3 Apr 2003 Legislative Assembly 1201

THURSDAY, 3 APRIL 2003

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

PRIVILEGE Smart State Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.31 a.m.): I refer to an editorial and article in today's Courier-Mail and questions earlier this week from opposition members in relation to the Smart State. I thank the writer of the editorial and the article in the Courier-Mail and the opposition for the debate, because the debate on our Smart State strategy is important if we are to develop a culture of innovation and growth. There are a number of matters that were inaccurate, and to assist in the debate I would like to seek to incorporate an address I made to a Queensland business seminar by Commerce Queensland to correct those mistakes. Leave granted. Let me be blunt about a number of things. I have a prepared speech here but I will ignore that. I intend to speak fairly frankly to you today. Let me just say a couple of things to you at the outset. When we came to office almost five years ago, one of the biggest problems facing us was the fact that the Queensland economy was too narrow. We were first into a recession, sometimes we were first out, but it was too narrow. And that doesn't mean there's something wrong with mining or tourism or primary industries or the service sector, it doesn't mean that at all. What it means is that with 3.7 million of us, our economy is not as diverse as it should be. I mean, that's not rocket science, that's fact. So what did we set about doing? We sat down as a government and said: well, where do we want to be in 10 years' time? What is going to happen in the world that we need to be part of? Smart State is not a political slogan and to the credit of Bob Quinn, the leader of the Liberal Party, he has come out and endorsed our Smart State strategy and he's done that because he understands the direction in which we're going. Smart State is about valuing innovation, it's about doing the traditional industries better and smarter, value-adding here, and finding new industries which we don't have, or didn't have five years ago, so that we can broaden the base of the economy. Our IT industry wasn't as big as it should have been. Now, I hope I haven't offended anyone in this room but that's a fact. We needed to look at the new industries like biotechnology, for example. And ever since the mapping of the human genome it has been clear that this is going to be the great revolution of this century. Biotechnology! Now, you might say: 'well, how does that have any relevance to me if I'm in the service sector?' I'll tell you what it does and what's relevant to you: if there is growth in the economy then you are going to have people buying your goods and services. And I've had a look through the list of who's here today. I went through the list of people and I can't find anyone on that list who would not benefit from this sort of Smart State growth. If you're a bank, you're going to end up with more clients. If you're a legal person, you're going to end up with more clients. If you are in any other service delivery area, be it engineering, insurance, or anything else, everyone in this room will benefit from the growth. The changes that are taking place in the world are phenomenal. We have made a big push about biotech, not because we want everyone to be scientists, but because the big winners out of it are small business. What happens? Scientists today are a different animal…they're not just scientists who hang around with a test-tube anymore, they've got to be businesspeople as well. They develop, through their clinical trials, opportunities that are then commercialised. They've got to have lawyers. They'll need new buildings. They become small businesses and they grow. Let me give you just a couple of minor examples because I don't want to go through a huge list of things. We've got the Queensland Institute of Medical Research at Royal Brisbane. It's carrying out phase one clinical trials on drugs at the moment. A lot of their work deals with cancers, a lot of it provides very significant commercial opportunities. Griffith University's Centre for Bio-Molecular Science has outgrown its facilities in the last eighteen months. And these are projects we've supported as a government, acted as a catalyst to encourage them. Last year we established a $100 million dollar Queensland Bio-capital Fund managed by the Queensland Investment Corporation. Why? Because we have a major problem with venture capital. So that fund has actually provided the means to overcome one of the weaknesses in our economy. When you're looking for innovation, venture capital is a major problem. That's why that fund was established. 1202 Legislative Assembly 3 Apr 2003

And you may have noticed that even Nobel Prize-winner Peter Doherty told the ABC radio this week (which was reported in The Courier-Mail, that Queensland had been active in promoting high technology activities and we are one of the leaders. What else have we done? Have I mentioned Boeing before? We've got a whole new aviation industry here, that's what's happened, a whole new aviation industry. If you think back five years, where was aviation in this country? Qantas: headquarters in Sydney. Ansett: headquarters, in Melbourne. Now what's the play? Virgin Blue: where are their headquarters? Brisbane. Ansett doesn't exist anymore. Qantas: what are they doing? They're moving a major maintenance facility from Sydney to Brisbane. They're going to be maintaining their fleet of 737s here. They've established the Snap-Fresh facility near Logan and will get 20 million meals a year out of there. If you get on a plane anywhere in the world, the food's produced probably out at Logan. We've set up a facility for training, for the skilling of pilots and people who work in the aviation industry—the Smart State component: of training. We've done that on the back of Boeing. Boeing has been a great corporate citizen and has assisted in all this. So that's part of what we've done. So we've moved major aviation facilities here and we've done it on the back of training and education. Singapore Airlines trains its pilots here. Why? Because we've got some of the best training facilities in the world. Using our brains to offer training and skilling of everything from pilots through to cabin crews, that's why they've come here and that's why we were also quite aggressive in getting Australian Airlines, the Qantas subsidiary, to be based in cairns. Yes, we gave them incentives. We gave them a payroll tax holiday for a little while, and let me tell you we got the best end of the deal with Virgin Blue because financially we gave a little and we're getting a lot. I know you don't want to hear that sort of stuff but I do. We've done very well out of those deals. We've given up a little bit of payroll tax for a short period of time to get that level of investment. Every incentive we give has got to be linked to jobs and the creation of jobs. So, as I said, we've developed a whole new aviation industry which Queensland didn't have and everyone again has an opportunity to benefit from that because of spin-offs. There are spin-offs in terms of extra people here, in terms of extra training, and in terms of benefiting our second biggest industry, tourism. And any of you in the tourism industry will know this, one of the biggest difficulties which we had five years ago was the cost of domestic air travel. We've got a decentralised state here based on tourism and the biggest problem was, yes, you could get cheap international flights into Australia but then when you tried to go around from Cairns, Townsville, the Whitsundays, whatever, you got whacked at the airport. You got mugged on the way on to the plane. What's happened now is that through Virgin Blue, Qantas and Australian, we've got competitive domestic airfares. And that's because we've got an aviation industry here. We've got cheap domestic airfares. And Australian is now bringing people here from six ports, Asian tourists, and they're also extending a number of services. So what does Smart State mean? It means using innovation. It means continuing to do what we did traditionally, but doing it smarter. And every small business and every medium to large business will benefit out of it. Let's look at AMC: light metals. I said Smart State's about value-adding in our traditional industries. I've got to tell you I'm one of those people who are sick to death of the fact that all we ever did with minerals for so long was dig a bloody hole in the ground, put the minerals in a ship, send it off abroad, where the minerals were processed and then buy it back. We have a terrible track record as a country for doing that. It's disgraceful. What did we do? AMC, the major light metals project, got into trouble. It went to a float and didn't get enough money. Why did it run into trouble? Because there are only 19.5 million of us and we don't have the sort of money they have in New York or London or elsewhere. But this project involved great technology—Australian technology—Smart State technology. The mineral processing that was involved is very clever. They had an agreement with Ford for 50 per cent of their output. And you know, cars are going to be lighter because they will use less fuel. They will be environmentally friendly. But great technology, developed by Australians, was going to go out the back door. Had we allowed that to happen. that technology would have gone to North America. We'd have lost it. So, yes, we got behind it. Smart State. On these matters we work very closely with John Howard and the Federal Government. And while we will argue with the Federal Government from time to time, I want to make it very clear the Howard Government has been a good partner. John Howard and I have a good relationship. And my Ministers will tell you they work very closely with their counterpart ministers as well. We want results. So the AMC project, second time around, succeeded. Yeah, we got off our backsides and worked very, very hard to make it happen and yes, we've given them some incentives. But you think of the alternatives: a whole value-adding process would have gone somewhere else. Comalco could have taken their project to Malaysia. They could have taken that anywhere in the world but again, it came here. Now, again, you might say, 'well, hang on, that's big business. What does it mean for small business?' I'll tell you what it means—the deal that was done basically means that most of the subcontracting and contracting's being done by Queensland companies. The biggest problem we have in Central Queensland right now is actually skilling the workforce to deal with the number of jobs we've got. So what I'm trying to say to you about the Smart State is that it also involves doing what we traditionally do, smarter. Let me give you a few statistics about what the Smart State's delivering. Since 1998 more than 4,200 people have been employed in the aviation industry in Queensland. That's what it means. Four thousand two hundred people now have jobs who didn't have them five years ago because of that new industry—four thousand two hundred of them. Then we've got seven hundred world-class scientists coming here. The tenants of the information technology incubator, i-lab, have raised more than six million dollars in investment since 2000. Fifteen companies have 3 Apr 2003 Legislative Assembly 1203 employed more than eighty extra staff in full-time jobs. Late last year I opened Food Spectrum's new plant which employs sixty-five people and exports products around the world. Food spectrum CEO Peter Lancaster said he only stayed in Queensland because of the Smart State strategy. And I'm not trying to get up here and say these people are being nice to us because we're the government. The fact is the Smart State works. And the same goes for primary industry. Now, we're doing a great deal as everyone knows. We can access markets in Asia in a better way that we have before. It's the biggest market in the world. There's an emerging middle class now getting the money. We're now getting a lot more fresh produce into the Singapore market, into their supermarket chains than ever before. We can do more with our primary industries. Now, they're the sort of things that we're doing. They're just some. And education itself—education is a huge export industry. We've set up an export education committee and that includes all the universities, TAFE, the private sector, the whole lot. And they are exporting education, it's a six billion dollar industry. Huge jobs involved. We're using our knowledge, using our knowledge and we're strategically in our export strategy finding markets where we've got synergy. I've led two delegations with Commerce Queensland—one to China and one to Europe. We're going to New Zealand in a couple of weeks. When we go overseas those of you who want to come are welcome. What we try and do is open doors for you and let you go and do the business. Now, having said that, we've also got to change Queensland as well. When I asked right at the beginning: what does Smart State mean? It's actually about innovation. It's about actually having a culture in the business community and in government and in all our education institutions that values innovation. You'll notice that we've announced a whole lot of education changes. Why? Because we are the only state in Australia that has the number of years of schooling that we do. We have one year less than every other state in Australia. Now, what does that mean? That means that our literacy and numeracy levels are not as good as they should be. It doesn't matter who you are in this room, if you employ people you want them to be able to read and write. It does directly impact on our literacy and numeracy standards if we have one less year in pre-school. That's why we are at a disadvantage compared with the rest of Australia. Just forget the nonsense, that's what it means. Now, I was educated in Queensland and I can say this. But we were at a disadvantage and that's why we've got thirty-nine trials this year in schools with an extra year of pre-school. There'll be twenty more next year, giving a total of fifty- nine. And in 2006 we're going to bring in that extra year of pre-school. Why? Because of literacy and numeracy standards. We can't do it before that. You know why? Because we can't afford it. We'll do it in 2006 because we estimate that by then we will actually get a growth amount from the GST. We haven't got that yet, all we're doing is getting replacements for taxes that are gone. All of the extra money that we get in 2006 will go into that extra year of pre- school and education. Now, I make no apology for that because everyone in this room will benefit in the long-term. It may not be you but it will be your successors. They will benefit from that extra year of schooling. The other thing we've tried to do is the skilling of fifteen to seventeen year olds, the ones who could end up on drugs and in crime and other problems if they fall out of the system. We are valuing apprenticeships, valuing traineeships, getting these teenagers to actually learn or earn. They're the alternatives. Between the ages of fifteen and seventeen, you've either got to be learning or earning. If you haven't got a job you've got to be in some form of education or training. That's what Smart State's all about and that's how you change a culture. The government doesn't create wealth. You do. But what we've got to do is set the parameters in place to enable you to take advantage of the business opportunities that exist. Compared to the rest of Australia, we are the lowest taxed state. We are committed to that. We want to be competitive when it comes to taxation. We're also a growth state. Our economic growth is 4.25 per cent. Federal growth is 3 per cent. If it wasn't for the drought and it wasn't for the international market then our growth would be 5 per cent. Our economy and our budget here is very sound. Our underlying position is very strong. We've got one problem—and that's international markets. And I want to be really clear about this so everybody understands what's going on here. Queensland is the only state in Australia that fully funds money that is to pay our employees when they go on holiday leave, when they go on sick leave, when they go on long service leave, when they retire—we put the money aside. It's in the budget. We get the income from it. Now, that's all very well if the market's going well but of course when it doesn't go well you end up with a problem, and that problem is that we don't have that money for the budget. That's why we've got a difficulty. When the markets turn around, so will they. That's the heart of it. That's what the difficulty is. The other difficulty is the drought. I can tell you—we may be pretty forceful, direct government but so far we've been unable to control the drought. We've been unable to control Wall Street but I have to tell you we're working on it. Smart State is a clear strategy where I've spelled out what we're doing. But we want Smart State to have a life of its own. We're enthusiastic about it because we need you to help us to put flesh on the bones. We need you to work with us so we can improve the economy and investment opportunities. That's why this exchange today is so important and that's why this should be done on an annual basis. And we're not worried that from time to time we will disagree. And we're not particularly worried about whether you've got a different view from us. All we ever ask of you is one thing—if you've got a good idea, let us know. If you've got a positive criticism to make, that's fine. I want to be very serious about this: we are interested in your ideas and we're interested in how you can grow this state. 1204 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003

The final thing I wanted to say is this: Smart State's not an option. It's a necessity. If you think that we can continue to grow our economy as we were five years ago, then I'm afraid you're wrong. We don't have an option without Smart State. The world is changing. I go to international bio-conferences and I travel the world on trade meetings. I look at what's happened to the world. It is rapid change. I look at what's happened in major places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, United States and Europe. The change that is happening means if we don't get off our bums and actually think about where we're going to be with Smart State, Queensland will be nothing more than a beach. Your kids and my kids are going to be left behind. You will be the last generation to enjoy the quality of life that you have now. It doesn't matter what your politics are. I don't care what you think about me or my ministers or this government. Just think about what sort of state you want for your kids and your grandkids. Smart State and working with the business community is the future. It's not an option. It's a necessity. I thank you for coming today.

PRIVILEGE Correction to Answer: Tilt Train Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (9.32 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in answer to a question from the member for Hinchinbrook I advised that QR had reduced derailments in Queensland by 50 per cent. On the basis of subsequent advice, I am concerned that I may have inadvertently misled parliament. I would therefore like to advise all honourable members that in fact QR has reduced the number of derailments on its network by over 70 per cent during the term of the Beattie Labor government. I can assure the honourable member that his concerns about safety of the Brisbane to Cairns tilt train are starting to resemble the rantings of Chicken Little.

PRIVILEGE Comments by Member for Warrego Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (9.32 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in a matter of privilege the Minister for Racing suggested I twisted the outcome of the recent Crime and Misconduct Commission inquiry brought about because of the minister's mishandling of the appointment process of the Queensland Racing Board. I wish to advise the House that the quotes I gave were a direct lift from the CMC report and, further, that the minister has misused the parliamentary process in not explaining to the House why she failed to advise the CMC of the misappropriation of Crown Law advice prepared for her department.

PETITION The following honourable member has lodged a paper petition for presentationÐ

Wynnum State High School Mr Lucas from 112 petitioners requesting the House to retain the highly qualified administration officers at Wynnum State High School who have provided the school community with a high level of expertise for the last 3 years.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Health Funding, Fraser Coast Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.33 a.m.): Delivering world-class health services is a priority of my government. We are getting on with the job despite the federal Health Minister's refusal to meet her state and territory counterparts and make an offer for a new Australian Health Care Agreement. Our commitment extends to all Queenslanders. Today I am announcing further funding for elective surgery on the Fraser Coast. My government has approved an immediate injection of $500,000 for extra elective surgery. I thank the Minister for Health for her work. The money will be shared between the Maryborough and Hervey Bay hospitals and will specifically target ophthalmology, orthopaedic and general surgery procedures. The funding will provide for about 500 extra surgical procedures. These specialities have been under particular pressure and that is what we are going to address. The extra funding for the Fraser Coast is from the additional $10 million allocated in the last state budget to specifically target people on waiting lists who have been waiting for the longest periods. Maryborough and Hervey Bay hospitals perform exceptionally well in treating the most urgent category 1 elective surgery cases, with nearly 100 per cent of patients being seen within the 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1205 recommended 30 days. We also need to ensure less urgent cases get treatment in a reasonable time. That is what this extra funding will do. Since the year 2000, Maryborough Hospital has received more than $1.4 million for new and upgraded equipment, including a $262,000 ultrasound unit, a patient monitoring system, an infant resuscitation centre and a mobile x-ray unit. My Health Minister, Wendy Edmond, has also announced plans for the construction of a new $11.8 million 96-bed aged care nursing home on the grounds of Maryborough Hospital. This is part of Labor's $120 million commitment to rebuild the state government's nursing homes over the next five years. Tenders for the project are expected to be called in November this year, with construction of the new nursing home expected to begin in early 2004. While the federal government can only put issues such as aged care, Medicare and health funding in the too-hard basket, we are delivering high-quality health care to Queenslanders.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT New Zealand Trade Mission Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): Next week I will lead a two-day trade and investment mission of 36 business leaders to New Zealand, where I am due to hold meetings with Prime Minister Helen Clark and some of her ministers. The fact that this is probably the biggest trade and investment mission to leave Queensland is a tribute to our exporting companies. One in five Queensland jobs depends on trade, a figure which rises to one in four in the regions. This is why, as Minister for Trade, I spend so much effort on trying to increase our exports. New Zealand is our eighth biggest export market, with exports worth $730 million last financial year, and I want to increase that total. New Zealand investment in Queensland property totals about $130 million. I will be encouraging further investment through public-private partnerships. I am also keen to explore ways in which we can collaborate on biotechnology ventures, particularly when it comes to commercialisation. I will point to the fact that through discoveries made in biotechnology we have the potential to create major new industries in fields like pharmaceuticals and agriculture. We also seek collaboration with New Zealand companies in developing third country markets. I am sure the tourism industry is one sector where we can achieve a great deal together. The financial services industries, law and accounting are other fields in which we can learn from each other. The companies travelling with me to New Zealand cover a diverse range of products and expertise, including transport infrastructure technologies, information and communications technology, environmental systems and processed food. I have told the companies that I will do my best to open doors for them—we had a long meeting with them here yesterday at Parliament House—when I talk to government ministers. As well as talking with the Prime Minister, I am also due to meet Phil Goff, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade; Jim Sutton, the Minister for Agriculture, Biosecurity, Forestry and Trade Negotiations; Mark Burton, the Minister of Defence, Minister for State-owned Enterprises and Minister of Tourism; and Peter Hodgson, Minister for Energy, Fisheries, Research, Science and Technology, and Associate Minister for Trade. I will be spending Tuesday in Wellington and Wednesday in Auckland. With both days packed with meetings and functions, the mission promises to be very worth while.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sunshine Coast University and TAFE Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): The Sunshine Coast is one of Queensland's fastest growing regions. My government is committed to ensuring that people living on the Sunshine Coast have access to world-class educational and vocational training facilities. Tomorrow I will have the pleasure of opening two new facilities, the Centre for Multicultural and Community Development at the University of the Sunshine Coast, and the Mountain Creek campus of the Cooloola Sunshine TAFE. Mr Foley: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: I acknowledge the minister's role in supporting it. As I have told this House on many occasions, multiculturalism is one of Queensland's greatest strengths. We must constantly look at how our society is functioning as a community socially and culturally and identify what we are doing well and where we can improve. Until recently, Australia did not have a coordinated 1206 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003 organisation focusing on community, social and multicultural development. Now it does. The Sunshine Coast Centre for Multicultural and Community Development is the only one in Australia that looks at multiculturalism in the context of community development and community engagement. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The Centre will undertake research in social, community and multicultural affairs and will ultimately focus on increasing opportunities for people from all walks of life to fully take part in Australian life. Issues such as the impact of immigration, the building of community organisations, human rights, international aid and the causes of racism will be examined. The research will predominantly focus on Queensland issues and will have the potential to be applied nationally and internationally. I commend the University of the Sunshine Coast for establishing this centre of research. I'm pleased to say that over the past two years my government has made $286,500 available to the University for seminars and forums to progress the multicultural agenda. Embracing multiculturalism and full community participation is something we do well in Queensland. This Centre will help to ensure that we do it even better. My Government is also committed to ensuring Queenslanders have access to world-class vocational education and training. The new Mountain Creek campus of the Cooloola Sunshine Institute of TAFE will open up more opportunities for the people of the Sunshine Coast. I would like to thank Matt Foley, my Minister for Employment, Training, Youth and the Arts, for his contribution to this project. It is a magnificent addition to the Cooloola Sunshine Institute of TAFE and indeed, to TAFE Queensland as a whole. Mountain Creek will have an emphasis on the training needs of the tourism and information technology industries, industries which are vital to the Sunshine Coast economy. The Sunshine Cooloola TAFE is also playing a vital role in our Education and Training Reforms for the Future strategy. It will be included in the trial stages of the reforms because of its demonstrated success in partnering with schools and group training companies to create opportunities for young people. I congratulate Cooloola Sunshine TAFE on its inclusion in the trial and on taking a lead role in these important developments in education and training for all young Queenslanders. The construction of the $14.5 million campus has delivered a first class training facility and given the local economy a boost. This year, 320 full time and 1,070 part time students will attend the campus which has a 160-seat lecture theatre, video-conferencing facilities, eight classrooms and three training kitchens as well as computer laboratories and a hi-tech resource centre. The new facilities mean Cooloola Sunshine TAFE can offer five new diploma programs—sport and recreation, multimedia, events management, hospitality, and tourism. Students also can study for four diploma-degree joint qualifications in business. These programs have been developed in partnership with the University of the Sunshine Coast. As I mentioned earlier, this new facility has given a boost to the local economy. The contractor, Evans Harch Pty Ltd, is based on the Sunshine Coast and completed the job on time and on budget. Evans Harch estimates the project provided the equivalent of 115 full-time jobs, mostly to locals. The construction and fit-out of the campus directly involved 39 local small businesses. Contracts let locally were worth $11 million out of the total project cost of $14.5 million. Given this degree of local involvement in the new campus from the start, it's not surprising that the wider community is enjoying the facility. Chambers of Commerce and service clubs meet there and an Information Technology expo will be held there in June. This new Smart State campus is a welcome addition to the Sunshine Coast and to TAFE Queensland's vocational training facilities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Queensland Community Foundation Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): I have clearly stated my view that wealthy corporations have a responsibility to put something back into the community through philanthropy. Overseas countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, have vigorous traditions of corporate philanthropy. As is often the case in the 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1207

Smart State, an excellent example of philanthropy at work is right under our noses. The Queensland Community Foundation is a partnership between Anglo Coal Australia and the state government—the Public Trustee and the Queensland Investment Corporation. With Mr Mike Ahern as chair, the foundation supports community and not-for-profit organisations working in disability, welfare and education. Last year, the foundation secured commitments of $117 million through bequests and other donations. The partnership is unique in Australia and I am advised that the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia are planning foundations based on the Queensland model. A distinguishing feature of the Queensland Community Foundation is that every dollar donated goes to the donor's chosen cause. This is achieved because Anglo Coal and the state government cover the foundation's administration costs. The Queensland Audit Office annually audits the foundation. This is a winning formula in efficiency, accountability and transparency terms for donors. I table for the information of the House the Queensland Community Foundation 2001-02 annual report and information brochures. I urge members to read it. I seek to incorporate into Hansard more details for the information of all members. Leave granted. The most important beneficiaries are the people helped by organisations like the Abused Child Trust, the Heart Foundation, the Fred Hollows Foundation and the Australian South Sea Islanders Foundation. About 80 charities and individuals hold named funds. This means they invest with the foundation. The Queensland Investment Corporation—the biggest wholesale investment corporation in Queensland, and fifth largest in Australia—ensures interest is returned to the charity. The Foundation's stringent standards of accountability and governance are an incentive for donors. I encourage Members to spread the word about the Foundation—to lawyers and financial advisers as well as potential donors. I pay tribute to the Foundation's donors, including Gold Coast couple George and Jean Higgs. George and Jean live by the motto Giving during your lifetime brings a touch of hope to people's lives. By giving to the Foundation they have supported medical research, drug awareness, children with disabilities and people with vision impairments, multiple sclerosis and hearing impairments. On 11 April, the Queensland Community Foundation will present Qantas with the inaugural Queensland Community Foundation Community Service Award, for the airline's generosity in the aftermath of the Bali bombings in 2002. I take this opportunity to thank Mike Ahern and members of the Board and Committee, as well as our corporate partner Anglo Coal.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Shark Control Program Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): In late January, the government learned the state's highly successful shark control program had been nominated as a key threatening process under the Commonwealth Environment and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The nomination was anonymous, but I understand the Humane Society International has since signalled it made the submission. The humane society made a similar submission, without success, in 1998. Our $1.2 million program, administered by the Department of Primary Industries, includes 35 mesh nets and 344 drum lines at 84 beaches between Cairns and the Gold Coast. The main aim is to keep hungry sharks away from swimmers. And it works. Since it began 42 years ago, there have been no fatal attacks in areas protected by nets or drum lines. Tragically, there have been 15 fatal attacks over the same period in unprotected areas. Removing nets and drum lines would endanger lives, unsettle the many thousands of Queenslanders who love to swim or surf in the ocean, and undermine our $14.6 billion tourism industry. This week I sent a submission and letter to the federal Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp, showing why it is nonsense to claim shark control is a key threatening process. I table a copy of my letter to the minister. I seek to incorporate into Hansard the rest of this ministerial statement spelling out why this program saves lives. Leave granted. Mr Speaker the nomination to the Federal Government has either ignored on not understood some key features of our shark control program. Importantly, our program aims to avoid harm to species like turtles, rays, dolphins and whales. 1208 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003

No-one likes to see these animals accidentally caught in our shark gear, and in recent years improvements have been made to further reduce the risk of harm to them. There is no evidence that dugongs, whales, dolphins or rays could become eligible for listing because of our shark control program. Measures to protect such species include: "Pingers" which discourage whales and dolphins from contacting shark gear; At Wurtulla on the Sunshine Coast—which is on the humpback whales' migratory route—nets are removed when whales are passing through; and Nets are removed from Mackay's Eimeo beach and replaced with drum lines from September 1 to January 31 for the turtle nesting season. The Government is providing $500,000 for research to further reduce the risks to species that do not threaten people. The Department of Primary Industries has a 24 hour hotline for people to report if animals are caught in gear. And specially trained and equipped boating and fisheries patrol officers rescue caught animals on the Gold and Sunshine Coasts. Mr Speaker, our shark control program does not aim to reduce the numbers of dangerous sharks. Rather, it aims to keep hungry predators away from people. The fact that since 1992 more sharks have been caught on drum lines—which are baited—than in nets, shows we are catching sharks in their feeding areas. One of the species that the nomination claims is threatened is the grey nurse shark (which—as sharks go—is relatively benign to humans). But there is no shark control gear within 1.5 nautical miles of any known area of prime grey nurse habitat. In the past 11 years only 16 grey nurses—barely one a year—have been caught in the gear, and at least four of them were released alive. The Humane Society is also worried about great white sharks. In the past 13 years 109 great whites—on average about 8 a year—have been caught and humanely put down. The interaction between great whites and our Shark Control Program is simply not having an adverse effect on shark numbers. In summary: Our shark control program works; it is humane; it does not endanger species. Dr Kemp will make the final decision on the nomination. I trust common sense will prevail.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Premier's Drama Award Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): Today, I want to talk about the drama award that I have initiated and the importance of arts in Queensland. Whether you believe that life imitates art, or that life and art are the same thing, there is no doubting the important role theatre plays in our society. As playwrights throughout history have shown, theatre can inspire public debate and enliven democratic processes. Playwrights whose work casts a spotlight on Queensland life deserve our support and they need artistic freedom. I established the Queensland Premier's Drama Award—Theatre and Public Life to encourage playwrights' involvement in political and social debate. These awards have their roots in ancient Greece 2,500 years ago when the winning playwright at the Grand Festival of Dionysus got to live off the government for a year. My government is a bit more frugal than that. But I can announce to the House that the government is again committing to this bi-annual award. I urge playwrights and aspiring playwrights to enter the 2004-05 Queensland Premier's Drama Award—Theatre and Public Life. In November 2001, I invited Queensland playwrights to enter works in the first Premier's Drama Award by drawing their inspiration from a subject with some connection to public life in Queensland. Sven Swenson was the eventual winner from 76 entries. His play, Road to the She-Devil's Salon, will premiere on 10 April at the Queensland Theatre Company's Billie Brown Studio, which is appropriately named. It was suggested by the Minister for the Arts, and it is a great suggestion. The award does not simply recognise one winner; it also helps develop the ideas of other playwrights. In the first award process, six playwrights received a development grant and spent eight weeks working on their scripts with Queensland Theatre Company Artistic Director Michael Gow. Three scripts were further developed and received public readings in July last year. 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1209

The working relationships between the government, Queensland Theatre Company and corporate partners, BDO Kendalls and Griffith University, have been excellent. I thank these organisations and I look forward to being in the audience for Road to the She-Devil's Salon on 10 April. I also want to thank Matt Foley, the Minister for the Arts, for his support.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Muso Magic Workshop Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.44 a.m.): Today, 50 high school students will join former Chocolate Starfish lead singer, Adam Thompson, for a Muso Magic workshop. By tomorrow afternoon they will have composed and recorded a song of professional quality for release to local radio stations. The purpose of the project is to give young people at risk of leaving school early, as well as students with distinctive musical talents, a chance to learn about music production and pick up some valuable work skills for their future careers. The education and training reforms for the future initiative is about giving young people the education and skills that will give them real opportunities in life. The Muso Magic program achieves that objective. The aim of Muso Magic is to encourage students to be enthusiastic about learning and to open new avenues of interest and study for them, even if they have difficulty in the traditional school environment. Education is at the heart of our government's Smart State vision. We are committed to ensuring the very best learning opportunities for every Queenslander regardless of their circumstances. It is this commitment that is driving the current reforms to education and training in Queensland. These reforms will ensure that every student has the opportunity to participate in a senior phase of learning. To achieve this we must recognise that students can have very different needs and that some students need alternatives to the traditional classroom learning environment in order to achieve. Participating students in this Muso Magic workshop are from Balmoral, MacGregor, Mount Gravatt and Rochedale state high schools and Coorparoo Secondary College. As I mentioned, the two-day workshop, held at Coorparoo Secondary College, will culminate in the production of an original CD single for local airplay. The song will be premiered in a performance at the Coorparoo Secondary College auditorium at 3.00 p.m. tomorrow. This workshop builds on the success of the first Muso Magic workshop held in Rockhampton in November last year. Schools throughout Queensland will have the opportunity to participate in future Muso Magic workshops. Ultimately, the program may culminate in a compilation CD of original songs ready for commercial distribution. The workshop leader, Adam Thompson, is best known as lead singer of Australian band Chocolate Starfish, which has recorded two top 10 singles and two top five albums. Adam is a worthy role model for the students and is committed to igniting a sense of motivation in educationally at-risk students. Muso Magic extends the potential for learning and personal development beyond the traditional classroom environment. This increases the likelihood of students completing 12 years of schooling or training, which we know improves their chances of achieving success in work and life in the future. It is projects like this that will be at the heart of our reforms.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Education and Training Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (9.47 a.m.): Today in Queensland, 10,000 young people aged 15 to 17 are out of school, out of work and out of training. That is a scandal and we have to do better. That is why the government has embarked on the education and training reforms for the future. In July this year, seven Queensland sites will begin to trial new and innovative initiatives under the education and training reforms for the future. The trial areas represent a broad cross-section of Queensland communities, within which lie 200 high schools, 12 TAFE institutes and two agricultural colleges as well as private training organisations, community groups, industry groups, employers and parents. They will soon be working together to plan the needs of more than 23,000 young people. 1210 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003

The Hon. Anna Bligh, the Minister for Education, has already highlighted the significant changes that will take place within the middle and senior years of school as a result of the reforms. What I wish to emphasise today is that the role played by Queensland's vocational education and training sector in this landmark endeavour will ensure all young people aged 15 to 17 are either learning or earning—that they are either in school, in training or at work. Vocational education and training is set to become a key component of the senior years of school, not merely an alternative. The innovative learning opportunities arising from these trials will be a comprehensive and tailored mix of formal education, work experience and vocational education and training. I pay tribute to the initiative in music and arts, to which the Education Minister made reference a moment ago. The support of young people through the arts is vital to ensure that they remain engaged in learning or earning during those vital years. In the next few months all stakeholders in the trial areas will be involved in the development of district youth achievement plans outlining the objectives, priorities and education and training needs of young people in their area. TAFE Queensland and the agricultural colleges will actively engage with local community agencies, employers and community groups in this important planning process. I will be touring Queensland in the next few months to showcase the reform initiatives already under way and effectively engaging young people in learning or earning. Maryborough is on my itinerary as it sits within the Fraser-Cooloola and Isis-Burnett trial area. I shall be visiting the Wide Bay Institute of TAFE to meet students from local high schools who are undertaking automotive studies on campus as part of the Youth Access Program. This innovative program, delivered by 30 training organisations across the state— Mr Horan interjected. Mr FOLEY: The honourable member for Toowoomba South will be surprised to learn that we are not offering courses in painting rocks white, as he continues to allege. We are actually providing real employment opportunities, the sort that members opposite cancelled when they were in government. The innovative program delivered by 30 training organisations across the state is providing alternative pathways for over 890 students at risk of dropping out of secondary school. It is one of many successful initiatives already making a difference to the lives of young people in the district. I look forward to seeing one of the world's most sophisticated education and training systems take shape.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Huahai Investments Group Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (9.51 a.m.): I am pleased to inform the House of a significant new investment in Toowoomba. The Department of State Development has entered into a contract with Chinese company Huahai Investments Group (Australia) to buy a farm near Toowoomba for research and production of specialist sunflower seeds. Huahai Investments Group has bought a 63 hectare farm as part of a $5 million seed infrastructure and research investment with a view to ultimately supplying confectionary sunflower seeds to China. Huahai is working in conjunction with the Department of Primary Industries and a number of Queensland and Australian seed organisations to research production of confectionary sunflower seeds which are popular nibbles in China. This investment by Huahai is significant as it represents the tip of the investment iceberg for this company and, subject to the outcome of the venture, could lead to further investments in Queensland. Importantly, Huahai's investment has the potential to generate jobs in regional Queensland where they are needed the most as well as create a centre of seed research excellence. And I would like to make mention of Toowoomba Mayor Di Thorley for her work in assisting Huahai settle here in Queensland. At a time when companies around the world see China as a giant investment target, it is great to see one of China's top 10 agribusiness companies invest in Queensland. Huahai will soon seek the participation of at least 50 Darling Downs farms to assist it harvest a commercial quantity of these seeds in Queensland. Jack Lin, President of Universe International Group (Australia) and General Manager of Huahai Investments Group (Australia) is in charge of the company's investments in Queensland. I have been advised that economic growth in China has consumed vast tracts of arable land formerly reserved for agriculture to feed the country's growing 1.3 billion population. I am told that Huahai originally investigated South Africa to produce seeds; however, the company pulled out of 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1211

