going back a fair while—approaching 40 years. Mr Finn: My age! Mr SHINE: His age, as the honourable member says. I have drawn countless wills over the last 30-odd years of practice. I hope many of them are not subject to interpretation by the courts. Either that or I hope my indemnity insurance covers me, not just for the years that I was practising but also while 74 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006

I am here. Wills, unfortunately, do not come to light for many years in many instances. If one has made a mistake one can be reading the paper or the mail one day and find out about a mistake made 15 or 20 years ago. We shall see. For a period of my legal career, from about 1991 or 1992 to 1994 or 1995—three years—I solely practised in the wills and estates area. I must say that that experience of day-in, day-out practising in this area was probably the inspiration to seriously look at going into politics—not so much so that I could play a part in amending the law of wills but for other reasons. I agree with other members that this bill represents the culmination of a long overdue examination of the law of wills and succession generally. It is tinged with a bit of sadness, I suppose, from my point of view; there is a comfort in knowing that certain laws never change and that one can go back to them years later with some confidence to know that they are the same. I suppose there is a natural lawyers’ conservatism in relation to resisting change. It might be simply because we do not want to make the effort to study the new law; we are content with practising in familiar areas. There are some areas of this law of wills—for example, that the will be executed at the foot or end thereof—which were drilled into us at an early age and which we have never forgotten. This in itself has been changed. I think, however, that in the 21st century it is probably high time that laws that have applied for in some cases centuries be re-looked at to fit the changed circumstances that have been caused by technology and ideas that have come about over that period of time. As I said, most of the provisions that we are looking at today represent changes to the law that have been enacted either by way of common law or by statute over many centuries. It is important that these changes be approached with some caution and not be rushed into. I notice that it was in 1991 that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General first started to examine these types of changes. Fifteen years is probably an appropriate period of time during which due consideration should be given to the important changes that we are talking about this evening. That allays my concerns that matters have been rushed. My concerns have also been allayed by the fact that there have been quite a number of Attorneys-General in Queensland over that period of time who have been involved in these deliberations—very learned people—and as a result of that we have the culmination of that weighty consideration that we are dealing with tonight. As I said, it was in 1991 that this process was started. In 1995, as referred to in some detail by the member for Mundingburra when relating the history of these proceedings, the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws turned its mind to the subject matter. It looked at four areas: wills, the family provision aspect of estate law, intestacy and estate administration. This bill before the House tonight relates, as I understand it, to only the first of those areas. No doubt the other three will be presented in a timely fashion over a period of time. The wills provisions have been described in some detail by honourable members who have preceded me in this debate and I do not want to unnecessarily go over that ground. The member for Southport, in his usual thorough manner, has given us a run-down of the content of the bill. I enjoyed also the contribution from the member for Keppel, giving us the benefit of his many years of practice in central Queensland and elsewhere in terms of his experience in drawing wills and interpreting and administering estates. Suffice it to say, one of the key areas that the bill deals with is in relation to wills for minors. The intention test has been referred to. I have a bit of concern about that, because the interpretation of intention can be subjective at times. There is some doubt in my mind as to whether that is going to be as beneficial as speakers are hoping for. Time will tell. I have already referred in my speech to the removal of the requirement that the will be executed at its foot or end thereof. The allowance of evidence of interpretation seems fairly sensible, I would have thought. There are new rules associated with the effect of marriage. There are new rules associated with the provision concerning beneficiaries who witness wills. Gifts to interpreters is another area. There are new provisions relating to people who are entitled to see a will on the death of a testator. In common with the member for Southport, I was intrigued about the concept of the statutory wills. As I said before, it is something that fits in well with what we require in the 21st century. Without going over the reasons why it is a desirable move, I say that I certainly support it. My first instinct was that it is a little bit difficult to deal with a will when the person is still alive. Upon giving it more thought, I commend the Attorney and our shadow attorney in particular for putting into legislation the provisions that we read today. As a practitioner, I can say that the right to see a will was always somewhat of a contentious matter. Solicitors were always a bit concerned whether or not they should advise executors to provide copies or not to provide copies. This provision takes away that sort of doubt in certain circumstances. It is apt to refer to those circumstances, if I have your leave, Mr Deputy Speaker. Section 33Z sets out who are entitled persons to receive a copy of the will. First of all, there is a person mentioned in the will itself; a person mentioned in an earlier will; a spouse, parent or issue—a child, in other words, of the deceased, the testator—a person who would otherwise be entitled in the event of an intestacy—if no will had been made—and a parent or guardian of a minor mentioned in the will or who would have been likewise entitled to share in an intestacy. It is not for the world to be entitled to a copy of the will. It is not 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 75 for the man on the street out of curiosity to want to know what Kerry Packer might have said in his will. It is a very refined and restricted class of people who have that entitlement under these provisions. I think it is very sensible and I welcome the change to the law. I do have one query and I think it might be answered if I studied or read in some detail the transition provisions of the bill. When these reforms take effect what will be the case in relation to wills that have not yet come into effect, in other words, the person involved has not died? The transition provisions at the end of the bill probably answer my question. The central registry idea has been raised by a couple of members. It is an eminently sensible one. I know the Attorney has directed her thoughts to this from what she has mentioned to me in the past. No doubt she will address that issue in her summing-up of the debate tonight. The idea of an online registry, again, is something that fits in with the 21st century. That is something to which more thought could be given. As an articled clerk and a young solicitor, I was always brought up with the strict requirement that wills are precious for obvious reasons. If a person dies, the will cannot be altered again. In many ways, they are more precious than deeds which are evidence of ownership of land, because a will often dictates what is going to happen to land and all sorts of property. If there is some way in the 21st century of protecting the interests of a person’s property when they die it is probably high time that we consider that. Perhaps that is something that over the next 15 years the Standing Committee of Attorneys- General might consider and in about the year 2020 come up with some appropriate solution to that dilemma. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.54 pm): I rise to support this legislation. It is legislation that will apply in, at times, the most testing of circumstances, particularly when it comes to acting on the contents of a will. I have to commend the minister for the recognition of the need for wills for minors. I also commend her for that demarcation that does not confer that power to make a will to all minors but only to minors in certain circumstances, that is, a minor contemplating marriage, a minor who is married and a minor whose marriage has ended. Then there are the powers to alter, revoke or make a will in those circumstances. Initially when I read the second reading speech I was concerned because I interpreted it as allowing a minor generically to make a will. I thought of all the young people who through their teenage years have a difference of opinion and perspective with their parents. There is only one incidence that I can recall in which a young person—and I do not think it was in Australia, but it may have been— divorced his parents. I acknowledge that this occurred under extreme circumstances. As I said, my initial reaction was that a lot of kids out there are going to think, ‘I own the Nintendo and I’m going to make sure mum and dad don’t get it,’ because at that point they were not seeing eye to eye with their parents. Fortunately, and thankfully, most kids grow past that and later on really appreciate the attention and dedication that parents afford them. The circumstances that have been outlined are circumstances that arise more and more often. This bill certainly recognises the maturity of the young person who has developed and formalised a relationship and it recognises the necessity for them to make directions in relation to the ownership of goods. There are also very commendable safeguards in place. The power to revoke a will or part of a will is also newly listed. My only comment on it is that there need to be protections in relation to the power to revoke, alter or revive a will. However, I am sure that adequate protections are already contained in the legislation. I would be interested in the minister’s comments, because when I went through this bill I felt that there was some room for error in that particular section. New section 15, effect of divorce or annulment on a will, is again a very positive approach. If I understand this legislation rightly, the divorce or annulment of a testator’s marriage automatically revokes a disposition to the testator’s former spouse, made by the will, in existence when the divorce or annulment happens; and an appointment made by the will of the former spouse as an executor, trustee, advisory trustee or guardian; and any grant, made by the will, of a power of appointment exercisable by, or in favour of, the testator’s former spouse. That means there is an automatic trigger to alter a will in the event that a marriage ends, either through divorce or annulment. I presume there would be a mechanism in the case that a relationship ends for varying reasons but ends with a reasonable level of amicability. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but there are quite a lot of people whose marriages have ended but they have remained good friends and, indeed, would have a wish to see that person the recipient of part of their estate. I am sure there would be a mechanism by which there could be a proactive movement by a person making a will to ensure that somebody automatically excluded by these provisions could be reincluded. I am talking about situations where a person’s relationship might have ended but they have remained friends and want to see that person as a beneficiary of certain elements of their estate. The automatic provisions are great. It means that a person writing a will after a marriage has failed has to very proactively take steps to include a previous partner in their will. I would seek the minister’s comment on that situation. 76 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006

The bill also gives the court the power to authorise a person without testamentary capacity to make, alter or revoke a will. During the time that I have been in parliament and for the few years before that I have found the actions of both sides of parliament to recognise the needs and wishes of people with diminished capacity positive. This is the case for those who lose capacity as a result of an accident and the subsequent powers of attorney. In the area of succession it recognises that there could be circumstances where a person’s wishes could very clearly be translated into a document but that there needs to be an independent arbiter to ensure that the transition of wishes into an evidentiary form is done properly. I do not envy any court that has to a make a decision where a person’s wishes are heavily contested. However, I think the opportunity for people with diminished capacity to have their estate appropriately dealt with is welcome. There are two other things that I wish to comment on. One relates to the provision in the bill related to rectification. A court can make an order to rectify a will to carry out the intentions of the testator if the court is satisfied that the will does not carry out the testator’s intentions because, firstly, a clerical error was made or, secondly, the will does not give effect to the testator’s instructions. This relates to a person making a will who entrusts the execution of that will to somebody like their solicitor or someone similar. They would have done that in good faith expecting that those to whom they intended their estate to go would receive it in the manner that they intended. I think the recognition that a simple thing like a clerical error was made or that instructions were given but were not translated well by the person who wrote up the document should not impede the accuracy when the estate is being apportioned. I commend the minister for that recognition. There are ways of confirming the intention of the testator. I think the recognition of a simple thing like a clerical error or a translation error will give peace of mind to quite a lot of people. The last area I will comment on relates to persons entitled to inspect a will or to obtain a copy of a will. I have listened to the contributions of previous speakers who are solicitors and have acted in this area. It can get incredibly emotive. Quite entrenched bitterness can come to light at this sad time in people’s lives. We would hope that families were supporting each other at this time of sorrow. Unfortunately, the reality of life is that often it does not occur. Resentments and breakdowns in communication are brought into sharp focus during the time when a will has to be settled. The legislation clarifies that an entitled person—that is, a person entitled to request to inspect a will or to obtain a copy of a will—is: a person who is mentioned in the will, either as beneficiary or not and whether named or not; a person mentioned in any earlier will of the testator as a beneficiary and whether named or not; a spouse, parent or issue of the testator or a person who would be entitled to a share of the estate of the testator if the testator had died intestate; a parent or guardian of a minor mentioned in the will or who would be entitled to a share of the estate if the testator had died intestate; or a creditor or other person who has a claim at law or in equity against the estate or a person who may apply for an order under section 41. That is a broad cross-section of people, each of whom appear to be entitled by way of familial connection or financial or other obligation. I think that will take away the ability of a person, an executor or somebody in the family who has deep-seeded grievances with other members of the family and who takes this opportunity to perhaps control the situation both unfairly and tragically. I think it will give greater clarity in those circumstances. I commend the minister for that. It is a very difficult area. Wills are things that we do not think about too often and we should. We were discussing how some of our circumstances have changed and that perhaps we should review our wills. We need to do it when we are feeling a little more buoyant and more able to make positive and objective decisions. Then at the time when it has to be actioned our wishes are clear, concise and able to be interpreted with the least amount of emotional harm. I commend the minister for the legislation and trust that it has the desired effects. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (6.06 pm): I support the Succession Amendment Bill which is before the House. One important aspect of good government is its ability to adapt existing legislation to meet the changing needs of society. I commend the Attorney-General and her department for achieving that in this bill. I do not agree with the old joke ‘How does a lawyer make money? By declaring where there’s a will there is a way.’ In every profession there are mainly good, hardworking people. There are some people who will take advantage of others. I have seen a situation where a former neighbour, an elderly gentleman, was unfortunately taken advantage of by someone who was looking after his will. Family members who had been close to this gentleman, looked after him and supported him were, without their knowledge, written out of the will. This person from the profession gained all the benefits of this person’s will. I do not know whether there is anything that can be done to address that. As we face the prospect of an ageing population we are finding in other areas such as health care that there is a need to change the legislation or to monitor decision-making processes because people are being taken advantage of. We have a significantly ageing population where dementia is becoming more evident. Some people will unfortunately try to take advantage of a family member or someone they know through the execution of a will. That would be a more difficult series of legislative changes because it goes to the intent of the person rather than to the specific action. 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 77

Previous speakers on both sides have detailed how this particular bill addresses much needed changes. It is a modernising of the succession legislation. It addresses the needs that have become evident over time, and it does so in a reasonable and fair manner. For that I congratulate the minister, her department and all members who have worked to bring this about. There is one matter about which we have had some discussion and which I know is not contained in this bill. I request that future reviews of succession legislation might consider the notion of where superannuation benefits lie within a person’s will. I shall put it in the context of a person’s range of assets, which may include property, certain valuables, collections of various sorts, bank accounts and superannuation. Increasingly, superannuation will be either the biggest or the second biggest asset available for distribution on a person’s death. There is a strong contrast between how superannuation can be distributed and how other assets can be distributed. For example, bank officials have no say in the distribution of money held in bank accounts. All they can do is manage the finances so that a certain amount of money is in the account. The money is distributed according to the will and the person’s wording of the will. That is not so with superannuation. The trustees of superannuation funds play a much more hands-on role in the decision-making process in relation to the distribution of superannuation benefits. I believe that some states have taken steps to address this issue by introducing a system of yearly or regular updates in which the beneficiaries are to be indicated. However, I believe that is not a totally binding decision on the trustees. Recently I was approached by someone who had a problem with a will, and I was completely unable to help that person. After making inquiries on their behalf I found that the federal legislation and succession legislation allowed the trustees of the will to disburse the superannuation benefits in a way that the person concerned did not agree with. In that case, two family members shared the person’s estate in all other aspects. Any reasonable reading of the will indicated that the superannuation would also be shared between those two people and one of the persons was more involved in the care of the deceased. The trustees overruled the request by this person for a share of the benefits. It was given 100 per cent to the other family member, a decision which has led to some understandable divisions within that family. Unfortunately, the advice I received was that the department and the minister’s office could not intervene because the matter came under federal legislation. I know that this subject is complex. I know that the operation of superannuation funds involves ongoing issues. However, I believe that the minister’s department is liaising with its federal counterparts in terms of what may happen under the Companies Act with life assurance and superannuation funds. I ask that in future reviews of the legislation that aspect be considered. I support the bill before the House. Hon. LD LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (Minister for Justice and Attorney-General) (6.12 pm), in reply: I am pleased to sum up this debate. I thank all members for their contributions and their support for the bill. In particular, I mention the lawyers in the chamber who have contributed to the bill. I thank them for their insight and their reminders of how difficult and complex succession law is. I could still feel some of the pain that they must have felt when asked to advise on such issues in their time of practice. I will share a personal insight with members. In my first year as a lawyer, I covered a range of legal matters. I did some succession law and I found it a highly emotive area. I ended up specialising in family law. That says a lot. The member for Gladstone also lamented to the House that it is a complex and highly emotive area. Parties can become very bitter. This bill implements the recommendations of the National Committee for Uniform Succession Laws regarding reform of the law of wills. It does this by amending part 2 and other sections of the Succession Act 1981, which deals with the making, alteration, revocation, validity and interpretation of wills. The amendments are largely consistent with the principles contained in the model wills legislation that accompanied the national committee’s 1997 recommendations. The model legislation has been adapted to meet Queensland’s legislative standards and to accommodate Queensland’s drafting style. Key changes in existing provisions affected by the bill include the introduction of court authorised wills for minors and people who lack testamentary capacity, which is arguably the most significant and innovative aspect of the bill—statutory wills will assist greatly in giving the greatest possible effect to a person’s known testamentary intentions and achieving certainty before the person dies; replacing the substantial compliance requirement for the execution of wills with a more flexible testamentary intention test; removing the requirement that a will must be signed at its foot or end; introducing a statutory provision to allow the admission of evidence of the testator’s actual intention in prescribed circumstances; new rules about the effect of marriage on wills, for example, marriage will no longer completely revoke a testator’s will and the amendments have the effect of preserving a gift to a person to whom the testator is married at the time of his or her death; changes to the rules about beneficiaries and interpreters who witness wills; and new provisions about who is entitled to see a will on the death of the testator—the amendments will require the person who has custody or control of a will of a deceased person to allow certain categories of persons to inspect the will and take copies of it. I shall respond to some issues raised by members. Firstly, the member for Caloundra asked me to expand on the nature of the conditions that the court could place on an order authorising a minor to make a will. The relevant provision is new proposed section 19(4), which enables the court to make an 78 Succession Amendment Bill 14 Feb 2006 order on appropriate conditions. The court also has the power under new proposed section 22(2) in respect of orders authorising a will for a person lacking testamentary capacity. The intention of these provisions is to give the court power and flexibility to make an order on conditions it considers necessary or expedient in the circumstances of the particular case. A similar power exists under the Victorian Wills Act 1999. I have obtained some information from the Victorian probate register that indicates that of the 30 to 35 wills authorised in that jurisdiction, to date none have been issued subject to conditions. In practice, the power may be used infrequently but it is an important reserve power that will enable the court to tailor an order to individual circumstances. The member for Keppel, the member for Nicklin and the member for Toowoomba North raised the issue of whether there should be a central wills register. The member for Keppel also spoke about having a wills repository or depository. I advise the House that this bill is largely consistent with the principles contained in the model wills bill, but there are a couple of departures from that. One of those is in relation to a proposal for a general depository facility for wills. Based on the Victorian experience, it was considered that there would be little take-up of the service, bearing in mind that originals of wills prepared by solicitors or the public trustee are usually retained by those entities. The proposal was to have one central depository. When a will is made, the solicitor or the public trustee would forward it to the depository so that it was held in a central place in the state. In the Victorian experience, it was not compulsory to do this and few people took it up. It was totally and utterly impractical. That is why we have not taken that provision up in the bill before the House. The Public Trustee Act 1978 enables any person to deposit their will in the Public Trust Office for safe custody. That remains the case today. It will remain in force. I point out that the bill does provide for a limited depository service for court authorised wills. If the court has authorised a will, it will be held by the court. In recent times a database central registry has been developed, which New South Wales is trialling at the moment. It has introduced a database that is held at its Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages. I think there are probably good reasons why we should explore this further to see whether it can work in Queensland. However, I want to point out to the House that people generally consider wills to be private documents, especially while the testator is alive. So there are privacy issues in relation to having a central wills database. Although people may not wish to disclose the terms of their will, it is very important