South Africa because of safety and security issues, and instead has chosen to locate its seed research and agricultural operations in Queensland. The mother company of Huahai Investments Group (Australia) in China, Hefei Hutai Food Corporation, is a high growth company in China which has quickly gone from start up to multinational. Established in 1995 with few people, the company now employs 6,000 people and turns over about US$100 million annually.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Police Resources Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (9.54 a.m.): As I told the House yesterday, this government is committed to increasing police numbers right across this state. Among the many areas to benefit from this commitment is the Maryborough district. Yesterday I told the House that five new recruits would be travelling to Maryborough as part of our program to increase police numbers throughout Queensland each year to meet growth of over 300 extra officers and approximately 50 civilians. Indeed, the Beattie government's commitment to policing in Maryborough has been clearly demonstrated by the provision of 42 extra funded police positions for the Maryborough police district since we came to office, including 16 since February 2001. Policing in this area has also been enhanced by the introduction of a police dog and handler squad as part of a six-month trial in the Maryborough district in December last year. This squad has met with impressive results so far. We are placing more police on the beat than any government before us, and all parts of Queensland are benefiting. Latest police to population statistics show that Queensland's overall police to population ratio will reach a 10-year low by June this year. In June 1993, the police to population ratio in Queensland was one police officer for every 487 Queenslanders. In the last stages of the previous National-Liberal government, in June 1998, that figure was one police officer for every 518 Queenslanders. By June this year, based on estimated figures, the police to population figure in Queensland is expected to be one police officer for every 446 Queenslanders. So let me reiterate those figures—we had one police officer for every 518 Queenslanders when the leaders of the Liberal and National parties were last in government. Under the Beattie government we are expected to have one police officer for every 446 Queenslanders by June this year. The hypocrisy of members opposite on the issue of police numbers is breathtaking, to say the least. We are providing more than 300 extra police and about 50 civilians this financial year. All areas of Queensland will benefit, including that beautiful city of Maryborough.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Dingoes Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) (Minister for Environment) (9.57 a.m.): The state government approved the Fraser Island dingo management strategy in November 2001. This strategy is based on risk assessment recommendations to manage the interaction between people and dingoes by changing both dingo behaviour and people's attitudes and behaviour towards dingoes on Fraser Island. Public education is the major focus of the strategy to modify the behaviour of visitors and reduce the risk of contact between dingoes and humans. Dingo Aware brochures are provided in information packs given to island visitors, school groups and residents with their vehicle and camping permits. The message is repeated on barges and tour operator buses, at Hervey Bay and Rainbow Beach four-wheel-drive hire companies, and backpacker hostels, and on signs across the island. Specialist dingo rangers and camp ground rangers make direct contact with visitors to increase public awareness and advise how to minimise the risks posed by dingoes. A 30-second dingo awareness community service announcement is in the final stages of production and will be released to all metropolitan and appropriate regional television stations prior to the Easter school holidays. Fraser Island visitors have been warned to be extra wary of dingoes with the onset of the dingo mating season and the forthcoming Easter camping period. Adult male dingoes are especially defensive of their territory and their pack at this time. Last month a British tourist was nipped by an adult male dingo and I was informed late last night that one camper out of a group of four adult campers was grabbed by a dingo at his 1212 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003 campsite. He received no injuries and reported the incident to park rangers. Despite these precautions, we cannot eliminate the risk to humans but we can do all that we can to minimise it. As we approach the second anniversary of the tragic death of Clinton Gage, who was attacked by dingoes on 30 April 2001, protection of children from dingoes has been foremost in my mind. During the Christmas holiday period, I directed the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to take extra precautions to ensure that families camping with children were strongly advised to camp in camp grounds where a camp ground ranger was located. Eight camp ground rangers were appointed last year specifically to increase visitor safety on the island. Ten thousand Camping with children: be dingo aware fliers were distributed during the Christmas period. These fliers will be distributed every holiday season and the message will be reinforced by rangers directly approaching families with children. This initiative was welcomed by families, who were grateful for the information and the improved level of safety provided. Rangers on Fraser Island report that this proactive approach to dingo management also created the opportunity to engage with visitors and promote the full range of be dingo aware messages as well as the environmental benefits of minimal impact camping. This government is committed to protecting the safety of visitors to Fraser Island. I commend to the House the work of the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service in continuing to be actively engaged in making the island an enjoyable, fascinating and safe place for families to visit. To have that positive experience, follow the rules. Do not feed the dingoes. Secure all food and food scraps. With children, camp only in camp grounds. Remember, dingoes are not dogs. Their zoological name is canis lupus dingo. They are a species of wolf. Their nearest relative is the grey wolf. They can kill; they have done so. This is the time of the year that they are most dangerous.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Public Housing Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing) (10.00 a.m.): The housing ministers conference will be held in Brisbane next week. All the state and territory housing ministers and the federal Minister for Family and Community Services will be attending. We will be discussing two key issues—finalising the details of the next Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the development of a national affordable housing policy. There had been a real risk that the Commonwealth would not commit to a further CSHA. However, I am pleased that the Commonwealth has listened to the states and has agreed to sign up to a new agreement. The new CSHA provides some continuity for the department over the next five years. While it contains some useful provisions such as partial indexation, the real value of current funding will not be maintained. The further loss of $174 million under the new five-year agreement is a conservative estimation. While the CSHA may be almost out of the way, the bigger challenge for governments is to sit down together to identify what each level of government can do to boost the supply of housing. That is why I have advanced the idea of a national housing policy. What is required is a clear vision for Australia's housing future. That has to involve all levels of government coming to the table with a genuine commitment to work together and with industry and community stakeholders. If the Commonwealth is serious about the states increasing the involvement of the private sector in investing in affordable housing initiatives, as it stated at the last conference, then the Commonwealth has a genuine role to play in helping ensure there are incentives for the private sector to invest in the affordable end of the housing market. We know that central agencies control the purse strings, but unless we as housing ministers start talking and generating ideas about what could be possible we will never face the reality of the housing crisis in Australia. I want it to be on the record that this is a genuine attempt to address the challenge of housing affordability. In order to do that we need some leadership from the Commonwealth. I want to assure the Commonwealth minister that I have no intention of turning a genuine desire to work together into a turkey shoot. Since the end of World War II the federal government has provided the major source of housing funds and has played a major role in the affordable housing sector. I hope now that the federal government will not walk away from housing, sheltered by the banner of GST payments to the states. We have to be serious about tackling the issue. Otherwise the inevitable result will be 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1213 a society with reduced opportunity, and the cost of fixing those problems will be higher than the investment needed to respond now. I also make it clear that this government has made housing a priority since it was first elected in 1998. We have boosted the overall spending on housing by $145 million, despite suffering federal government funding cuts. We ensure that housing funding is targeted to communities according to need. For example, in Maryborough we have invested more than $4 million to construct and purchase more than 33 houses. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I note the groans of members opposite, who are crooked on Maryborough and do not want to hear anything about it. But this side of politics does. In addition to this, more than $31 million has been invested in improving existing stock through renewal and upgrade programs, bringing the grand total to $35 million. Unless we have a commitment by the federal government to work with the states, this kind of investment in communities such as Maryborough will not be sustainable. There will be more and more homeless people on our streets.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Doomadgee Alcohol Management Plan Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (10.04 a.m.): Following the success of the Aurukun alcohol management plan, I am pleased to inform the House that the community justice group at Doomadgee has now signed off on its alcohol management plan. Work first commenced on the plan in July last year and involved meetings between my department and the local justice group, the council and many other organisations in Doomadgee. The Doomadgee justice group has now declared a number of dry places in the community, including most public spaces. The only alcohol to be allowed into Doomadgee, which does not have a hotel, will be beer of any strength. No wine, spirits, port or sherry can be brought in. The group has also restricted the amount of beer that can be brought into the community to three cartons per vehicle. There was previously no limit on amounts. No beer can be brought in on Sundays, funeral days or carnival days. Community members can choose to have their homes declared as dry areas. Otherwise, residents can still consume alcohol in their homes. I congratulate my departmental officers, particularly my Director-General, Frank Rockett, as well as the Public Service Commissioner from the Office of Public Service, Merit and Equity, Rachel Hunter. Frank and Rachel are the government champions for Doomadgee and have worked closely with the community and the justice group to deliver this plan. It is, however, the courageous members of the community justice group who have taken the decision on this plan and who have set their sights on the future of their community and their children. This plan involved a great deal of struggle, debate and community division. I would like to report to the House some words from the chairperson of the Doomadgee Community Justice Group, Aunty Clara Foster, who has described the hard work and commitment of the group and others in the community in delivering the plan. She said yesterday that the community justice group was very happy to have had the support and assistance of the government. She said that a lot of people would find it difficult to adjust to the new rules but that the community had the police officers from the Queensland Police Service standing by to ensure that people abide by the rules. Her final words were— Through God's grace, this will work out for the better of our community. The young children who are our future leaders in this community deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to grow up. In the next eight to 10 weeks the Doomadgee plan will be gazetted and regulations will be developed. The justice group, in partnership with the Liquor Licensing Division and my department, will put the ground work in place to implement the new rules. The federal member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, attended the meetings in Doomadgee over the last two days. I understand that the part he played was extremely divisive. He took the side of the drinkers and stridently denounced any forms of control over alcohol. I am informed that his attitude towards the indigenous women who courageously advocated for the alcohol restrictions was offensive in the extreme and a disgraceful reflection on the standing of a representative of 1214 Ministerial Statement 3 Apr 2003 the federal parliament. Fortunately, Doomadgee's state MP, Tony McGrady, is totally supportive of this community's desire to reduce the unacceptable levels of alcoholism and violence.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Fire Ants Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.08 a.m.): The war against the fire ant moves up another notch today with a campaign enlisting the support of families and of primary school children. The Fire Ant Control Centre's community engagement unit will start delivering ant sampling kits to pupils in 31 state and private schools in Brisbane's southernmost suburbs. The children will then pass the kits on to their parents, who are asked to check their backyards over the weekend and return ant samples to the school. The ant sampling should be undertaken by parents, as the tiny fire ants are extremely aggressive and attack en masse when disturbed, delivering repeated painful burning stings that later develop into pustules. Fire ant field officers will pick up the sampling kits from the schools a week after delivery, and these will be delivered to the Fire Ant Control Centre's scientific services unit to determine the type of ants sampled. By enlisting the help of pupils at these 31 schools the Fire Ant Control Centre aims to reach more than 11,000 families in Coopers Plains, Carinda, Daisy Hill, Eight Mile Plains, Karawatha, Kingston, Kuraby, Macgregor, Rocklea, Runcorn, Salisbury, Slacks Creek, Springwood, Sunnybank, Sunnybank Hills and Woodridge. The program is to be extended to 146 schools reaching more than 46,000 families in the greater Brisbane area. The first four schools to take part in the campaign are Mabel Park State High School at Slacks Creek, the Islamic School of Brisbane at Karawatha, Mayfield's Catholic primary school and the Groves Christian College, both at Kingston. The schools campaign is the latest attempt by the Fire Ant Control Centre to secure community cooperation in the war against the fire ant. The eradication campaign is currently under way at Fisherman Islands and surrounds, south-west and south-east Brisbane, Redlands, Logan, Ipswich and Beaudesert. Whilst the Fire Ant Control Centre is achieving up to 90 per cent of eradication of identified ant infestations, it is often stated that it cannot defeat the South African invader without the help of the community. The schools project builds on the inroads made by the fire ant community watch groups initiative, of which honourable members on the government side and also on the opposition side are a part. I can announce in a further boost to the campaign that a further 80 field officers will join the eradication effort with their two-day induction starting today at the Fire Ant Control Centre. Whilst I am on my feet, I have good news for Queensland. Next Monday is the start of Primary Industries Week, and I will be officially launching Primary Industries Week at the Cotters' Markets in Townsville mall on Sunday, and I certainly hope I will be assisted by the honourable members in the Townsville area as well. The last 12 months have been very difficult for our primary industries sector. They have shown great resilience in a difficult period. We hope that the drought will break as soon as possible and that we can post a strong recovery.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Property Advice; Broking Regulation Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) (Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading) (10.11 a.m.): There is a need for a national approach to regulation of the property investment advisers. I propose to bring a paper recommending national legislative action to the next meeting of the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, MCCA. I have already written to Assistant Treasurer and revenue minister, Helen Coonan, and my state and territory fair trading ministerial colleagues seeking their support. There are three main channels for investment funds: money, such as bank deposits, mortgages, bonds and the like; equity, such as shares and business partnerships; and property. Whereas investment advisers offering advice on how to invest funds in money and equity markets are subject to a thorough licensing regime administered by ASIC, persons purporting to offer advice about property investments are completely unregulated. Currently, anyone at all can set up in business purporting to offer property investment advice, regardless of previous criminal record, qualifications or business practices. 3 Apr 2003 Ministerial Statement 1215

The paper I will present to MCCA will include as a minimum mandatory competencies and a code of conduct backed by a disciplinary regime to punish breaches. The potential to profit through exploitation of the present regulatory gap has been fully realised by the property marketeering industry. The marketeers' strategy centres on investment seminars, variously also described as tax minimisation seminars or retirement planning seminars. Attendees are lulled into a false sense of security with slickly produced and professional looking reports promoting the benefits of property investment. Questionnaires completed by attendees allegedly to assist with personal investment planning are in fact disguised finance applications designed to pre-qualify them for investment mortgages secured by equity in their existing residence. From the prospective investor's point of view, there is nothing whatever to distinguish the marketeer's deceptive presentation from advice offered by a legitimate licensed investment adviser. National regulation is needed as property marketeers formerly operating in the Queensland market have already established themselves in other states where the regulatory environment allows them to continue their activities unchecked. Queensland will also be regulating finance brokers, another group with close ties to marketeers and a vital link in the marketeering chain. The Office of Fair Trading regularly receives complaints about finance brokers—those middlemen helping people obtain loans such as mortgages and other forms of personal loan. It is a big industry and growing all the time. Currently there is no regulation of the industry here and no standards required of brokers. Finance brokers range from fringe operators whose clients include those people unable to get credit from mainstream providers through to reputable businesses whose role it is to put together the best finance package to meet the client's needs. Discussions have already taken place via a working party with industry, including the Finance Brokers Association of Australia, the Mortgage Industry Association, the Professional Lenders Network Association of Australia and consumer stakeholder groups. The preferred option is for a full-blown licensing system which would include disciplinary procedures, possibly qualifications, dispute resolution and a code of conduct.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Emergency Services Advisory Council Hon. M. F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services and Minister Assisting the Premier in North Queensland) (10.15 a.m.): The new Emergency Services Advisory Council, known as ESAC, met on Tuesday, 18 March for the first time. Members may recall that the Emergency Services Legislation Amendment Bill passed in this House last year expanded ESAC's representation from 14 to 16 members. At their first gathering, I had the pleasure of meeting the new members and welcoming back those who were returning for a second time. ESAC has been reporting to the minister since 1998, when my predecessor, Merri Rose, set up this excellent council. I can say to Minister Rose that it has been doing an excellent job since the start, and I am very proud to see the new membership get on with its job once again. The council has been reporting since 1998 on issues relating to the extent to which the delivery of fire, ambulance and other disaster management and emergency services meets community needs. It is a vital piece of the machinery that makes the Department of Emergency Services work so well. ESAC, I am very pleased to say, is again chaired by Eda Beck, a person who lives on the Gold Coast, who brings a great deal of enthusiasm, professionalism and commitment to the job. She has been very ably chairing the former council, which received many issues of concern to emergency services and constantly has provided useful feedback from the community. I look forward to continuing that very useful, productive and rewarding relationship, and I regard ESAC as a very important consultative forum for me as minister. While many members of ESAC have been selected from various organisations and sectors within the community, even from a particular operational service, such as ambulance, fire and SES, their input to this council is as a representative of the community first and foremost. I am very pleased to be able to announce today that we have an Aboriginal representative, the chair of the Palm Island Aboriginal council, as a member of ESAC. We also have a member of a Torres Strait Island Council as a member of that council, ensuring strong indigenous representation. We also have strong regional representation. 1216 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3 Apr 2003

ESAC will use each member's knowledge and experience to provide unqualified advice on issues facing the department. Once again, ESAC will continue to focus on community safety issues. For the past three or four years, there has been a strong emphasis on strengthening community safety initiatives with all operational areas of the department. This needs to continue as well as allowing further opportunities to be considered. The very concept of community safety is changing within our society today—for example, with my department's emphasis on counterterrorism planning. It is also vital that we consolidate the excellent work done to date to further strengthen partnerships with local communities to build safer communities. We are doing that with Neighbourhood Watch, and that is going to be a fantastic venue in most of the members' communities in that regard. As minister, I would like to foster a commitment to partnership with ESAC and I will make every effort to include ESAC members in consultation processes for significant issues across the department, both in a metropolitan regional and rural and remote area. I am sure that the positive working relationship established by the last ESAC can continue to together bring about very positive outcomes for the Queensland community.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT WorkCover Premiums Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (10.19 a.m.): I have stood before this House on many occasions with good news about our workers compensation scheme known as WorkCover Queensland. It seems the news just keeps getting better. This morning I can announce that the average premium rates for employers in Queensland will remain at the lowest of any state in Australia for the next financial year, 2003-04. For the fourth consecutive year under the Beattie Labor government Queensland employers will enjoy the lowest premiums anywhere in Australia. At the average rate of 1.55 per cent, Queensland is significantly lower than the current average New South Wales rate of 2.80 per cent and Victoria on 2.22 per cent. This will be the fourth year at a record low of 1.55 per cent after three successive cuts from the average rate of 2.145 per cent that we inherited when the Beattie Labor government was first elected in 1998. Mr Purcell interjected. Mr NUTTALL: That is exactly right. This will mean a greater competitive advantage to Queensland employers who compete for business Australiawide. All the while WorkCover Queensland continues to offer injured workers among the highest benefits anywhere in Australia and covers more workers every year. WorkCover Queensland was Australia's first publicly owned workers compensation scheme more than 85 years ago and today it is still Australia's only publicly owned, operated and underwritten scheme with the distinguished acclaim as the only fully solvent scheme in the country. While other compensation schemes are in the red, WorkCover Queensland has weathered turbulent world financial markets to again deliver the lowest average premium rates in the country while maintaining higher benefits and full funding. I thank the team at WorkCover, particularly the chairman, Mr Ian Brusasco, and the chief executive officer, Tony Hawkins. Their work has ensured continued benefits for all Queensland employers and workers and will help attract new businesses and investment to this great state.

SUGAR INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.21 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That leave be granted to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Sugar Industry Act 1999. Motion agreed to.

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

Second Reading Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA) (10.22 a.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. 3 Apr 2003 Private Members' Statements 1217

The amendments proposed in this bill to the Sugar Industry Act 1999 deal with a number of changes that are necessary for the current legislation to function in a way that responds to the present needs of the industry. There is a necessity for sugarcane growers to be advised by the millers they supplied earlier that the current act provides reasonable notice. In the event of a mill closure, the current act refers to this in section 82, section 85 and the schedule. The current legislation states— A mill is closed if it permanently stops carrying on the business of crushing cane. It states further— The owner of the mill must immediately give written notice to the minister of the day of the closure. In other words, a mill can cease crushing at any time but in conjunction with agreements, leaving growers vulnerable due to the lead time necessary to plant and propagate a crop, which is in excess of a year. The proposed amendment provides for a period for the notice to be given to enable the growing and milling industry to make other arrangements for the processing of the crop or, in the event of having no viable alternative to milling the crop, a clear determination of options they need to pursue in the future. The second amendment relates to the ministerial direction to Queensland Sugar Ltd to give a price direction for the sale of domestic sugar. Many in the industry believe that this is a necessary change to allow for a more competitive price to be determined for sugar sold at domestic level. Rather than having ministerial intervention in the home market, it is relevant that the Australian market can purchase sugar through Queensland Sugar Ltd governed by the competition of imports that may be considered as an alternative to the purchase of Queensland sugar. There are a number of changes required to the current act. These are to section 24, section 246, section 342, a new section 344 and the schedule. There is a need for the industry to pursue other options other than the manufacture of crystal sugar. Some 85 per cent of the sales of sugar are to export markets and, due to the volatility of that market, substantial fluctuation can affect the return to growers and millers. To foster other uses for this crop, there is a need to provide for exemptions through QSL, the body sugar is vested in, to enable sugar to be diverted into uses that would benefit the sustainability of the crop and a range of products that could be manufactured from it. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my second reading speech into Hansard. Leave granted. The maintenance of the single desk at both domestic and export level has been one of the strengths of the industry and has allowed sugar to be made available to Australian consumers at a price comparable with any in the world. Due to the vagaries of the world market, brought about by highly productive, low labour cost countries like brazil, it is necessary to maintain the single desk seller and provide legislation that will enable other products to be manufactured from sugar cane, including ethanol and plastics. This bill establishes a mechanism for an exemption application to be made to QSL to manufacture products, including sugar, that won't interfere with QSL disposing raw sugar at the best competitive price available. The final issue the bill responds to is the security of payments for growers. The amendments will ensure that growers receive their just entitlement for producing a crop that is manufactured by sugar mills into crystal raw sugar and other products. The amendments proposed will enable the industry to position production in a variety of ways in the market place while providing improved security and understanding to those participating in the industry. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk, adjourned.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Office of Director of Public Prosecutions; Scott Volkers Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): When the former Attorney-General appointed Ms Leanne Clare to be the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland, he said the following— Ms. Clare brings to the position a wealth of experience and legal learnings as well as particular expertise in the handling of prosecutions involving child victims of crime and sexual offences. Ms Clare and Mr Rutledge were found wanting yesterday when the CMC handed down its report into the handling of the dropping of charges against swim coach Scott Volkers. What it shows is that there has been a litany of mistakes and unsatisfactory performance in the Office of Director 1218 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 of Public Prosecutions. They are not my words; they are the words of the CMC in its report which it handed down with regards to this particular matter. Is it any wonder that the people who raised this issue originally, and who caused the matter to go to a circumstance where charges were laid, feel very upset and disgruntled with this particular process? The report says that the DPP and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions can be justly criticised for the way they went about their task. It also says that the process leading to the decision not to prosecute is unsatisfactory. It also concluded that the DPP is responsible for the decision not to prosecute. Quite clearly, the responsibility for this debacle is in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions. It is somewhat ironic and wrong that falling out of this particular report by the CMC the only two people who have been held responsible for anything are two police officers who informed the Courier-Mail of the fact that Mr Volkers was going to be arrested. They are going to be disciplined. Nobody else is going to be held responsible in any way whatsoever. Time expired.

Federal Government, Social Safety Net Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): The federal government is failing the people of Queensland. It is systematically and callously dismantling the social safety net established over decades by all federal Labor governments and by a few progressive coalition governments. The Howard/Costello/Anderson government is undermining programs which deliver social justice and equity to ordinary Australians. It gives tax handouts and relief to the wealthiest and best-resourced sectors of Australian society and penalises those most in need. It is ripping the heart out of Medicare. Bulk-billing is disappearing and families cannot even get in to see their local GP because the federal government refuses to allocate much-needed GP provider numbers. It has short-changed Queensland on housing, stripping more than $170 million from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. Despite increases in funding by this state government, affordable housing is approaching a crisis situation because the federal coalition government does not care about the basic housing needs of ordinary Australians. In education, thousands of Queenslanders are missing out on university places because the federal coalition government will not provide growth funding to tertiary institutes. Howard, Costello and Anderson support wealthy, full fee-paying students ahead of students from working-class families. The Liberal/National coalition has withdrawn funding from disability services. Queensland families have been rescued only because of the commitment and dedication of the state Minister for Disability Services and the state Treasurer. But it is not only the federal coalition government that is failing Queenslanders. So, too, are the coalition members opposite. The National Party opposition and the cross-bench Liberal MPs are failing their constituents by refusing to challenge their federal government mates who have cut funding to health, housing, education and social services. It is about time members opposite got some courage and stood up to their National and Liberal mates in Canberra by demanding that their federal colleagues fund the basic needs of Queenslanders. The Beattie government has increased funding in all these areas every budget and Labor MPs are doing more than our fair share to serve our constituents. It is about time coalition members opposite got some spine and got some ticker and started to challenge their federal coalition government mates to start funding basic services for Queenslanders. Those opposite have failed and their mates have failed! Time expired. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Office of Director of Public Prosecutions; Scott Volkers Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): I refer the Attorney-General to the CMC report into the dropping of charges against swimming coach Scott Volkers by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which included comments by the CMC that mistakes were made and the process was unsatisfactory, and I ask: if the DPP does not act to reinstate the charges or refer the evidence brief to a senior independent criminal lawyer, will he use his powers as Attorney-General, as the state's chief law officer, to refer the evidence brief to a senior criminal lawyer for review and recommendation as to whether a fresh indictment should be brought against Mr Volkers? 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1219

Mr WELFORD: The short answer is no, I will not. The reason for that is that unlike members of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition I will not, and will never, interfere in the independence of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Our government fundamentally believes in upholding the due and proper administration of justice in this state, and that includes an obligation on all agencies of government and the executive to respect the Director of Public Prosecutions Act. That act clearly establishes the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions as an independent statutory office which determines whether prosecutions should proceed. I will not interfere in the independence of that office or in the independent decision making of the Director of Public Prosecutions in any prosecution, whether it be Volkers or anyone else. If I may just clarify something for the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the comments he just made. The issues of so-called mistakes raised in the CMC report go to the process whereby the Director of Public Prosecutions and other officers of that office considered material that had been provided to them. The CMC's report itself is very clear on this issue. Those mistakes do not of themselves bring into question the ultimate decision by the director not to proceed with the prosecution. That issue is not questioned by the CMC and the CMC makes it very clear on two points. Firstly, there is no misconduct or official misconduct of any kind that the CMC has found in relation to the director or her office. Secondly, the report makes it very clear that the CMC has not determined that the decision by the director in relation to this prosecution was either correct or incorrect. That decision has not been determined by the CMC.

Police Budget, Far-Northern Region Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Minister for Police and Corrective Services to a document, which I now table, showing that the Queensland Police Service far-northern region is heading for a budget overrun of $563,000 because he has not had the courage to stand up to the Treasurer and force the Queensland Police Service to find millions of dollars to help the government fund the pay rise it claims to have delivered to police officers, and I ask: what will he tell officers from north Queensland when he addresses them at their annual conference on the Gold Coast later today? And how does he respond to claims from the police officers who handed me this document that he has no ticker, or are far-north Queensland police officers just liars and cowards, too? Mr McGRADY: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. If I was invited to the conference today, which I have not been—but I will be attending—and if I was invited to attend the Police Union delegates I would tell them this: the Beattie government has provided record funding year after year for the Queensland Police Service. I would tell the union conference today that the Beattie government has provided record numbers of police and civilians than any government, in particular any conservative government, has ever provided to them. I would tell the Police Union delegates that we have provided a record budget of $917 million, and the chances are that very soon it will go to a billion dollars a year. I would tell the delegates today, if I was given the opportunity and the chance, that I have invited the union officials from day 1 to meet with me on a monthly basis to discuss any issues. I would also tell the delegates that their leadership has refused point-blank to come in and discuss issues with me. I would further tell the delegates today that time and time again I invite the president and the secretary to come in and discuss these issues, but they fail to do so. I would also tell them that it is quite amazing that the Leader of the Opposition will be addressing the conference tomorrow. I would certainly hope that, as he is now starting to show an interest in the north of the state, we do not go through the situation where an MOU is agreed between the union and the opposition. Let me say this in conclusion: we give a record budget to the police. As I have said before in this House, the Police Service is the same as any other organisation. I suspect the Leader of the Opposition's office does the same thing. It is allocated a budget and at various times it checks whether it is meeting the budget. If its budget appears to be over at the beginning of the year, it takes steps to bring the budget in line. The bottom line is that we have given the Queensland Police Service a record budget year after year.

Smart State, Maryborough Mr REEVES: I refer the Premier to the fact that we often hear that the Smart State is for all Queenslanders. Queenslanders everywhere, particularly in the electorate I represent, are building 1220 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 the Smart State. I ask: can the Premier advise the House why Maryborough is regarded as one of the engine rooms of the Smart State? Mr BEATTIE: I will be delighted to do that. Before I do so, I point out that I was taking notes as the Police Minister made that very valuable contribution to the House. As I will be addressing the Police Union conference shortly, and I will be there with the Minister for Police, I thought the points he made about the budget are very valid and I assure the minister that I will be making them. I thank the minister for helping me write the speech. It was a great contribution. Like regions, towns and cities all over Queensland, Maryborough is building the Smart State and the people of Maryborough are reaping the benefits of Smart State innovation. In fact, Maryborough is keeping the Smart State on track. EDI Rail-Walkers recently won a $60 million contract to build 11 new 4000 class diesel locomotives for QR, which the Minister for Transport announced. That will provide continued work for 40 people and opportunities for local suppliers. The two sensational tilt trains that were built in Maryborough are shining examples of Smart State innovation. Walkers EDI use state-of-the-art technology and engineering ingenuity. The new diesel tilt train has luxury seating and entertainment for every passenger. We are not aware of any other train in the world that has individual in-seat multichannel entertainment—not unlike that found on planes. Tilting technology and the entertainment system are just two of the smart attributes of the Maryborough-built tilt trains. Other features include a sophisticated train management system; four separate engines, four separate transmissions and four alternators with two separate airconditioners in each carriage; reliability; and computerised control of the tilt angle. It is little wonder that tickets for the first northbound journey of the Cairns tilt train sold out in seven minutes. A crop of other enterprises make Maryborough a flagship of the Smart State. The Department of State Development—Tom Barton's department—is assisting firms, including Elliott Ventilation Systems Pty Ltd to produce working prototypes of a new underground ventilation system for use in the mining industry; Notus Energy to develop its wind turbine protection capacity; John and Jennifer McNaughton to gain certification and access to European markets for their retro-fit automotive seating products; Maryborough Slipway Pty Ltd to develop a design variation for boats to meet international standards; TM and SS Pitt Trust to develop an export market plan for braille and tactile communication media products; Duggan Metal Industries Pty Ltd to develop a business and marketing development plan to guide expansion and diversification of the business; Maryborough City Council to develop a business case for the Maryborough marine precinct; and Walkers Pty Ltd for the commercialisation of a mega mulcher for use in the forestry industry. That is the sort of Smart State initiatives that we support. Interestingly, schools in Maryborough are educating our innovators of tomorrow. Maryborough State High School, Aldridge State High School, Maryborough Special School and the Maryborough campus of the Wide Bay Institute of TAFE are part of our senior schools trial. Twenty-one state schools in the Maryborough electorate are benefiting from $130,903 in information and communication technology learning grants. The Smart State? Maryborough is doing it.

Crime and Misconduct Commission Report; Scott Volkers Mr SEENEY: I direct a question to the Minister for Police. I ask: does the minister support the CMC recommendation that two police officers should be the only figures in the whole sorry Volkers mess to face disciplinary action? Mr McGRADY: I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the question. I have a strange view in this place—as opposed to the members opposite—that we have a CMC. In my view, the CMC is the independent umpire. The CMC has made certain recommendations. Those recommendations are now being considered by the Queensland Police Service in conjunction and cooperation with the CMC. I would much prefer to allow due process to take place before I, as the minister, involve myself in any way, shape or form in those deliberations. I reiterate that the CMC is the independent umpire. It has made certain recommendations. Many of those recommendations, which have been referred to in that report, are already now in place. In relation to the recommendation of the two officers who, it is alleged, leaked information to the media, that is something that the commissioner, in cooperation with the CMC, will 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1221 deliberate on. As I said yesterday, I support the Queensland Police Service in everything that it does, providing it is lawful.