that the testators tell their executors or their loved ones where their most recent will is stored, be that with a solicitor, with the Public Trust Office, in a bank or in a safe-deposit box. I understand that one of the drivers behind the New South Wales wills register was a case where the estate was administered according to a will that turned out to be not the testator’s last will. I also understand that that is not an uncommon occurrence. There are also circumstances in which a person’s estate has been administered under intestacy when a will is later unearthed. A wills database is an interesting concept that I would be interested to explore further in consultation with the Public Trustee and the Queensland Law Society. However, I say that we would need to carefully consider the resource, operation and privacy implications of the service and whether there is a need for the service in Queensland. That is a matter that I will have further consultations on in the near future. As I said, I am also mindful of the privacy provisions and who would be entitled to search that register. The member for Gladstone raised the issue of the revocation of a will in relation to a divorce. She asked whether, if the parties remained friends after the divorce, there was some way in which the provisions that bequeath any of the estate to the remaining former spouse could remain enlivened. The situation is that that cannot happen. In that circumstance, those people would have to make a new will. There is nothing to prevent people naming their former spouse in their will, but it will have to be a new will. All lawyers would advise their clients to have a new will drafted after their divorce. The member for Toowoomba North asked when these provisions will come into effect. The explanatory notes state— New section 7 applies new Part 2 only to a will of a person who dies on or after the day new section 7 commences operation. This is subject to the transitional arrangements under new section 76, which applies new sections 14 and 15 to wills made before the commencement of new section 7, in certain circumstances. The provision that entitles people to see a will applies to any will regardless of when the will was made and when the testator died. I hope that clarifies that issue for the member for Toowoomba North. Mr Shine: The testator must have died? Mrs LAVARCH: Yes, it is after the testator has died that people can then access the provisions of the will. The bill reforms and modernises the laws of wills in Queensland and contributes to the national objective of achieving consistency of succession law across Australia. It implements the first-stage recommendations of the uniform succession laws project. Once this legislation is passed my department will be in a position to start examining the national committee’s recommendations on family provision, or what was once known as testator’s family maintenance. The committee is currently finalising reports on estate administration and intestacy, which I anticipate will be completed in the first half of this year. 14 Feb 2006 Succession Amendment Bill 79

It is appropriate that I take this opportunity to remind Queenslanders of the importance of having and regularly updating a will. I was concerned by a recent Courier-Mail article which suggested that half the people who die in Queensland each year do not have an adequate will or, in many cases, do not have a will at all. Life is busy and I am sure many people make a mental note to do so but just do not get around to making or updating their will. I think tonight is a timely reminder for all of to us check that our wills are up to date and to sell that message in our electorates as well. Of course, there are others who do not want to face their own mortality, who do not want to talk about wills and who may well choose to ignore having a will drawn up. Having an up-to-date will is essential. Estates have become an increasingly complicated mix of assets and liability. Family structures are also becoming increasingly complex. It is important that people give some considered thought as to how they want their estate distributed and that they document their wishes in a validly executed will. It is especially important that parents prepare a valid will nominating one or more guardians for their children. The member for Stafford raised the issue as to why superannuation and life insurance is not distributed as per the intentions in the will. I point out to the House that often the proceeds of life insurance policies and superannuation policies do not form part of a person’s estate when they die. When a person enters into a contract of life insurance and nominates another person to receive the proceeds of the policy when it becomes payable, it is a contractual matter; it is not a testamentary matter. The confusion arises because it is the insured person’s death that triggers the insured’s promise to pay the nominated beneficiary. That is why when we have our superannuation and our life insurance we nominate who we want as a beneficiary. It is a contractual matter, not a testamentary matter. Of course, people can nominate that they want their superannuation or their life insurance distributed as per their will. Many people nominate their estate as the designated beneficiary of a life insurance policy or a superannuation benefit. That ensures that the proceeds are administered according to the terms of the insured person’s will or, if there is no will, according to the intestacy rules. Because the proceeds of insurance policies and superannuation schemes do not normally form part of a person’s estate, the issue of how these proceeds should be dealt with after a person dies has not been considered by the uniform succession laws project. However, I can advise the House that the national committee suggested that states and territories consider adopting the New South Wales approach that would enable the court to take the proceeds of life insurance policies and superannuation benefits into account when assessing whether adequate provision has been made for the deceased person’s dependant. The New South Wales approach is to call it the notional estate and to say that it can be taken into consideration. I advise the House that once this bill has passed my department will be in a position to examine the national committee’s recommendations regarding family provision, including the New South Wales concept of notional estate orders. I conclude by encouraging all Queenslanders to talk to their loved ones about their wishes and, importantly, to tell their chosen executors where their will is stored and, if they do not have a will, to not delay in having a will drawn up. Once again, I thank all members for their support for the bill and for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 5, as read, agreed to. Clause 6— Mr McARDLE (7.30 pm): Proposed new section 11(1) deals with interested witnesses maintaining a benefit under the terms of a will. Proposed new section 11(2) maintains current law and proposed new section11(3) provides the exceptions to that. Proposed new section 11(3)(a) appears to be superfluous when one considers paragraphs (3)(b) and (3)(c). Is there a reason that paragraph (3)(a) is maintained when paragraph (3)(b) in particular would tend to deal with the issue better and paragraph (3)(c) would have a better chance of dealing with that than simply having three witnesses? The other two matters in relation to clause 6 are proposed new section 19, particularly 19(2), and proposed new section 24(a). They deal with an appropriate person making an application on behalf of a minor or on behalf of a person who does not have the capacity to make an application to a court. Is it the intention, given the role of the Public Trustee in this state and the vast number of people that office deals with, that it may well be incorporated under the terms of ‘a person on behalf of a minor’ or ‘an appropriate person’, as the case may be, or is it the intention that that would not be considered an appropriate use of those two particular clauses, given the proximity of that office to the relevant person? Mrs LAVARCH: In relation to proposed new section 11, these are the model provisions. They incorporate the model will provisions that have come through this project. As set out in the explanatory notes, they replace section 15 of the current act and expand the exceptions to the rule under it. I hope 80 Revocation of Marine Park 14 Feb 2006 that clarifies the position for the member. In effect, it codifies those exceptions. In relation to proposed new section 19(2), I take it the member is talking about the Public Trustee? Mr McArdle: Correct. Mrs LAVARCH: A minor, or a person on behalf of a minor, may apply under that section. That enables a minor or his or her representative to apply to the court for the authorisation. I was not too sure of the member’s actual question in relation to the Public Trustee. Mr McARDLE: The Public Trustee deals with and has control of the estates, as the Attorney- General knows, of people who are mentally handicapped or have no capacity for themselves. Those people can derive assets from major motor vehicle accidents and similar incidents. Is it envisaged that that office could have a new role in making an application to a court on behalf of a person whose affairs it manages or whose money it looks after, as a minor or a person without capacity, or is that not the intention of this legislation? That would expand the role of that office significantly, in those circumstances. Mrs LAVARCH: This section envisages a whole range of people, including the Public Trustee. Of course, the guardianship laws would interact here as well. There are provisions under the guardianship laws, if there is some problem there. I take it from the member’s remarks that he has some concern about the Public Trustee taking on a new role in that regard. If there is any conflict at all, one would have the office of the adult guardian. If the family were concerned in relation to the role of the Public Trustee, they could always take it to the Guardianship and Administration Tribunal. These just set out the provisions as to who can apply. As to what then happens, other pieces of legislation and other bodies would have a role to play. Clause 6, as read, agreed to. Clauses 7 to 10, as read, agreed to. Third Reading Bill read a third time.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (7.37 pm): I move— That orders of the day Nos 3 to 11 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

REVOCATION OF MARINE PARK Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (7.38 pm): I move— (1) That this House requests the Governor in Council to revoke by regulation the setting apart and declaration of that part of the Moreton Bay Marine Park within the areas described as: Lot 11, Lot 31 and Lot 41 on SP 175931 as set out in the Proposal tabled by me in the House on 23 November 2005. (2) That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament forward a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women for submission to the Governor in Council. Queensland’s marine parks are vital to protecting important habitat. I only support the revocation of areas of marine park where it can be clearly demonstrated that it is in the broader public interest and that there is a net gain for marine conservation. Careful consideration has been given to this proposal and detailed consultation has occurred with agencies affected. The 6.2-hectare area to be revoked from the Moreton Bay Marine Park is degraded swamp surrounded by the existing Newport Waterways estates development at Scarborough. The area proposed for revocation from the marine park forms part of the Land Act 1994 leased for reclamation, residential and associated commercial purposes. This lease has been held by Redcliffe Seaside Estates since 1964. Redcliffe Seaside Estates was also granted a provisional approval under the Canals Act 1958 for development of the area as a canal estate. Development rights have existed on this land prior to the declaration of the Moreton Bay Marine Park over the lease in 1997. It should never have been included in the marine park in the first place. This revocation makes possible a much less complex process for the development application which will be submitted to the local council for the final stage of the Newport Waterways residential canal estates. Moreton Bay Marine Park will be expanded, with 125 hectares of high conservation value wetland to be included in the marine park following a land exchange agreement made by the EPA. The land at Deception Bay has been offered by Redcliffe Seaside Estates and offers important additional wetland 14 Feb 2006 Revocation of Marine Park 81 habitat for Moreton Bay’s internationally significant shorebird population. Redcliffe Seaside Estates will also provide $1 million for environmental and community purposes, and this will be used for infrastructure, signage and site remediation including rubbish removal. The EPA has agreed to excise 6.2 hectares from Moreton Bay Marine Park in exchange for the 125 hectare parcel of high conservation value wetland. This 6.2 hectares should never have been included in the marine park in the first place as there were pre-existing development rights over the land. In addition, the 6.2-hectare area of the marine park to be excised is, as I said before, degraded; it is disturbed, poor-quality habitat with poor flushing mostly below high-water mark, and it has no vegetation, no benthic invertebrates—bottom-dwelling marine creatures—or fish life. It is surrounded by development. So this land exchange is an unusual step. However, it is a win for the environment. The developer holds preliminary approval issued in 1972 to