Community Cabinet, Townsville Mr RODGERS: I direct a question to the Premier. I ask: is it true that this weekend's community cabinet meeting in the Townsville region contains yet another formal deputation record? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Burdekin for his question. It certainly does. This weekend's 60th community cabinet meeting to be held in Townsville is again another outstanding record for democracy for this government. The community cabinet process just gets better and better. It is democracy at its best. Queenslanders are continuing to turn out for these community cabinets in record numbers. Last month we set a record with 170 formal deputations at the Gold Coast community cabinet. What a short-lived record it turned out to be. For Sunday and Monday's gathering in Townsville and Thuringowa, we have bettered that record with 173 formal deputations. This is the 60th community cabinet that we have held since 1998 and the third in the Townsville region. After that, one would think that numbers might be beginning to wane a little, but they are not. The interest continues to grow and grow. I think that the reason is simple: Queenslanders, be they in Stanthorpe, Cooktown, Mount Isa or inner Brisbane, know that they can come along and we will listen to them and try to resolve their problems. The 173 deputations are stunning, especially following our historic north Queensland sitting of parliament in September last year. It was then that north Queenslanders demonstrated their enthusiasm for participating in the democratic process, with an estimated 8,000 people on hand over the three days of that sitting. So we are delighted with the response. Our first session is at the Northern Beaches Community Recreational Centre, Meranti Street, Deeragun. On Monday, cabinet will meet at the Townsville regional office of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. We are again looking forward to visiting Townsville and listening and responding to the people of north Queensland. We can see why these community cabinets work. The statistics are clear. So far, in the 59 community cabinets that we have held since 1998, there have been 4,990 formal deputations. That means an average of 84.5 formal deputations. This year's formal deputation average is 161. That is nearly double the five-year average. I want to thank the people of Townsville, I want to thank the people of the Gold Coast—and the people of all the other areas where community cabinet has been held—for their enthusiasm and their participation. Since the opposition will not ask me any questions about this Volkers matter, let me make one point really clear. The difference between the opposition and my government is this: we believe in the rule of law and it does not.

General Agreement on Trade in Services Ms LEE LONG: I direct a question to the Premier and Minister for Trade. I note the Premier's ministerial statement on 26 March this year about the General Agreement on Trade in Services in which he said that cabinet endorsed a response to the Commonwealth in respect of its proposed initial offer and that information on that offer was provided in confidence at the request of the Commonwealth, leaving him not at liberty to outline the contents. I ask: when did the Premier know that he would not be at liberty to outline Queensland's submission or table the document? Mr BEATTIE: I have to say to the member for Tablelands—and I thank her for her support—that the last time I saw her she was sitting alone. I know that in politics that is a very interesting position to be in. I congratulate the member on her courage in fighting for what she believes in—even though we did not agree with her. Well done. I have never seen one member sitting alone. I admire the member's courage. In terms of the question that was asked, one of the other things I did say is that, in my view, when the federal government's position has been finally determined, I believe that that should be released publicly. I believe that is very important. Today I put on record my view, and I say this to the Trade Minister, Mark Vaile, with whom I work closely—we do not always agree, but I work closely with Mark Vaile—I think it is imperative that when the position is determined in relation to 1222 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 the free trade agreement with the United States—and any other agreement, for that matter, where a public position is being put—that public position should be released. In terms of our submission—the member and I have been following this almost stage by stage, and I admire the member's commitment to that—I have made it clear that we are about protecting our position, that is, protecting Queensland's services. I have indicated to the member that in areas such as health and education we obviously support a position that protects our service industries. The member would expect me to do that. She would expect the government to do that. When it was considered by cabinet, that was one of the issues that was uppermost in our minds. However, we have to get a balance. The balance is very simple: we have to do everything that we can to access markets overseas. That includes goods and services. We need to have certain exemptions. There needs to be certain qualifications. There needs to be the protection of our industry where possible. But where we have a free trade agreement which has been negotiated by the federal National and Liberal parties, we need to ensure not just protection but also access. We have to remember that the problem for Australia is this: there are only 19.5 million of us. Numerically, we are small. If we are compared to the huge markets of Europe and the NAFTA arrangements in North America with the United States, Canada and Mexico, we can understand why we are small. We are talking about 450 million people in Europe. More countries are coming into the European Union. There are 100 million Mexicans, about 300 million Americans and nearly 30 million Canadians. We are small. We have to export. That is where the jobs are. One in four jobs, that is, 25 per cent, come directly from exports. That is why I am going to New Zealand next week with the biggest delegation ever of business people going overseas. One in five jobs across the state, that is, 20 per cent of Queenslanders, get their jobs— Mrs Lee Long: What is new about that? Mr BEATTIE: Well, we have to continue to grow. We have to access markets. The free trade agreement in Singapore will give us access to that market. We have always had a long-term free trade agreement with New Zealand. The American arrangement is an important one, provided that we safeguard key industries. Mr SPEAKER: I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from St James Practical Education School in the electorate of Brisbane Central.

Nurses Ms BARRY: We all know how valuable are our nurses, and I ask: could the Minister for Health advise how the state government's nursing recruitment initiatives are progressing and what the federal government has done in relation to increasing the number of nursing students? Mr Purcell: Good question. Mrs EDMOND: It is a good question, and the member for Aspley is one member in this House who knows that our most valuable resource in our health system is our nurses. We know that there is a shortage world wide of nurses. I have spoken before in this House about my ministerial task force and what it has been doing to address the shortage of nurses. I am delighted to report that our investment in these initiatives has been money well spent. This year's figures show an increase in the numbers of people choosing nursing as their first preference in 2003 with a rise of around 12 per cent, which is a great result particularly as it comes on top of an increase last year of 19 per cent. So it is a major boost. Sadly, I do not have the same good news for the federal government's story. The University of Queensland has been lobbying the federal Education Minister for 150 nursing places for a new school of nursing on the Ipswich campus. This course has been specifically designed to meet the recent recommendation from the federal government's own national review of nursing education with an increase in its clinical base. I highlight that recommendation 33 of the report is for Commonwealth funding for additional undergraduate university places. We would imagine that the federal minister would be responding positively to this proposal. We would think that he would jump at this opportunity, particularly in Queensland where we have a recognised shortage of undergraduate places funded by the federal government. I was amazed, as indeed will be everyone, that Minister Nelson was unwilling to come to the party. Once again, the evidence of the needs of Queenslanders and indeed the potential students from the Ipswich area are being ignored. 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1223

The Beattie government has worked hard, successfully promoting nursing as an attractive career option. We have turned around the decline in people wanting to do nursing and now we do not have enough places to meet demand. We actually had almost twice as many applicants as we have places for this year and the federal government refused to fund any additional places. It is about time those opposite who sit and whinge about the shortage of nurses lobbied their colleagues in Canberra to ensure that we get enough nursing places to train our nurses for the future. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE General Agreement on Trade in Services Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (10.53 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. In relation to the question asked by the member for Tablelands, my office has checked and I am advised—and I do this as a matter of interest—that Mark Vaile has indicated that he will publicly release Australia's proposed negotiating position once it has been lodged with the World Trade Organisation. That was due to occur on 31 March 2003. So he has indicated he will be releasing it publicly.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed.

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions; Scott Volkers Mr JOHNSON: I refer to the Volkers case report by the Crime and Misconduct Commission. I note that the report has concluded that the process leading to the decision not to continue with the charges against Volkers was unsatisfactory. I ask: is the Minister for Police aware of widespread concern in the Police Service that this case highlights the incompetence and serial inefficiencies of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which is frustrating the hard work of police officers trying to bring offenders to justice? Does the minister support the Police Service, or does he agree with the Attorney-General that, even if the Director of Public Prosecutions is incompetent, there is nothing he will do? Mr McGRADY: I refer the shadow minister to the answer given by the Attorney-General to the question from the Leader of the Opposition. Let me make my position perfectly clear. I understand what the opposition is trying to do. I fully support the Queensland Police Service and the men and women who work for the Queensland Police Service, the people who day after day put their lives at risk. But the report makes it perfectly clear that there was no political interference whatsoever in the recent case we are discussing. Time and again, the issue is quite clear. It has been answered by the Attorney-General. The question is: do I support the Queensland Police Service? The answer is yes. As the minister, I do not direct the commissioner or senior officers as to what charges should or should not be laid. We are turning the clock back. If members opposite had their way, we would be back to the pre-Fitzgerald days. I am not prepared to belong to a team or a government that wants to wind the clock back. I fully support the statement made by the Attorney-General this morning in reply to the question from the Leader of the Opposition.

Land Valuations, Gold Coast Mr POOLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources. I have many constituents concerned by the perceived effect of their unimproved valuations upon the rates levied by the Gold Coast City Council, and I ask: can the minister explain to the House the effect unimproved valuations have on council rates? Mr ROBERTSON: As the Minister for Local Government and Planning said yesterday, there need not be a direct linkage between land valuations and council rates. Valuations are just one factor that can be taken into account by councils when deciding what rates they will set. Councils can decide, for example, not to increase rates at all. Councils also have many options available to them to average rates over a two- or three-year period, to cap or limit rate increases by a set percentage or to introduce a differential rating system. One must question, therefore, why the Gold Coast City Council intends to go through the charade of hiring private valuers to challenge the unimproved land valuations provided by my department. This is just a smokescreen. It is 1224 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 unfortunate but understandable that the council is seeking, less than 12 months out from the next local government elections, to shift the blame for any looming council rate increases on to the state government. What it reflects, however, is the Gold Coast City Council's own failure to face up to its own responsibilities and failure to explore all the options available to it to implement a fairer rating system for its residents. The council complains about the extent of valuation increases on the Gold Coast. Of course, the Gold Coast City Council has been an avid supporter of development on the coast in recent years. Consequently, this fervent development has led to sometimes massive increases in the value of land. It should come as no surprise that the real estate boom has resulted in substantial increases in the value of property on the Gold Coast, increases reflected in the government's land valuation notices. At the recent Gold Coast community cabinet I met with several elderly Tugun residents, pensioners and self-funded retirees who were extremely concerned about their increasing valuations and the way in which the council uses them to calculate rates. I am advised that around 70 per cent of Gold Coast city ratepayers are on the minimum rate. This means that all these constituents are paying the same amount of rates no matter what the value of their land. Unfortunately for those elderly residents who have lived on the coast for 40 or 50 years, they appear to be subsidising the rest of the ratepayers, including interstate and international investors who own high rise units on the coast. One would be forgiven for thinking that the council would rather look after the silver-tailed penthouse owners from the south at the expense of the income poor, elderly residents who have lived there for decades. I applaud those residents who are calling for the Gold Coast City Council to reform its rating policies. The council needs to look at all options available to make the system fairer for all residents who have been caught up in increased development and subsequent increases in land values. It does have the powers under the Local Government Act to allow rate concessions when individuals or groups within the community deserve relief in the payment of rates, such as those experiencing hardship. Gold Coast residents would be better served by a city council that is focusing its energy on rating reform than by one that is trying to shift the blame to the state government by shooting the valuations messenger. Bombastic and headline-seeking calls by some councillors to stand up to the Queensland government should be ignored by the people of the Gold Coast, who instead should call for their council to sit down and do the hard work to come up with a fairer rating system.

Ambulance Levy Mr WELLINGTON: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. As a result of his decision to impose a new charge on many Queenslanders to raise money for the Queensland Ambulance Service, I ask: will the minister, in accordance with section 43 of the Statutory Instruments Act, prepare a regulatory impact statement on the impact the proposed new fee will have on our community? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the member for the question. This matter has gone before cabinet. It has had probably the widest degree of consultation of any matter in the area of emergency services. The member for Mirani thinks that is a matter of mirth, as he does most ambulance matters. Nearly two years ago, in the first budget of the second term of the Beattie government, the Treasurer indicated that we would be investigating where the subscription scheme was going in the future. We did the investigation over a period of years. The member might remember that we first produced a document—people right across Queensland were canvassed—relating to the possibility of the Queensland Ambulance Subscription Scheme going to private health insurance companies. We canvassed in every region, including the Sunshine Coast region. Over a few months last year, from June to October or November, not only did we get very few expressions of interest with regard to private health insurance companies running the Queensland Ambulance Subscription Scheme; we found that there were no suitable offers. None of them could come up with the goods in terms of running a Queensland ambulance subscription scheme that delivered for the whole of Queensland—for the rural and remote areas of the electorate of Nicklin as well. 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1225

Mr WELLINGTON: I rise to a point of order. The question is not in relation to the past. It is in relation to the current proposal and whether the current proposal will undertake a regulatory impact statement. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr REYNOLDS: Can I keep going with what I was saying? After looking to the private health insurance companies we looked at land rates and at the other one. It is up to me as minister to determine whether a regulatory impact statement is required. This matter has been the subject of consultation and discussion. I have been to every region of Queensland at least three times. I have travelled the length and breadth of Queensland. I have met with staff and ambulance paramedics. Ambulance paramedics support this scheme. People want us to get on with the job. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Tourism Ms BOYLE: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading, and I ask: in light of the current global uncertainty, can the minister advise what strategies are in place to insulate the Queensland tourism industry from the fallout from the Iraq conflict? Ms ROSE: I thank the member for the question. The Queensland government, through Tourism Queensland, is already working hard to insulate Queensland's tourism industry from the impact of the Iraq conflict and the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak. The war, current global uncertainty and the outbreak of the deadly pneumonia in Asia have already had an adverse impact on our international markets. Qantas has announced cutbacks of flights into Australia and Queensland. Many Asians are reluctant to travel, and we are already seeing the impact on Australia. While we are closely monitoring the international situation and will redirect our resources accordingly, we have stepped up domestic activity. During times of global uncertainty, people tend to choose a destination closer to home. But we are not waiting for things to happen; we are out there in the market making them happen. We know from the success of the Make Time strategy in the wake of 11 September and the Ansett collapse that domestic tourism can be the industry's saviour. Queensland is spending $8 million on domestic campaigns in the first half of this year. We want to take advantage of the availability of aircraft withdrawn from other routes and of bargain deals. We want people to get in their cars and on our trains and explore Queensland. We have already conducted campaigns to sell the outback and south-east Queensland. The focus will also cover all other tourism regions. We recently launched the fifth edition of our South East Queensland Country Touring Guide, which is being promoted with a $130,000 advertising campaign. The $1 million Get On Up campaign, launched this week, is part of the new push to convince Australians to holiday in tropical north Queensland. This year we have 85 operators on board—32 more than last year. There is a 90 per cent increase in TNQ industry cooperative marketing dollars, allowing us to promote even more of the holiday experiences on offer in tropical north Queensland. We are offering not just reef and rainforest experiences but also fishing adventures, Dunk, Green and Franklin islands, Undarra Lava Tubes, ballooning and white water rafting. There is something for everyone. The campaign, which runs until 30 June, includes television advertising in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, regional Victoria and regional New South Wales, print advertising, consumer brochures, Internet, billboards, promotions and public relations activities. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Maroochydore, I welcome to the public gallery year 7 students and teachers from Sunshine Coast Grammar School in the electorate of Maroochydore.

Hervey Bay Hospital, Emergency Department Wait Times Miss SIMPSON: Welcome to our guests. My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I table Hervey Bay Hospital emergency department wait times for the December quarter 2002-03. I also note that Maryborough residents are forced to utilise this department because the government has severely downgraded their hospital, particularly the emergency department. One in 10 category 1, or resuscitation, patients are not seen within the required time, which is 1226 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 immediately. This is the worst rate in the state. I also note that one in five category 2, or emergency, patients are not seen within the required 10 minutes. These people need hospital emergency treatment, not GP treatment. I ask: will the minister ensure emergency patients are no longer compromised by instead properly funding Maryborough's nearest emergency department? Mrs EDMOND: I am delighted to get that question because it allows me to do a number of things. First, I lay on the table of the House a document outlining the achievements we have made in Maryborough in health. The document is so long I could not possibly fit the contents of it into my answer. I am delighted to be able to do that. It includes the announcement the Premier made today about our targeted ophthalmology services in Maryborough. Let us look at Hervey Bay. For the June quarter last year in Hervey Bay 100 per cent of category 1 patients were seen straight away. It is very difficult to improve on 100 per cent. Perhaps we should aim for 110 per cent. Nearly 80 per cent of category 2 patients were seen within 10 minutes. That is a remarkable achievement, particularly considering that 84 per cent of those presenting—the vast bulk of people—at Hervey Bay Hospital are patients in categories 4 and 5. Those people would really be better off going to see a GP. Eighty-four per cent—one of the highest percentages in the state—of GP patients are being seen. It is also particularly impressive when Hervey Bay has been dealing with those increases. Why are we not surprised that the coalition is out bagging the Fraser Coast health services again? Could it be because it just cannot help interfering? The local media has acknowledged that the Fraser Coast district has one of the highest per capita health budgets of anywhere in Australia. This is true, but it is equally true that we have to ensure that funding is spent appropriately to get the best efficiency we can. The opposition member for Maroochydore has been chastised for her inflammatory and ill-considered statements re the Fraser Coast health district and told to butt out. We can expect in the Maryborough by-election more hysterical scaremongering. I call on the member for Maroochydore to show that she can be a responsible member, to show that she can withhold for a few weeks from trying to scare old and vulnerable people and recognise the great work done by Hervey Bay in seeing that 100 per cent of the time their most serious emergency patients are seen in time.

Ports Corporation of Queensland Ms JARRATT: My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. I understand that the Ports Corporation of Queensland is responsible for the operation and management of eight of Queensland's smaller ports, and I ask: can the minister please advise the House what contribution these ports make to Queensland? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question and for her interest in regional economic development and employment. I am pleased to advise that a new study commissioned by the Ports Corporation of Queensland and done in conjunction with the economic research group EconSearch Pty Ltd has determined that the Ports Corporation is among the biggest contributors to Queensland's regional and rural economy. The economic impact study, which I will table when I have finished my answer, has estimated that directly and indirectly the Ports Corporation of Queensland is responsible for 3,200 jobs in regional Queensland and contributes over $720 million to the regional economies—$375 million in direct economic benefit and $345 million in flow-on benefits to those regional economies. These eight ports handle commodities such as coal, sugar, molasses, silica sand, bauxite, zinc, live cattle and general cargo. To give a breakdown, the report indicates, for example, that at Hay Point in central Queensland, which is mainly a coal port, the economic benefit is $438 million and there are 1,952 direct and indirect jobs. At Abbot Point the economic benefit is $102 million, creating 430 direct and indirect jobs. At Lucinda there is a $20 million economic benefit creating 91 direct and indirect jobs. At Mourilyan there is a $14 million economic benefit creating 63 direct and indirect jobs. At Cape Flattery there is a $13 million economic benefit creating 68 direct and indirect jobs. At Weipa there is a $70 million economic benefit creating 319 direct and indirect jobs. At Karumba there is a $48 million economic benefit generating 223 direct and indirect jobs, and on Thursday Island there is a $15 million economic benefit creating 66 direct and indirect jobs. 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1227

This is a very strong example of how our government owned corporations like PCQ and the other ports, and Queensland Rail in the Transport portfolio, are making a major contribution to the development of regional economies up and down the length and breadth of Queensland. Mrs Edmond: From the Torres to the Tweed. Mr BREDHAUER: From the Torres to the Tweed, as the Minister for Health says. Not only are they generating economic benefits; they are generating jobs—real jobs for Queenslanders, which is one of the primary focuses of the Beattie government.

Tripcony/Hibiscus Caravan Park Mrs SHELDON: My question is directed to the Minister for Natural Resources. I ask: have the minister or his departmental officers received any approaches from developers to buy out the lease and purchase the land on the site of the Tripcony/Hibiscus Caravan Park in Caloundra? If so, what form have those approaches taken and by whom were they made? In the public interest, would the minister detail the results of those discussions? Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourable member for the question. I do not have any details to hand that I can assist the member with, but I undertake to provide that information to her by the end of the week.

Seniors Card Mr McNAMARA: My question is directed to the Minister for Seniors, and I ask: can the minister please inform the House of the benefits enjoyed by Seniors Card holders in Maryborough and Harvey Bay? Ms SPENCE: I thank the member for Hervey Bay for the question. Indeed, the member for Hervey Bay regularly beats a path to my door to bring to my attention the concerns of seniors in his electorate. It will be no surprise that this member perhaps more than any other member of parliament understands the concerns of Queensland seniors because he represents the oldest electorate in Queensland. Some 12.4 per cent of Queensland's population is aged over 65 years, but in Hervey Bay 20.7 per cent of the population is aged over 65 years, officially making it one of the oldest populations. In Maryborough the percentage is 16.3 per cent. That means the Maryborough area has 5,133 seniors. Seniors in Queensland know that it has been Labor governments who have understood their needs, appreciated their contribution to our community and understood that every dollar counts in retirement years. That is why it was a Labor government in 1990 that introduced the Seniors Card. Today we can be proud of the fact that Queensland has one of the most generous Seniors Card entitlement schemes in Australia. Seniors in Queensland have concessions on electricity and motor vehicle and boat registration. They have concessions on public transport. They have concessions on health services, including dental services, and free ambulance. In fact, this year our budget for concessions will be close to $430 million. But that is not all; there is more. Queensland is the only state that has a seniors business card discount directory, a card that is available to all seniors aged over 60 years, regardless of their income. In Maryborough there are more than 73 businesses which offer discounts and services to seniors as part of the seniors discount card scheme. I would like to mention a few of those businesses because we should be grateful to them as they are making the lives of seniors a lot more affordable. They include: Brumby's bakeries, Beaurepaires, Hourglass Jewellers, Lowes, Maryborough Health Foods, Muddy Waters Cafe, O'Donoghues Pharmacy, Oceana Seafood, Rick's Shoe Repairs and Red Rooster. I would encourage Maryborough seniors to patronise these businesses which value them and support them and get a copy of our new central Queensland seniors business discount card directory.

Queensland Ambulance Service Mr MALONE: My question is directed to the Minister for Emergency Services. I have here part of a safety kit for the Queensland Ambulance Service which consists of a disposable pair of overalls, masks and booties which are available from good local hardware stores. I also table a memo to the staff from the QAS head office dated 6 January this year. I believe this comprises a 1228 Questions Without Notice 3 Apr 2003 total safety response to terrorism training for the Queensland Ambulance Service. Alternatively, the New South Wales government, a Labor government, has forked out $17.3 million which also provides 700 protective equipment suits, 240 of these are for frontline officers— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I remind the member about long questions. Mr MALONE:—so they can treat contaminated patients at the scene. I ask: when will Queensland officers receive proper equipment and training to handle terrorist attacks? Mr REYNOLDS: I thank the alternative minister for emergency services in this House for his question. First of all, he presumably received that from the Mackay region. He indicated that he got it from somewhere. The Mackay region is an outstanding region of this state. Mr Malone interjected. Mr REYNOLDS: I want to say that. That applies to the electorates of Mirani, Whitsunday and Mackay. In terms of ambulance services, this government is going to be doing more for the Mackay-Whitsunday area than any other government in the history of Queensland. Let me get on to what the member asked about. The Queensland government is as prepared for terrorism strikes in terms of planning, in terms of crisis management and in terms of consequent management than any other state of Australia. The lead agency is of course the Queensland Police Service, and every member on this side of the House and Labor members on that side of the House would know that the Queensland Police Service is doing an absolutely magnificent job. Let us look at, for example, a chemical emergency. As the member well knows, because he has had an inspection of our academy, our firefighters are our first-line responders in terms of a terrorism attack. As the first-line responders, they are the ones who go in first in terms of CBR—chemical, biological and radioactive—attacks. I am not going to say today that the operational matter that the member has brought up with me is something that I will address in the House today, but if the member would like to write to me and give me his concerns I will get a letter of response back to him. Our frontline operation is our firefighters. It is our firefighters who are right in there on the scene. In terms of the Queensland Ambulance Service, we have added an extra $100 million to our budget. Unlike the previous government, we have a duty of care and we exercise that duty of care in a way that the coalition never did. In fact, the coalition government in its attempts to look at the Ambulance Service was a disgrace. I will look at what the member has said today, but our frontline operation of the firefighters and the police and the ambulance officers who treat people later will work in a very cohesive way. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Kallangur, I welcome to the public gallery a second group of students from Sunshine Coast Grammar, which incidentally includes a young man by the name of Billy Johnson who is the nephew of the member for Nudgee. Welcome.

Cole Royal Commission; Comments by Member for Caloundra Mr HAYWARD: I refer the Minister for Employment and Training to critical statements made by the member for Caloundra about his department's investigation of the Sunshine Coast Regional Group Apprentices Ltd, and I ask: has what the MP for Caloundra said been vindicated by the report of the Cole royal commission? Mr FOLEY: No. The Cole royal commission demonstrates that the critical comments by the member for Caloundra were wrong, wrong, wrong. I will table chapter 11 of the Cole royal commission dealing with the Sunshine Coast Regional Group Apprentices Ltd and draw to the attention of the House what the document says in certain important respects. I make it clear to the House that of the various criticisms made of the Cole royal commission no-one to my knowledge has yet accused it of being a stooge of the Labor movement. So, in that context, let me turn to paragraph 162 of the Cole royal commission where it noted— As a result of the Review, the Department did refer various matters concerning SCRAGL to: (a) the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC); (b) the ATO; (c) the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission; and (d) the Queensland Police Service. 3 Apr 2003 Questions Without Notice 1229

The Cole royal commission went on to say at paragraph 171— The Department rightly considered that it did not itself have the power to take action against the individuals involved in the maladministration of SCRAGL. ASIC— and ASIC is an agency which reports to the Liberal federal government— did have that power and it is difficult to see why in the circumstances it would have declined to use it, in the face of conduct that completely disregarded the law ASIC is required to administer. I stand by the actions taken by my departmental officers. I congratulate them for the comprehensive action that they took, as indeed I told the House on 31 October last year. For the sake of making a political point, the member for Caloundra showed scant regard for the futures of 670 apprentices and trainees and 40 staff involved in the organisation. She should apologise if she wants to show any responsibility. Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. The minister is misrepresenting the issue. Would he also like to comment on the chairman and one of the other major directors of that company, about whom I asked questions, who were found— Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, I have not finished yet. Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Mrs SHELDON: He is accusing me of misleading this parliament. He is. Mr SPEAKER: That is no point of order. The member will resume her seat. Mr FOLEY: Again, the member for Caloundra is seeking to use parliament to mount an attack. She should apologise for being wrong. Let me pay tribute to the new board and staff of the former SCRAGL who are continuing to provide employment and training opportunities. I wish them well for their future operations under its new name, Acclaim Apprentices and Trainees.

Office of Director of Public Prosecutions; Scott Volkers Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I refer the Attorney-General to the fact that both the Minister for Police and he have indicated today that they have no intention of becoming involved in the flawed handling of investigations into allegations against Mr Volkers. I ask: having turned their backs on these girls, what other legal options are available to these victims of alleged abuse to have justice done? Mr WELFORD: I must first reject what I regard as a scandalous suggestion in that question that I or anyone in the government has turned our backs on anyone. There have been few Attorneys in the history of our state who have done more to address the issue of justice for child victims of sex offences than I have. Indeed, the appeals I have conducted strategically on a number of matters over the last two years have been specifically directed at cases of extreme violence and cases of sex offences against children. There is already before this House, as members know, legislation to further strengthen the protection for children from sexual assault. So I reject utterly the assertion made by the questioner in that question. The proper manner for this to be dealt with by all members is for due process to follow its course. The evidence that was gathered by the police was briefed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and that office exercised, as it properly should under the law, its independent discretion to determine whether that evidence justified the matter being taken to court. That decision was made properly in accordance with the discretion that the Director of Public Prosecutions has. If there is further evidence in relation to this or any other matter on which the police wish to brief the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Director of Public Prosecutions will again assess that evidence on its merits and determine, in accordance with the published prosecution policy of the state, whether there are reasonable prospects of a conviction being obtained and that it is in the public interest for the prosecution to proceed. That is the proper process for any evidence or allegations of offences to be considered. It is not the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to act as an agent of those who make allegations. It is not the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to act as an agent of the opposition in its attempts to scandalise this issue. It is not the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to act solely as an agent of the police investigators. The DPP has an independent discretion to exercise and I expect that discretion to be exercised accordingly. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. 1230 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

CIVIL LIABILITY BILL Second Reading Resumed from 2 April (see p. 1166). Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.30 a.m.), continuing: On behalf of many, I welcome protections to be afforded people performing duties for entities that enhance public safety. In particular, the bill cites the administering of first aid. The conditions of clause 1 are cumulative, which increases the protection to an injured party but protects those who come to the aid of a sick or injured party in a demonstration of genuine concern. We are becoming a society who will walk past a person collapsed on the ground for fear of getting involved. The spectre of those compassionate enough to actually stop to offer assistance being exposed to potential liability would only accelerate that hardening of community attitudes. In relation to local councils and state government departments responsibilities and vulnerabilities to being sued, the explanatory notes state— Clause 37 reinstates the defence of non-feasance for road authorities except in circumstances where the authority has knowledge of the specific risk prior to the incident. The effect will be that a highway authority will be able to make use of the protections and immunities that it was considered to have at law before the judgments of the High Court in Brodie v. Singleton Shire Council and Ghantous v. Hawkesbury City Council. The law as it stood before those judgments will be effectively reinstated for all incidents that occur between (and including) the date of commencement and 31 December 2005. However, in circumstances where the authority had knowledge, the section will not apply and the authority will be subject to the law as otherwise modified by the Act. Whilst I understand that the judgments referred to did open councils to litigation that they could not easily defend—indeed, there were instances where councils would not even have knowledge of potential risks—councils should not be held responsible. But I am pleased that in the explanation given to us for clause 37 it is clear that where councils are advised of risks, particularly after heavy inundation or perhaps a road incident, once the council is advised it is responsible to respond positively to that risk factor. I believe that based on the explanations that have been given for clause 37 there is a good balance in respect of councils not being able to avoid their responsibilities to have good maintenance programs, in particular for roads, bridges and other structures; it balances their opportunity and obligation to have good maintenance programs versus their budget constraints and also the fact that they are not going to be aware of all of the risks at the moment that the risk occurs. This bill reintroduces responsible protection for volunteers. I again use the term 'reintroduces' in the context that not too many years ago a recipient of assistance from an individual volunteer, or a person who benefited from the services of an organisation such as Meals on Wheels, Lions, Rotary, Apex, the hospital auxiliary—in all of our electorates the list is endless—would not even consider suing the individual, the volunteer or group for work that was done. These clauses reflect the spirit of volunteering. I have to put on the record my thanks to the thousands of volunteers in my electorate for the work that they do. The prospect that giving up their time to assist others could mean that they are vulnerable to being sued for an act, accident or omission that was genuinely made is untenable. I believe the community will also welcome the exclusions contained in the bill from claiming damages as a result of criminal behaviour. Most members of the community were outraged when awards were made to the perpetrators of crime or the family of the perpetrator. The member for Nanango attempted to introduce this same concept in her private member's bill recently, which this House rejected. But the bill of the member for Nanango rightly reflected community attitudes, and it is disappointing that at the time the bill did not succeed. I wish to cite the minister's remarks in his second reading speech that if the insurance industry is being honest it will respond positively to this legislation. I call on the insurance industry to respond in good faith to changes that governments in Australia have made to the detriment, in some instances, of genuine claimants. There will be instances where people who have had quite serious injuries will be disadvantaged by this legislation. Importantly, there will be people in great need who may have claims at the smaller end of the scale who will also be disadvantaged. I also call on the ACCC to do its job to ensure premiums reflect the real risk carried by insurers and reinsurers rather than increased profit margins in an almost monopolistic area. I also wish to find out from the minister whether he intends to review the impacts of this legislation in a year or two to ensure that no unintended negative consequences occur as a result of this legislation. It is a good thing to review the impacts of the legislation, particularly in an area of damages, and I look forward to the minister's response. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1231

Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (11.37 a.m.): The crisis in public liability insurance and related insurance areas, such as professional indemnity insurance, all date back to the worst case of corporate fraud and avarice, the collapse of HIH Insurance. At a time when public confidence in the private sector and major corporations and their executives and boards is at an all-time low, we need to consider how the governments and parliaments of Australia can most speedily and effectively restore that confidence. The measure before the House will assist that process. It will also restore commonsense and balance to the legal issues relating to negligence and liability. It follows on the measures the Queensland government and the Attorney-General introduced last year, such as the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act and the scheme to provide insurance coverage for community groups. None of these measures would have been necessary had the directors and executives of HIH Insurance behaved in a responsible legal way. The fact that they have behaved in a grossly corrupt, fraudulent and illegal way has caused the crisis in insurance across-the-board in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia. As always happens, the real victims of this crisis are those least able to deal with it, and that includes dozens of organisations in my electorate and community—the Neighbourhood Watch groups that could not sing Christmas carols in the park; the sharp rise in premiums for groups like the Logan West Golden Years Club; a recent peace rally in Logan Central, which had to find thousands of dollars in insurance before it could engage in its part of the democratic process. The crisis has hit particularly hard the voluntary, charitable, church, community and sporting groups that our communities depend upon. It has also hit hard professional groups, including professional groups with exemplary records and which have not been the subject of extravagant claims for compensation or damages. Sadly, the professional groups hit hardest of all are vital in our community—groups such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists and medical specialists. There are two issues at stake here. Firstly, there is the issue of corporate fraud and extravagance. Secondly, there is the issue of a culture that has resulted in an unsustainable number of claims for negligence and unjustifiable levels of compensation being awarded. The first issue, that of corporate behaviour, is one for the federal government, which has been found wanting in every possible way. It did not see the problems coming. That defies belief, given the magnitude of the HIH collapse. When the problem was revealed, its response was both tardy and wholly inadequate. On the other hand, the states, which have limited regulatory authority in regard to insurance, have worked together to minimise the fallout and to provide the maximum possible support and protection for those groups and individuals least able to manage the fallout themselves. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority—APRA—failed in every way to protect policy holders and investors. But there was an even greater failure on the part of the would-be Prime Minister of Australia, the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello. When major problems in his portfolio arise, the Treasurer is always missing in action. He has left this major national issue and community issue to a junior minister, Senator Coonan. The laissez faire attitude of the Liberal Party right was on display in the handling of the HIH crisis. They care nothing about those who are damaged and have their careers and businesses ruined and nothing about the guilty parties. The guilty parties in the HIH collapse are many, but the former head of HIH, Ray Williams, is surely foremost among them. This is the man who used to travel to London first class, book the adjoining seat at HIH's expense for his briefcase and then try to claim frequent flier points for the briefcase. His many other extravagances have been chronicled. It would suffice to say that they are enough to make any decent person physically ill. Ray Williams continued with his gross abuse of the funds of policy holders and shareholders while HIH was going down the gurgler and even arranged for massive payouts to be made to his cronies just hours before HIH's final and total collapse. Rodney Adler, whose sale of FAI Insurance to HIH helped cause the final collapse, was given a $4.3 million payout in 1998 from HIH and, after he sold FAI, was given a $480,000 a year consultancy to HIH. The infamous Brad Cooper had his hand in the ever-diminishing HIH piggy bank right up to the very end. The behaviour of Williams, Adler, Cooper and others has wrecked the lives and the businesses of thousands of decent Australians and put at risk the professional careers of tens of thousands of professional men and women. The Commonwealth's response has been to help the doctors, because a collapse in medical services would have resulted had it not done so. It has left the other professions and the not-for- profit sector to fend for themselves. Let me give this House an example of how the federal government favoured doctors over other medical professionals. Because the AMA is a first-class lobby group, the insurance interests of doctors were adopted totally by the federal government. We in this House saw them in action last year in a political campaign that they ran from doctors' 1232 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 surgeries. On listening to medical debates in this House, in my view attention is overly focused on doctors as if they are the only suppliers of health. It is this oversight that sees many small business physiotherapists left legally stranded because of the HIH collapse. The Australian Physiotherapy Association asked its members to take out insurance through Aeon, who was insured, in turn, with HIH. Yesterday morning I spoke with a physiotherapist. She works 12 hours a day, six days a week and has done so for 10 years. She borrowed heavily to establish her business and each year paid her insurance premium. I understand that late last year she was served with an injury writ issued under direction by a no win, no pay law firm for an incident that occurred about five years ago. She relaxed, thinking that her insurance covered the situation only to discover that her insurance was with HIH and that she was out of time for the claims that HIH would recognise. She now finds herself in a position where she has been left legally stranded. She has rising legal costs that she must pay for herself. At the same time, the other elements of the medical profession—the doctors—can sit back because the federal government has totally underwritten their claims. Given that the federal government had the regulatory responsibility and was asleep at the wheel, I believe that it has a moral responsibility to stop this physiotherapist and others like her from going bankrupt. I fear that many small business operators may be in the same position as this person and the full extent of business bankruptcy and exposure has not yet been uncovered as a result of the lax regulatory oversight of the insurance industry. Fortunately, this state and other states have stepped in to ensure not-for-profit groups can have affordable insurance cover. I think that the government should be congratulated on at least making an honest attempt to face up to this problem. But this bill, through the commendable efforts of the Attorney-General, takes the support by this state an important step further. It reforms the law of civil liability for negligent acts and it will prevent this state going down the same slippery slope as the United States has gone in which compensation and other claims have reached greedy, unrealistic levels. Whilst these reforms are necessary and would probably have happened even if HIH had not collapsed, it is deeply regrettable that thousands of Australians who have had their lives, savings, careers and businesses ruined have little or no redress. That is the federal government's problem and not one of this state's making. For years, the federal government has wanted to assume total control over corporate law, including insurance law. Now that it has that control, it should be doing more to provide redress for those decent, hardworking Australians who have been ruined or badly hurt by the HIH collapse and the fallout across the insurance industry. I believe that the standing of corporate Australia will not be restored until the corporate crooks are brought to book for their crimes. I fail to differentiate between white collar corporate crime and other thieves. They should have their property confiscated and sold off to help the victims of their crimes. Why should white-collar corporate crooks be allowed to drive around Double Bay in a Mercedes or a Rolls Royce whilst small business victims are forced to sell the roof over their heads to clear their debt? Upper-class thieves should be treated no differently from other elements of the criminal class. Our business and corporate sectors have collectively been damaged in the eyes of the community by the gross obscenity of a minority—a grubby, greedy minority. So I call on the federal government to give APRA more powers, more teeth, more funds and more resources to do its job. I also call on the federal Treasurer to stop passing the buck to lesser inadequate colleagues and to provide the kind of leadership that the community and every decent business person expects him to provide. The events that have made this very sound bill necessary are a blight on corporate Australia and on the Howard government. The bill provides a more stable and secure future in the area of negligence and negligence indemnity cover for those businesses and professions that cannot do without it. I can only hope that the passage of this measure and complementary measures in other states will not dim the pressure to bring those responsible for the HIH and related collapses to justice. Finally, as other members have done—other members who work with their community groups—I can only hope that, now that we have this legislation in place, the pressure will not lessen on the insurance companies to provide realistic and affordable insurance premium cover to the community groups who add the services, the vitality and the strength that we need to make sure that we have a vital community sector in this state, because as a nation and as a state we would be lost without those vital community groups—the nonprofit organisations who do so much to enrich our society. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1233

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (11.49 a.m.): While I welcome the government's attempts to resolve the ongoing problem of public liability insurance for community organisations, it is very important to reflect upon the rocky road that has delivered us to this point. I shall not comment on the specific aspects and mechanisms contained within the bill. However, I will say that I am extremely pleased that once again this Beattie government, bereft of ideas, sitting in its policy-free zone, has had the photocopier working overtime and copied the same ideas and concepts that the National Party opposition came up with in response to the insurance liability dilemma. I cannot overstate the importance of this. Everyone should be aware that, in this whole process, what the state government has done—and it is as bad as the skyrocketing premiums themselves—is waste time. And that time has cost Queenslanders dearly. Because of the government's dithering and half-baked, ineffective, soggy band-aid solution, soaring public liability insurance premiums have seen sporting associations close their doors, community events cancelled and people lose their jobs. The debacle has forced a crisis of confidence upon our regional centres which rely so much on the spirit of community and their social calendar, engendering a sense of prosperity and goodwill within our regions. This is the price that the community has had to pay for the inaction of the government over the past two years. In that time, the best they could do was come up with a policy that the Premier has hovered over with liquid paper in hand—and the Treasurer with his thick black pen—deleting any references to the National Party. So much heartache could have been saved within our communities if the government had listened to the opposition in the first place, adopted our policies, put them in place and thus protected our community organisations from exposure to potentially huge liability claims. I specifically mention some businesses and organisations within my own electorate and region which I already have brought to the attention of the Treasurer and which have had ongoing concerns with public liability, namely, the Cawarral District Sports and Recreation Association; the Coowonga Folk Club Incorporated; the Capricorn Coast Trail Riders—and that is a great program but they have had awful trouble; 60 and Better program—and I have been to its functions and seen the good work it does, but it cannot continue because of the problems; Keppel Community Healthy Ageing—yet another very excellent organisation for seniors; Keppel Bay Plaza; the Capricorn Multicultural Group Incorporated—a great group getting different people of different nationalities together in the community and involving the rest of the community; Ratepayers and Voters Association; the Yeppoon Hack and Pony Club; and many other sporting associations. After their pleas for help—and some have been calling for action for 12 months or more—I trust the measures contained within this bill can underpin their confidence to continue to play their vital role within the Keppel community and indeed other communities. Also, I mention that in my capacity as shadow minister for seniors I recognise the significant contribution seniors make through volunteering in community based organisations. These organisations provide important services to the community and were under threat from soaring insurance premiums. I trust that this bill will secure these organisations' future and allow our seniors to participate and contribute to improve our communities and future generations. I call on the insurance companies not to take the opportunity themselves to whack up premiums and try to make life difficult. Insurance companies have a responsibility to the community. If all the organisations that we have can keep going without fear of what is about to hit them or what has hit them, our community will be much healthier overall. But when people cannot give the services and the organisations cannot keep going, we have all sorts of problems such as loneliness, worry and so on. A lot of people have a lot of responsibility here. It is up to each and every one of us to try to make an arrangement work. Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (11.54 a.m.): I am pleased indeed to support the Civil Liability Bill before the parliament. There are some comments that I would particularly like to make about the bill, but before I do so I must say that I was disappointed indeed by the tone of the previous speaker, the member for Keppel. I have frequently been a great admirer of the member for Keppel and his long and fine contribution to this parliament, but the slant of his presentation just now in attempting to claim credit for the National Party and to diminish the government's efforts in respect of this bill are quite unworthy and are unreflective of the true situation. The insurance crisis, as we know it, is not a political issue—not at all. All members of parliament, state and federal, around Australia have been working as hard as we can to come up with some solutions to a dreadful crisis, particularly in relation to organisations in the volunteers sphere. National Party members of this parliament have contributed—in their own electorates, I am sure—through discussion in this parliament. Some have come up with some options for change, and there is no doubt that that would have been taken into account in the drafting of this bill. I 1234 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 recognise, too, the fine contribution of Independent members of this parliament. Of course, the government, with its large numbers, has also made its significant contribution. The credit for this bill goes far and wide—to the many people who spoke to us in our electorates about the problems they face and who offered suggestions. Credit goes, too, of course to the federal government in terms of the national review of negligence committee conducted by Justice Ipp and his advisers. They deserve some credit. In fact, the hard work in preparing the Civil Liability Bill we are discussing today goes to the Attorney-General and his staff. They are the ones who have put together all our criticisms, concerns and best suggestions and with this third piece of legislation further entrenched some new ways of dealing with public liability matters that really should contribute to a changed insurance environment. There were many other members before me who detailed the provisions of the bill. There is no need for me to take the House's time doing that again. I recognise the importance of the protection of volunteers that is part of this bill. The bill exempts volunteers performing community work for a community organisation from liability for injuries caused by negligence, provided they acted in good faith. The bill does not prevent an injured person recovering damages from the organisation which engaged the volunteer to perform the community work. That is fair and balanced and will be of considerable comfort to volunteers everywhere in terms of the very important activities and contributions they make in their communities. The Cairns urban area is approximately 130,000 in population. The rough estimate of people who volunteer regularly in one or more organisations is 15,000. Over 10 per cent of the population of Cairns is believed to be a volunteer routinely. I do know through my experience in this position that there are many people who volunteer not for one but a multiple of organisations. They keep our community going and provide a sense in the community that no paid worker can provide of really caring, of really being prepared to work hard to ensure day by day that the best services are provided. I refer to the Cairns Base Hospital volunteers, the Meals on Wheels volunteers, very important people like the Cairns Youth Orchestra, led by Marje Duffy who believes so much in giving opportunities for children in music, the senior citizens organisations, Sandy Astill and the Queensland Cancer Fund, or the Relay for Life event in Cairns. I could go on for many hours and outline a number of events and the particular people involved in making Cairns a great community. I particularly welcome the provisions in this bill that will go some considerable way to making it easier for organisations planning very important events to work in supporting causes in the Cairns and general far-north area. There are some other elements of the bill that I also welcome from the Cairns point of view. The changes that are made in regard to duty of care are really important. A person will not breach a duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable. This has relevance, of course, particularly for recreational activities where there may be some obvious risk. The provisions in the bill are in accord with the recommendations of the national Ipp report. When the activity is a dangerous recreational activity, this bill ensures that a person will not be liable for injury to another as a result of an obvious risk in that activity. Particularly in an area where adventure tourism is part of the set of activities that we offer for those who visit Cairns, not only from around Australia but also from around the world, this will be welcome news indeed. There are many who enjoy such pursuits as abseiling, white water rafting, bungee jumping and parasailing. Further, where there is an obvious element of risk this should be recognised and be the responsibility of those who wish to engage in those activities. I also welcome the provisions in the bill that relate to limiting the protection provided to professionals, in particular medical practitioners. Professionals will not be liable for actions which are in accordance with practice widely accepted by peer professional opinion in the field. That is a sensible element of the bill and much welcome, not only by medical practitioners. In my former life as a psychologist my professional indemnity premiums were already weighty, and I have no doubt that for those now practising they are weightier still. For engineers, for architects and all who operate with their education and expertise over many years and within the common practice of their profession, this limiting element of the bill will indeed be welcome. I welcome, too, that the bill removes the right of people to claim damages if they are injured whilst committing an indictable offence. That is important because if a person is intoxicated at the time of the incident the bill creates the presumption that the person has contributed to their injury unless that person can prove otherwise. This, of course, has been brought to our attention by a number of high profile cases elsewhere in Australia, where people who were drunk at the time 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1235 have dared to attempt to shift the responsibility for actions that have resulted in their own injury. I welcome those changes. The part of the bill that I find the most difficult, and in relation to which it is important for a person without legal training such as myself to take the advice of those more skilled in the law, goes to the changes in relation to the method of assessment of damages for personal injuries. The bill includes changes to the provisions containing a number of measures aimed at reducing awards of damages in personal injuries actions. In particular, the bill provides a new method for assessing general damages in personal injury cases. While on the surface of it the provision for a scale from zero to 100 to rate the injury will make it easier within the legal procedures for the damages for that injury to be assessed, as a psychologist who worked in this field in years past I suppose I have a cautionary warning. That is, the particular injury, physically comparable while it might be with that of another person, may have a quite different impact for a particular individual. For example, the loss of the use of a thumb in a person of 23 who has established trade qualifications may be quite different in its impact to that of a person who is 66 and has recently retired from all work. We need always to be mindful that there will be some individual elements to the impacts of personal injury and that our justice system should not close the door on recognition of these impacts. I am aware in this regard that the Law Society has some concerns about this area of the bill and whether or not it can be clearly understood by the courts and well implemented. I support its concerns though, I must say that, having mixed, through this position as a member of parliament, with lawyers fairly intensively over these last years, I do not know that there is anything in the law that is easy to interpret and agreed to by all. It will not be a surprise, therefore, if there are some provisions of this bill that will take some time before there is true clarification. We as a government have done all we can reasonably do at this point towards reducing insurance premiums—towards reviewing the laws and pulling under control the out-of-control area of personal liability. We have worked towards making sure that individuals are quite properly responsible for their own actions, for making their own decisions and, when these decisions are faulty decisions, for having to bear some of the responsibility themselves. But the bottom line is that our efforts will not really bear fruit unless, indeed, the federal government pursues its powers to ensure that the insurance industry becomes itself responsible and that the management of insurance companies reaches new heights—much greater heights than have clearly been achieved before. I support the bill before the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.05 p.m.): I rise to address the House on the Civil Liability Bill 2003. I, along with every member of this House, have at some time brought concerns to the House regarding liability insurance. All of us must agree with the minister that something needed to be done to stop escalating insurance premiums. Also, there existed a need for the reform of the law of negligence and damages awards for personal injuries under law. The Attorney-General, although not the first to do so, has hit the problem on the head with his statement that 'they ensure all parties involved, including an injured person, must take personal responsibility for their own conduct and safety'. The payouts awarded in the past to an injured party regardless of their contributory actions and the collapse of insurance bodies have resulted in ever-escalating premiums which are becoming totally unaffordable and are seeing the decimation of a lot of functions activities, whether voluntary or other. The jury situation has been exploited by legal representatives. They have played very heavily on juries' emotions, which have seen exorbitant amounts awarded to the injured party, regardless of their conduct, whether legal or otherwise, at the time of their injury. I support very strongly any move to stop these cases being conducted before juries because, as I have stated before, very questionable payouts have been awarded. I must thank the Attorney-General for taking part of what I asked for in my home invasion protection bill, which the Attorney-General strenuously fought to ensure was not only defeated but also ridiculed in the process. Obviously the entire Occupants (Home Invasion) Protection Bill was not unacceptable to this government after all. The minister stated in his second reading speech that the bill modifies the general law regarding breach of duty of care owed by one person to another. It is interesting that the minister states that a person will not breach duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable. The bill will apply to all cases of negligent conduct, whether it results in personal injury, property damage or economic loss, except 1236 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 in three instances—if it is covered within a WorkCover scheme, if it is the result of exposure to tobacco smoke or it is dust related. In a ministerial statement on 13 March it was said that the law states that a plaintiff must show that, but for their negligence, he or she would not have suffered the loss. This is the basic test of causation in the common law of negligence and is to be codified in the Civil Liability Bill being pursued by this government. It appears that we are both on the same train of thought when it comes to making people responsible for their negligent acts. The Civil Liability Bill's statement that the bill removes the right of people to claim damages if they are injured whilst committing an indictable offence is another important point from my home invasion protection bill. Further, if a person is intoxicated at the time of the incident—and, I presume, when someone is hurt breaking and entering or during a home invasion—the bill creates the presumption that the person has contributed to their injury, unless that person can prove otherwise. The Attorney-General went on to say that it is irrelevant whether the intoxication is caused by alcohol, prescription drugs or illegal drugs. I must say that that sounds pretty familiar to me also. My electorate of Nanango—in fact, all rural and regional areas—has been hard hit by the loss of many community events as a result of the outlandish costs of liability insurance. Each speaker here today has outlined the effects on their communities. I will be no different. We have seen our Red Cross affected by having difficulty getting hall liability insurance. It is not the only non-profit group that could not get its hall covered—not because it has ever made a claim but because the hall was of timber construction. The Yarraman Over Fifties Club, who had adopted a section of the highway near Yarraman to ensure it remained clean, can no longer find insurance, and the group has been forced to stop that community based activity. A letter sent to me by the organisation states— On behalf of the Yarraman Over Fifties Club Inc, it is with deep regret that I find the need to write in regard to the cancellation of our program 'Adopt- a- Road' be it temporary or otherwise through lack of Insurance cover. Where will it end, is this the death- knell of all volunteers in Australia? Remember how proud our country was at the Sydney Olympics, where does this leave Meals-on-Wheels, Driver-reviver, Pink Ladies in Hospitals, School Tuck- Shops, SES Rural Fire Brigade, just to name a few, there are so many areas where we rely on our Volunteers. The whole business of Insurance is ludicrous; we are being priced out of existence, many Voluntary clubs have no hope of meeting the high cost of Insurance and dare not function without it. We have become a society that sue at the drop of a hat and are no longer responsible for our own actions. Our Club members are shattered on hearing the news. We looked forward to starting the day at daybreak, before the town has woken up at 5.30am. We have 2 hours of passive exercise Walking, which is just what us Oldies require and we pick up the litter and keep our town tidy at the same time. ... I hope that 'Saner heads prevail' and this is only temporary and we will soon be back on the Highway with our Orange Vests. I hope they are, too. Hopefully this legislation will address her and other group's concerns. The Chapiungah Reserve, the Burrandowan race club, which I mentioned last night, pony and hack clubs, riding schools for disabled persons, mountain lake adventures and Manar Tourist Park all have had major difficulty in obtaining insurance or not being able to find any insurance at all. These are but a few who have never made claims that I am aware of, and yet the current suit mentality has caused them to re-evaluate their futures, if they have one at all. It would appear that if a person is trying to procure liability insurance for an event that contains the word 'animals', 'competition' or 'race' they might as well whistle Dixie. The odds are against a person being able to obtain any insurance at all or perhaps having to go overseas to try to procure some. Then we have the community welfare groups, such as SES groups and sporting associations. Our local vintage machinery club, which exhibits one of the greatest working displays of antique tractors I have ever seen, failed to obtain liability insurance this year and its annual touring trip did not occur. Many of these events are one-offs or only held once a year. None of those organisations has indicated ever having made a claim. I know many councils within my electorate who have endeavoured to extend their cover to encompass many local events, but there is only so far that even they can stretch their resources. I believe many organisations owe to their councils alone their ability to hold events this year. I think all communities would thank them for that. The only difference between city losses and rural community losses in this issue, because it is happening everywhere, is that communities on the coast are relatively close together and people can visit the next suburb or town if their own function has been lost. This is not so in many 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1237 of the widespread communities which may hold only one major fundraising event per year, and the next community might be a very long way away. The liability insurance fiasco has affected doctors to a huge extent, with many practitioners no longer choosing to undertake the care of patients in certain conditions at a time when the patient needs them most, and childbirth has become a major victim of this crisis. The premiums doctors have told me that were asked of them made it impossible in small communities to recoup their loss and, therefore, they took the only option open to them, and that was not to practise that particular avenue of medicine. As the Attorney-General says, this bill deals with a major concern of doctors. Doctors can be sued some 21 years after retirement, as is perhaps questionable, but I would like clarification on how the bill's retrospectivity affects claims of an injury to a child through medical negligence at a time which is now more than six years since that injury. While talking about doctors, another sore point with rural and regional communities is their concern about the lack of doctors and medical facilities in general. I hope that by covering doctors and lowering premiums we may induce even more doctors to take up practice in the bush. It is about time insurance companies started thinking about the community, because it is the communities who bear the brunt of these continual rip-offs of premiums set at an unreasonable rate, not just the financial aspect but also the loss of social benefits. I hope this legislation, as is suggested, brings down insurance premiums. The government's last attempt with Suncorp to solve the liability insurance for non-profit organisations was a dismal failure. I notice in the explanatory notes accompanying the bill it states there is no guarantee that lowering of premiums will occur, with the discretion being left solely with the insurer as to whether or not they will pass on any savings to the consumer. I do not always have faith in insurance companies—actually, I do not have any faith as of late—that they will do what is best. Only time will tell if their community responsibility will be reflected in the premiums asked for. People have to live in a rural and regional community for quite a time to appreciate the enormous impact the loss of any community event means, unlike in urban areas where there are more activities to choose from. However, if, as the Attorney-General says, the insurance industry responds positively to this legislation by acting honestly and accountably, then it is a positive step. In other words, let us hope the intent of this bill is realised while we still have some community events left and doctors left in rural and regional Queensland. This bill contains ideas from all parties and Independents and reflects the entire Queensland population's concerns regarding this issue. So for me this bill reflects an all-of-parliament approach. Although the House did not accept the Occupants (Home Invasion) Protection Bill, it appears that at least some of the concepts of the bill were encompassed here. I can do nothing else but commend the bill to the House. Mr HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (12.15 p.m.): I think this bill takes a very sensible approach to the issue of negligence; namely, that an injured person must take personal responsibility for his or her own conduct and safety. I think this is a commonsense matter which has been a source of aggravation to many citizens in our community, and that is a person should be responsible for their own actions. As the minister said, if a person engages in a dangerous recreational activity, there will be no liability as a result of an obvious risk in that activity. Significantly, each defendant will only be responsible for payment of their share of the damages. If a person is injured while committing an indictable offence, there is no right to claim damages under this bill, and if intoxicated at the time of the incident an injured person must prove that intoxication did not contribute to that injury. Drunkenness will affect the level of assessed damages depending on particular circumstances. I think many of the issues that this bill attempts to address are the cannon fodder of A Current Affair television programs and tabloid newspapers. Intoxicated or otherwise, persons going into the surf even after being given advice to the contrary must take responsibility for their actions. My concern is that these insurance issues are having the effect of changing the whole nature of our society, and I think that is undertaken in two ways. Firstly, sporting organisations, as an example, are nervous about the implications of the potential liability. Can people go and play or exercise now in a council park? In my own electorate of Kallangur, a regular fun run is at risk because of perceived insurance problems. When the sponsor went to undertake the work necessary for that particular fun run, they ended up having a council officer, local police and others go round and mark the bumps and other imperfections on the footpaths with paint to indicate where minor adjustments would be required. The initial reaction, certainly from the point of view of the sponsor, was to say that it is too hard to put on the event. 1238 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

The problem with many of these insurance issues is that of people's perception rather than reality. For example, a boxing trainer in Gympie was told by the club where the training was conducted—it was a hockey club, I think—that he would have to obtain insurance. Boxing is a sport where training is conducted on a one-on-one basis between the boxer and his trainer. The reality of life is that it is difficult to understand the circumstances where a third person could be at risk. I am aware of a regular professional wrestling show which had to be cancelled because the club where the show was held received advice that it was too risky for the club and would bring with it insurance obligations. It did not matter that the participants, the wrestlers themselves, carried their own insurance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know if you know anything about professional wrestling. I do not want to spoil a secret, but it is sports entertainment; it is a show involving trained athletes who have a better than good awareness of what their opponent will do next. The reality is that that show had to be cancelled on advice given to the club where it was to be performed because it had significant insurance implications. We keep coming back to parliament with bills such as this, and the second issue I want to raise is that through these rises in premiums and the difficulty in obtaining insurance we are transferring the risk back to the state. In other words, what was previously picked up within the private sector has now been transferred back to the state in terms of the social security implications, the potential payment of sickness benefits and the use of public hospitals. The effect and the worry of these circumstances, which in many ways were generated by the insurance companies themselves, is that we are effectively transferring the risk from the private sector. In simple terms, what we are doing is socialising the losses. That is an important issue for us to consider. We as a community are being punished for tardy corporate behaviour, much of which was highlighted by many previous speakers in this debate. The most recent was the member for Logan, Mr Mickel, who illustrated examples of that tardy corporate behaviour. There has also been a failure on the part of the regulatory authorities to effectively police the behaviour of these insurance companies and it worries me that ordinary taxpayers have had such costs transferred across to them. As I said, this is effectively socialising the losses. I welcome this bill because I hope it will address many of those tabloid perceptions about negligence and the subsequent insurance implications. As the minister said, this bill will provide a commonsense approach to the issue of negligence. I support the bill. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.22 p.m.): I rise to support the Civil Liability Bill. Other members have spoken about the commonsense reforms, but I specifically want to address the role of the insurance industry in this fiasco. We understand that this bill has some underpinning principles such as greater personal responsibility—that is, the acceptance that there is an element of inherent risk in what we do—and that duty of care is breached only if the event was foreseeable. As many members have said, this bill addresses issues in terms of indemnifying volunteers, claimants under the influence of drugs, and those claimants committing an indictable offence. I also commend the Attorney-General in that the part of this legislation which institutes early notification of personal injury to children does so in a balanced way and in a way which protects the rights of the child. One of my constituents has a jumping castle which he takes to fetes and other community events. His public liability insurance has increased by about 300 per cent in the past two years and he has never made a claim in the 10 years he has been running this service for community groups. During this debate many members have given examples outlining similar increases. What concerns me, however, is that some of those people, like my constituent, would have decided not to reinsure. I know that this particular person has very limited assets and therefore the potential of a child suffering serious injury on the jumping castle would put him at serious risk. The member for Kurwongbah stated in her speech that because of affordability many people are not reinsuring and are asset stripping. A recent debate on increases in public liability insurance premiums has focused on the presumption of increased volume of successful claims as well as increased settlements. I would argue that this is an overly simplistic view which I will address later. Since early 2001 the public liability insurance market in Australia has not been competitive. Insurers are no longer chasing after business. This follows, of course, the collapse of HIH. As HIH, the strongest competitor, exited the market in disgrace, other insurers have taken advantage of the removal of competitive pressure on premiums to recover the forgone profits of the previous decade. This profit taking has had extreme outcomes in the area of public liability insurance. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1239

All members are aware of the extraordinary demand for premium relief from their community and not-for-profit organisations facing closure due to unaffordability or unattainability of insurance. I have been made aware of increases in excess of 600 per cent in some cases. What is being demanded by community organisations is urgent redress to ensure their ongoing viability. I fear that, in spite of reforms in streamlining processes and laws, although they may fall, premium falls may be inadequate to ensure the long-term viability of many organisations. The insurance industry has created this crisis. During the past decade we have seen a grab for market share driven by HIH in unsustainable low premium pricing across a range of insurance classes, including public liability. The collapse of HIH in May 2001 substantially lessened competition. This was followed, of course, by a drastic reduction in investment returns, particularly since 11 September 2001. So we have had these two factors together. This reduction in investment income has inhibited insurance companies from engaging in their discounting of premiums as a result of that income. Many years ago I remember speaking in this place about FAI and compulsory third-party insurance. It was actually going out and touting for business. It would insure a driver over 25 driving a car with a small engine but would not insure, for example, a young driver under 25 with a three litre car or a motorcyclist. It was out there creaming the industry while touting for business, because it was long-term insurance. It could put its money out there in investments in the long term and get big returns which enabled it to afford to discount the cost of insurance. This has been happening for 10 years by insurance companies. As well, after the collapse of HIH APRA introduced new prudential standards for the insurance industry requiring insurers to reserve $1.09 for every dollar received in public liability premiums, more than double the previous requirement of 52c. So the industry had that sort of impositions put on it by APRA. The 2000-01 financial year was unusually profitable for insurance companies. Statistics collected by APRA show a $1.069 billion profit by insurance companies, the highest level since 1997. Total premiums of $15.23 billion were well above the average for the past five years, which was $14.68 billion. This whole idea of insurance companies going on and demanding much higher premiums now is really not sustainable as an argument. APRA data also reveals an increase of six per cent in the number of public liability claims in 2000-01 to 69,000 but the value dropped 14.5 per cent. When I said originally that we have been told that these increases in premiums have been driven by an increasing number of claims at higher quantums, that is not sustainable by the facts at all. It is not sustainable. Profits for public liability insurers are likely to continue to increase. I have noted a prediction by an actuary of profits of the order of 10 per cent to 40 per cent of premiums for public liability insurance renewed in June 2002. People are predicting up to 40 per cent increased profitability on premiums. I believe this estimate is based on a number of factors, including the reduced number of insurers in the market, which means they have been content to take modest volume at attractive rates. They are not forced to compete but can take the most attractive rates. We can also put the premium rate increases into the equation. There is also the refusal of insurers to cover some types of activity. Much higher excesses are being imposed by insurers. Today we are seeing the legislative responses to this insurance problem. Undoubtedly, APRA's doubling on 1 July 2002 of the capital requirement by Australian insurers for long-tail classes of insurance, and more costly reinsurance costs—particularly since the September 11 tragedy—have placed some pressures on premiums. However, the insurance companies have totally overreacted. It is fair to accuse Australian insurers of short-term greed and total disregard for the long-term needs of the community and not-for-profit organisations. Insurance companies are reacting to a series of events. They are behaving in a greedy way and are not accepting their role in the community. Society functions best when risks are shared. It does not function well when insurance companies take unconscionable actions in a greedy short- term grab for profits. That is disgraceful. Although state governments have the constitutional responsibility for reform to the law of negligence and for legal procedural changes, responsibility for the insurance industry rests with the Commonwealth. We are dealing with only half of the equation. The other half is the responsibility of the Howard coalition government. It needs to find ways through the ACCC to encourage or even demand insurers to insure for reasonable risks for reasonable premiums. We have made the risks more reasonable. Now we want more reasonable premiums. APRA could also temporarily or permanently lower the new capital requirements. As I said previously, the Queensland government has met its responsibilities and obligations with commonsense reforms. In conclusion, I congratulate the Attorney on his responses to the 1240 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 complex issues confronting public liability and professional indemnity insurance. We have already instituted procedural changes and, today, tort law reform in a commonsense approach to remove the pressures on insurance premiums. As a further initiative, a process is needed whereby the courts can properly assess the wide variance of opinions currently being presented on expert medical evidence. That is also an important issue that must be dealt with. I know that the Attorney intends to deal with this in the future. The long-term viability of community and not-for-profit organisations is at issue. Community responses are an aspect of social justice. They make for a better society. We need to make sure that we do not end the viability of these organisations. I conclude by urging the federal government, which has responsibility for insurance and the insurance companies, to find some ticker. Prime Minister Howard is always on TV saying people have ticker. The other day I heard him say that the Leader of the Opposition in New South Wales—that good looking young man—had ticker. It is one of his famous phrases. Mrs Carryn Sullivan: Do you know what his name was? Mr FOURAS: I have forgotten his name, but people were not impressed by the fact that Mr Howard gave him a tick for ticker. It is about time John Howard got some ticker when it comes to the insurance companies and doing the right thing. The member for Keppel and others said that we stole their policies. I urge members opposite to get the second part of this equation dealt with; to get APRA and the ACCC to deal with their responsibilities to make sure that the insurance companies charge reasonable premiums for reasonable risks. I commend the bill to the House. Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (12.34 p.m.): I believe members on both sides of the chamber are keen to see further legislative reform in the area of civil liability. Indeed, this has been an issue at the forefront of the National Party opposition's agenda and our private member's bill, questions and position statement, such as the six-point plan released on 7 January 2002, have been well noted on the parliamentary record over the past couple of years. The problems of communities shutting down many areas of traditional fundraising and activities, from street fetes to events which draw tourists, are well documented, as insurance premiums have become hundreds and thousands of dollars too expensive. The impact on the delivery of health services has been significant, just as it has been in the tourism industry, with ecotourism and events tourism being particularly hard hit. I support appropriate reforms to civil liability. It is something that I have been calling for, though I believe also that a balance between the public good and individual rights is essential. State government responsibility does not finish with this bill, as it is not only the insurance companies that need to be more accountable. There remain important issues for government, professionals and community organisations. I acknowledge that there needs to be appropriate prudential regulation and controlled scrutiny at the federal level. But there remain issues for state governments, professionals and communities in terms of how to pursue the lifting of standards of care and improving the quality of services. As the system of litigation is reformed, as it must be, the state government must drive the agenda for greater openness, accountability and quality in its own services as well as in the professional and community arena. Tighter legal controls as to how or when claims are brought forward should not be an excuse for a lack of commitment to improve quality and accountability. I believe the assumed risk provisions of this bill are good, although it was unfortunate that when the Leader of the Opposition, Lawrence Springborg, introduced them into parliament last year ALP members voted them down on 28 November because it was not their idea. What a pity it is that when the National Party opposition takes the initiative to propose positive policies and introduce them to the parliament there is never bipartisan support from the Labor government. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for a number of initiatives which he has been the first to propose and table in the parliament and which have been subsequently mirrored later by the state government. Assumed risk provisions ensure that where people undertake obvious and inherently risky activities the provider of that activity would not be liable for that injury to that person—unless, of course, there was blatant negligence. This addresses issues in basic everyday areas of life. Horse riding is a recreation that some of us have grown up with. However, for those who wish to learn how to ride a horse or go on a trail ride the insurance issue has made this extremely problematic. Other areas such as ecotourism and activities in our great outdoors have been hard hit, with premium bills sometimes trebling. These operators face difficulty in getting insurance even though they might never have made a claim. A surfing school on the Gold Coast faced a huge increase 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1241 in its insurance premiums. Many adventure tourism operators could not even find out what their insurance premium would be sometimes a day before they had to take out cover, which was an extremely unfair and manipulative way of jamming people into a corner where they had to accept a higher premium or a premium only for a short term. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs, indicated in his speech on the second reading on Tuesday that we are supporting this legislation, which in the main addresses points we have previously raised. We still have questions in regard to some drafting provisions and their impact, which we will be raising in the debate. Since the contribution by the member for Southern Downs we saw some 14 pages of amendments, some quite substantive, being circulated in the parliament. Some of these amendments were still being drafted during the second reading speeches of members yesterday. I have concerns about receiving such substantive amendments and the lack of appropriate time in which to scrutinise them. But I would certainly welcome the Attorney-General's explanation as to their significance, given the short period in which to view them. This bill provides stronger protection for professionals, particularly medical practitioners, where their actions are in keeping with widely accepted professional opinion. Obviously, there needs to be some important checks and balances on this protection. It becomes even more important for health facilities to be involved in publicly publishing indicators that indicate their track record in regard to adverse outcomes as well as other quality indicators. This needs to happen not just on a global basis but also on a district by district basis with meaningful analysis and accompanying community consultation. I call on the state Labor government to reform the way in which it handles such health information. This is an important issue in terms of pushing for greater quality and it is an extremely important part of having a valid process of informed consent. It is not only about health practitioners advising the patient about the relative risks they face with procedures in regard to their particular clinical situation; people have a right to know the track record of a particular hospital with regard to, say, infection control. I believe that these sorts of issues can be dealt with intelligently if people are given the information. There should not be a closed shop. There should not be secrecy. I think that we have seen from the actions of other jurisdictions—I know that the Victorian government has been moving down this path to provide more information—that people have a right to know and should not be kept in the dark. That is part of having a real and valid informed consent process that involves not only the health professional but also the health facility, which is part and parcel of delivering that service. We know that there are issues of medical errors and there has been a lot of criticism of the degree of medical errors within our system. However, we also know that we have a high level of quality service provision and some outstanding health professionals. But once again, if we are to see those errors reduced and appropriate scrutiny and a push for quality, people should have a right to that information. The provision of information should be part and parcel of reforms in the insurance area, whether it relates to personal injury or alleged medical negligence. These are some of the other reforms that go hand in hand with the push for reform of the whole litigation process. There is also an issue with regard to good mediation processes. The Health Rights Commission has an ability to seek independent medical advice. It has an ability to be involved in the mediation process and to give people some assurance or otherwise up front when they make a complaint about the quality of service provision. I am most concerned that we still do not see evidence that there has been a significant increase in funding to this complaints body. The Health Rights Commission has sought to reform its processes and how it handles complaints. Once again, the Health Rights Commission is part of the other system that we need to be looking at as part and parcel of this push for reform. In the most recently published report of the Health Rights Commission, which was the 2001-02 document, it noted that a total of 809 written complaints were received during that year. As at 1 July 2001, there was also a backlog of 225 written complaints awaiting allocation. Of course, no information was given as to the length of time that those 225 complaints have been backlogged. I am calling on the government to look at the resourcing of the Health Rights Commission to ensure that people have access to this appropriate grievance mechanism. This issue relates not only to people knowing whether there has been an incident relating to negligence; it gives people the assurance that someone is listening and is willing to open up and provide information. The Health Rights Commission is a very important part of the process. We are yet to see funding for the Health Rights Commission addressed, and I urge the government to do that. 1242 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