develop the site under the now repealed Canals Act 1958. If the excision did not occur, the existing development rights, if fully exercised, would be likely to have a significant impact on the small area to be excised from the marine park. There will be a significant net area gain for the marine park, and it means that this important piece of habitat will be preserved for the future. The people of Deception Bay will also benefit from privately owned land being transferred to the public estate. The land exchange is not a development approval. The right to approve or not approve any development application is not compromised by this land exchange agreement. Nonetheless, it is a very significant action to revoke area from a marine park, and for this reason I would like to address some of the issues that have been raised by people concerned about this move on the part of the EPA. For example, there have been allegations that the EPA is in the developer’s pocket. My response to that is that the EPA has made on this occasion a common-sense decision that means a significant parcel of high conservation value land will be transferred to the park estate. The EPA is not obliged to do this, but this step offers a net gain for the marine park. The bottom line is that this offers a win for the environment. There are those who believe that, once a marine park is declared, it should not matter whether there is a development adjacent; it should not matter whether some portion of that marine park is in fact degraded and substantially beyond rehabilitation. No matter what, they believe that we should stick to those boundaries for all time; that any kind of a swamp, any kind of an offset towards a better deal for the environment, should not be accepted; that that is in fact some kind of compromising position. I argue that. I think such people are wrong, that they are being unnecessarily rigid and that in fact what we need to be recognising is that the purpose of marine parks, of national parks, is to have protected area estates of high quality for the future—high-quality examples of our biodiversity and of our natural environment. The fact is that in this instance some part of our marine park is degraded and we have an opportunity to more than offset the loss of this degraded land. The compensation of 125 hectares of high-quality environment is in fact a good deal for the environment. There have been allegations that the public was not consulted. In fact, we believe the majority of people would be supportive of a move that protects the significant wetland habitat that will become part of the marine park. We believe that addition to the marine park would be widely welcomed. There have also been allegations that the developer probably could not develop this parcel of land anyway; that it would have remained as it is—a bird habitat—in any case. To that I say there is no guarantee that this land would not be developed in the future, and so this exchange allows us to place protections over this 125-hectare site. It allows us to rehabilitate it. It allows us to take actions that otherwise would not happen, and it makes arrangements that would be very hard to undo by ensuring that it is included in the marine park rather than left in some kind of optimistic hope that it will remain the important bird habitat that it is. I have been asked whether the 6.2 hectares that are being given to the developer are Ramsar listed—that is, is the area listed as an international wetland of significance. The answer is no, it is not. A question has also been raised as to whether the developer can go ahead and develop the 6.2 hectares that I am proposing to the parliament that we excise. This land exchange does not give a development approval. However, the 6.2 hectares to be excised do have some pre-existing development rights for canal works. If the relevant development approvals were obtained from a range of different agencies including the EPA, and if development approval were to be given, appropriate environmental conditions would then be placed on any proposed development. Nonetheless, even in those circumstances there would still be a net gain for marine conservation. I have been asked whether this is a conflict of interest for the EPA. No, it is not. The EPA is seeking to protect areas with conservation values and is making common-sense decisions about areas of low conservation value that have pre-existing development rights. Another question put to me was: if the development proceeds will the so-called environmental benefits not be negated by a residential development on the doorstep of this land? My answer to that is that if development approval were to be given the appropriate environmental conditions would be placed on any proposed development and thereby they would limit any environmental impacts on adjacent land. 82 Revocation of Marine Park 14 Feb 2006

If the developer is unsuccessful in getting development approval, can the state still keep the 125 hectares of high conservation value wetland? The answer to that question is no. The state will return the land to the developer. If the developer is unsuccessful in getting development approval, will the 6.2 hectares be returned to the state? The answer to that is no. The 6.2 hectares should never have been included in the marine park in the first place. The developer does have pre-existing rights to the 6.2 hectares under a special lease. A question has also been put as to whether this area is proposed for canal development. We would expect that that may well be so, but in fact we do not know that because the developer is yet to make the application and, according to the master plan approved by Redcliffe Shire Council, a residential canal estate development is proposed. So while that is likely it is not a matter that has yet been decided. The other question that has been put to me is: is canal development consistent with the EPA State Coastal Management Plan? That is an important question. The answer is that there is no moratorium on canal estates in Queensland. However, the State Coastal Management Plan— Queensland’s coastal policy—commenced in February 2002 and it establishes a high standard of criteria for any new canal proposals to meet. There is a new legislative framework that took effect in October 2003—that is, the Coastal Protection and Management Act—that allows the EPA to consider the more stringent environmental and planning criteria in the state coastal plan than previously allowed under the repealed Canals Act 1958. Each canal development application is assessed, therefore, on merit according to strict criteria laid down in the state coastal plan. I emphasise that this revocation is in no way an imprimatur for development approval. The developer is still required to follow all statutory development approval processes, including undertaking an environmental impact assessment. The right to approve or reject any development application lodged by Redcliffe Seaside Estates is not compromised by this revocation. This is a unique situation and the revocation and offset package provide the best possible outcome for all. As part of the offset arrangement for the 6.2 hectares excision, the developer has agreed to transfer 125 hectares of high conservation value wetland adjacent to Deception Bay to the state. The site provides important wetland habitat for Moreton Bay’s internationally significant shorebird population and will be declared a conservation park and also added to the Moreton Bay Marine Park. In summary, this action is the most appropriate way to resolve the inadvertent addition to the marine park of an area that should never have been captured in the first place. This action provides a greater level of clarity for the council and the developer and a significant net gain for the conservation of the Moreton Bay Marine Park and for the people of Queensland. We believe that this is a common- sense decision that means a significant parcel of high conservation land will be transferred to the park estate. The bottom line is that it is a win for the environment. I am sure that the majority of people would support this move. I ask members of the House to support this motion. Hon. DM WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (7.52 pm): This revocation will be good for the people of my area. This revocation will be good for the environment of my area. On the south banks of Deception Bay there is an extended area of land which is World Heritage listed. It is a place where migratory birds come. They come from thousands of kilometres away; some come from the northern shores of Russia all the way to my electorate. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Are they terns or curlews? Mr WELLS: They are not curlews, no; they are terns. Mr Lawlor: Everyone gets a turn. Mr WELLS: Yes, and that is why you never see them alone. There are many of them in my electorate and it is because one good ‘tern’ deserves another. This area which is rich in biodiversity, this area which is rich in native and migratory fauna, is an area which needs to be preserved. There is an area of 125 hectares that is in the possession of Redcliffe Seaside Estates. It is owned by them at the moment. That 125 hectares is probably not capable of being developed by this development company. It is, however, an area that is not in public ownership and is not accessible to the people. That area of land which is visited by the migratory birds and which is part of the bird habitat is an area that we are going to acquire as a result of tonight’s work in the parliament. That area will become known as the Deception Bay conservation park. I would make a request to the minister to call it Deception Bay conservation park because to have a conservation park in Deception Bay will be an enormous fillip to the morale of the people whom I represent. Deception Bay is not full of wealthy people. It is not full of people who have had all the best opportunities in life. It is not replete with those whom fortune has blessed. It is an area where the people are struggling to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It is an area that this government has assisted with urban renewal planning, and many of these programs have helped to improve the morale and the self-esteem of the people of Deception Bay. A leadership group is emerging in Deception Bay as a result of these activities. 14 Feb 2006 Revocation of Marine Park 83

What could be better than for this area to have a conservation park called the Deception Bay conservation park? I have a vision of how this will fall out: that area of 125 hectares of reasonably pristine mangrove wetlands will be accessible; there will be boardwalks so that the people of Deception Bay, Redcliffe and the Pumicestone, Caboolture and Kallangur areas—and I know that the honourable member for Kallangur is a supporter of this because we were talking about it just a little while ago—will be able to access the Deception Bay conservation park. They will be able to walk through and see this superb wetland which will be preserved in public ownership as a result of this measure. In return for the 125 hectares of mangrove wetlands to become the conservation park, there is 6.2 hectares of degraded land. The area is known to the locals as ‘the hook’. It is an area that was part of the Moreton Bay Marine Park only as a result of a technicality—that technicality being that it was below the high-water mark. When the maps were drawn when Moreton Bay Marine Park was made a marine park, the maps indicated that everything that was below a certain altitude was going to be part of the marine park. In consequence, this area—though it is cut off from the water by canal developments and by land—became part of the marine park. Once it was cut off forever from the tides it started to degrade and has been degraded ever since. It is now a completely degraded area of no environmental significance and of no consequence whatsoever. At one point when I was minister for environment a proposal was brought to me relating to this issue in my own electorate. The proposal was to have a land swap of the 6.2 hectares for the 125 hectares. The department’s advice at the time was: ‘Don’t do it.’ I accepted that advice. Much later— much later—the department came back and said, ‘This time we recommend that you accept it.’ I accepted it. Mr Messenger: What had changed? Mr WELLS: What had changed was the reassessment that had been undertaken by departmental officers of the environmental values of the two places. I said, however, if there is to be a swap then that swap needs to include the provision of infrastructure so that the people of Redcliffe and Deception Bay can take advantage of the fact that there is going to be a new conservation park in their area. Tonight’s proposal for a revocation includes $1 million which I hope, and I implore the minister, will go towards access to the areas that are adjacent to the conservation park and access right into the conservation park. There is a boundary line between Redcliffe and the Caboolture shire, which Deception Bay is part of. Deception Bay is in Caboolture shire and the boundary of Redcliffe comes in there. The hook—the 6.2 hectares—is in Redcliffe. The 125 hectares is in Deception Bay. However, the birds and the other fauna do not know about that. Their habitat is not confined to Redcliffe nor to Deception Bay, but it is the whole area. It is an ecosystem that we are preserving as a result of undertaking this particular land exchange. A great deal of benefit can accrue to the people whom I represent and to the area that I represent as a result of this exchange of land. On many occasions I have been to both of these areas. If honourable members walk down the road along the Esplanade at Deception Bay and go as far as the primary industries establishment and look out beyond, they will see an enormous stretch of mangroves and reasonably pristine wetlands. That is what is going to be acquired; that is what is going to come into public ownership as a result of this. It would not be difficult to arrange access to those areas. We could actually have tour groups going in. We could have people who would promote tourism in the region of Deception Bay. We could stimulate not only the morale and the self-esteem of the region but also the economy of the region as a result of suitable access being provided with the million dollars that will come as a result of this initiative. There would be opportunity for boating access and, with boardwalks, there would be an opportunity for walking access. I might say that if honourable members walk down Nathan Road in Redcliffe, on one side will be land that belongs to the Redcliffe Seaside Estates and on the other side will be land that is part of the preserved area. Sometimes after a very heavy rain the teeming multitude of different kinds of birds that can be seen there is absolutely incredible to behold. The variety and the diversity is extraordinary. This particular area that I am talking about attracts birdwatchers from all over the world. It is very, very rare to have something as diverse as this area so close to the centre of a city. Honourable members can drive from Parliament House to my place in Rothwell, provided they do it after parliament gets up at 3 o’clock in the morning, in half an hour if they are lucky with the traffic lights. That something should be so close but have such biodiversity values is really extraordinary. I draw the attention of honourable members to the fact that we are preserving these biodiversity values. I would like to articulate my attitude to the other developments that have taken place. I would like honourable members to know that what I am saying here now is consistent with what I said in 1997 in this place but on the opposite side of the chamber. At that time the Redcliffe City Council was in the process of giving permission to Redcliffe Seaside Estates to develop land on the eastern side of Nathan Road on the Redcliffe Peninsula. It was making up its mind to do this and I was busily opposing it. I opposed it here, I opposed it out there, I opposed it in the media and I opposed it everywhere. The ‘hook’ is part of the land which the council at that time decided was going to be developed. I did not want any of that land developed, because it was part of the greater ecosystem that I have just been 84 Revocation of Marine Park 14 Feb 2006 describing to honourable members—the ecosystem of the south banks of Deception Bay. I did not want that land alienated and I did not want it turned into canal estates. I wanted it to be preserved for its biodiversity, which is more valuable than just a bit more real estate. I lost that battle. I lost it here and I lost it there, and the land was handed over. The only bit of that land that remains is the most environmentally degraded and most useless bit of it, that is, the ‘hook’. Some you win and some you lose, and I lost that battle at that time. I was unable to save anything of the environmental significance of that area. It is now rapidly being turned into canal estates as a result of decisions that were taken under a coalition government and under a rather-too-conservative council at the time. That is something that is done. It is past. It is water under the bridge. What we are faced with here and now is a decision as to whether 6.2 hectares of environmentally degraded land should be traded for 125 hectares of environmentally valuable land. I do not really think it is a hard decision to take. I do not really think it takes a tremendous amount of brainpower to work out how much each of these is worth. Some spurious arguments against this have been prosecuted locally by people who hypocritically have been calling themselves environmentalists. The arguments are to the effect that Redcliffe has very little land of environmental value left and very little open space left and that, therefore, we should preserve this 6.2 hectares. When we respond, ‘Yes, but while we are giving away the 6.2 hectares we are acquiring a number considerably higher than that—125,’ the response of these people is, ‘Yes, but it’s not in Redcliffe.’ As I said to honourable members earlier, the birds do not know that. The only people who know that are people who are unable to take the larger view, who are unable to take the perspective that what we are doing here is expanding the scope of an ecosphere that will always be preserved because, as a result of this legislation, 125 hectares will no longer be in private ownership. It will be in public ownership and it will be part of that broader ecosphere that attracts the migratory birds, and it will be part of that ecosphere forever. This is a wise decision that is being suggested to us by the honourable the Minister for Environment and it is a decision which is in accordance with the interests of the environment. It is a decision which, as I said, is going to enormously benefit the people of my area. I think when people have to say, ‘I’m going to visit a friend in Deception Bay and I might drop in at the Deception Bay conservation park along the way,’ that is going to be enormously good for the sense of wellbeing and the sense of self-esteem of the people who live in Deception Bay. The intrinsic beauty of a place, the intrinsic value of a people and the intrinsic health of a community are not measurable alone by the average income per capita. Those things are measurable by other standards. This land exchange will raise the standard of environmental protection in this region, raise the capacity of my people to enjoy the environment that surrounds them and raise the ecological values. Mr Lee interjected. Mr WELLS: As the honourable member for Indooroopilly says, it gives everyone a chance to enjoy it. It is with great pleasure that I welcome the initiative that is being proposed by the minister for environment. It is a great pleasure, privilege and honour to recommend the motion to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (8.09 pm): I rise to make a short contribution in support of the government’s proposed revocation of land described as lot 11, lot 31 and lot 41 on survey plan 175931. The survey plan is in the parish of Redcliffe and county of Stanley. As we have heard from other members tonight, the area is known as ‘the hook’ area in Scarborough. As stated by the minister, the underlying land compromises a term lease held by Redcliffe Seaside Estates. In a ministerial briefing today I was informed that approximately 6.2 hectares of land, which is tidal in nature, is being swapped for 138 hectares of beach and hinterland. That was the figure quoted to me. I heard both the minister and the member for Murrumba say that it is 125 hectares. Can that be clarified? On top of that, the state government is receiving $1 million to use for the visitor facilities budget. On the face of it, it would appear to be an excellent deal for the government. I probably should have asked the minister to come with me last week when I purchased my engagement ring. I would have got a good deal, or maybe a better one. It would have stopped the credit card agency ringing up asking if I had been involved in fraudulent activity. This deal between the developer and the government has been negotiated for over five years. I note that a very quick search of the internet reveals the Redcliffe City Council’s ‘Grounds of submission to draft South East Queensland Regional Plan’, as an appendix to the minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting on 14 February 2005. It states— The Draft SEQ Regional Plan nominates Newport Waterways as a potential Greenfield Development. However Newport Waterways has an existing approval for staged development of its land as a combination of canal frontage, and land locked allotments, with an existing approved master plan for the development. A number of questions were posed: ‘Will Newport Waterways be required to comply with the densities of 15 dwellings per hectare prescribed for new Greenfield development?’ Another question was: ‘Will a structure plan for Newport Waterways be required despite an existing master plan and zoning for residential development?’ These and a number of other questions possibly could be answered by this government. The minister detailed in a broad fashion where the $1 million from the developers, Redcliffe Seaside Estates, is going. It would be kind of the minister in her summation to detail more particularly as to where the money is going. 14 Feb 2006 Revocation of Marine Park 85

The issue of dredging was mentioned. When the developer conducts dredging of the land, where will the waste be put? Is an environmental impact management study going to be specifically conducted to look at that dredging? Who will conduct the environmental impact management study? Will it be an independent body? Will it be an independent study? Who is liable for that cost? How long is the dredging going to take? Once there is dredging one has to ask: how will this affect the wildlife in the immediate area? We have to consider biodiversity, as the member for Murrumba mentioned. Will we lose some wildlife? Are we going to lose valuable nursery breeding grounds for prawns and aquatic animals by giving up this 6.2 hectares? The minister has answered that we certainly are not. As the tidal mangroves and tidal seagrasses are the filters of the sea and support a vast number of sea creatures from dugongs through to most of our major seabirds and their nesting areas, we have to ask: how is this going to affect the birds and wildlife in this area? I have no problems supporting this proposal providing these issues and questions are addressed. The price of development should not come at the cost of the environment. As we know, we are the guardians of this fragile and sensitive ecosystem that we live in. The loss of a single habitat affects all of us. There is the inter-connection that the member for Murrumba talked about. I was particularly impressed when the member for Murrumba talked about the conservation park and boardwalks at Deception Bay. One thought that springs to mind is that we do not have enough areas in our environment that disabled people and people in wheelchairs can access. Perhaps the minister and the member for Murrumba might like to give some thought to that. I support the proposal. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (8.15 pm): I rise to support the motion tonight. Everyone in here would know that I am an environmentalist. As chair of the government’s environment policy committee, I am not a big supporter of canal developments and I never have been. I certainly understand that a lot of people like to live in canal developments. They love the lifestyle that the canal developments afford. I also understand that there has to be a balance between development and the environment. I think that we as legislators have to do our very best to protect the environment. If the Newport Waterways canal developers had not had any pre-existing development rights then they certainly could not rely on me voting for this type of development. I understand that the original boundaries of the Moreton Bay Marine Park, as the minister alluded to tonight, were drawn up at short notice. In the process some areas were included in the marine park for the purposes of improved management. The tidal areas and special lease of the Newport Waterways canal development was inadvertently included, as the minister and the honourable member for Murrumba, a former environment minister, have already said tonight. It should not have been included because it had those pre-existing development rights. In order to apply for development approvals for the final stage of the Newport Waterways residential canal estate development the developer has asked that the state revoke a 6.2 hectare area of the marine park that overlays their special lease. The developer will still be required to follow normal development approval processes, including undertaking an environmental impact assessment and public consultation. There is no suggestion that the normal assessment process be short-circuited. The right to approve or reject any development application lodged by the Redcliffe Seaside Estates is not compromised by this revocation. This revocation is in no way an imprimatur for development approval. The removal of the marine park overlay would simply remove an unnecessary layer of complication in the approvals process and provide better clarity to the assessment process. This is the very scenario which this government will seek to avoid in the future through the introduction of the new marine parks bill later this year. I can recall when I spoke in the debate on the coastal management plan some years ago that I suggested that the Queensland government should follow in the footsteps of the New South Wales government and ban canal developments altogether. However, the minister for the environment at that time, the Hon. Dean Wells, was concerned that if canal developments were banned altogether the state government may find itself in a position where it had to pay compensation. Therefore, totalling banning canal developments was not considered. He was right. As a result of that coastal management plan, I am pleased to say that no new canal developments have been approved in Queensland. When the new marine park act is proclaimed, marine park revocation proposals will be considered in the same statutory process as the development assessment and the environmental impact assessment. This will assist by removing unnecessary duplication and approvals, as well as removing unnecessary frustration to the developers. One hundred and twenty-five hectares of high conservation land will be added to the Moreton Bay Marine Park. The developer will contribute $1 million towards environmental and community infrastructure. My learned colleague the member for Indooroopilly tells me that he used to cycle through this very spot with the Bramble Bay Amateur Cycle Club. Perhaps when the developers are considering this infrastructure, they should take into account the history of the area and provide some cycle tracks as well as walking tracks. Of course, as I am a big fan of terns, perhaps they could also provide bird roosts to make sure that the migratory birds are not disadvantaged in any way. 86 Revocation of Marine Park 14 Feb 2006