The state Labor government has also further restricted freedom of information in regard to the quality committees within the hospitals. I have been critical of that, because once again, if we are to pursue quality, these committees should not operate behind closed doors, maybe giving a report every three years. That is not an adequate process if we are really to bring about a change and a leap forward in the quality of the services that are provided. We do not get quality with a lack of accountability. I also want to make some comments in relation to the provisions of the bill that relate to medical practitioners having protection if their treatment is in keeping with widely accepted professional opinion. I strongly support that, although I want to ask the Attorney-General some questions about it, because some issues need to be taken into account. Obviously, in terms of the centrally located colleges and the people who determine what is good medical practice, there is some dissent, particularly with rural health practitioners—those who have sought to have accredited rural health courses and continuing medical education. The dissent as such may not specifically be on the table in terms of the provisions of this bill, but it relates to how people are recognised for their skills and the differences in determining what is appropriate medical practice, given the geographical location and sometimes the other health professionals who are involved in delivering those services. If we are going to introduce this legislation, the whole system also must take into account rural practice and appropriate accreditation. The views of Sydney based or urban colleges are not the only views that should be taken into account; the views of our rural practitioners really should receive recognition so that we can ensure that appropriate, quality services are provided, taking into account rural conditions. I refer to the Medical Indemnity (Prudential Supervision and Product Standards) (Consequential Amendments) Bill, which was passed by the federal government on 26 March 2002 and which changed the medical indemnity framework. The current unregulated discretionary nature of the medical indemnity has been replaced with a more secure prudentially regulated industry with medical indemnity provided on a legally enforceable contractual basis. I know that this legislation is welcomed, because there were some significant problems in regard to how medical indemnity has been provided to health professionals in this country. This legislation will be administered by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—APRA. It is intended to deliver increased certainty for medical practitioners and their patients that legitimate claims will ultimately be met. As we know, there has been a lot of criticism about the discretionary nature of the contracts. Perhaps members opposite have forgotten my criticism about the discretionary nature of those contracts. I am certainly extremely critical of the discretionary nature of Queensland Health's indemnity for its own health professionals. The new laws will provide this protection by requiring medical indemnity providers to adhere to the same standards as general insurers and by requiring that medical indemnity cover is offered as a legally binding contract rather than as a discretionary promise. These laws that provide the new prudential framework will take effect on 1 July 2003. Medical defence organisations are working to meet that deadline. There will also be transitional arrangements for medical indemnity providers for up to five years to meet minimum prudential capital requirements. I turn to another issue contained in this bill. I welcome the aspects of the bill that deal with people who are intoxicated. This bill seeks to limit the damages payable to someone who injures themselves as a result of being intoxicated. This principle is important. However, I would like to raise an issue with the Attorney-General that relates to the level of proof required to rebut the presumption of having contributed to the injury. I refer to a rather disturbing incident that happened on the Sunshine Coast regarding a complaint from a young woman whose drinks had been spiked. I was horrified that, in this case, the response from police—who normally are very good—was not appropriate and the protocols were not followed to ensure that she was encouraged to see a government medical officer and that the correct procedure for the collection of evidence was put in place. This young woman may have looked drunk, but she thought that she had been subjected to drink spiking. She was not sure. Tragically, I believe that the incidence of drink spiking in this state and other parts of Australia goes underreported and is often misunderstood. This young woman was sent off to see a GP. There is an issue as to the quality of the evidence that comes from a doctor other than a government medical officer. Subsequently, the tests that were undertaken showed that this young woman had been subjected to benzodiazepine and ecstasy spiking of her drink. This girl does not know what happened as a consequence of that; there was a blackout period. If someone is subject to drink spiking, given that this is an issue with our young women and men in this state, what level of evidence do they have to provide in order to rebut this 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1243 presumption of guilt which may bring them into conflict with someone suing them for consequential injury? I put that on the table, because I find it a disturbing issue. We also need to ensure that licensed premises are still pursued through the licensing commission when involved in serving alcohol to people who are drunk. These laws before the House should not absolve them from their responsibility under the law. We need to ensure that, with the increase in the number of licensed premises in the state, there is an appropriate framework for implementation of those laws. That is something that certainly has been raised in my own area. I refer to child birth. As members know, I have been critical of the Health Minister's lack of understanding in regard to the period of time someone such as an obstetrician or a gynaecologist is liable for action for an adverse event and of the impact that has consequently upon their insurance. Under the current law, an action could be commenced 21 years after the birth of the child because they had to reach the age 18, followed by the three-year statutory period. This was an issue over which the Health Minister kept on arguing. I do acknowledge that to a certain extent the laws before the House do seek to address this. It is a difficult issue because we acknowledge that there needs to be a balance where a child has suffered injury and that there needs to be appropriate balance that their rights have some protection in the law. The AMAQ has commended the Queensland government for introducing the limitation period for children involved in medical negligence in this bill, though it wanted the period of time to be incident based rather than discovery based. I appreciate the difficulty in going this extra step. As the minister noted, the act has a time requirement. Where a child is injured as a result of medical negligence, the parents of the child must give notice of the intended claim within six years of knowing the injury occurred. I ask the Attorney-General a question with regards to this. What happens if the parents have failed to act or have not understood the full impact of the injury? How does that mitigate against the child being able to take forward an action? In particular, what happens when the guardian is in fact the state? What happens if the child is in fact in the care of the state? Will there be mechanisms to ensure that the appropriate screening of their health is undertaken so that if they are aware that there is a problem they then have some notification provision for potential action? If the child is under the guardianship of the state, what happens if as a disabled young person they continue to rely upon the state to act in their interests and if the state fails in this? I would like to know what are the mechanisms to deal with this issue. The proportionate liability issue has been a bit controversial. Generally, a proportionate liability regime has been accepted but there is criticism of the threshold. I certainly welcome the Attorney's comments in this regard. The Association of Consulting Engineers Australia has criticised the threshold as have some legal groups. The engineers oppose such a course because they believe that proportionate liability should apply from the first dollar. In their press release they say that a threshold defeats the purpose, that smaller claims will be treated as joint and several with every chance the defendant will be required to bear all of the liability and that more than 90 per cent of claims against engineers lie below the threshold, making the introduction of proportionate liability non-existent for most claims. With regard to the government's community insurance scheme, obviously we hope that this will work. There have proven to be some significant problems with this. Despite having the same problems we have had in terms of general insurance provided by non-government organisations, New South Wales was able to come up with a scheme that provided substantially cheaper insurance products. Yet in some cases Queensland's community insurance program has delivered insurance premiums much more expensive than those of private providers. I urge a review of this that examines how the New South Wales scheme can do it cheaper than Queensland. We need to realise that there are other issues that need to be dealt with and that legal reform must be ongoing, because from overseas experience there is a need for continued monitoring to ensure that there is a fair balance between public issues and individual rights and addressing those other matters of access to information as an important part of informed consent. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (12.56 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to speak in favour of this extremely important bill. The bill is part of a national process of reform. The House would be well aware of the soaring cost of insurance and the impact this rise in premiums is having on our way of life. The Queensland Labor government has been quick to respond to this important community issue and has implemented a five-phase action plan to address in particular the effect these dramatic rises in premiums have had on community groups. The plan includes changing the legal environment that has caused the growth in legal actions through measures to limit the 1244 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 size of payouts to reduce frivolous claims; the group insurance scheme for community based not- for-profit organisations; stamp duty relief; risk management support; and insurance price monitoring. The first stage of law reform was put in place in June 2002 with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 that established a process that must be undertaken before a person can proceed to court. It also banned lawyers from advertising no win, no fee, excluded juries from hearing personal injuries claims and provided protection for volunteers such as lifesavers who help out in certain emergency situations. The Civil Liability Bill 2003 marks the second stage of the legal reform process. The bill promises to deliver a better environment for insurance and more certainty for professionals, local councils, sporting clubs and community groups. By capping the general damages component of claims, the legislation will fundamentally change negligence laws, bringing more balance and consistency to the way courts deal with personal injury cases. I commend the Attorney-General and his staff for their tremendous efforts in formulating a bill, as he describes, that provides a commonsense approach to negligence. The House should be aware, however, that this bill has not been drafted in a vacuum; indeed, the recommendations of the national review of negligence formed the basis of many of the initiatives included in this bill. There has also been extensive consultation with organisations such as the Australian Medical Association Queensland, the Insurance Council of Australia, the Queensland Law Society, the Bar Association of Queensland, the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association, individual lawyers, government departments and agencies and the Local Government Association of Queensland. It also should be noted that, following the tabling of the consultation draft of the bill in 2002, 26 written submissions were received. This bill clearly puts some balance back into the question of liability. It clearly sets out the level of protection from personal civil liability that volunteers can expect when carrying out community work. This area of insurance impacts most heavily on how a community fosters and nurtures itself and how it functions. The electorate of Noosa is a dynamic community made up of over 300 volunteer groups. The inability to secure insurance has caused great heartache. In not being able to carry out their functions, these groups literally have had to halt much of their volunteer work. Impeding the normal functioning of a community attacks the core moral values of that community, its very fabric. One can imagine and criticise what it must be like to live in a society where civil liberties are seriously affected by oppressive regimes, where one's freedoms are seriously affected by one's inability to meet, to share knowledge, to dance, to sing, to show art. We have felt the tip of that iceberg in the electorate of Noosa. What exactly is the role of insurance companies when their operations ultimately mirror similar functions of an oppressive regime? The instrument is different, the outcome the same. This bill will be welcomed by all our volunteer organisations. I know that our equestrian groups in Kin Kin will find relief in this bill. Our surf lifesavers who give up their Saturdays, Sundays and holidays have certainly felt stressed by the impact of what has happened in recent months. The Cooran community hopefully will be positioned to have their festival once again. I thank mayor Bob Abbott for his cooperation when Noosa for Peace sought assistance to enable us to march down Hasting Street, involving some 2,500 to 3,000 responsible citizens. We took that opportunity to tell John Howard that we wanted peace and that what he was doing in sending Australian troops to Iraq was immoral, illegal and would only contribute to unleashing polarisation of the world of Islam and the West. Mayor Bob Abbott marched with us and, again, I thank him for supporting his community to express themselves and exert their democratic rights. Mrs Carryn Sullivan interjected. Ms MOLLOY: He is an excellent person. I thank the member for Pumicestone for that interjection. The bill also addresses criminals' ability to claim damages for injuries incurred while committing crimes in that such damages will be limited severely. The bill also clearly sets out duty of care, causation and assumption of risk. As the Attorney-General said, this bill affects every area of the law of negligence and puts some commonsense and personal responsibility back into the law. I commend the bill to the House. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (2.30 p.m.): I rise to support the Civil Liability Bill 2003. The bill before the House today is further evidence of our government's quick and decisive response to the insurance crisis. The first stage of the reforms of the law of negligence took place last year with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Bill. Those changes sought to put structure, certainty and commonsense into the matter of pursuing a personal injuries claim and to put in place a structure 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1245 that should have provided the insurance industry with the reassurances it needed to provide insurance cover at reasonable cost. At the time, the Attorney-General indicated a second stage of reform that would seek to make further changes, dependent upon a national review of negligence. I note the Attorney-General's indication that many of the initiatives contained in the bill arise out of the review by His Honour Justice Ipp. The bill modifies the general law regarding breach of duty of care owed from one person to another in that a person does not breach duty of care to another unless the risk of injury was foreseeable and where a reasonable person would have taken precautions to protect that other person. The bill modifies the law in matters of a person undertaking dangerous recreational activities, acting while intoxicated or committing an indictable offence. It requires people to take responsibility for their actions in undertaking dangerous recreational activities, acting while intoxicated or committing a crime. It is a sound and commonsense approach. I know that it is what our community, in particular my constituents in Aspley, have expected out of the reform process. The bill also seeks to deal with the matter of claims by parents of a child who they believe is injured as a matter of medical negligence. The bill provides for early notification of claims on behalf of a child. A parent has six years from the time they know an injury has occurred in which to make a claim. This particular provision encourages early notifications. In my view it removes major concerns that many doctors in the Aspley electorate had about carrying potential claims for 21 years. More importantly, it will ensure that children's rights are protected. I note the extensive consultation undertaken by the minister. I can only agree with him when he calls on the federal government to acknowledge and accept its responsibility in requiring the insurance industry to be properly monitored by the ACCC and when he calls for appropriate actions to be taken by the industry to offer reasonable insurance to the community. It is the quick, decisive and balanced approach to civil liability and personal injuries by this government that has created an environment that addresses community concerns, removes uncertainty and restores some balance to the law of negligence and its proceedings. I am confident that it will and does address the concerns expressed by the community and my Aspley constituents. I commend the bill to the House. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (2.33 p.m.): I rise to speak on the Civil Liability Bill 2003. All members know the degree of pain that insurance has caused to our constituents over the past 18 months. I believe that the intent of the bill is good. We can have some hope that premiums may decrease following implementation of this bill. For so long Australians have been becoming too Americanised, and some people out there are using litigation to get rich at the expense of other people. I and many others have called for a commonsense approach to negligence. I think we are on the right track with this legislation. We all have to take personal responsibility for our actions. If someone partakes in dangerous events, they should expect to get hurt at some stage. Now, hopefully, people will be accountable for their own actions. I particularly like the section of the bill that pertains to the warning of other people if there is a dangerous risk in the activity. The bill speaks of dangerous recreational activities. This should definitely help our show societies, which hold rodeos, camp drafts and so on. Bungee jumping and water sports were mentioned earlier. I know that a lot of our rural offices have been inundated with inquiries about insurance. Let us take for instance the town of Bell. The local P&C runs a trail bike ride on a course that goes for about 40 kilometres over mountains. Sometimes there are in excess of 500 bike riders on the ride. It is a major fundraiser for our area. The school is extremely progressive, and the fruits of this weekend each year are well seen within the school. The problem affects not only Bell. It also affects Crows Nest, Jimna, Jandowae and many other small schools that use a trail bike ride as a major fundraiser. I know of one ride that was cancelled, and I know of two rides that secured insurance in only the week prior to the ride being conducted. I am pleased to see that the bill removes the right of people to claim damages if they are injured whilst committing an indictable offence. We have heard of cases where someone has hurt themselves whilst committing an offence and has then tried to sue the people involved. The bill provides for an intoxicated person to have to take responsibility for his or her actions. I believe this is commonsense legislation. For too long this has been occurring. I am more than happy to support the bill. 1246 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

The Australian Medical Association of Queensland commends the government for introducing a limitation period in relation to children involved in medical negligence. However, the AMAQ believes that the period should be further reduced to three years and should be incident based, not discoverability based. The AMAQ also asserts that section 20C, which relates to notice of a claim for damages, encourages legal practitioners to give notice in unnecessary circumstances. The AMAQ suggests that the requirement to give notice should be at the point when a lawyer reasonably knows that a basis for making a claim exists, or no later than one year after the first consultation. The AMAQ supports this section of the bill. The Queensland Bar Association expresses concern over the commencement date of 2 December and asserts that retrospectivity should not apply. Further clarification of the commencement date of the proportionate liability provisions is required. The Queensland Bar Association notes that all personal injury claims, including motor vehicle claims, regulated by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, but not worker claims, will be regulated by this bill. Common law claims by workers will be regulated by the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. It is suggested that disparate laws will have to be applied by the judge in the one case, leading to potential confusion. The Queensland Bar Association has worked with the government to redraft some of this section. The Queensland Law Society is concerned that clause 52 provides for the amount of damages awarded to a person to be reduced by the amount that he might have received from another source. For instance, if someone is awarded damages in a negligence claim, this amount could be reduced by the amount of income protection insurance that would be payable over that period. This clause could have the adverse effect of discouraging people from securing proper insurance coverage. It is suggested that the new injury scale may encourage a form of bracket creep. Plaintiffs and lawyers would be tempted to lift claims to a higher level to secure a higher payout. The QLS suggests that clause 92 may target lawyers by making them liable for unprofessional conduct if they do not follow the requirements for the giving of notice of a claim for damages as soon as practicable after being instructed by the parent or guardian. To cover themselves, lawyers may issue notices to all possible defendants, creating unnecessary anxiety and unnecessary work. The Australian Plaintiff Lawyers Association objects strongly to this provision. The APLA asserts that under this scheme many scammed property owners will now have no recourse to regain money through the court processes. The APLA asserts that the bill takes away the obligation on a liquor licensee to take reasonable precautions to ensure their premises do not pose a risk to patrons. This has now been removed following a couple of sideline cases. The APLA believes that to remove this is to create possibly dangerous situations and fails to ensure the safety of the public. The Local Government Association of Queensland objects to the non-feasance protections that are contained in section 37 of the bill. The consultation draft contained a reasonable degree of certainty until December 2005, which would allow local governments to revise their management systems without consultation. The government altered the provisions contained in the consultation draft. The proposed position does not provide a statement of the ongoing liability of councils or offer certainty over the short term. The Insurance Council of Australia was seeking further clarification regarding the date of commencement. The Insurance Council noted that these provisions refer to a 'risk of personal injury'. In contrast, the New South Wales legislation refers to a 'risk of harm', which is defined to include personal injury or death, damage to property or economic loss. A person will not breach a duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable, not insignificant and in the circumstances a reasonable person would have taken precautions to protect that other person. The bill also modifies the law as it relates to the duty to warn others of obvious risk. This bill confirms that no person has a duty to warn another of an obvious risk, unless specifically asked to provide information on that risk. The bill abolishes joint and several liability for property damage or economic loss in actions involving more than one defendant. Think of marketeering cases where an action is often taken against real estate agents, lawyers and valuers, et cetera. A court will now assess the proportionate liability of each defendant party taking into account any contributory negligence, and each defendant will then only be responsible for payment of their prospective portion of the 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1247 damages. Proportionate liability will apply only when damages are assessed in excess of half a million dollars. The bill provides directions to the courts when assessing the actions of public authorities, requiring courts to take account of the special position and pressures upon public authorities in conducting their activities. Clause 39 provides indemnity to individual volunteers either engaged in community work for community organisations or an office holder of such an organisation from liability in negligence for their own action. The conduct of the volunteer must be in good faith and must not act outside the activities of the body. 'Community organisations' is defined to mean a corporation that is not carried on for the profit or gain of the individual members. The bill also requires people to take care of themselves by reducing the damages by a minimum of 25 per cent if they rely upon the care of another person they know is intoxicated. If a person knows their friend is intoxicated and gets into a car with them, then the minimum is increased to 50 per cent. The bill also changes the method of assessment of damages for personal injury. A court will be required to assess an injury and allocate a value on a scale of between zero and 100 to that injury. Once a court has assessed the scale value of the injury, the act provides a mathematical calculation of the general damages that are to be awarded for that injury. This is designed to provide certainty to parties in assessing general damages and assist in avoiding inappropriate settlements. The bill also expands the concepts of structured settlements set out in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. The bill now ensures that all parties are advised of the ability of a court to make awards or orders for damages in matters worth more than $100,000 that allow the defendant to provide the damages other than by way of a lump sum payment. These provisions were inserted with the intention of allowing defendants to pay damages awards whilst reducing the risk of bankruptcy or insolvency and at the same time ensuring the plaintiff is not disadvantaged. The bill includes provision for the early notification of claims by children injured through medical negligence. Where a child is injured as a result of medical negligence, the parents of that child must give notice of an intended claim within six years of knowing the injury has occurred. The amendment is designed to deal with doctors who were concerned they may be sued years after retirement under the current 21-year status of limitations. The National Party brought out a six-point insurance plan earlier last year. It wanted to put a cap on personal injury payouts, advertising restrictions for no win, no pay solicitors, a statutory compensation schedule for personal injury claims, a review of court rules to make the conduct of claims more efficient, the introduction of a structured settlement system to replace the current system of lump sum payments and the establishment of a community insurance fund. I am pleased to see that the government has adopted some of these National Party policies on insurance, and I congratulate it. Look at what has happened to the Jondaryan Woolshed in my electorate over the past 12 months. One year insurance was around $70,000. This year it is in excess of $150,000. Our small country halls have suffered dramatically. Some of our halls could not even get insured. Hopefully this legislation will help these halls get off the ground and get on their feet when insurance premiums finally come down. I commend the bill to the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (3.45 p.m.): I rise in support of the Civil Liability Bill 2003 because it is sensible, balanced legislation. All members in this House have been watching insurance premiums in this country rise at an alarming rate. This government has responded quickly to do our part in reforming the law and has been a leader amongst other states. In June 2002 we introduced the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act, the first stage of the reforms to the law of negligence, and now we have the second stage, which should reduce the pressure on insurance premiums in the area of public liability and medical indemnity. At the outset, I would like to thank the Attorney-General for the information his office has supplied regarding this important issue and commend him for consulting widely on the issue. The Attorney-General tabled a draft consultation copy of this bill in December last year so that interested parties could have ample time to make submissions on the proposed changes to civil liability laws. Indeed, a number of constituents contacted my office, and I made sure they got a copy of that consultation draft very quickly so they could have their say. To the Attorney-General's credit, he has had to endure some irrational and spurious lobbying from some groups—in particular, the AMAQ—but has always maintained the difficult balancing act between the rights of plaintiffs and defendants. If the Attorney-General had bowed to the 1248 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

AMAQ's pressure, the rights of medical negligence victims would have been severely eroded. The AMAQ is there to lobby for the benefit of its members, and I do not begrudge its right to fight hard for what is best for its members, but some of its proposals were over the top and quite untenable. For instance, if we had limited the commencement point to the date of the incident rather than when it was discovered, it would have encouraged some unscrupulous doctors to hide the negligence as long as possible and perhaps avoid responsibility altogether. The AMAQ also wants to make any changes to civil liability retrospective. Legislators are always reluctant to make laws retrospective for the simple reason that it is often unfair and denies the rights of some individuals. This would have certainly been the case if these changes we are proposing to civil liability laws were made retrospective. The AMAQ has tried to ramp the issue up as a major crisis for doctors in Queensland, saying that if the legislation was not made retrospective a lot of doctors would be forced out of business and retired doctors would face exorbitant claims against them. While claims of medical negligence have shown a worrying trend to rise in Queensland, the situation is nowhere near as bad in New South Wales and other states and certainly not anywhere near as bad as the AMAQ has claimed. We simply are not having the same huge payouts associated with medical negligence that have been occurring in other states, mainly because our system is different to start with and is not based on injury awarded payouts. The fact that the Queensland situation is different from the other states has allowed the Attorney-General to consult widely, draft sensible, balanced legislation and not be rushed into a knee-jerk response which would have had to be amended significantly at a later date. Over this period of consultation, the state National Party opposition has largely been silent and has contributed very little, if anything, to the debate. I know some people consider that at times I have been overly critical of the National Party, but I think this is one example where the opposition has clearly dropped the ball and has let the people of Queensland down again. Apart from an initial flurry of activity when UMP collapsed last year, the state opposition has largely steered clear of civil liability and medical indemnity, and this is surprising because the future of many businesses—and most of them small businesses—depends on our getting the formula right for civil liability. The medical liability part of this legislation has caught most of the headlines on the issue, and a lot of time and effort has been expended in getting the balance right. In the bill there is a very practical requirement that, where a child is injured as a result of medical negligence, then the parents of that child must give notice of the intended claim within six years of knowing the injury has occurred. This requirement overcomes myriad problems and potential problems. It provides a safeguard for doctors who fear action taken decades after an event, and it requires parents of child patients and all patients to ensure action is taken as soon as possible. Action can still be taken by parents outside the six-year period, but not without risk because a court could decide that either the claim could not proceed or that the parent is unable to claim for any medical expenses or cost of care until that time. These changes will provide more certainty than the current system and avoid the situation where claimants, or more particularly their lawyers, will delay lodging claims. The bill also provides certainty through enlarging the concept of structured settlements, whereby all parties are advised of the ability of a court to make awards or orders for damages in matters worth more than $100,000 that allow a defendant to provide damages other than by way of a lump sum payment. This allows defendants the ability to pay damages awards in part payments and reduces the risk of bankruptcy but also ensures the plaintiff is not disadvantaged. We have all seen the outrageous personal injury claims being made in the United States and it is obvious that some people here in Australia are following the trend towards becoming a more litigious society. To avoid the United States situation and provide a break on excessive claims, the bill provides for a number of practical changes. By providing a new method of assessing general damages in personal injury cases, this bill will avoid the United States examples. The new assessment method with its scale and appropriate guidelines is another sensible provision in this legislation. I am also pleased to see the changes to the legislation which remove the right of people to claim damages if they are injured whilst committing an indictable offence and allow the court discretion if it considers the result will be harsh and unjust. Under the bill, any intoxicated person will be presumed to have contributed to their injury unless they can prove otherwise and, if not, any damages payment will be reduced by at least 25 per cent. This figure increases to 50 per cent if the incident involves a motor vehicle accident. It puts the onus back on people to take responsibility for their actions but also allows the courts 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1249 some leeway when assessing individual cases. The same philosophy applies to dangerous recreational activities where people should be aware of the obvious risk inherent in the activity and take responsibility if they choose to participate. The obvious example is skydiving. Why people would choose to jump out of a perfectly good plane I will never know, but if they do and something happens that is through no fault of the business owner then the person who was involved in the activity has to take the responsibility. The onus is also on the person to ask questions about the activity they are going to do or an operation that they are about to undergo so that they can ascertain the risk for themselves. On the other hand, if a doctor or business owner fails to take the necessary steps to prevent injury that was foreseeable and take precautions then they are still liable. The bill also provides specific protection for professionals but prevents professionals from closing ranks to protect individuals who have been negligent. Professionals are not liable for actions which are considered widely acceptable practice by their peers. However, the court has some discretion if it considers this peer professional opinion to be irrational or clearly outside the normal bounds of community expectation. The bill also maintains the view that cases of negligent conduct which involve a WorkCover Queensland scheme claim, exposure to tobacco smoke or tobacco products or a dust related disease should be kept separate from all other claims. Due to the complexities and specific nature of these types of claims, it is a sensible provision. I have used the word 'sensible' a number of times during this speech, and why not? This bill is a commonsense and practical approach to an issue which had the potential to cause serious problems in many facets of our lives. I want to put on record my appreciation of the community groups in my electorate for continuing to serve their community and for their patience and investigative skills in some instances in obtaining insurance. I have been disappointed to see the number of community events that have been cancelled over the past year or so due to the groups' inability to either obtain public liability insurance at all or at least obtain an affordable public liability insurance policy. There have been outrageous premiums of $8,000 for a community fair. It really does show up the insurance companies as being greedy parasites who are feeding on the goodwill and the hard- earned money of community groups. One part of this bill that I am pleased to see relates to volunteers. There are so many great volunteers in my community doing work in Meals on Wheels, hall groups, P&C groups, sporting groups and in the general community. All members have them in their electorates and they do a fantastic job. This bill gives protection to the individual volunteers doing this community work. It recognises the valuable community service provided by these people. We often discuss the fact that there is no way we could pay volunteers for all the great work they do in our communities, and nor would they want us to do so. It is people giving back to their own community. However, it should be noted that the bill does not exempt the community organisation from liability. It is about people doing the right thing when putting on fairs or community events such as looking out for any dangers and ensuring that those in the community are responsible for their own actions and take responsibility for what they do and not just look for escapes and outs. This bill counteracts all the foreseeable problems with civil liability and it provides the correct balance between the rights of plaintiffs and defendants and certainty in the legal system. It is now time for the insurance industry to respond positively to this legislation and start providing affordable insurance. It is also time for the federal government to give the ACCC the powers it needs to investigate and prosecute the insurance industry if it does not start acting responsibly. We have all done our bit here in the state government. The community groups are out there doing their bit, so I really do call on the federal government to do its bit and help us deal with the insurance crisis. It is excellent and sensible legislation. I commend the Attorney and his department for all their hard work and the community for getting involved and supporting the government on this issue. I commend the bill to the House. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (2.54 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the Civil Liability Bill. I congratulate the Attorney-General, the Premier and the Treasurer for another key part of the package of reforms to try to reduce the cost of public liability insurance that many community groups have been forced to pay. I must also pay tribute to the member for Fitzroy, who is in the chamber. He was the first member in this House to bring to the attention of the House the concerns of rising costs in terms of public liability. He should be commended for that. Mr Pearce: Thank you very much for making people aware of that, because that is true. 1250 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Mr REEVES: The record speaks for itself, member for Fitzroy. It is on the public record. It is great that volunteers who work in good faith will be protected against actions under the new public liability insurance reforms. This new package gives the best protection ever for volunteers who contribute much to our Queensland way of life. Volunteers are the fabric of our society. As the member for Glass House said, whether it is Meals on Wheels, P&Cs, sporting groups, cultural groups, church groups and even volunteers in political parties, volunteers are what make this society work and as a result we can be very proud of the communities that we represent. The Mount Gravatt Meals on Wheels, which has been providing a great service for 27 years, came to me with concerns about volunteers and the fact that in the future it would be hard placed to attract volunteers because of the public liability issue. I made representations to the Attorney- General after it had suggested to me a system such as that occurring in South Australia, and it is great that the Attorney-General has taken those concerns on board and as a result we have the bill before the House today. As I said, volunteers are the backbone of many communities, particularly mine. Our volunteers will be protected for acts done in good faith while undertaking work. This recognises the value of the community services that they do but does not exempt community organisations from their liability. Notwithstanding the need to protect our volunteers, we cannot ignore the plight of people injured through no fault of their own. The main point is that individual volunteers doing community work should be protected. I ask members to imagine if this was not the case. With the rising cost of public liability insurance, we would get to a situation where we would not have any volunteers in our communities. Organisations like local sporting groups such as the Mount Gravatt Soccer Club, the Mount Gravatt Aussie Rules Club, East Mount Gravatt Rugby League Club, Mansfield Cricket Club and a range of other organisations would have been hard pressed to cope with the reduced number of volunteers because of this issue. It would have certainly had a major bearing on it. Other key elements of the bill include the $250,000 cap on general damages; better protection for local councils against actions stemming from their policies or resource allocation; more protection for professionals such as doctors, architects and engineers; limits on the time periods for doctors to be notified of potential claims; and the removal of the need for warning of obvious risks. More fairness from insurance companies is needed. It is also high time the federal government gave the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to act against insurance companies that do not pass on to consumers the savings that flow from these extensive reforms. We have not seen those savings passed on after the first wave of reforms. Let us hope we see it with the second, but I am not holding my breath for two reasons. One is that I cannot see the federal government giving the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to act. This is a federal government that aids and abets insurance companies. One only needs to look at its power in terms of the health insurance issue. It virtually gives health insurance companies wage rises because it allows them to up their fees. Not only that, it knows that with the 30 per cent rebate the taxpayer is up for more money to pay for it. It would be great if employees could get that. They could say, 'I want a wage rise and I want the taxpayer to pay for it.' That is the reality of what the health insurance companies are doing. Mr Wilson: Workers have to get an independent umpire in. Mr REEVES: That is exactly right; workers have to get an independent arbitrator. But they just have to go to the feds and say, 'We want an eight per cent rise in private health insurance. More importantly, we're going to get 30 per cent of that from you, the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayer.' The taxpayer is paying it twice, once upon taking out membership and secondly as a taxpayer. I call on the federal government, as do most members, and I call on those opposite to get behind this call to give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to act. The federal government has proven time and time again, particularly in health insurance, that it will not act upon it. It is about time the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had the power to act. Professional sporting groups, organisations and community groups would then have an independent umpire, as the member for Ferny Grove said, to call on if they receive outrageous bills for premiums. At the moment there is no independent umpire. Our reforms also give doctors the assurance that they need to continue delivering babies and operating on children, especially in regional Queensland. The period for doctors to be notified of potential claims will now be six years from the day a parent or guardian knew or should have known that the child had sustained an injury due to the doctor's negligence. This is a fair and balanced 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1251 approach that protects the rights of children while enabling doctors to get on with their business without living in constant fear of writ. There is the important change of limiting the exposure of professionals to claim for losses for which they are only partly responsible. Insurance law experts tell us this will have a significant impact on the availability of professional indemnity insurance. Here, once again, are great reforms to the public insurance sector. It is now time for the insurance companies to back up this reform by reducing the costs—outlandish costs in some cases. It is about time the federal government got behind the ACCC and gave it the power to act on this. As I said, I am not holding my breath. Its history does not suggest that it will. I congratulate the Attorney-General, once again, and the Premier and Treasurer, who have been at the forefront of pushing this reform. Hopefully, it will get the insurance companies to act appropriately. They have a special place in our society. They have a privileged position. But at the moment there is no evidence that they are using that wisely. Many members would know of examples where one organisation gets a huge premium increase with another organisation getting hardly anything. An organisation might have made no claims but had a huge rise. It is ludicrous. That is why we need the ACCC to have the power to act. I call on the federal government to back up what we are doing in Queensland and give the ACCC the power to act. I support the bill. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (3.02 p.m.): I rise to make some brief comments about the Civil Liability Bill. It has been something of a long debate in the House. I do not think there has been much disagreement between any of the speakers who have spoken in terms of the general thrust of the bill and the need for this government to take action. I think it would achieve very little for me to repeat many of the arguments that have already been put, except to say that I, like just about every other honourable member, welcome the introduction of the Civil Liability Bill to the parliament. If I have a criticism it is the fact that it has taken the government so long to act. I have already heard the arguments that have been put forward by the Attorney-General and other people in the government that the complexity of this area has required this period to prepare a response. From the point of view of people in my electorate, as in every electorate up and down Queensland, it is very difficult to understand why it has taken so long to prepare a response to a problem that has been huge in every community—a problem that has affected so many organisations and so many people. It is difficult to understand why it has taken so long to put in place what would seem to be in the main some pretty obvious responses. That is very difficult. It has been very difficult for people to understand. One of the difficulties for me as a member of parliament has been to try to justify or explain to people why it is taking so long to get a legislative response to this problem when some of the causes at least seem to be reasonably easy to deal with from a layman's point of view. Some of those things, such as the acceptance of risk, the recognition of inherent danger and the contributory negligence-type provisions that are part of this legislation, should have been dealt with a long time ago. I fail to see why it has taken so long for this piece of legislation to reach the House to deal with problems that would seem at least to be easily dealt with. Anyway, I welcome the fact that the legislation is finally in the House. I urge the government to recognise that this is an ongoing problem. I endorse some of the comments that a number of members have already made in regard to the need for insurance companies to change their approach and to take a different approach to the whole issue of liability insurance in light of the changed legislative background. That should change the risk factors within which those insurance companies have to work. It should change the possibilities of payouts that they face and thereby allow them to reduce premiums to a level that is acceptable or affordable by so many people both individually and as part of community organisations. It is a terrible tragedy, I believe, that this legislation will come too late for a lot of organisations right across Queensland—certainly a lot of organisations in my electorate. The changes that the legislation will bring to the risk environment within which the insurance companies have to operate and set their premiums will come too late for a lot of organisations. Community organisations especially, as other members have said, have probably been the entities that have been most severely affected by public liability insurance over the last two or three years. In a lot of cases, simply paying insurance bills burnt up all of their resources. A number of them have not been able to do that and have failed simply because they have not been able to acquire enough income to pay their insurance bills. As other speakers have said, it is almost impossible to justify some of the insurance premiums levied by insurance companies on community organisations. One of the more difficult areas for all members to deal with in our role as local members has been trying to find a solution for community organisations, especially where, as most of them do, 1252 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 those community organisations play an important role in those communities that we represent— whatever area it is in. They play an important role, whether it is a sporting area, a service area or even a social area at times. Those organisations all have a role to play within the fabric of the community. Over the past two or three years one of the most difficult things has been listening to people and understanding the problems that their organisations have had with the public liability insurance crisis and yet not being able to find a realistic solution. It was particularly cruel that those organisations were offered a lifeline, or at least had an expectation built up that there was going to be a lifeline for them, through the group buying scheme that the government put in place and which was supposed to allow them to continue to operate to solve this problem for them. That was never going to be the case, but the government could not help itself with the rhetoric and sales pitch and the statements that were made at the time when that was introduced by the Premier and some of his ministers. That built up an expectation in the community that somehow this group buying scheme was going to provide a realistic solution to the problems that were being encountered by those community organisations. It never happened and it dashed the hopes of a lot of people in communities all over Queensland. I believe that it was particularly cruel on the part of the government to seek the political kudos that it obviously received from announcing at the time that this was going to be a solution and then not put in the resources to make sure that it worked as well as it could have. It was never going to be a perfect solution. It was dishonest for the government to sell it in that light—that it was somehow going to solve all the problems of the community organisations. But even once we got past that point, the scheme could have been made to work in such a way that it provided many more opportunities than it did in reality. In reality, it was a complete farce. In reality, it broke down altogether. I know that in my electorate office I spent a lot of time trying to assist community organisations to access assistance through this group buying scheme that the government had set up. The level of expertise and the level of capability that the government had resourced in that structure was very much lacking, to say the least. The government did not even try to make it work. It did not even instill people with a capability and an understanding of the situation to try to make it work. Rather, I think that the government set out, once again, to blame the insurance companies rather than make any real commitment in resources once it had gone past the stage of milking the issue for short-term political gain. It is regrettable that that happened. I believe that this legislation should go some way towards addressing a number of issues that have been identified clearly in this parliament over a number of years. In the years that I have been in this place there has probably not been any other issue that has been raised more times because of all the opportunities that members in this House get—be it through questions, speeches or letters to the responsible ministers—than this insurance crisis. It should be so, because to date this issue has affected probably every Queenslander and affected all of them negatively. It is fitting that this House should respond with some legislation to at least try to address the issue. The National Party, through the mechanism of a private member's bill, introduced what it saw as some attempt to address the most obvious area of need. Unfortunately, as most private members' bills are in this place, it was rejected by the government. The private member's bill that the National Party introduced dealt with the issue of the voluntary assumption of risk. It is pleasing to see that the Attorney-General has included that issue in this legislation. I hope that the way in which the Attorney-General has addressed the issue in this legislation addresses it as effectively as did the private member's bill that the National Party introduced and that the government rejected. Right back in the early stages when the problem was becoming increasingly apparent, the National Party also put forward a six-point plan. It is interesting to look back on that plan now a few years down the track as the issue has developed. I note that a number of the points in that six-point plan have been proposed in some form or another in this legislation. Once again, it is gratifying to see that that has happened—that there has been a general acceptance of the solutions that were put forward. The only regrettable part about that is that it has taken so long. The bill addresses the issue of recognising an obvious risk in division 3, which deals with the assumption of risk. It allows a person to assume what are obvious risks. I think that the example that is set out in the explanatory notes is a good one as it illustrates what most people would think would be a commonsense approach. It states— 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1253