This is a reasonable exchange for a revocation of marine park overlying 6.2 hectares of degraded land held by Redcliffe Seaside Estates which was subject to pre-existing development approval. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service has assessed the 6.2 hectares as poor-quality marine habitat. I confess that I have not been there, but I have seen photos and I would have to agree that it looks degraded. I am told that it has poor flushing, no vegetation—which is obvious from the photos—no benthic invertebrates, no fish life and certainly is of less environmental value than the 125 hectares that will be swapped and put into the national marine park, which is of high conservation value. The area does not presently support any recreational use or commercial fisheries, and it is not likely to support such activities in the future. With those few words, I commend the revocation to the House. Hon. D BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (8.21 pm), in reply: I thank all members who have participated in the debate this evening, which is not really a debate. I am pleased that those members who have spoken support the change that we will make to the Moreton Bay Marine Park. I particularly thank the member for Murrumba, the previous minister for the environment, for his contribution to the debate tonight. I thank him especially for his significant contribution in leading us to this revocation. I know well the heavy work that was involved in preparing for this. I know how he fought for the designation of a Deception Bay conservation park during his time as minister for the environment. All in this House would know that, because many processes are so lengthy, often it is the minister following who makes the announcement and gets the credit. This is one such occasion. In addition, I accept the wise words of the member for Murrumba about the importance of the Deception Bay conservation park to residents in the area. He spoke of how much they will appreciate having that conservation park close at hand and the value that they will place on it. Since I have been Minister for the Environment, I have been amazed at how the majority of Queenslanders—Queenslanders of all ages from far-flung places around the state—embrace the importance of our natural environment. I have no doubt that if we asked Queenslanders how they felt about their environment, a very large percentage would declare their concern for our natural environment and would want areas of environmental significance preserved for all time. Many would argue that they are not stereotypical greenies, but they would join with the people of the Redcliffe area in welcoming the addition of 125 hectares to the marine park and the likely designation of a conservation park. Today I am pleased to report to the House that the great majority of people not only subscribe to the importance of environmental protection but they also absolutely love our national parks. Our best estimate is that every year 13 million people visit Queensland’s national parks. Indeed, that figure may be out of date. While people enjoy our national parks, their criticisms are twofold. The first is the perception that, from time to time, they are locked out of national parks. I take this opportunity to say that first and foremost Queensland parks are for environmental protection, conservation and rehabilitation. However, those parks are also for the people, especially the people of Queensland. It is really important that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service communicates well with the public of Queensland when areas are designated as no-go areas for a time. Often that occurs for safety reasons. At the same time, we must promote to all Queenslanders that our parks are open for business and that different activities are welcomed in different places, while ensuring that the environment is protected and that there is not an unfortunate collision of inappropriate uses. Nonetheless, our parks are for people. I take on board the remarks made by the shadow spokesperson for the environment, the member for Burnett, about people with disabilities being able to visit our protected area estate. In generations past this issue has not been considered enough in the design of access to and facilities within our parks. For example, steps can limit some people’s access. I have visited some of the newer coastal walks that are a part of the Great Walks program, such as at Josephine Falls in far-north Queensland. Those walks have been designed to ensure that even people with serious disabilities can have a wonderful experience. They have greater access to some wilderness areas that previously may have been too steep and difficult to negotiate. For example, support railings at appropriate heights and rest spots along difficult or steep tracks can make a huge difference to those who may not be terribly fit. Even a seat in the shade can make a difference to someone’s enjoyment of a park. Such issues must continue to be considered in the years to come. I take this the opportunity to acknowledge how much Queenslanders love their marine environment. Of course, as the member for Cairns and someone who lives close to the Great Barrier Reef, I am very much aware of that fact. Those of us who live near the Great Barrier Reef probably get a bit big for our boots when boasting about what a special wonder of the world the reef is. Now that I have some statewide responsibilities, I am aware that other Queenslanders are just as much in love with their marine environments as are those of us from central and northern Queensland. Tonight we see an example of this with the Moreton Bay Marine Park, which is much loved by residents of south- east Queensland. We are all aware of the problems posed by climate change and global warming. I am pleased to note that a recent survey conducted by Ergon found that 75 per cent of Queenslanders recognise that 14 Feb 2006 Adjournment 87 climate change is not a scary story, but it is true and it is happening. I was absolutely alarmed to read that the federal minister for tourism—who is a Queenslander—has refused to accept that the impacts of climate change are serious and real. Only last week in the Courier-Mail the federal tourism minister, Ian Macfarlane, was reported as saying that claims that global warming will damage the Great Barrier Reef are often unfounded or grossly exaggerated. It is very concerning that we have a man of such responsibility denying the reality of global warming and the threat it poses not only to the Great Barrier Reef but also to our coastline and many other precious areas of our environment. In fact, I wonder whether he has spent too many days in Canberra isolated from the marine environment. He only has to traverse the coast of Queensland to see the serious erosion problems and talk to local residents to be aware of the changes that are occurring to the coastline—evidence that already we are seeing the impacts of climate change. I must say that Senator Ian Campbell, the federal minister for the environment, defended the minister while at the same time saying, somewhat grudgingly, that he accepted that climate change was for real. But he was not assisted by the comments of a former deputy leader of the Commonwealth government, Tim Fischer, who is now the chairman of Tourism Australia. In an article in the Courier-Mail he stated— There is a bright future if tourism industry leaders continue to adjust to the challenges that are descending on them thanks to climate change. That is a frightening understatement. There are no thanks to climate change. Climate change is presenting us with very real and difficult problems for which there are no little optimistic adjustments that the tourism industry or others can make. In fact, those who have taken the time to learn more about climate change and who have listened to eminent scientists, such as those who were speaking on the Four Corners program last night, would know that the solutions are not to be easily found. Indeed, on top of these comments from the federal tourism minister, Ian Macfarlane, and a former National Party minister in the federal coalition government minimising the impacts of climate change and global warming, it was very concerning to hear that those CSIRO scientists have been gagged by the Commonwealth government. So tonight I take a moment to call on the shadow spokesperson for the environment to come forward on this issue, to ensure that he is contributing to the education of his federal counterparts and, in fact, to ensure that all members of his own shadow cabinet understand that global warming is a true story. I have had reports—and I hope he will be able to enlighten the parliament that they are, in fact, in error—that there is doubt among some of his National Party colleagues on the shadow ministry bench about climate change. Tonight I also take a moment to recognise the dreadful problems that our coastal communities are facing with erosion. These problems have occurred as a result of many planning approvals that were made in good faith by many councils over the years. Those approvals have resulted in development on what are now precarious areas of coastal land, much of which is threatened by erosion. The solution is not as simple as, ‘We’ll build a brick wall here, a brick wall there and then another brick wall over there.’ That is not a solution as in generations past, as a result of unwise decisions, walls were built to combat erosion which only served to push the problem north or south or on to adjoining properties and exacerbated the problems. Therefore, rather than seek on-the-spot, quick-fix solutions to immediate problems, councils are being encouraged by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as by the department of local government and planning to look more broadly and develop a coastal erosion plan for all of the coastal area that comes under their care. I thank members for their support. This is a win for the environment: 125 additional hectares will be given to the conservation area—the marine park—in exchange for these 6.2 hectares of degraded area. That is a win for the people of Deception Bay, Redcliffe and Caboolture. It is a win for the people of Queensland. I support the motion. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. JC SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (8.35 pm): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Gladstone Harbour Oil Spill Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (8.35 pm): I rise tonight to say that Gladstone and Port Curtis are great places for seafood—both for the catching of seafood and for the consumption of seafood. As members would know, at five to 12 on 24 January Gladstone Harbour was unfortunately subjected to an oil spill. I commend all of those people who responded to that spill: Mike Lutze, who is the harbourmaster, and the representatives of Maritime Safety Queensland. As the size of the spill became apparent, I also commend those from interstate who came to support the local people as they 88 Adjournment 14 Feb 2006 embarked on the clean-up. I also commend the minister for transport, Paul Lucas, for his support for the workers in the community who helped after the incident; the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries, Tim Mulherin; his senior adviser, Jim Varghese; and Jim Gillespie. In particular, I want to place on record my appreciation to the people of the electorate of Gladstone. I believe we had a wonderful spirit of cooperation and positiveness from members of the fishing fraternity—those whose livelihoods were directly impacted by the spill. Indeed, for some fishing people their ability to continue with their businesses was severely curtailed. I would also like to put on the record my appreciation for those people who attended quite a number of meetings on this matter. Those people were prepared to give very freely of themselves and to do so in a spirit of cooperation. Those people include Peter Pullinger, who is a crab and net fisherman; Kevin Dean, a prawn trawler operator; Chris Sipp, a live coral trout fisherman; Neill Xxavier-Hayward, a fisherman; and Ted Whittingham, who runs the Gladstone Fish Market. I have already mentioned Mike Lutze, who is the harbourmaster. He oversaw the operations of the clean-up team. He was very accessible to the people in the fishing industry and those other people in the community who required access to information. The mayor of Gladstone, Peter Corones, and the mayor of Calliope Shire Council, George Creed, were instrumental in working towards a very positive community response. Only a small section of seafood—prawns, crabs and estuarine fish—were directly affected by the oil spill. The scallops, bugs and reef fish are located well outside the oil spill area. The first testing that was carried out showed that the seafood had a slightly elevated toxicity level, but it was still fit for human consumption. The toxicity level of the seafood in the second and subsequent readings has been undetectable. I never stopped eating seafood from my local area and I certainly did not suffer any ill effects. I commend people to be confident of the seafood in the region and to go ahead and support the industry. Disability Services Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (8.38 pm): I rise to speak about great community initiatives in my electorate of Mount Ommaney and by Disability Services in the greater Brisbane area. As an ex-officio member of the greater Brisbane regional disability council and a regional Queensland councillor for this area, I learn all about the great things happening for people in the region. A local organisation called Westside Community Services has been successfully running the My Life program, which is funded by Disability Services Queensland. It enables people with intellectual disabilities to undertake training to learn to cope with day-to-day tasks that we all take for granted. They learn how to budget their income and to cook for themselves. They form solid friendships with other participants in the course which they continue after the course is over. Westside is looking at expanding this program from three days to full-time. Three participants in the last course that was conducted achieved part-time employment and are now becoming more and more independent. One of Westside’s goals is to have these people living in affordable housing and to minimise the amount of care they are required to have in the long term. In relation to affordable housing, a number of government agencies are working together to improve responses and to better integrate services for homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless. Providing safe and affordable housing is one approach, but that alone will not solve the problem. We can reduce the occurrence and duration of homelessness by early intervention to help people find pathways to more stable living. Service hubs, like the HART 4000 project which I launched last year, will play a key role in the continuum of services for homeless people. Hubs will help coordinate service delivery and provide access to a range of government and non-government support services for a broad population of homeless people. Workers from a range of agencies can be co-located in, or deliver services through, a service hub. That way, homeless people can access essential health, housing, income and legal and other assistance all in one place. On Tuesday, 24 January I had the honour of representing the Hon. Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors at the Endeavour Foundation headquarters at Bowen Hills. There needs to be a range of support services for people with a disability. The Disability Service Standards illustrated booklet is just one of them. The booklet is a guide to the Queensland Disability Service Standards and is a ready and easy-to-read English version, with illustrations to complement each standard. It also includes three illustrated day-to-day stories that relate to each of the standards. Its main purpose is to encourage service users to participate in the disability sector quality system. Focus groups, including people with a disability, their families and support workers, worked to put this booklet together. The Endeavour Foundation partnered Disability Services Queensland in developing the booklet. During 2006, Disability Services Queensland will release more resources so that service providers continually improve and are responsive to the diverse needs of people with disabilities, their families and carers. It is great to see Disability Services taking an innovative approach to provide a better service for its clientele. Time expired. 14 Feb 2006 Adjournment 89

Water Charges, Lockyer Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (8.41 pm): I attended a meeting of the central Lockyer irrigators at the Glenore Grove hall. The meeting on Monday the 13th was well attended, with a majority of the major irrigators from the area present. The feeling of the irrigators was quite hostile. They feel that the Beattie government is like a thief in the night, trying to hide behind the National Water Initiative as it introduces a new tax of $4 a megalitre and $100 per licence. This tax on the Lockyer is even more unjust as only the central and lower Lockyer will be affected at first, as they are already on SunWater schemes. However, this is a DNR&M tax, so we can be assured that the rest of south-east Queensland will soon be taxed as well. I have been on water boards and committees for almost 20 years. Unfortunately, for most of that time, the DNR&M has had a Labor minister. The whole agenda is wrong for an area where 85 per cent of the land in south-east Queensland is in private hands. The farmers and landholders are the custodians of the land, and how does this government treat them? With complete contempt! It dreams up new taxes. Water in the south-east corner, in particular, is at a premium as this dysfunctional Beattie Labor government has discovered that the Wivenhoe Dam is now at 33 per cent capacity, with usable water at not much over 20 per cent capacity. Another case of mismanagement by this government and the previous Goss government, which not only scrapped the Wolffdene dam but did not plan any dams or storages to replace it. Mr Hopper: They didn’t wear badges, either. Mr RICKUSS: No, they did not wear badges. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! If the member for Darling Downs wishes to interject, he should take his seat. Mr RICKUSS: They will need a lot more than 325 doctors. There will be a lot of people needing a drink of water— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! The member for Lockyer might wish to— Mr RICKUSS: At a time when almost all of the irrigation dams in the south-east corner are at low levels and the aquifers and bores are also low, this government wants to introduce a new tax. The south-east corner has a water moratorium in place. Surely no new charges should be in place until this government has worked out how it will manage the water in south-east Queensland. Water users in south-east Queensland would be some of the most efficient irrigators in the world. They would be on a par with some of the Israeli schemes with their very efficient water use. I encourage the minister to look for some efficiency from his own department, from his own ranks. As I said earlier, I have attended price path meetings, consultative committee meetings, review committee meetings, all the time with representatives from DNR&M. Unfortunately, as none of the DNR&M people are actually water users, I do not think they quite realise the angst this type of tax creates in communities. Unfortunately, the government cannot make it rain, but why would it try introducing a new tax when the whole of the south-east has experienced below average rainfall for almost the last 10 years? Rainfall in the Lockyer in 1994 and 1995 was about 13 inches each year. Time expired. Proserpine Hospital Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (8.44 pm): Being a regional member of this parliament with no major or base hospital located within my electoral boundaries, I have a particular interest in ensuring that our smaller district hospitals are not forgotten in this government’s plans to reform and reinvigorate our health system. I note that while Peter Forster rejected the reinstatement of hospital boards in his report titled Queensland Health Systems Review, he recognised and stated as one of the principles of the proposed organisational structure the need for increased community engagement. Of course, Peter Forster was much more elaborate in his description of how this might occur. Tonight I want to provide an actual example of how one of my local hospitals has engaged with its community to the benefit of everyone in the community. For many years the Proserpine Hospital has enjoyed a close working relationship with its community. Various local service groups have each adopted a wing of the hospital and raised money from within the community to provide those valuable extras that are not always covered by the hospital’s budget. The hospital has also benefited from the generous donations of local businesses and individuals. These extras range from sophisticated, life- saving medical equipment to knitted blankets for the nursery and reclining chairs for visitors’ comfort. Recently, however, the relationship between the hospital and the community soared to a whole new level with the development of the Whitsunday Hospital Green Room project proposal. The project aims to establish a living, breathing green room in the hospital’s courtyard that will provide a place where staff, patients and visitors to the hospital can relax, gather, grieve, talk, eat and learn about the local environment. 90 Adjournment 14 Feb 2006

A committee comprising the Whitsunday Health Service, Whitsunday Shire Council, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and local artists was formed to develop and progress the green room project. The plan is to redevelop the existing courtyard into a number of corridors and sections, each with a theme incorporating unique landscaping and features. It will incorporate local flora and fauna, smell and touch gardens, reflections of Indigenous and early European culture, a secret garden, island and marine landscapes, and rainforest elements. The area will have seating and barbecue facilities, disability access and be conducive to the therapy needs of patients. I know it is hard to imagine, but the committee has developed a detailed plan that covers costing and implementation, so I have no doubt that the project will be delivered. The committee has also developed a comprehensive fundraising plan to raise the $60,000-odd needed to complete the project. I was very proud to launch this project late last year. I am pleased to say that the hospital auxiliary has already raised a significant amount of money towards the total. I join the committee tonight in calling on the community of Whitsunday to get behind this project and to get involved by becoming a sponsor for the project or by donating goods in kind that will contribute to the development of the hospital’s green room. Mooloolaba Spit Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (8.47 pm): Mooloolaba is a jewel in the Sunshine Coast crown of tourism destinations. It is a great place for tourists but the locals love it, too. We love its beaches, restaurants and other attractions. Currently, the Mooloolaba Spit is undergoing a master planning process called the Mooloolaba Spit Futures Study. It is a joint project between state and local government to look at the best long-term planning options for this area, which involves considerable crown land reserves. I support the need for good planning but reserve my judgement on the final recommendations until I see them and can weigh up how well they serve the public interest and preserve this area’s natural assets. I need to flag a number of issues in this limited time that I have here tonight. Firstly, the wharf area does need appropriate redevelopment. However, I caution against the higher density options which have been flagged in the current consultation process. While the leases in this area have a long time to run, I believe that the option of redesigning the western side of the wharf to become a true riverside pedestrian esplanade with better public access must be canvassed as part of this area’s future. To date, I do not believe that is a formal option. I believe this does need to come into the process and be part of good planning, consultation and negotiation. To rejuvenate this area, there is a need for more creative options than simply putting high-rises on part of the council’s existing car park or the other crown car park behind the wharf. Thus, it is somewhat disappointing that despite the push for more open space and public access on the spit, the options as to what happens with this section of the wharf have not really been properly canvassed. With regard to another part of the spit, the caravan part on the eastern side, I table a non- conforming petition of about 3,000 signatories including signatures from about 100 local workers or business owners and more than 500 children calling for the majority of the caravan park to be kept in operation. One option proposes that it be closed down. Another option is that it be partially closed down and a final option is that it remain 90 per cent open. The petitioners acknowledge that a better connection between the beach side and the western side of the spit could be achieved by losing 10 per cent of caravan sites but they strongly implore decision makers to keep the majority of the Parkyn Parade Caravan Park on the Mooloolaba spit open and available. I have always said that I have a preference for public caravan parks to be maintained particularly near safe beaches where families can enjoy this wonderful, affordable Australian experience. It brings a good mixture of accommodation options to Mooloolaba. However, I have also said in regard to the Mooloolaba park that if the public wanted the caravan park to go to public space in this area I would respect that. However, I do not believe that is the majority feeling at this time from the public. I believe there is still strong support for keeping this very iconic caravan park operating in our local area. Sams, Mrs Diane Ms LIDDY CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (8.50 pm): Queenslanders are remarkable people. We could all name dozens who have achieved and excelled in many and various fields of endeavour—be it sport, business, science or the arts—but some contributions to our state’s life and culture go sadly unreported. Often we miss the achievements of those quiet souls who simply display an enormous generosity of spirit with no thought of personal reward. One of those quiet and beautiful souls was Diane Sams, who passed away earlier this month. Born in Mount Isa and moving via Townsville to Brisbane, Diane rose through the ranks to become the manager of the Breakfast Creek Hotel and was the backbone of the Sams racing stable. While the hotel and racing industries are a central part of Queensland life, it is for another reason that 14 Feb 2006 Adjournment 91