... while it may be an obvious risk of riding a horse that a rider may fall off the horse, it would not be an obvious risk that the rider may fall off due to the saddle not being securely fastened. It is probably a little ironic that the drafters of the bill and the explanatory notes have chosen to use that particular horse riding example— Ms Keech: Why? Have you fallen off? Mr SEENEY: I have fallen off lots of times, but I have never sued anybody for it. I have kicked the horse a few times, but I have never sued anybody. One of the areas that has been hit the hardest by the insurance crisis has been horse riding. Members would understand that, in my electorate, horse riding activities in all their forms are particularly important. But it has been next to impossible to get the required insurance cover for anything to do with horse riding—from pony clubs right through to rodeos and professional horse sports. They have really been affected very badly by the difficulty of getting insurance cover. Ms Keech: That is why this bill is good news for horse riding clubs. Mr SEENEY: I have already acknowledged that, but it is an area that I think has been singled out quite unfairly by the insurance companies. While there is that type of inherent risk that is referred to in the explanatory notes in relation to clause 13, there are a lot of other activities that are a heck of a lot more dangerous than horse riding. But horse riding is certainly an activity that has illustrated the unjust approach of insurance companies to the whole issue of insurance cover. The companies settled on that activity as somehow being an area of high risk and then it became almost impossible to get insurance cover for horse riding activities. When I pursued this issue for some groups in my area, I rang up, I was asked the question of whether or not any horse riding was involved, and as soon as I said there was horse riding involved, then it was almost impossible to go past that point. There are a number of differing degrees of risk involved in horse riding activities, but there is no capacity for the process to take those differing degrees into account. A good example is one that most members may have heard of, the Kilkivan Great Horse Ride, which is held every year. It is quite a spectacle. Between 1,000 and 1,500 horse riders go out for a day's ride. At the end of the day, they all come together and ride down the main street of Kilkivan. It is very spectacular, but very low risk, because it is just a general ride through a country area in a supervised way on a designated track or road. Then the group comes together and rides up the main street of Kilkivan late in the afternoon after having had a great day. But, because the event involved so many horses, in the insurance company's mind that translated into such a risk that it was almost impossible to get the necessary insurance cover to allow that event to proceed—an event that had been held for a number of years very successfully. Luckily, at the 11th hour we were able to get insurance cover for that event, even though we had to get it from South Australia because the government's group buying scheme was such a dismal failure. But we have been able to ensure that that event proceeds. That is a good example of how there was no capacity within the process that the government set up to properly identify whether or not there was sufficient risk to charge the type of premiums that were being charged. There was certainly that blinkered view by the insurance companies of anything to do with horses and, in this case, a large number of horses. Division 3 deals with that assumption of risk question that allows people to assume those inherent risks, whether it be horse riding, playing sport or whatever. That is as most people would expect it to be. It was part of the bill that we introduced into the House. I do not think anyone in Queensland would argue with that concept. Most people in the general community that I know ask, 'What is the problem with that? Why can people not assume or agree to assume what are obvious risks that are inherent in a particular activity?' That relates to a whole range of recreational activities that probably would not be any fun at all if there were not those inherent risks involved. The other section that is important is that which sets out to protect volunteers, division 2 of the bill. I certainly agree with the comments of other speakers in this debate, particularly the member for Mansfield who spoke most recently, about the importance of volunteers in all communities. That is equally true of communities such as the one that the member for Mansfield represents here in the large urban part of Queensland as it is in the small rural communities that I represent. This idea of providing some indemnity to individual volunteers is especially important. It is an especially welcome part of this legislation. There is one clause that probably best sums up the approach that the legislation takes to that issue of protecting volunteers, clause 39. The explanatory notes provided say that clause 39 provides an indemnity to individual volunteers either engaged in community work for community 1254 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 organisations as an office holder of such an organisation from liability in negligence for their own actions. The conduct of a volunteer must be in good faith and without reckless disregard for the safety of any other person. The general response in the community would be, 'Why on earth has it taken us three years to recognise something that is so obvious? Why on earth has it taken us so long?' I certainly welcome the fact that it is here in this legislation in the parliament today. Other parts of the legislation certainly deal with some other issues such as criminal behaviour and intoxication. They, too, are approaches that most commonsense people would welcome. It is particularly important to reinforce the statements made by previous members, although I probably would not use quite as much colourful language as some of the government backbenchers in terms of hoping that insurance companies do recognise the changes in the risk environment within which they operate, that the insurance companies now do have a responsibility to adjust their premiums— Time expired. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (3.24 p.m.): I will not dare say I am going to make a brief contribution, because it might take 20 minutes! I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. The issue of insurance premiums going through the roof in the last three years and the inability of community organisations and professionals, including doctors, to obtain affordable insurance, let alone any cover at all, has been a matter of comment on many occasions over the last several years. Insurance premiums have increased for many reasons, including increases in the number of claims and the level of payouts, the collapse of HIH and UMP, low investment returns for insurers and new Commonwealth APRA solvency requirements. In relation to UMP, I spoke previously in the House, I think late last year, about the gross incompetence displayed by the senior management of UMP such that they failed to disclose $500 million worth of liability to their members. When that emerged in the situation of the failure of HIH, UMP itself then hit the wall. As a result of mismanagement such as that in a range of insurance companies, confined not only to HIH and UMP and a range of others, insurance premiums in a number of areas, including public liability and professional indemnity, rose dramatically. State governments throughout the country have no power to dictate to private insurance companies the amount they charge for premiums but have stepped in to try and protect key groups in society such as the groups I mentioned before, community organisations and such like. In this regard the Queensland government has been particularly proactive in working towards a group insurance scheme for community organisations and calling for reforms to the law of negligence. It must be stressed here that it is the Commonwealth government that has the constitutional right and obligation to regulate the insurance industry—not any of the state governments. For example, the ACCC can examine whether prices are artificially inflated, and APRA is responsible for overseeing the financial viability of insurance companies. One of the factors that influenced insurance premiums, though, has in fact been the level of compensation awarded by the courts. The courts operate within the legal system as prescribed by each state government and within the laws that apply to the common law of negligence. In this area, the state government can act as it has the power to legislate in relation to negligence and to arrange a framework that influences competition payments. It is in that area that this state government has been at the forefront of taking action to address the risk environment and the legal system that operates in that risk environment to take the pressure, to the extent reasonable, off the premium rises brought about by the insurance companies. That has happened in two stages. The first stage, as we know, occurred via the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act of 2002. There were 14 or more major law reforms introduced in that legislation, including mandatory early notification of claims, the restriction on illegal advertising, putting limits on legal costs that could be claimed, identifying minimum thresholds for various claims, capping claims for economic loss, and excluding—and this is a key change—juries from hearing personal injury trials. As was indicated at that time, that was to be the first stage of reform. It was foreshadowed that there would be a phase 2 and that that would be a national working party which would work toward producing the reforms to the area of negligence law throughout Australia but in a way that maximised the uniformity of those changes that might be adopted by any particular state government; bearing in mind that in this area of vital law reform it became apparent that it would be highly counterproductive for any state to legislate in a knee-jerk way for reforms that were significantly different state by state, because that in fact would only compound the complexity for insurance companies which actually operate not only on a national 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1255 basis but an international basis when underwriting risk. The objective of the exercise is to minimise the nature of regulation and the features of regulation that add to the risk. The Civil Liability Bill, the bill before the House, is the government's response to the second stage of law reform. There are a number of major areas in which there has been law reform further introduced. One of the key areas is in the prescription of what constitutes medical negligence. The bill provides that the test for determining medical negligence will be that a medical practitioner is not negligent if treatment was in accordance with an opinion widely held by a significant number of respected practitioners in the field unless a court considers that the opinion is irrational. At the time that the insurance crisis first hit—and particularly the medical indemnity insurance crisis—I organised in my electorate a series of meetings with doctors. They raised a whole range of issues, many of which were dealt with in the personal proceedings legislation to which I referred before that was our response to the first stage. One of the issues they kept raising was that over many years, such was their view, the law had changed such that, in effect, the definition of 'medical negligence' had been widened by the courts, and many medicos argued that there ought to be independent assessors with medical backgrounds involved in these personal injuries proceedings to give a true and impartial view about what constitutes medical negligence. Instead of going down that track, this government, as have other governments, has modified the definition of 'medical negligence' to give greater certainty to the law on negligence in this area and, consequently, to insurers about what standards will in fact be applied in measuring whether or not in a particular instance a medical practitioner's conduct constituted negligence. Another area in which changes are introduced in this bill is in identifying that there will be a duty owed by doctors to inform their patients about risks and to give them information that a reasonable medical practitioner would know or ought to know that the patient wants or needs to be given. A further area of reform is in the area of recreational activity. This issue was often taken up with me locally, as it was by the AMA and other organisations at a state level. The issue is that many activities of a recreational nature are undertaken by people on a voluntary basis and predominantly for their own enjoyment. In that regard, participants are really embracing the level of risk that is inherent in that activity. So this bill provides that there will be no requirement on an operator of a recreational activity to warn a member of the public of any obvious risk or to take action to prevent any consequence of an obvious risk. This in fact will affirm the principle that people do need to take a certain level of responsibility for their own activity and their own conduct. A third area relates to specific rules dealing with a duty to warn of obvious risks. The bill provides that there is no general duty to warn of obvious risks. A further area involves codifying the law of negligence, particularly in relation to the standard of care in assessing negligence, determining reasonable foreseeability, causation and contributory negligence. These areas are intended to largely reflect the operation of existing common law. Codifying these areas is designed to ensure that there is consistent application by the lower courts and also to give greater certainty to insurance companies that are writing insurance in this area. Specific rules covering the liability of public authorities are dealt with. The decision in the recent High Court case—it overturned the established common law position regarding the absence of any liability in local government authorities for negligence in the nature of nonfeasance—has been overturned until 2005 to enable local authorities time to adjust their practices and procedures to be better placed to assume that risk when that period expires. This bill will provide that proportionate liability—this does not deal with the situation in personal injuries cases but in all other cases dealing with damages that are assessed in excess of $500,000—can be allocated between two or more defendants in proceedings. Whilst it is problematic whether or not this will produce some reduction in the pressure on insurance premiums, for the sake of better caution this step has been taken. A range of measures is introduced to restrict the quantum of damages paid. That has also come out of the national working party, otherwise known as the Ipp report. That includes a cap on general damages at $250,000, a graduated scale of general damages, a cap on gratuitous services at full-time average weekly earnings, no prejudgment interest on damages for non- economic loss and a number of other things. There is one final area that I want to draw attention to. Of course, there are many areas in this fairly complex and involved area of legislative reform. That other area is the requirement for early notification of claims by children relating to medical negligence. This was an issue raised by 1256 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 doctors in my area, around which they were vigorous in the prosecution of the view, promoted by the AMA, that the cause of action for children ought to be limited to three years. That was their position. That would be three years from the time at which the injury occurred or the time at which it became apparent that the injury had occurred. We have not gone down that track, because we believe it is important to protect the rights of children. The alternative track we have gone down is that of providing that there be an early notification system for claims regarding children in the case of medical negligence and that that notification period be six years. If notification of the existence of the claim is not made within six years then the applicant has to make application to the court for leave to actually commence the proceedings. In that situation the judge has a discretion to exercise—whether in all of the circumstances it is appropriate to permit the case to commence. I conclude by reiterating that it is the federal government that has the responsibility to tighten up the regulation of the insurance industry. It is up to the insurance companies now to reflect in their premium setting practices the fact that the risk environment has been significantly improved by the alterations to the legal system, to the legal rights and to the legal costs involved in the civil liability area and the personal injuries area particularly. That has been brought about by the legislation introduced by this government last year and also by this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (3.37 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Civil Liability Bill 2003, because the reforms to negligence law contained in this bill will make a significant contribution to addressing the public liability insurance crisis that has affected almost every facet of community and business life in Queensland, certainly in my electorate. I have received representations from a wide range of individuals and organisations, including those in Machans Beach, Edge Hill, Redlynch, Aeroglen and Kuranda, where organisations manage community facilities, such as halls. They are all concerned about the increases in public liability insurance, which in most cases has more than doubled, putting enormous strain on their limited financial resources. Organisations such as these obviously want to spend money raised by their hard work on projects to benefit the community, not to pay insurance bills. There is no doubt that community life in Queensland has suffered as a result of rising insurance premiums, with many events cancelled because of prohibitive insurance costs, as members in this debate have noted. The major annual fundraising event of the Cairns and Far North Environment Centre, EnviroFiesta, is under threat this year because of the insurance premiums. They will be approximately $6,000—the same amount the event raises in normal years. Just yesterday the Julatten district sporting club contacted me devastated because it cannot get any public liability insurance cover for its official opening this Saturday. The Cairns Peace Picnic, staged at Munro Martin Park just a few weeks ago, had to raise $2,000 to cover public liability insurance required by the Cairns City Council. I, along with many others, was happy to contribute to help cover this cost, but as organiser Alistair Harris said about this impost, 'I would never have thought that insurance would become an obstacle to Australians expressing their thoughts in a democratic way.' Community organisations have not been the only ones to suffer from escalating public liability insurance premiums. Professionals in fields like engineering and architecture, medical specialists, and adventure tourism operators have contacted me, and the economic consequences are extremely serious for these injuries. In June 2002 the Queensland government introduced the first stage of law reforms designed to rein in burgeoning insurance costs and provide more affordable premiums. The Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 contains a range of measures including restrictions on legal advertising, bans on jury trials, caps on economic loss and pre-court procedures designed to avoid lengthy court battles and delays. Following the ministerial meeting of Treasury and finance ministers on 30 May 2002, Commonwealth, states and territory governments jointly agreed to appoint a panel of eminent persons to examine and review the law of negligence, including its interaction with the Trade Practices Act 1974. The panel was chaired by the Honourable Justice David Ipp of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and in October last year the panel delivered the Review of the Law of Negligence Final Report, referred to as the Ipp report. The Ipp report contains 61 recommendations that address the panel's terms of reference, including aspects of negligence generally—that is, foreseeability, standard of care, causation and remoteness of damage, contributory negligence, 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1257 assumption of risk, non-delegable duties and vicarious liability—mental harm, liability of public authorities, proportionate liability and damages. In November last year all state ministers agreed to introduce nationally consistent legislation to implement the key recommendations of the Ipp report, and in December 2002 a consultation draft of the Civil Liability Bill 2002 was tabled in Parliament. Public submissions upon that draft have been received and considered and shaped the bill now before the House. This bill implements relevant recommendations of the Ipp report, subject to pertinent submissions, and includes provisions modelled on the New South Wales Civil Liability Amendment (Personal Responsibility) Act 2002, which was the first legislation of any Australian jurisdiction that implemented the recommendations contained in the Ipp report. The reforms introduced in this bill—the second stage of our reforms—provide a commonsense approach to negligence and in my mind reconnect the law with reality. These reforms ensure that all parties involved, including an injured person, must take personal responsibility for their own conduct and safety. This is the key to achieving the fundamental changes needed in negligence law. The bill will apply to all cases of negligent conduct, whether it results in personal injury, property damage or economic loss, except for personal injuries that are within the WorkCover Queensland scheme or caused by exposure to tobacco smoke or tobacco products or a dust related disease. The bill modifies the general law regarding breach of the duty of care owed by one person to another. The test for duty of care is a restatement of the common law principles identified by Justice Ipp, using language considered by His Honour as being appropriate for that purpose. The test, as set out in clause 9, indicates that a person will not breach a duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable, not insignificant, and in the circumstances a reasonable person would have taken precautions to protect that other person. Finally, we have a commonsense approach to this vexed issue expressed in language we can all understand. The reforms in the bill that follow from these principles and other recommendations in the Ipp report include a $250,000 cap on general damages; better protection for local councils against actions stemming from their policies or resource allocation; more protection for professionals, such as doctors, architects and engineers; limits on the time period for doctors to be notified of potential claims; removal of the need for warnings of obvious risks; no liability for injuries arising from obvious risks in the case of dangerous recreational activities; no liability in cases where the injured person was engaged in criminal activity which contributed to the risk of injury; restricted claims where a person's intoxication contributed to their personal injury; and a change in the standard of care for professional groups, including doctors, to protect against liability for acts performed in accordance with a respected body of professional opinion. The bill will further clarify the laws of negligence by codifying the test for determining negligence, and in particular providing that a person is only required to act to prevent a risk that is 'not insignificant'; codifying legal principles in determining whether the defendant caused the plaintiff's injury; codifying the test for determining contributory negligence and allowing damages to be reduced by 100 per cent; and disallowing pre-judgment interest on damages for non- economic loss. I would like in my contribution this afternoon to focus on the provisions of division 4 of the bill, dangerous recreational activities, which covers activities engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure that involve a significant degree of risk of physical harm to a person. The bill ensures that a person will not be liable for injury to another as a result of an obvious risk in that activity and voluntary assumption of risk will also be able to be used as a defence in any damages case, whether or not the person suffering harm was aware of the risk. This section of the bill is vitally important to the adventure tourism industry in far-north Queensland and should help to reduce insurance premiums in the future. At present the industry is facing horrendous costs. I will just give one example; that of Raging Thunder, a company that operates white water rafting on the Johnstone, Tully and Barron rivers, which looks to experience an increase in insurance premiums from $130,000 for $10 million cover to $225,000 for only $5 million cover. As of earlier this week, it was still negotiating with the only company in Australia that provides insurance to rafting companies for the extra cover needed. The EPA should also get some relief from this section of the bill with respect to activities in national parks and other protected areas. In many cases, as members will be aware, walking tracks have been closed in some national parks for fear of people hurting themselves and then 1258 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 seeking damages from the EPA. I hope this legislation will lead to a review of the current policy of the EPA on public liability insurance, which is jeopardising the 2003 Cairns Eco Adventure Race, a three-day event that involves kayaking, mountain bike riding, hiking, rope work and navigation skills in natural settings on the Atherton Tableland and attracts participants from all over the world and for which they need permits to traverse areas that are under the control of the EPA. The EPA's requirement to have each individual participant have their own $10 million public risk insurance cover when traversing these protected areas seems to be impossible to meet. Following my intervention last year, this requirement was waived on a one-off basis only and negotiations are continuing with the EPA for this year's race. I thank Minister Wells for his support in this case and hope that it can be satisfactorily resolved. Part 3 of the bill is also a very important one and covers liability of public authorities and volunteers. This bill makes it clear that for the first time volunteers working in 'good faith' for a community organisation will be protected against negligence actions when undertaking community work. However, I received correspondence just this week from Yvonne Pengilly, a trustee of the Redlynch Community Hall, pointing out that clause 38 of the bill defines 'community organisation' as either a corporation or an authority of the state, which would leave its committee of volunteers unprotected. In that case, the consequences of corporatisation that would afford them cover would result in the loss of control of its asset. I have discussed this issue with the Attorney-General, who I am very pleased to say has recognised this problem and will address it when we discuss clause 38 in the committee stage. I would like to thank the Redlynch Community Hall trustees for bringing this important issue to my attention so that the trustees of community and charitable organisations in Queensland can also be covered by this legislation. I understand that the proposed amendment will extend the definition of 'community organisations' to cover trustees. At the end of the day, the success of this legislation will be reflected in the lowering of public liability insurance premiums and the restoration of community life as we all knew it before the collapse of HIH. The joint communique following the ministerial meeting on public liability insurance held in Brisbane in November last year noted that the actuarial advice on the impact of the Ipp report's recommendations indicated that the package could reduce public liability insurance premiums by around 13.5 per cent. Significant reductions in medical indemnity insurance premiums of between 15 per cent and 18 per cent were also estimated for most jurisdictions. Sadly, that is hardly an amount that would give many people joy, and it is disappointing that it will reduce it by only that amount. The reality is that, as we know, rather than a reduction this year, we have seen premiums increase again, as I understand it by some 25 per cent. In the absence of Commonwealth regulation of insurance prices, it is doubtful whether any savings will ever be passed on to consumers because it is going to be contingent on the decisions of the insurance industry. In light of past practices, I for one have no faith in the industry to do the right thing nor in its regulatory body, APRA, to exercise the necessary controls as many members in this debate have said. I am afraid the faith that we do have in that industry is at an all-time low. If the federal government—because the federal government has such an important role to play in addition to APRA—really does care about the welfare of the sporting, recreational, community, cultural and professional bodies that are suffering under crippling insurance premiums, it will give the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission the power to bring the industry into line and make it pass on to consumers the savings that should flow from our extensive reforms. The ACCC was given this power after the GST was introduced and it is needed now so that professional sporting organisations, business and community groups have an independent umpire to call on if they continue to receive outrageous bills for premiums which are threatening our way of life. The Queensland government has played its part with respect to reform legislation which provides the framework we need for change. I commend this bill to the House and will, along with the community I represent, be watching the insurance industry for a responsible and timely response. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (3.50 p.m.): This has been a long debate with over 50 members contributing to it, so I will not go into any particular aspects of the bill. However, I do think that we as members of parliament should take it on ourselves to criticise ourselves for how long it has taken for this whole issue to be partly resolved. I have heard many members blame other governments, but quite honestly we as members of parliament should accept the fact that we have known about this problem for a very long time. We have been warned about it. We have been told about it. But we are still at the stage where the community has lost complete faith in the 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1259 system, and members would not blame them for losing faith as far as parliamentarians are concerned. I say that because on the front page of this week's Leader—a paper that covers Logan, Beaudesert, the northern part of my electorate, Albert, Waterford and those areas—there is a big heading which states 'Insurance folly'. It talks about a young fellow by the name of Shane Leighton, whose photo is on the front of the paper. The article states— Bureaucracy gone crazy is the way Logan City Councillor Lynne Clarke describes a system that has locked out one of Logan's youngest volunteers from a nursing home. Greenbank's Shane Leighton, 12, had been visiting the Logan Nursing Home for three-and-a-half years. His hobby was talking to the residents. They gave him a sense of history and he in return kept them in touch with his generation. He received recognition for his contribution to Logan city during the recent International Year of the Volunteer. Cr Clarke said she had been approached by residents who said Shane was no longer allowed to visit because he had no public liability insurance. His mum Sharran confirmed Shane had been refused insurance by his previous insurer and that she had been unable to find another insurance company that would insure a volunteer under the age of 18 years. She said when the nursing home told him he could no longer visit about a month ago he was very upset. 'He's devastated and cannot understand it all,' Mrs Leighton said. 'He misses the residents and they miss him. It gave him responsibility and he learned to handle concepts of old age and dying that young people rarely do. It worked both ways. We rang every insurance company and the answer was the same. He had to be 18 years old.' I ask the minister to comment about this issue. After this legislation passes through the House, do insurance companies have to operate in the same way? Do people have to be over 18 years of old to be covered by this legislation? The article continues— 'What I cannot understand is that an insurance company will cover seven-year-olds playing sport but not a 12-year- old visiting a nursing home.' Then even more frightening is a comment attributed to the Volunteering Queensland chief executive officer, Diane Morgan. She said— ... the issue of risk management and insurance was affecting informal volunteering in organisations. 'Many organisations are not prepared or able to take the risk,' Ms Morgan said. 'There are many areas of volunteering such as this that have never been brought into the whole insurance debate and perhaps they should not be.' I read that statement and I thought, 'Now, surely the "not" should not be there.' She said— 'There are many areas of volunteering such as this that have never been brought into the whole insurance debate and perhaps they should not be. This is a little boy who is making a valuable contribution to society by visiting friends in a nursing home. It's as simple as that. It is important that we do not formalise all acts of kindness in a society,' she said. I understand the intent of what she is saying, but there is no doubt that the community has lost faith. There is no doubt that everyone out there is talking about insurance. There is no doubt that volunteers are being put off by the fact that they are not quite sure exactly what all this insurance is about. After seeing a headline from a newspaper in areas such as Woodridge and Kingston which talks about 'insurance folly', we have to accept that parliamentarians should criticise ourselves. We have all known about it. We have known about it for a long time. We have all blamed each other. We have all had our thoughts, but we have never been able to resolve the situation. There is no doubt the community out there expects us, in our positions, to be able to resolve it. There are many other things in my electorate that have led to this public image of a problem that cannot be solved and has not been solved. Beaudesert holds a country and horse festival. It is a magnificent festival called the Festival of a Thousand Hooves. It is a festival that brings 40,000 to Beaudesert over 10 days. It generates $400,000 in revenue for community groups and businesses. In 2002 the event's insurance was $3,500. This year there has been an 800 per cent increase to $28,000. As well as that, it has had to cancel the Stockman's challenge. The committee was unable to get affordable insurance cover for the segment. In previous years the $3,500 covered the whole program for the festival. This year the component for the Stockman's Challenge alone was $1,200 plus $10 per rider plus $7 a volunteer. This Stockman's Challenge was supposed to be a feature event with competitors coming from all over Australia. 1260 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