Diane Sams deserves all the acknowledgement we can give. Diane and her husband, Darrell, took in homeless, underprivileged and multicultural children and attempted to give them a new start in life when most others had turned their backs. Christmas at the Sams was an open house where even people she had never met before would come for a feed and some company, for they had heard of the generous woman with the huge heart. Some she never saw again, others became regulars, and a few became close family friends. Everyone was an equal in Diane’s eyes, no matter what their past. When they arrived on her doorstep, they were immediately given a hug, a hot meal, a warm bed, education or employment and, most importantly, a clean slate. At last count, 52 souls had passed through Diane and Darrell’s door, and Diane remembered each and every one of them, monitoring their progress long after they had left the sanctuary of their temporary home. It was a selfless, loving home. The whole of Diane’s life was dedicated to other people. Right up until the final days of her life she was still thinking of others even though gravely ill. Our thoughts are with Diane’s husband, Darrell, her children and grandchildren and those many others whose lives were touched and enriched by this remarkable woman. I would invite all members of this House to join in acknowledging the passing of a truly outstanding woman who so warmly embraced the Queensland spirit of a fair go for all. We could all learn from the generosity and capacity for caring of Diane Sams. It is with great sadness that I have this vale for Diane Sams. She has been a great friend of mine since becoming the member for Clayfield. She was my eyes and ears in the racing industry. She lived in Hendra. She rang on a weekly basis. I would go around for a cup of tea and pat the four dogs. She truly was a good friend and a good friend to all in the Hendra and Clayfield electorate. My heart goes out to Darrell and the family. Like them, I will sorely miss her. Currumbin Electorate, Youth Community Spirit Awards Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (8.53 pm): Tonight I would like to take this opportunity to advise the House of a positive initiative—the inaugural Youth Community Spirit Awards 2006, which I recently introduced into the Currumbin electorate to acknowledge publicly the contribution of youth in our community. These awards coincide with step 3 of my police and community strategy and operate in conjunction with our local shopping centre, the Pines, to recognise kind deeds performed by our local youth. My deep appreciation is extended to outgoing centre manager, Athol Cowan, and also to incoming manager, Stuart Breen, who have willingly come on board as cosponsors of these awards. As many members are no doubt aware, there have been several instances featured in the media of large groups of young people engaging in antisocial behaviour in my electorate. However, the majority of our adolescents are innocent of any misdoing and deserve our praise and encouragement as they make the often difficult transition from child to adult. This award will acknowledge youth who have demonstrated a volunteering spirit through service to the community or school and may include the following: overcoming adversity to achieve personal goals; inspiration to others through the high standards they display; performance of a kind deed without seeking any reward; assisting their peers and juniors through mentoring; being an active member of a church or community group; cleaning up our environment; or sharing their skills with others. Any youth aged between 12 and 18 who lives in the Currumbin electorate is eligible. One youth will be selected by a judging panel each month, the winner receiving a $50 gift voucher which can be redeemed at speciality shops in the Pines Shopping Centre, and a grand award will be presented towards the end of the year. Nomination forms are available from my office or from our cosponsors, the centre management at the Pines Shopping Centre. A large number of young people attend schools in the Currumbin electorate and, whilst our suburbs are well served with daytime recreational facilities, a community audit showed that there is precious little for them to do at night. Ideas have been put forward by our youth but they have not been fully consulted. So, in order to ascertain just what sorts of activities appeal to them, I am circulating a questionnaire throughout my entire electorate, together with award nomination forms. Local councillor Daphne McDonald, who has been concerned over the degree of graffiti and vandalism in our area, earlier this month promised the establishment of a multipurpose youth centre in or near Palm Beach. The intention is that it will be run by young people but with an adult board overseeing the exercise. This is wonderful news for our community as a whole, as the project involves an opportunity for adults and youths to work together, sharing skills and ideas in a proactive way. Currumbin is a really beautiful place to live, and I look forward to informing the House of more proactive measures in the future and keeping members up to date with the positive attributes of our youth. Miami State High School Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (8.56 pm): Miami State High School is one of the oldest schools on the Gold Coast. It has about 870 enthusiastic students and over 50 dedicated teachers. Last week I attended the investiture of leaders for 2006. I would like to congratulate the school captains, Tamara Burghart and Jason Fay, and the vice captains, Carlie Edwards and TJ Gueco. These young people epitomise the spirit of Miami High and were a very popular choice by the school community. 92 Adjournment 14 Feb 2006

Miami is one of only two schools on the Gold Coast to offer a construction program for students. Under the watchful eye of Ian Anderson of BOSS Homes, they will build a home from materials donated by the construction industry. This will fast-track students seeking careers in the building and construction industry. This type of partnership represents the future of vocation and education training in secondary schools, and I congratulate Miami High for accepting the challenge that this program presents. Miami High is a school rich in tradition and has an honour roll of which it is very proud. Our current Deputy Premier and Treasurer, Anna Bligh, is perhaps the most famous ex-pupil, but there are former students in both professional and trade positions who credit Miami High with encouraging them to pursue their dreams. My friend Dr Mark Whillans, a medical doctor on the Gold Coast, is happy to say that a Miami High teacher gave him the confidence and support to undertake his medical degree. However, when I arrived for the ceremony I was struck by the lack of enthusiasm from the students— students who are always full of pride in their school. There was a decided air of disappointment. The cause was a story that had been aired the previous night on A Current Affair. Following an accident in which a student broke his leg, the program set out to show Miami High in a very poor light. Allegations of bullying were made with no opportunity for the school to defend itself. The students were at a loss to understand how such a report could go to air without them being given the chance to respond. We all know the school staff cannot defend themselves and some people will believe what they see on TV. What it did show the students, however, was that TV journalism can portray a story in a poor light despite what the facts are. Young people—and not only young people—are inclined to believe what they see on TV, thinking fairness would mean that both sides of the story will be told. Students have now found that this is not the case. Miami High is a great school and I encourage all students to continue to maintain the traditions of Miami High, to be proud of who they are and what they have achieved. Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Football Federation Mr ROGERS (Redcliffe—Lib) (8.59 pm): Last Saturday night at Kippa-Ring I attended an Aboriginal art charity auction to support the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Football Federation and their team, called the Crocodiles. The federation aims to assist Indigenous and remote area soccer players in their quest to fulfil their dreams and ambitions of becoming successful soccer players. The auction was a delightful evening with about 50 turning out at the Redcliffe Seaside Artists Gallery. On that note I would like to mention Doug and Ros Kennedy, who own the gallery, which is run as a beneficial community project. The gallery has hosted a variety of charitable events, from black-tie balls to fashion parades and bush dancing. Doug and Ros manage to support all kinds of community organisations, and I commend their efforts. On Saturday night Aboriginal artists from all over Queensland turned out to show their talents and donate their artwork to assist the soccer federation’s fundraising efforts. Artists have done a remarkable job with their works. There were paintings, didgeridoos, painted chairs, plates, T-shirts and delicious homemade food featured on the night. The Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Football Federation aims to lay the foundations for players to improve their opportunities in soccer whilst giving young Australians fundamental experience for their future. The art auction aimed to raise money for a trip to Denmark. Members of the federation and players are hoping to raise money to send 25 players and several support staff to Denmark in July this year. A documentary is also expected to be filmed during the trip. I would like to commend the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Football Federation and wish them the best of luck for the future. I would like to thank the artists who donated their works and in particular Michael Connolly, a well-known local artist and performer, who promoted the event and acted as the auctioneer on the night. I know that if the players want to get to Denmark they are not going to get there by train from Redcliffe. Why? Because we do not have one yet. So I say to the government: do not forget our rail to Redcliffe, and if you have the chance to support the Crocodiles please do so as it is a worthwhile cause. Cooktown, Sealed Road Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (9.01 pm): The road to Cooktown is now fully bitumen sealed. The final stretch of dirt was paved over Friday before last and Cooktown will never be the same again. Work to seal the final 70 kilometres of road from Lakeland to Cooktown began upon the election of the Beattie Labor government in 1998. Eight years and about $100 million later, the job is done. This is truly one of the great achievements of this government, and all involved should be congratulated. In particular, however, my predecessor in the seat of Cook and the former transport and main roads minister, Steve Bredhauer, deserves a great deal of the credit. There is no doubt in my mind that if he did not come into the portfolio at the time that he did people in Cooktown would still have to endure the bumpy, sometimes dusty, otherwise boggy track to Cairns. 14 Feb 2006 Adjournment 93

As is generally the case with these matters, the locals in Cooktown are in two minds about the benefit of the road. Many have moved to Cooktown to avoid the hustle and bustle of city life and do not want to see their town turned into a mini Cairns or another Port Douglas. Many others, of course, welcome the opportunities the sealed road is starting to bring to their community. I put myself firmly in the progressive stable and believe that the benefits the new road will bring far outweigh any small negative side effects. Property prices and business investment have been increasing in the last couple of years as the road became closer and I believe this will continue as more people make the effort to travel to Cooktown. Certainly now that there is no need to drive or hire a four-wheel drive to make the journey more people will be prepared to visit. There is a concern that the new road will shorten the nights visitors may stay in the district, and this will need to be monitored closely by the local chamber of commerce. The local chamber of commerce, headed by Penny Johnson, will need to adjust its marketing accordingly if that turns out to be the case. I am more inclined to believe that while some people will now just nip up from Cairns for the weekend, there is enough natural beauty and organised activities to enjoy to keep tourists there for much longer than that. I would expect to see further business investment which will provide greater activity for visitors in the next few years. The Beattie Labor government has been driving growth in Cooktown. We have now fully bitumen sealed the road from Cairns to Cooktown. It takes about 3½ hours to get there now. We have put $9 million into the sewerage scheme and we have completely upgraded the power supply into Cooktown. We have put the infrastructure in place to see exponential growth in that city over the next 10 to 15 years. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 9.05 pm.