In relation to the Yarramalong Outdoor Recreation Centre, which has been serving the public for 22 years, in 2000 its insurance was $3,410. This year it was quoted $22,915. What has happened as a result? All horse activities have now ceased due to the exorbitant increase in public liability insurance cover. I went down to see the person who ran Yarramalong. One problem was that during the year he had already made bookings for the next year for people who wanted to come to Yarramalong and then he received an insurance bill of $22,000. He thought that was absolutely ridiculous but was forced to pay it for one year because he in faith had made bookings for the next year. But of course two years down the line he has obviously said no more. In relation to a person who operated pony rides for young children at school fetes and shopping centres, in October he was advised by his insurer that they would not renew his cover at any price. Pony clubs have already been mentioned in this debate, and the Pony Club Association of Queensland is a voluntary youth organisation with over 11,000 registered members. The association has been doing wonderful work since 1958. It eventually got its insurance cover from Triton, a company based in the Cayman Islands. I do not even know where Cayman is. I have never heard of it. Last year the association's cover was $49,000. This year under Triton it is $79,000. However, that insurance does not cover it for member to member insurance, which is when two members have a donnybrook, or for participation, which is when competitors compete against each other in relays and heats. The quote from the you-beaut not-for-profit community operations insurance under the banner of Suncorp was $820,000 and it only covered the period from January to September and was simply a public liability for clubs. It would have had to take out separate insurance for the director and the office bearers. The previous year's cover was $129,000 which covered all aspects of the pony club. Under the cover with Triton, PCAQ is not allowed to advise any landowner that it is covered for insurance when an event is on their privately owned property. PCAQ cannot assure landowners that it is covered. The limit of liability cover is also halved. It was $20 million and is now only $10 million. Another thing I am amazed about—and I would not have thought this would have happened with a school—is that a school P&C which runs a country market on a regular basis to raise funds for the school saw its liability cover rise from $400 to $4,000. That is a very successful market. I thought those groups were going to be covered by the P&C association and by the state government. I have been told that, yes, they are covered, but that is the increase, from $400 to $4,000. The Lake Moogerah Water Ski Club is a small club with 42 members. No-one is allowed on its property, with the exception of members. No private people are allowed to walk through its property, a magnificent property on the site of Moogerah Dam. Those are just a couple of examples. I have others from my electorate. However, as I said, I do not really want to discuss any particular aspects of this bill. As members of parliament, we should hang our heads in shame for what we have not done. We have not acted quickly on this insurance problem and we still continue to blame everyone else except ourselves. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (4.00 p.m.): The Civil Liability Bill before us is a thoughtful response to the dramatic increase in insurance premiums for public liability and medical indemnity. It is in the interests of the community to achieve an affordability of insurance to enable the ongoing provision of health care to injured persons and to secure the affordability of public liability insurance generally. I am appalled by the federal government's response to this particular aspect. It has done nothing to protect consumers to date. There has been a lot of uncertainty in the community regarding insurance coverage since the collapse of HIH, UMP and the terrible events of September 11 2001. Many residents of the Centenary suburbs take a great interest in volunteering and they are concerned that they may not be indemnified should an accident occur when delivering meals to those in need, for example. Community groups have had to forestall some of their planned activities and some have closed down their operations over the insurance crisis. The Sherwood Business Festival looked as though it was doomed because of high premiums last year. However, the group persevered but had great difficulties raising the funds. As a member of the State Council of Girl Guides, I recognise the difficulties that this large organisation had getting adequate insurance coverage. It is now faced with an enormous premium but cannot operate without it. Energy and resources are used up in fundraising enterprises just to make ends meet. Those organisations that cannot afford insurance cover cannot and will not operate in case of an accident. The government needs to encourage volunteering in Queensland. A great deal of good work is achieved through volunteer organisations concerned with assisting the disadvantaged and their local communities. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1261

This bill will go a long way towards rectifying some of these issues by clarifying aspects of the law of negligence and providing realistic definitions of liability pertaining to some types of activities. The proposed act will exempt volunteers performing community work for a community organisation such as the Middle Park or Sherwood Neighbourhood Watch committees from liability for injuries caused by negligence, provided the volunteer acted in good faith. Events such as school football carnivals, local school cross-country races and community festivals are all reliant on volunteers, as are recognised sporting groups such as the Jindalee Pony Club, the South West United Hockey Club, the Oxley Amateur Swimming Club and St Catherine's United Soccer Club. Volunteers within our emergency services performing duties in good faith will be covered, and this recognises the high degree of competency and training they undertake in an effort to protect the general community. Mention of the emergency services brings to mind the untimely death of helicopter pilot Peter Hope of Mount Ommaney. Peter Hope was a former RAAF pilot, an Emergency Services rescue pilot, a CASA inspector and a valued member of my electorate. I wish his wife, Lesley, and his family all the best in the future as they come to grips with their loss. He will be sadly missed by his family, my local community and as a member of the Centenary sub-branch of the RSL. As well as providing greater protection for volunteers and encouraging more affordable levels of insurance, passing the bill would not prevent an injured person recovering damages from the parent organisation that engaged the volunteer to do the community work. The bill also aims to provide claimants with greater prospects of securing compensation earlier without the need to commence lengthy legal proceedings and encourages mediation in certain circumstances. As I have pointed out to the House before, a local medical practitioner came to see me soon after the HIH collapse and told me that he would be in financial trouble because the firm no longer had insurance coverage. The doctor has a current liability case which has been going on for a number of years. That was when I first raised the HIH issue in this House and challenged the federal government to provide some security for people when insurance companies collapse. This bill tightens up some of the requirements for making medical claims, including the shortening of time frames to make a claim to six years from discovery, recognising contemporary medical treatment of an affliction as the basis for determining medical negligence, providing a limit on general damages for pain and suffering, and ensuring that medical practitioners take reasonable care to provide patients with sufficient relevant information about proposed treatment options. A number of doctors have seen me personally about the matter and, following discussions, they have decided to give the government a fair go and are waiting to see the legislation passed by the House. The bill proposes a mechanism to provide surety and security to the insurance industry, certain volunteers, medical practitioners who are performing their duties diligently and to the general public by preserving their right to seek legal redress while providing avenues to speed up the claims process. I congratulate the minister and commend the bill to the House. Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (4.06 p.m.): When I look at the Civil Liability Bill 2003 and at the other reforms this government has already put into practice, I can see that this government, the Beattie government, has gone a long way to removing the burden of risk for the insurance industry. The Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 and the civil liability legislation include reforms such as the imposition of restrictions on legal advertising, the banning of no win, no fee advertising, no legal costs payable for claims under $30,000, capping of claims for economic loss, a $250,000 cap on general damages, no liability for failing to warn of obvious risk and liability for injuries arising from obvious risk in recreational activities, no liability for people injured while engaged in criminal acts, restrictions on insurance claims for people injured while intoxicated, and the statute of limitations on medical negligence involving children staying at 21 years but with financial incentives for parents to start action within six years. All of these things add up to sensible reforms that get the balance right between people's rights to sue and their acceptance of a measure of personal responsibility. Since the rise of the insurance industry crisis we have heard from the medical profession about the rising cost of indemnity insurance premiums and, as local members, we have had regular contact from not-for-profit organisations about the problems they have had, firstly, in getting insurance cover and, secondly, with the severe increases in the insurance premiums, both for public liability and the general property insurance areas, which cover the loss and replacement of property. There is no doubt that public liability insurance is the biggest issue that ordinary Queenslanders have had to face in this state for decades. The insurance industry has a long 1262 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 history of spending millions of dollars on self-promotion and getting people to sign up and then putting them through hell during the processing and settlement of claims. I have spoken in this place before about the bad faith behaviour of an insurance company and, as a result, I have in my office over 100 files from people from all over Australia who have been done over by insurance companies. I have to be honest in saying that I cannot cope with that and I have to write back to those people and tell them to see their local member. I do not have the time to deal with all of those files. My constituents come first and that is the nature of the game. Personally—and I am going to be quite frank about this—I have no respect for the insurance companies at all because of the way in which they treat people, the way in which they treat the battlers. In fact, I see insurance companies as nothing else than battler bashers. Genuine people take out a policy for one reason: to cover themselves against events in their lives that nobody wants to happen to them. These people make commonsense decisions about their lives and their future only to be treated as rorters if and when they ever need to make a claim. I am of the view that the insurance industry has used the collapse of HIH and September 11 as instruments to commit the biggest con ever on the Australian community. The industry has seized an opportunity to screw the governments and to screw the public. This government, through the introduction of this bill and other legislation already passed, has made the hard decisions to improve the business risk for the insurance industry. I congratulate the Attorney- General, the Treasurer and the government on their actions that they have taken in an effort to provide a low-risk environment for the insurance industry. But I ask every member in this House: what are we as a government, as a parliament, as a community getting in return for our commitment to the people we serve? What are we getting for the many changes made and the introduction of laws that deliver significant benefits to the insurance industry while placing genuine limitations on the public's ability to sue? Despite the actions of this government, in my electorate not-for-profit organisations are still shutting their halls; sporting groups are cancelling events that have been part of the social landscape for over 100 years; and we still have an insurance industry that is hard nosed and lacks an understanding of the structure of not-for-profit organisations and the role that they play in the community. I want to raise one issue in which I believe the insurance industry shows its arrogance and failure to apply premiums based on the most important principles under which it operates, that is, the risk factor. The way I see it—and this is based on feedback from the dozens of not-for-profit organisations and groups within my electorate—there appears to be a blanket approach to determining the cost of premiums for groups across the state. As a member who represents a rural area that has a lot of small communities, I see different risks for different groups, even if that group administers the same type of facility as other groups, such as groups providing community halls or the same sport as another group, for example, pony clubs or cricket clubs. I will refer to community halls to try to give members an understanding of what I am saying. There is a community hall at Bajool, which is about 30 minutes south of Rockhampton. That community has about 50 homes and a school that is supported by a rural population. The local hall at Bajool is quite a sound structure and is well maintained. It is one of those little community halls that is the pride of the community. On average, it is used six times a month for public meetings or the occasional dance. As a matter of fact, I even use the hall at Bajool myself about once every four to six weeks to hold office hours for the people of that community. The risk of litigation as a result of negligence—in terms of how often the hall is used and the number of people who use it compared with a hall of a similar size located in a regional city where the sheer weight of population ensures that the hall is used almost daily—is far greater for the urban hall than it is for the rural hall. That risk should be recognised in the premium. But there is no consideration made for the level of risk, for the commitment of the community to make sure that the hall is always in a safe condition—that steps and such things are safe, that toilets are safe, that the surrounds are safe. There is no consideration given for the amount of effort that people put into maintaining that facility. The insurance premium is based on the fact that it is a community hall. To me, that is wrong, it is unfair and at the end of the day that assumption will ensure that community halls will be shut down, as they are at the moment. I refer to horse sports. Why should a pony club in a rural community, which has been proactive in the development of safe practices by ensuring that the surface of the area is well maintained, which is important to have so that the horses stay on their feet—that the stables and the equestrian equipment meet the standards, that safety equipment is worn and that they have accredited coaches—be forced to pay the same premium as another club that is less committed, 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1263 or a club that has a greater number of participants and a facility that is events specific? If an insurance company gave consideration to a number of issues, I am sure that it could apply different levels of premiums instead of charging a blanket premium for all facilities of the same nature. That approach would also encourage community groups, whether they are sporting groups or a local hall committee, to make sure that they bring their facilities up to a standard. It is like going through a self-auditing process. If people get their facility or their sporting activity brought up to a certain standard, then they should receive recognition for that in the premium that they pay. I do not think that insurance companies are concentrating on that enough. It is a sad situation when they just simply apply a premium across-the-board. Those who are struggling—those organisations who have a small membership or number of participants—are the ones that are suffering. I know that there is no assessment of risk of individual organisations and the activities that they promote and administer. I have been around long enough to know that there would be problems and costs associated with providing an individual assessment of a risk as a factor when premiums are being considered. But until there is a change in the way in which not-for-profit groups are assessed for their risk, there will never be a fair way of determining the premium that a group should pay is fair and reasonable. The insurance industry is getting better than a fair go from this government and I want to see a fair go for Queenslanders. If we do not get a fair go for Queenslanders from the insurance industry as a result of the changes that this government has brought in, then as a community I think that we need to look at supporting those insurance companies that are prepared to offer the best deal. I have always been of the opinion that the government can look at this issue a lot more closely, because if we did the homework and we set up the pool system in the way in which I would like to see it set up, I reckon that we could put in place an insurance scheme for not-for- profit organisations that could be self-funded, self-managed, and would ensure that all facilities and sporting activities reached a standard where the risk factor was significantly reduced. This is good legislation. I congratulate the Attorney-General again on bringing this legislation to the parliament and all the work that has been done in trying to provide a much easier environment for the insurance industry. I only hope that it works. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (4.18 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Civil Liability Bill. The strength of this bill lies in general public support for legislation that purports openly to help every citizen who is directly or indirectly affected by the current insurance crisis. There is not an area of our lives that is not caught in some way in the web of difficulty springing from the American disease of suing at the drop of a hat. In America, people operate on the policy that if somebody did something in some way and that something was connected with an adverse effect upon the person or the resources of another, then they seem to be joined in a court action for money. That having been said, the insurance companies used this as an excuse and jumped on the bandwagon, blaming claim records entirely for the premium spiral; yet, when asked to justify such measures, they were unable or indeed refused to back claims with proof. The member for Logan mentioned corporate fraud and spoke specifically about the collapse of HIH and the criminally reckless and careless behaviour—and those are my words and not his—of its officers. We say that this was corporate arrogance at its worst, fuelled by international disregard for the financial stability of any country and its citizens unless it suits the particular needs of the international money moguls who run these insurance companies. They are based in the USA and Europe and have no social interest in this country at all. We must have sovereign control over business investment in Australia and not surrender to the faceless internationalists who leave the victims of the HIH collapse and the problems that beset the customers of AMP with their difficulties in the UK to the tender mercies of world influences whilst taking multimillion-dollar separation settlement payments when their companies fail. Looking around my electorate, there are so many examples of issues of disaster affecting the rural sector arising from insurance issues. Take, for example, as others have mentioned, community halls. These halls do not just provide a venue for dances. Even halls are closing for those functions; but they also provide somewhere for a whole host of community groups to assist in the delivery of a multitude of services to residents which governments—local, state or federal—could ill afford. This is done in the absence of that government funding. A number of halls have already closed because they either cannot afford the insurance premiums or indeed in some instances find any companies willing to insure them on a continuing basis; certainly, most companies will not issue new policies. 1264 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Landowners are shutting down access to huge areas of the state through fear they will sued because some idiot will fall over a log. They are forced to deny access to horse riders for the same reason—a great shame, given the blossoming rise in tourism-driven riding groups following widespread public demand, particularly from Japanese visitors for whom riding is a great privilege and hard to come by in their own country. To a large extent, we have at long last recognised the need for people to be responsible for their own actions, as almost every member here has mentioned. No longer should we see examples of numbskulls racing down someone's pontoon, jumping over a wall and then having the nerve to turn around and sue the householder because they were injured due to the canal being too shallow for such activities. How that was allowed to be permitted to go on for so long defies the imagination of most people here. I agree with the Attorney's opinion in his second reading speech that we must provide a commonsense approach to negligence. I note that the bill does not attempt—nor should it—to provide any new course of action rather than to limit those currently available without infringing unnecessarily on the rights previously available at common law. The public and the state government have seen the need to reinforce that those taking part in dangerous activities must recognise the inherent dangers involved with their particular activity and cease trying to involve others from being responsible for when something happens to them. Duty of care will never cease, of course, but under this legislation it appears that it will be subject to the test of reasonableness. I note from the minister's speech that a person will not breach a duty of care to another unless the risk of personal injury was foreseeable, not insignificant and in the circumstances a reasonable person would have taken precautions to protect that other person. What shines out from this section is the confirmation that no person has a duty of care to warn another of what should be an obvious risk unless they are specifically asked to provide information on that risk. I have a little issue with the minister's statement regarding the term 'irrational'. The minister used this term to describe an issue where a defence cannot be relied upon if the court considers the peer professional opinion to be irrational. The minister went on to say that the term 'irrational' will require judicial interpretation. His reasons for this are unclear to me, anyway. Clearly, legislation should not be written where it is identified at the start that its words or provisions will be questioned from the beginning. Legislation will always be open to interpretation, but such is the function of our courts. Will we now see a situation where councils start replacing previously removed play equipment in public parks, removed in the first instance for fear that some child's parent will sue because their child fell from a swing or seesaw or jungle gym and was hurt to one degree or another? Living is a risk in itself. There is nothing we can do short of staying in bed—and probably there are inherent risks in that—to prevent risks to our health. Hopefully this legislation provides a wake-up call to all by saying, 'Hello, wake up and take responsibility.' I note the provisions that if at the time of the accident the victim is intoxicated there will be a presumption that the person has contributed to their injury unless it can be proved that this is not the case. Ultimately, there is a reluctance to restrain a citizen's right at common law to claim damages; however, we do need to recognise that the common law has only come about through practices that have occurred through common acceptance and normal practice. In the absence of any codified law, common law has prevailed. Today, by necessity, we have identified issues that need to be codified so the provisions of those laws may be more easily applied. Clearly, this law appears to do just that. I have been aware of input from the Bus Action Committee of Beaudesert shire. This committee was really borne out of the efforts of a couple of officers from Beaudesert police station about 12 years ago, namely, Ken Josling and me. We responded to parental concern about the number and manner of carriage of children on school transport. I seek leave to table the committee's submission on this bill with which many members would be aware. Leave granted. Mr FLYNN: This may assist in future considerations of this issue. Clearly, the Bus Action Committee continues to have concerns over this bill. Despite not agreeing with a number of its issues, as I say, I table its document to reflect the diversity of opinion. I do not have the figures before me, but depending on whether students were in primary school or high school and whether the bus was a double-decker or single-decker, there was a formula to establish how many students could be carried, and whether sitting or standing. Regularly, Ken and I stopped 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1265 school buses to check figures and, regularly, the bus company complained bitterly to the Police Service about our activities. Ultimately, we were directed to cease operations. The Bus Action Committee, not restrained by bureaucracy, took over, developing into the quite effective political organisation it is today, and it took into account the emerging opinion that bus passengers, particularly children, should wear seatbelts. Here we have a situation where the law says that all vehicle drivers and passengers, with certain exceptions, must wear seatbelts; yet in the same breath not only are buses allowed to be loaded beyond seating capacity but the young and innocent occupants do not wear seatbelts. The lack of action here is driven possibly by potential expense to the industry, but I ask the government—what expense to the industry and possibly to regulating bodies if we do not address problems that not only are foreseeable but are also potentially not insignificant? This issue has not yet been finalised. I feel that, particularly in relation to buses and liability, until the state government grasps the nettle, it will in view of the clear and identified risk continue to be potentially liable. I commend the state government and the minister for introducing this bill. I know it will go a long way to vastly improving our present insurance crisis. However, by reason of my last example, which is one of a number, I feel that the government's response may not have gone far enough. I commend further activity in this area. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (4.27 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Civil Liability Bill 2003. There is no-one in this state who is not aware of the crippling effects of the increase in our insurance premiums. The government has responded quickly and decisively to the insurance crisis, sometimes without much help from our federal counterparts who have their eye off the domestic problems in Australia and have their eyes elsewhere at the moment. The Beattie government has continued to keep its eyes on domestic issues in our state and to work for the people of Queensland. To this end, the government introduced the personal injuries legislation last year, bringing some rationale to personal injury damages and awards. We have tried to coordinate the Commonwealth and other states in terms of possible solutions; however, the Commonwealth is yet to come back to us with anything concrete in relation to solving a problem that Queensland is trying to solve on its own. Because the problem is not isolated to Queensland, it is very hard for Queensland to affect what insurance companies do. The main purpose of this bill is to further facilitate the ongoing affordability of insurance. To do this, it is necessary to clarify some of the most basic principles within the law and sustainable awards of damages for personal injury. Therefore, this bill contains fundamental changes to the law of negligence. Over the past 18 months major problems have arisen in relation to the availability and affordability of public liability insurance policies. Most speakers in the debate have spoken about that. The member for Logan went into great detail about one particular insurance company, HIH. If there was some justice for all of those policyholders who paid premiums to HIH, they should probably jail the whole board and never let them out. They had no regard and no care for the money they were looking after and went willy-nilly on their way. I believe that the events of 11 September also had an effect on insurance. Something like $40 billion worth of buildings were destroyed. Most insurance companies took a hit somewhere within their company. The issue that is really affecting people's daily lives is medical insurance. A medical insurer here was just taking premiums from year to year. In setting its premiums every year it did not insure for the tail. Even in its year to year premiums it was relying on the stock market, as HIH and other companies were, to top up its coffers. I think the wheel has turned with regard to competition. If companies want to compete they have to offer the lowest price. We can see what happened to HIH. I do not think that is in the public interest. I am pleased that in relation to power, water and essential items the Beattie government will not let assets out of the government's hands. We need to keep them in our hands to make sure they are run correctly. I will give a couple of examples of insurance companies in my area being unreasonable. I was a director of BUS Queensland, which was a superannuation scheme for the building industry. It was the forerunner to all industry schemes in Australia and has been running for probably 18 years. We looked at protecting the directors with regard to negligence in terms of decisions we made and advice we would be given by professionals. We looked at that hard and long, because the premiums were fairly high—fairly high for me as a builder's labourer. They were looking for something like $4,500 a year. When we looked at the policy that was put to us, we saw that we would not be insured at all. The insurance would cover us if we did not make a mistake, if we did not lose any money and if we did nothing wrong. So if we did something wrong we would not be covered. If we lost money we would not be covered. After going through all of the conditions on 1266 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 the policy we found that it was not worth our while taking out the insurance. The insurance company wanted $4,500 a year of my hard-earned money for no reason at all. We then went and talked to the people who gave us the professional advice and who actually invested the money for us. We asked them to give us their advice on the scheme and different ways to invest. I have never been to so many seminars about how to invest superannuation funds. I was at one in Melbourne that went for 12 hours—from 8 till 8. I thought it was just like going to the races. I did not know there were so many ways you could lose money! The return was dependent on the level of risk. At the end of the day, we acted in good faith on the professional advice given to us. I used to make it pretty tough for them. I used to say to them, 'If you lose our money, I know where you live. I'll come and see you.' They used to get the message. I remember a bloke from Morgans. He was quite taken aback with that. I said, 'We take it personally. We are investing money on behalf of members. If you give us bad advice or sell us down the road and dump us into something of yours that you want to get rid of, we will hold you personally liable. I will come and have a beer with you one Sunday night.' They certainly got the message. The bottom line was that we did not take out the insurance because the insurance company was getting money for nothing. It really did not want the liability. But the people who gave us the investment paid their insurance, so if we had a problem with regard to advice they gave us we would sue them of our own volition as trustees. I see that insurance companies are just being greedy and filling their bellies. Insurance premiums are much higher now, and the policies are not providing much more cover. In Murarrie there is a community hall that has been there for 30-odd years. It was built by the community. They borrowed the money and fundraised and built a hall for the community of Murarrie to use whenever they wanted it—for marriages, for engagements or for the school to hold concerts, awards nights and so on. It was built for anything the community would need a community hall for. The insurance company now says that anything that is not held on a regular basis must have its own insurance. Third-party insurance premiums have gone from something like $800 to five or six times that. As well, anybody who uses the hall on a one-off basis has to have their own insurance. Mr Terry Sullivan: It just kills community involvement, doesn't it? Mr PURCELL: I thank the member for Stafford. It is killing community involvement. If I wanted to host a morning tea in the hall I would have to take out third-party insurance. I asked the insurer, 'What if I have it every six or 12 months?' It said, 'No. You have to be a regular user.' I said, 'How regular is "regular"?' It said, 'You have to submit that to us.' The insurance company is just not fair dinkum. We have asked the Treasurer to look at this situation, to see if he can do something for those people. The member for Fitzroy talked about a pony club. I am the patron of a fairly strong pony club in my area. People do not take their kids down to a pony club for them to fall off and injure themselves. People buy a pony that the kids will be able to handle. At great expense they get all the right gear—the bridles, the saddles, the helmets and so on. There are professionals at the club who teach the kids how to ride properly, to go over jumps and so on. It is almost impossible for that club to operate, because insurance companies do not want to know about anything to do with an animal. It is absolutely ridiculous. Insurance companies are making people pay today for the mistakes they made, the low premiums they had and the competition they got involved with over the last four or five years. But I can assure members that the insurance companies are still taking their profits. They are still paying their directors enormous fees, but they are making everybody else suffer along the way. Schools in my area have swimming pools. I know that the Treasurer has school swimming pools in his electorate. Insurance premiums have just exploded. To my knowledge, no private operators in Brisbane are paying third-party insurance if they have contracts with the Brisbane City Council. If the council were not paying it, the swimming pools would not be able to operate. Insurance companies have made it uneconomical for pools to operate on a commercial basis. Insurers are really having a picnic. What have we heard from the federal government? Not a thing! The ACCC may as well pack up and go home. It should be looking at insurance companies and what they are about. I can remember that before the collapse of HIH the Premier came back from holidays and made a statement that HIH was in trouble and that the people of Queensland should not take out policies with that company because it looked like it could be on shaky ground and policies might not be 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1267 honoured. He copped a flogging from the federal minister and the federal government, including Howard—an absolute flogging. They are the people who regulate the industry and they said everything was okay. Within three or four months, the company was down the river and broke. Mr Shine: There was no regulation. Mr PURCELL: There was no regulation by them at all. The matter will come back to the courts again. This Beattie government is doing everything to protect the consumers of this state and we are given no help by the federal government at all. I have never been closely involved with the law. I probably drove a bit fast sometimes, normal things that people do— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr PURCELL: I did not need to. Morgans were the best investors we had. One year they got a 52 per cent return on our money. It was not a bad return. That was when interest rates were about 18 per cent, by the way. Mr Shine: It makes you wonder. Mr PURCELL: It makes you wonder all right. I want to return to house insurance. The first house that I bought was an old house in the scrub which I never insured. With a stiff breeze, it might have fallen over. When people purchase their family homes, they obtain insurance. It was a large amount of money for a builder's labourer to have outlaid, with a bank breathing down my back. My bank told me to take out third-party insurance. I asked what that was. The way it was explained to me was that if I had a fruit tree in my yard and someone climbs up that tree, steals the peaches or nectarines or whatever fruit is growing, falls out of the tree and breaks his neck, I am liable. I said, 'Pull the other one; have another go at me. That is impossible.' The bank said that it was true. I said that I thought third party would arise if I was mowing a footpath, the mower picks up a stone and hits someone's car, then I am covered for any damage caused to the car. But the bank told me it went further than that. This bill will remove those ridiculous situations out of third party insurance. If a person is not trying to injure somebody they should not be held responsible—not that anybody tries to injure people; but from time to time people are injured purely by accident and we should look after those people. I have little football clubs in mind, where mums and dads do the training, they provide the gear and carry out raffles. Third party is absolutely killing them. I want to mention insurance companies that are run responsibly. The three insurance companies run by the state government are all running and making a profit and doing the job that they should do. The first one, as we know, insures workers compensation. It has looked after workers since the Labor government introduced it some 70-odd years ago and will continue to. The previous non-Labor government just about destroyed that scheme. Those opposite tell us how well they assisted the scheme because it was in trouble financially, which I always argued it was not. If I had two and a half billion dollars in the bank, I would like to be doing it that tough, because that is what they had. The way the then government went about fixing it was to take out most of the workers in the construction industry and not cover them and say they were not workers. The unions on behalf of the workers said that these people had to be covered. Third party or common law was brought in to protect employers, not employees. The employee can sue someone personally and take their house and business away. If people want protection, they had better take out more insurance because we want someone to sue when they injure our people. So they had to pay two insurances: those for workers compensation and those through most employer groups. That is how the opposition fixed the situation when it was in government. It is now back on track and financially very viable. Insurance taken out for builders is very well run; it is run by the state government. It is insurance which in other states has collapsed. The amount of money New South Wales has to pump into its building industry insurance is $600 million in the first eight years, and that started three years ago. We can see how much this government and this state has saved by running our own insurance companies. We are not competing. It is not about competition. Competition has made it uneconomical for those insurance companies to operate. Those opposite had the idea to let everyone in to compete, with the company offering the lowest price getting the job. They are the first ones to go broke and catch a heap of consumers and have no insurance. That is exactly what has happened with medical insurance. They did not look after their tail at all, and they did not want to pay premiums for the last 20 years as they should have. Now when they retire they will have a tail and their insurance will be looked after. 1268 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Mr Lingard: Are you insured if you sell a bad bottle of relish? Mr PURCELL: Probably not, but there is no such thing as a bad bottle of relish that I would give away. I do not sell it, by the way. I made 900 jars of relish last year and every one of them I gave away. There is a famous saying about what people do in Queen Street, and, if the member can find somebody that I charged for a jar of relish, I will do that because I do not sell it. I would like to commend the minister in regard to the exemptions he has made under this bill for personal injuries. As I said, that is to do with workers compensation. That is very important because we need to look after the workers. Included in the exemptions is injury caused by exposure to tobacco smoke or tobacco products. I think those companies are large enough to look after themselves and they should be exempted. Another exemption which I am very pleased about is dust related diseases. That picks up asbestos related problems. People working in coalmines, for example, pick up diseases which sometimes have a very large lead time. In a lot of cases people out my way who are getting such illnesses have probably been retired for 10 years and find out they have two lungs full of asbestos and they are in all sorts of trouble. Mr Lingard: What about if you fall off a chair in Pat's corner of the Bulimba golf club? Mr PURCELL: If a person falls off a chair in Pat's corner of the Bulimba golf club and they are not drunk, it is the fault of the golf club. If it is a problem with the chair, they will be able to sue. But if that person is full of ink and they have been there all day and that person is rocking around and falls off the chair, a fair bit of responsibility has to come back to that person. This bill provides specific protection for professionals, in particular, medical practitioners. I think it is important that people who are giving professional help, like engineers, should be protected in their chosen fields. If they are dedicated and offer a fair and genuine service to the community, they should be protected. I think the minister has done a great job in protecting those people. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (4.48 p.m.): I would like to congratulate the minister on this bill, which addresses a difficult area of legislation. One complicating factor is that, while the state is responsible for the law of neglect, major factors adversely affecting liability insurance lay outside the jurisdiction of the state. While the state accepts its responsibility to amend tort law, the financial imperatives causing most of the current problems are covered by federal legislation or lie outside federal legislation. The Attorney-General has responded to the Negligence Review Panel recommendations by introducing practical reforms in this and previous legislation. The great failures of insurance debacles in recent years lie with the federal government and with the directors of private insurance firms. We have seen a shameful series of white collar crimes which have adversely affected all community groups and many individuals throughout Australia. The HIH failure was not an accident. HIH personnel Williams, Adler and Cooper are but three of the crooks who should be pursued more vigorously than we would pursue an armed robber. Their greed, corruption and dishonesty have left a scar on corporate Australia that will take years to mend. They wear the same badge of shame shared by Bond and Skase. Every community group in my electorate knows the difficulty in gaining affordable insurance and this inability to achieve cover has led to many groups cancelling events which have been part of the local community for decades. The member for Beaudesert gave some examples in his own electorate which show that same thing. In fact, many other members have done so. The failure of APRA to monitor the market together with the failure of the federal government to monitor APRA stand as glaring examples of negligence of the highest order. While financial commentators had been flagging difficulties in HIH over a period of many months, APRA and the federal government failed the people of Australia. The state government is being responsible by passing legislation which brings a practical, reasonable approach to the law of negligence and the awarding of damages for personal injuries. It is imperative that the federal government, both directly and through regulatory bodies such as the ACCC, takes this matter seriously and provides workable and reasonable legislation. But I must state that I have no confidence in the Howard government doing anything to properly address this situation. The reason is simple: the Liberal Party has been the recipient of huge donations from HIH and little Johnny Howard would protect his crooked mates. I have a number of newspaper articles that I got through library research written around May 2001 and I will quote from one of them. It is from the Australian of 25 May 2001 by Ian Henderson. The article is titled 'PM Calls HIH Royal Commission' and discusses the insurance industry facing a 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1269 wide-ranging royal commission aimed at getting to the bottom of the nation's largest business failure. It states— ... Queensland Premier Peter Beattie urged the federal Government to ensure the royal commission had 'wide- ranging powers and terms of reference'. Mr Beattie said the inquiry must be able to investigate 'any actions of the Howard Government that impacted on the collapse and whether or not political donations to the Liberal Party played any part'. HIH has been a large donor to Liberal Party coffers, contributing more than half a million dollars in recent years. But Mr Howard rejected any suggestion that the fact was in any way connected to the Government's delayed response to the company's failure. 'I do not lead a government that is influenced in the decisions it takes by either the frequency, the size or whether or not a donation is given,' he said. I say to Mr Howard that I do not believe him. He has shown himself to be a follower of the worst order, and he would follow the money trail that has come from HIH and other groups and he would not pursue reasonable legislation in this regard. The Attorney-General and many previous speakers have spoken about the specific details of this legislation. Considering the time already devoted to this bill, I will not elaborate on these. But I would like to state that while the legislation sets in place a legislative framework to address the current problems there is still much work to be done. It would not surprise me if the state government in the future, while monitoring the trends in liability and insurance, will need to make further changes. The real change, however, must occur within the insurance industry. Every community group I have spoken to is convinced that insurance companies are making a killing through the massive increases in premiums. I believe that insurance companies used the attack on the World Trade Centre to recoup losses that resulted from fraudulent practices by incompetent and corrupt company directors. One of the other comments I have heard frequently in respect of the current difficulties with liability insurance concerns a person taking greater responsibility for his or her own actions. We have seen too many examples in recent years of irresponsible adults causing harm to themselves and then suing a public authority or a business firm to gain a financial windfall. I give my strongest support to those aspects of this bill which recognise that courts must pay greater attention to the responsibility each person has in their decision making. One of the greatest failures of our modern society is the failure of individuals, groups and governments to accept responsibility for their decisions. It is a blight on our society that we are following too closely the shameful litigious practices of American society. In Australia the notion of a fair go is central to our character as a nation. I say that it is not a fair go for a person to act in an irresponsible manner and then ask the rest of society to pay for their stupidity. I encourage citizens who make up juries to take into account the effect that judgments have on the rest of society. I am hopeful that this legislation, together with similar legislation in other states, will lead to an improvement in insurance practices across Australia. I commend the minister for his work in this difficult area. I support the bill. Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) (4.54 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions to this extensive debate on a very important law reform being introduced and deliberated upon in the parliament over the last two and a half days. Many members have made lengthy and thoughtful contributions to the debate on this bill. It is a bill that is important both in terms of the cost of insurance generally but also in terms of applying those issues and principles of policy that I think merit clarification in the law of negligence. As many members have indicated, this is the second tranche of reforms that the government has brought in to address the access and availability of the public to public liability insurance and insurance generally. But it also does this by reinjecting into the law of negligence and the procedures for making claims under that law a greater level of certainty and clarity in relation to the principles of duty and breach of duty that apply under the law. Clearly, the large number of speakers who have participated in this debate demonstrates the significant impact that insurance premiums are currently having on our Queensland community. By addressing the so-called insurance crisis, members have recognised the value that this legislation contributes to addressing the availability of insurance. Clearly, the key issue that arises out of parliament's work in this area is what response we can expect from the insurance industry. There is no question that the Queensland parliament has done as much as any parliament in Australia to reform the law of negligence and negligence based claims than any other state. It is now incumbent upon the insurance industry to respond accordingly with the passing of this legislation and ensure that there is ready access at a reasonable cost to the many businesses 1270 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 and community organisations throughout the state who have suffered so greatly in recent months as a result of the tightening in the insurance market. Of course, there are many causes to the current situation. Some of these were identified, particularly by the member for Logan and the member for Ferny Grove. I thought it was well put by the member for Fitzroy, who described the insurance crisis as one of the biggest cons on the Australian community and described the actions by the insurance industry as 'battler bashing'. I think there is a strong element of truth in that assessment of the way the insurance industry is currently behaving, capitalising as it is on the current uncertainty in the insurance market and by all accounts refusing to provide coverage where coverage has been provided in the past at very low risk or otherwise providing coverage at such a high premium that it becomes almost prohibitive, especially for community organisations. It is essential, I believe, that all members of this parliament on all sides of politics now unite in our campaign to ensure that the federal government accepts its responsibility to properly regulate the insurance industry to ensure that the insurance marketplace operates efficiently and effectively and that community confidence in government ensuring that insurance is available is restored. Clearly, volunteer groups, who are essential to our community and who provide the social capital that makes our social interactions as a community worth while, will receive significant benefits from this bill. For medical practitioners the bill provides a new standard of care for all professionals, recognising peer professional standards. It introduces new obligations for early notification of claims on behalf of children. Although when we last debated this issue the opposition criticised us for not acquiescing to all of the demands of the AMA by stripping away children's rights completely, we are pleased that the opposition has now agreed to support the approach that I have developed such that those rights are retained but that early notification is encouraged. The solution reached with the medical profession, I believe, will be an effective one. By negotiating in good faith with the representatives of the medical profession we were able to achieve what I think is a very successful outcome on that front. Members opposite have been briefed by various professional bodies in relation to the issue of proportionate liability. This was raised by many members opposite. I note the detailed comments on the issue from the member for Moggill. The approach that I have taken in the provisions drafted surrounding proportionate liability is designed to protect consumers. The provisions for proportionate liability will not be proclaimed immediately. I am currently having discussions with the insurance industry and its legal advisers in relation to possible refinements of those provisions, but the essence of them must remain, and that essence is that small retail consumers should be protected. In other words, they should not be exposed to carry the burden of the economic loss they suffer solely by reason of the fact that one of the negligent parties who caused their loss has decamped or is for some other reason unable to satisfy the claim against them. For example, if there were two defendants in a negligence claim both found to be negligent, one of whom was insured by a reputable insurer and one of whom was insured by HIH, the mere fact that HIH went broke should not be a basis for the person who suffers loss losing out. That is particularly the case where consumers are reliant upon the professional advice or activity of the person who has been negligent. The law currently provides for joint and several liability for the simple reason that a person should be liable for the full amount of the loss they cause. The fact that they shared in contributing to that loss does not mean they are still not liable for the full amount. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that where professionals are each responsible it is in essence also a fair system that they should all contribute to meeting the loss of the party concerned and they should contribute in proportion to their contribution to the loss by reason of their negligence. A number of opposition speakers stuck to the script of their leader in talking of the National Party's six-point plan and attempted to claim credit for the reforms in this bill. If only it were as simple as the National Party suggests. Heaven help us if it ever gets into government. The fact of the matter is that if in the course of this situation there was currently an incumbent National Party government reliance upon a simplistic six-point plan would have been disastrous for so many sectors of the community. It would not have addressed many of the complex issues that I have been able to address in this bill, although it must be acknowledged that some credit must go to His Honour Mr Justice Ipp, whose report provided a solid core of guidance on appropriate reforms, many of which are introduced in this bill. A number of members in the course of the debate asked questions that they would like me to address or raised issues to which I will now respond. The member for Southern Downs asked about the difference between the provisions relating to the liability of someone who is in the 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1271 course of committing an offence compared with similar provisions in the Criminal Code. The difference here is that unlike the Criminal Code a conviction is not required. The code provisions require a conviction. These allow a defence to be raised and determined on the balance of probabilities in this bill. For example, a person climbing through a window at night who trips and injures themselves might not be charged or convicted. Nevertheless, they should not be entitled to recover damage for an injury incurred in the course of a break and enter, even though they may not ultimately be charged for that for whatever reason. The member for Mundingburra pointed to different processes for bringing claims under the Motor Accident Insurance Corporation legislation, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act and the WorkCover Act. We acknowledge that having different processes can cause difficulty, especially where there are multiple defendants to the one incident. We have established a working group to look at this issue and if further legislation can be developed to streamline the processes we will introduce that legislation by the end of the year. There is further discussion currently occurring with the Queensland Council of Unions in relation to the application of these provisions to the WorkCover arrangements. The QCU's view is that we should give some time for these principles to be bedded down and applied to see what practical experience flows from them before extending their coverage to WorkCover with whatever adjustments might be necessary to take account of the different character of the employment relationship and injuries that arise out of that relationship compared to injuries that just occur to individuals in the community. The member for Surfers Paradise referred to the sunset provision protecting road authorities. It is true that I met with the Local Government Association earlier this week and reached agreement with it whereby the sunset clause will be removed as a result of amendments in committee. The member for Surfers Paradise also asked whether claims could be brought in contract rather than negligence. The answer to that is no, because we have dealt with that by ensuring that in the definition of 'duty' this has been dealt with so that only one claim can be brought. The member for Toowoomba South raised the issue of waivers for recreational activities and queried whether waivers would be effective or whether waiver documents would be affected by this bill. As several members have noted, this bill does give additional protection from liability arising from injuries incurred in the course of recreational activities. Waivers are restricted under the Trade Practices Act, which implies certain terms regarding the standard of service that cannot be contracted out of. The federal government is dealing with this issue in relation to Trade Practices Act type claims, but there is still more work required of the federal government in amending the Trade Practices Act to ensure that it is consistent with the principles of negligence and damages assessment that we are introducing here. The member for Kurwongbah raised the issue of professional standards legislation. This has been an issue raised by the professions as a complementary measure to provisions providing for proportionate liability. I can indicate to the House that I am still looking at the issue of professional standards legislation and will be discussing it with other state attorneys at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General which meets in Melbourne next week. I have indicated to the professions that, before introducing professional standards legislation, I would need to be satisfied that the protections to the public provided by that legislation and the auditing processes to ensure that professional standards are maintained would need to be rigorous before I would countenance limiting the liability of professionals in the way that professional standards legislation contemplates. The member for Caloundra queried why we were excluding smoking and dust related diseases from the operation of the provisions of the legislation. There has not been an explosion of these types of claims. Certainly, we see no particular reason why we should provide a windfall gain as a result of restrictions on exposure to liability to tobacco producers and manufacturers of asbestos products. Suffice it to say, as with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act, where the issue of asbestos related disease and tobacco injuries were dealt with, we have decided to maintain consistency with that act in the application of the Civil Liability Bill. The member for Gladstone pointed to concerns that were raised by the Law Society in its letter to all members of parliament, particularly in regard to the scale of damages and its concerns about its potential effectiveness. I believe that the approach of having a zero to 100 scale is a fair approach. It will ultimately lead to greater certainty. The way that it will work is that I have invited various organisations to submit nominees to a panel to look at developing a manual of injuries of the kind that operates in the United Kingdom. The purpose of that will be to identify what injuries attach to what points on the scale so that, for any type of injury, people will be able to go to the 1272 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 manual and know exactly the range of points between zero and 100 that apply to that kind of injury. Those points will then indicate the value of the general damages that are payable for an injury of that kind or of that severity. The scale principle will ultimately lead to greater certainty. Until that panel sets the scale against the various categories of injury, it is true that there may be some apprehension about how the scale will be developed and whether people will get more or less than they might currently get for an equivalent injury. But once the system settles down, I believe that it will be a fair and more certain approach and will leave less doubt and reduce the issues in dispute in the court proceedings when issues of quantum need to be assessed, because there will, in effect, be an established scale of damages amounts payable for specific types of injuries. The other advantage of having a scale is that it reduces the impact of inflation. But the primary purpose of the scale system, which is a system similar to that which exists in South Australia, is to provide a clear correlation between the level of injury and the amount of general damages that would be payable. The member for Ashgrove in his contribution raised issues similar to ones that he has raised with me in the past regarding the need to regulate the provision of expert evidence. Certainly, the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act, which was the first tranche of reforms in relation to negligence claims, puts in place procedures that provide a better inducement for experts to negotiate agreement on the key issues in dispute. Further, the Supreme Court rules committee has recently published a draft practice direction in relation to the provision of expert evidence and the ability of the courts to call an independent expert in certain circumstances. I believe that this combination of measures will increasingly bring expert evidence under control and avoid the situation where parties to proceedings each gather their cheer squad of experts and roll them out seriatim without any real resolution of the issues by mediation or agreement before the matters are determined by the court. The member for Maroochydore asked what level of proof was required for showing that intoxication was not self-induced. Ultimately, whether a person is intoxicated at the time they are injured is a matter for the courts to assess based on all the circumstances of the case and the evidence that is available. Medical evidence will be relevant, but it does not necessarily require that someone will have undertaken a breathalyser test or have a blood test. Miss Simpson interjected. Mr WELFORD: I note the point that the member for Maroochydore raises about where someone has been intoxicated by some substance but it is not something that they have done voluntarily. That is, their drink may have been spiked in a nightclub or some such matter. Again, evidence of that can be brought in the proceedings and taken into account by the court in determining whether their claim is affected by the provisions relating to intoxication. In relation to claims made by children, I am pleased that the member for Maroochydore now accepts the formula that is proposed in the bill. If a party fails to notify, the court may determine whether the claim should proceed and, in determining that, will be governed by the interests of justice, having regard to all the circumstances. In other words, notice is required by the bill to be given and if notice is not given on the part of a child then the court can take the late provision of a notice of claim into account in determining whether a stay of proceedings, if applied for by the defence, should be granted. In other words, it gives defendants to negligence claims an added basis for arguing either that the claim should not proceed or that there should be some adjustment in damages recoverable by reason of the lateness with which the claim is brought. I believe that the approach that we propose is a balanced one. It encourages people to get claims in early and it will result in few needing to be struck out. So far as I can ascertain from the data that we have available—which is not exhaustive or necessarily entirely comprehensive, but from the data that we can ascertain through the courts—most claims on behalf of children are brought within six years, anyhow, and we expect that few will be disadvantaged by this provision. But I think that it is important to encourage claims to be brought within a reasonable time and that is what this bill achieves. The member also pointed to the importance of ensuring that the period operates from the date of discovering the right to claim, not the date of the incident. This point was articulated also by the member for Glass House. Another query of the member for Maroochydore was what if the child, on whose behalf the claim is made, is in care and the state is the guardian. The provisions allow the state to give notice on behalf of the child. Again, there is a wide discretion for the courts 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1273 to ensure that legitimate claims are protected—even protected from the negligence of the state in giving a late claim. The member for Beaudesert gave an example of a 12-year-old volunteer not being able to volunteer at a nursing home because of insurance. I agree that this is a dreadful case and reflects the bizarre approach currently being taken by the insurance industry in making insurance available to volunteers. Regrettably, there is nothing directly we can do to legislate to force insurers to see sense in these circumstances. But I encourage all members of the House, including members of the opposition, to exert as much pressure as possible on the federal government to ensure that, as I have previously called for, the ACCC is given sufficient powers to properly monitor the conduct of the insurance industry in the implementation of the civil liability reforms being introduced in Queensland and elsewhere. Individual volunteers will not of course be liable, provided they act in good faith and without reckless disregard for the safety of others. The 12-year-old boy referred to by the member for Beaudesert would not be personally liable for accidents which might occur as a result of volunteering to assist in a nursing home. I think that addresses most of the questions raised by various members. I thank members again for their contribution to the debate. I table, for the purpose of the amendments now being proposed in committee, a copy of the explanatory notes in relation to those amendments. I thank members for their support of the bill and the amendments that will now be discussed. Motion agreed to.

Committee Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP) (Attorney-General and Minister for Justice) in charge of the bill. Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr WELFORD (5.24 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 2— At page 8, line 11— omit, insert— ' ¥ chapter 3, parts 2 and 4 ¥ sections 54, 55 and 57 to 61'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clause 3, as read, agreed to. Clause 4— Mr WELFORD (5.24 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 4— At page 9, after line 4— insert— '(2) The following provisions apply only in relation to a breach of duty happening on or after 2 December 2002— ¥ chapter 2, part 1, divisions 1 to 6 ¥ chapter 2, part 3, division 1 ¥ section 56. '(3) The following provisions apply in relation to a breach of duty happening on or after the day this Act receives assent— ¥ chapter 2, part 4 ¥ sections 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 73 '(4) Sections 65, 66, 67, 68 and 74 apply in relation to personal injuries damages regardless of when the injury happened.'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 4, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 5 to 8, as read, agreed to. 1274 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Insertion of new clause— Mr WELFORD (5.25 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 3 After clause 8— At page 11, lines 1 to 3— omit, insert— ' CHAPTER 2—CIVIL LIABILITY FOR HARM'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 9, as read, agreed to. Clause 10— Mr WELFORD (5.26 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 10— At page 11, line 22, after 'duty'— insert— 'happening on or after 2 December 2002'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 11 to 14, as read, agreed to. Clause 15— Mr WELFORD (5.26 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 5 Clause 15— At page 14, after line 25— insert— '(4) In this section— "a professional" has the same meaning as it has in division 5.'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 15, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 16 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr WELFORD (5.27 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 6 Clause 21— At page 16, lines 18 and 19— omit. 7 Clause 21— At page 16, line 21, 'asking for or giving'— omit, insert— 'giving or being given'. Amendment No. 6 deletes subclause (2) from clause 21. It relates to a doctor's duty to warn of risks. The subclause was considered to be a restatement of the common law. Concern has been raised by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel that, despite the wording of clause 7(1), confusion may be created that a statutory duty to warn is being established. Accordingly, given the body of law behind the duty of a doctor to warn a patient of any risk of treatment and in order to avoid any possible confusion, it is considered unnecessary to retain this statement. Amendment No. 7 is an amendment further amending clause 21 simply to correct a grammatical error. Miss SIMPSON: I thank the Attorney for his explanation. Initially in seeing this deleted, the concern was how that would be perceived. Would it be perceived that there was not a duty of the doctor to inform? What would be the difference in having a statutory duty of the doctor to inform as opposed to the current common law practice? In regard to the current common law practice, there has been some controversy as to notes of waiver that people ask patients to sign as part of that informed consent process. Perhaps the Attorney-General, in addressing this issue, shall make some comment in regard to those notes of waiver that are used as part of the informed consent process and whether there has been any move to look also at strengthening the use of 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1275 documentation that people sign as part of the informed consent process as far as its weight in law is concerned. Mr WELFORD: To clarify the nature of the amendment, as I indicated we did not believe paragraph (2) did any more than state the current law. As a matter of statutory interpretation, there is always a risk in putting in a statute something that is already the law because it tends to create an inference that by putting it in you are actually meaning to change the law. To avoid any confusion on that front, its removal will not make any difference to the operation of the provision and will allow the existing law of duty of care on the part of doctors to apply. Waivers have been given lengthy consideration. At this stage it is considered by all jurisdictions that a person should not be disqualified from having the capacity to obtain compensation simply because someone requires them to sign a document before they can access the service. If a person holds themselves out, for example, as a professional providing medical services, it is appropriate, I think, for them to give appropriate information and warnings to the patient about the implications of the procedure that a doctor might be applying. I do not necessarily believe that, as a matter of good public policy, it is appropriate to allow the doctor to effectively exclude themselves from any responsibility for performing their role with a reasonable measure of competence. That is the reason waivers have not been given full statutory force. It is not a reason for informed consent documents not being provided to patients. I think that is sound practice and it is appropriate for doctors to have patients sign them. Amendments agreed to. Clause 21, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22— Mr WELFORD (5.31 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 8 Clause 22— At page 17, line 11, 'information'— omit, insert— 'information,'. 9 Clause 22— At page 17, line 12, 'person'— omit, insert— 'person, that is'. Amendments agreed to. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I will refer to a situation in a profession other than the medical profession and then relate it back to the medical profession. I do not intend any personal insult to anyone in using these examples. It is not that long ago that concern was expressed about the Law Society or a group of lawyers reviewing the actions of a lawyer to determine whether those actions were appropriate. I understand the reasoning for clause 22, particularly in the medical profession where a medical procedure is carried out and it is in accordance with widely held views or it is appropriately done in terms of peer professional opinion. I would like the minister to clarify whether he is confident that consumers are adequately covered in terms of their ability to prove a case or is there a risk of peers protecting one another? There are a lot of young doctors at our hospital. A number of medical errors have been reported at the hospital. In part I think it is because these doctors are being asked to perform beyond their experience and there is no other back-up for them. I am not hanging them out to dry. In a generic sense, will consumers who are subject to a procedure and who feel at the end of the day, or have it confirmed to them by another doctor, that the procedure was inefficiently done or inappropriately done have sufficient room to be able to prove their case, given that this clause says it is sufficient to prove the appropriateness of the procedure on the basis of an accumulated peer opinion? Mr WELFORD: It is always difficult to prove negligence on the part of doctors unless it is plain and clear. If there is one profession where it is very, very difficult to get other professionals of the same category to testify as to negligence, it is the medical profession. It is relatively easy, in fact, to get one lawyer to accuse another lawyer of being negligent. They love that. It is part of their job to accuse other people of being negligent. They do not seem to give each other much quarter. 1276 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

This principle is a modified version of the principle that at common law applied in respect of medical negligence by doctors. The modification that has been incorporated in this provision in fact advantages consumers in this way. The principle that originally applied to medical negligence was that a doctor was not liable, providing they conducted their procedure in a manner that accorded with a respected body of professional opinion. That was often taken to mean a medical board, a medical association or some such organisation. This provision says, 'Well, you cannot rely for advice on acceptable practice from a body that is there to protect professionals. You have to go beyond that to widely accepted practice of a significant number of respected practitioners.' In other words, it throws the net of what is considered to be good professional practice to a wider section of the profession. So we have to show that it is not just the professional association's opinion that the practice was competent but it is also the opinion held by a very wide cross-section of members of the profession. In that respect, the onus placed on the professional to show that their conduct was competent is higher under this provision than it was previously. The CHAIRMAN: I would like to make the observation that it is easier to have that sort of debate amongst politicians than it is amongst lawyers. Clause 22, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 23 to 25, as read, agreed to. Clause 26— Mr WELFORD (5.37 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 10 Clause 26— At page 18, line 11, 'Liability at law'— omit, insert— 'Civil liability'. 11 Clause 26— At page 18, line 12, 'on or after 18 June 2002'— omit. These amendments are technical amendments. Amendments agreed to. Clause 26, as amended, agreed to. Clause 27— Mr WELFORD (5.38 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 12 Clause 27— At page 18, line 26, 'Liability at law'— omit, insert— 'Civil liability'. Similar to the last amendments, this amendment is requested by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel to maintain consistency of language. Amendment agreed to. Clause 27, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 28 to 30, as read, agreed to. Clause 31— Mr WELFORD (5.39 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 13 Clause 31— At page 20, lines 34 and 35, from 'misrepresentation' to 'loss.'— omit, insert— 'misrepresentation and confirmed the income of the business as claimed by R. P, relying on D's professional advice, purchased the business and suffered loss.'. This amendment varies the example provided in clause 31 so as to reduce any confusion arising out of how that example reflects the interaction between the parties intended in clause 31 of the bill. Amendment agreed to. Clause 31, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 32 to 36, as read, agreed to. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1277

Clause 37— Mr WELFORD (5.39 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 14 Clause 37— At page 23, lines 22 to 26 and line 32— omit. Again, this is a technical amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, agreed to. Clause 38— Mr WELFORD (5.40 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 15 Clause 38— At page 24, lines 4 and 5— omit, insert— ' "community organisation" means any of the following that organises the doing of community work by volunteers— (a) a corporation; (b) a trustee acting in the capacity of trustee; (c) a church or other religious group; (d) a registered political party as defined under the Electoral Act 1992 or the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cwlth); (e) a public or other authority as defined under section 34.'. 16 Clause 38— At page 24, line 7, after 'sporting,'— insert— 'recreational, political,'. Amendment No. 15 expands the definition of 'community organisation' in clause 38 of the bill to include entities such as trusts and church groups involved in organising volunteers. It will also allow volunteers who are doing community work for registered political parties to seek the protection offered by the provisions in this bill. The previous provision did not cover volunteers working in community organisations which were not incorporated. By expanding the definition of 'community organisation' in this way we are providing protection to a wider cross-section of volunteers. Amendment No. 16 inserts the extension of the range of organisations covered by the bill to recreational and political organisations accordingly. Amendments agreed to. Clause 38, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 39 to 45, as read, agreed to. Clause 46— Mr WELFORD (5.41 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 17 Clause 46— At page 27, lines 12 and 13— omit. This amendment is similar to amendment No. 14 and again is a technical amendment recommended by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. Amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 47 to 51, as read, agreed to. Clause 52— Mr WELFORD (5.42 p.m.): I am not moving amendment No. 18, and I obviously oppose clause 52. Clause 52, as read, negatived. Clause 53, as read, agreed to. 1278 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Clause 54— Mr WELFORD (5.43 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 19 Clause 54— At page 32, line 10, after 'section'— insert— 'or a written notice given under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, section 26'. 20 Clause 54— At page 32, after line 19— insert— '(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply in assessing damages for personal injury if leave to start the proceeding was given under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, section 43(1) and was not stayed under section 43(3) of that Act because section 43(4) of that Act applied.'. Amendment No. 19 amends clause 54 to assist in the transition between the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act and the application of this bill. It allows a court to take into account any notice to mitigate issued under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act when making an award of damages under this bill. Without the amendment, it is a concern that parties may attempt to argue that a court may not refer to a notice issued under the act when a decision is made in accordance with this bill. Amendment No. 20 inserts a new subclause 4A into clause 54 of the bill. This is also designed to ensure that the bill properly aligns with the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. Amendments agreed to. Clause 54, as amended, agreed to. Clause 55 to 59, as read, agreed to. Clause 60— Mr WELFORD (5.44 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 21 Clause 60— At page 34, lines 10 to 31 and page 35, lines 1 and 2— omit, insert— ' 60 Damages for gratuitous services '(1) Damages for gratuitous services are not to be awarded unless— (a) the services are necessary; and (b) the need for the services arises solely out of the injury in relation to which damages are awarded; and (c) the services are provided, or are to be provided— (i) for at least 6 hours per week; and (ii) for at least 6 months. '(2) Damages are not to be awarded for gratuitous services if gratuitous services of the same kind were being provided for the injured person before the breach of duty happened. '(3) Damages are not to be awarded for gratuitous services replacing services provided by an injured person, or that would have been provided by the injured person if the injury had not been suffered, for others outside the injured person's household. '(4) In assessing damages for gratuitous services, a court must take into account— (a) any offsetting benefit the service provider obtains through providing the services; and (b) periods for which the injured person has not required or is not likely to require the services because the injured person has been or is likely to be cared for in a hospital or other institution.'. This amendment replaces the current clause 60 of the bill with a provision that effectively mirrors the provisions it replaces in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act and the Motor Accident Insurance Act. The original clause contains certain references to dependency claims. A concern has been raised as to the true applicability and the result of these changes. Accordingly, I believe it is appropriate that, rather than risk unfair removal of causes of action, the original provisions be replicated and further consideration be given as to their appropriateness and application. Amendment agreed to. Clause 60, as amended, agreed to. Clause 61, as read, agreed to. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1279

Clause 62— Mr WELFORD (5.45 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 22 Clause 62— At page 35, line 27, after 'a court'— insert— 'in relation to an injury arising after 1 December 2002'. 23 Clause 62— At page 36, line 3, 'deciding'— omit, insert— 'assessing'. 24 Clause 62— At page 36, after line 7— insert— '(2) If a court assesses an injury scale value for a particular injury to be more or less than any injury scale value prescribed for or attributed to similar particular injuries under subsection (1)(c), the court must state the factors on which the assessment is based that justify the assessed injury scale value.'. Again, these amendments arise out of issues of clarity raised by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. Amendment No. 24, in particular, amends clause 62 to ensure that a court provides reasons for a judgment which describe the factors taken into account in assessing an injury. This information is appropriate to enable a body of case law to be developed and available to the community and the courts in assessing the amount of general damages that should be awarded in any particular matter. Amendments agreed to. Clause 62, as amended, agreed to. Clause 63, as read, agreed to. Clause 64— Mr WELFORD (5.46 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 25 Clause 64— At page 38, line 5, after 'award of'— insert— 'personal injury'. Again, this amendment is of a technical nature. Amendment agreed to. Clause 64, as amended, agreed to. Clause 65— Mr WELFORD (5.46 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 26 Clause 65— At page 38, lines 13 and 14— omit. This amendment to clause 65 removes the requirement upon a court to provide a written outline detailing the components of any proposed award to which the section applies. The amendment relates to the ability of parties to arrange structured settlements in personal injury actions. A concern exists that a written outline of the damages components may unnecessarily restrict the party's ability to structure a settlement with regard to taxation issues. Accordingly, parties should be afforded maximum flexibility in negotiating structured settlements, and the requirement for the outline is omitted. Amendment agreed to. Clause 65, as amended, agreed to. Clause 66 to 72, as read, agreed to. Clause 73— Mr WELFORD (5.57 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 27 Clause 73— At page 40, line 8, 'on or after 18 June 2002'— omit. 1280 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

This amends clause 73 by replicating the provision being transferred from the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The former provision will apply to all incidents involving volunteers until the date of assent of this bill bringing it into force. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to refer to any specific date of commencement within the provision. Amendment agreed to. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I would like some clarification from the minister in regard to the example that is given, as it is very specifically worded—that is, the health care provider saying to a patient they were sorry that there was an adverse outcome. The statement might be more specific than that and the health care provider might acknowledge that the wrong thing was done—and I am not relying on semantics—and they admit fault. It could be argued that all they are saying is, 'I am sorry you went out of the hospital worse than when you came in.' If they admit fault, will that be admissible? That would be a weighty document in terms of a patient's case and the minister would be excluding a very significant piece of evidence. If in the communication between the health care provider and the patient the health care provider did not just say, 'Look, we're sorry that there were complications in your procedure,' but actually said, 'We're sorry we made a mistake,' could that be used? Does the Attorney follow? Mr WELFORD: This is a difficult area. We have not yet seen how the courts will look at expressions of regret that are provided by the health care provider. Suffice it to say, I anticipate that the way these provisions will operate is that what is said will not of itself be seen as an admission of liability, even if reference is made to a mistake in the expression of regret. It will still be necessary for the person making the claim—that is, the plaintiff—to establish negligence. So they will still have to prove negligence by means other than the expression of regret provided by the health care provider. Clause 73, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 74 to 80, as read, agreed to. Clause 81— Mr WELFORD (5.51 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 28 Clause 81— At page 42, lines 20 to 22 and page 43, line 1— omit, insert— '(b) injury as defined under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, but only to the extent that an entitlement to seek damages, as defined under that Act, for the injury is regulated by chapter 5 of that Act. Example for paragraph (b)— W, a worker, sustains an injury in the course of employment. The injury is caused by a design fault in a machine. As a result of sustaining the injury, W seeks damages against both E, W's employer, and X Company, the designer of the machine. Before starting a proceeding in a court for damages against E, W must comply with the pre-court procedures under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Similarly, before starting a proceeding in a court for damages against X Company, W must comply with the pre-court procedures under this Act.'. The original intention of section 6 was to ensure that all personal injuries claims not already required to enter into a pre-court procedure would do so under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. There was no intention to allow or make a party choose which pre-court procedure they were going to enter into. The application provisions of the various legislation controlling the procedures would do that. It was acknowledged that one incident may result in a number of procedures being run at the same time where multiple parties are involved. This is appropriate to ensure that all parties are brought together prior to entering into a full-blown costly legal process. This amendment will achieve the original intention of the exclusion under section 6 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act and the provision originally provided in clause 81 would still fail to achieve that original intention if it was not amended. Amendment agreed to. Clause 81, as amended, agreed to. Clause 82— Mr WELFORD (5.52 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 29 Clause 82— At page 43, after line 14— insert— 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1281

'(2) Section 7— insert— '(2) Despite subsection (1), notice of a claim is to be given in the form approved for a notice of a claim when the notice is given. '(3) Also, subsection (2) has effect for notice of a claim given before the commencement of this subsection.'.'. This amendment clarifies operation of a notice procedure under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. Amendment agreed to. Clause 82, as amended, agreed to. Clause 83— Mr WELFORD (5.53 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 30 Clause 83— At page 44, line 14, after '(3)'— insert— 'or section 9A(9)(b)'. 31 Clause 83— At page 44, after line 20— insert— '(6A) Section 9(6), after 'subsection (3)'— insert— 'or section 9A(9)(b)'.'. 32 Clause 83— At page 45, line 5, after 'first person'— insert— 'in writing'. 33 Clause 83— At page 45, after line 21— insert— '(13) Section 9— insert— '(9A) For subsection (3)(b), consultation by a claimant with a community legal service as defined under section 67A(2), whether before or after the commencement of this subsection, is to be disregarded. '(9B) This section is subject to section 9A.'.'. All of these amendments amend clause 83 in purely technical terms only. Agreements agreed to. Clause 83, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WELFORD (5.53 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 34 After clause 83— At page 45, after line 21— insert— ' 83A Insertion of new s 9A 'After section 9— insert— ' 9A Particular provision for notice of a claim procedure for medical negligence cases '(1) This section applies to a claim based on a medical incident happening on or after the commencement of this section that is alleged to have given rise to personal injury. '(2) Before giving part 1 of a notice of a claim under section 9, the claimant must give written notice ("initial notice") of the claim to the person against whom a proceeding based on the claim is proposed to be started. '(3) The initial notice must state it is given under this section and contain the following information— (a) the claimant's full name and address; (b) any other name by which the claimant is known or has been known; (c) if the initial notice is given by the claimant's parent or legal guardian, the parent's or guardian's name; 1282 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

(d) the claimant's date of birth; (e) a description of the medical services alleged to have given rise to the personal injury; (f) if known, the name of the doctor who provided the medical services; (g) the date or dates when the medical services were provided; (h) the place or places at which the medical services were provided; and (i) a description of the personal injury alleged to have been suffered. '(4) The initial notice must be given within the period ending on the earlier of the following days— (a) the day 9 months after the day the medical incident happened or, if symptoms of the personal injury arising out of the incident were not immediately apparent, the first appearance of symptoms of the injury; (b) the day 1 month after the day the claimant first consults a lawyer about the possibility of seeking damages for the personal injury and the person against whom the proceeding is proposed to be started is identified. '(5) If the claimant is a child, the child's parent or legal guardian may give the initial notice for the child. '(6) If the initial notice is not given within the period prescribed under subsection (4), the obligation to give the initial notice continues and a reasonable excuse for the delay must be given in the initial notice to the person against whom the proceeding is proposed to be started. '(7) If the person against whom the proceeding is proposed to be started is the State or an entity with the privileges and immunities of the State, the giving of the initial notice is effective for subsection (2) only if it is given to— (a) if the place at which the medical incident happened is a place under the control of a district manager—the district manager for the place; or (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the chief executive officer of the department or entity having control of the place at which the medical incident happened. '(8) A person to whom an initial notice is given must, within 1 month after receiving the initial notice, give the claimant— (a) a written response advising whether any documents are held in relation to the medical services mentioned in the notice; and (b) copies of all documents held by the person about the medical services. '(9) The claimant— (a) may give part 1 of the notice of the claim only after giving the initial notice; and (b) must give part 1 of the notice within 12 months after the respondent complies with subsection (8); and (c) is not required to comply with section 9(3); and (d) must, as part of giving a complying part 1 notice of claim, give a written report from a medical specialist, competent to assess the medical incident alleged to have given rise to the personal injury, stating, in the medical specialist's opinion— (i) that there was a failure to meet an appropriate standard of care in providing medical services; and (ii) the reasons justifying the opinion; and (iii) that as a result of the failure, the claimant suffered personal injury; and (e) must give the report mentioned in paragraph (d) when giving part 1 of the notice of claim. '(10) If the claim is based on, or includes, an allegation of a failure to warn of a risk in relation to the provision of medical services, it is not necessary for subsection (9) for the report to comment on, or address, the alleged failure. '(11)To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (4)(a), to the extent that it provides that a notice may be given after the first appearance of symptoms of the personal injury, does not determine or affect when a cause of action in relation to the injury arose for the purposes of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. '(12) No obligation exists on a person to whom an initial notice is given to investigate, assess or respond to the initial notice other than as required by subsection (8). '(13) For subsection (4)(b), consultation by a claimant with a community legal service as defined under section 67A(2) is to be disregarded. '(14) In this section— "district manager", for a place, means the manager appointed under the Health Services Act 1991, section 22, for the district in which the place is located. "medical incident" means an accident, or other act, omission or circumstance involving a doctor happening during the provision of medical services. "medical specialist" means a person registered or eligible for registration as a specialist registrant under the Medical Practitioners Registration Act 2001.'.'. This amendment inserts into the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act new section 9A providing for a new procedure for claims that allege medical negligence other than a failure to warn of the risks involved in medical treatment. The need for this amendment has arisen because of a dramatic increase in spurious claims against doctors and their insurers. Under the act, when a person is 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1283 notified of a claim they are obligated to investigate the claim and obtain all evidence in relation to medical negligence. Due to the complexity of the issues involved, this means obtaining reports from the most experienced practitioners. In other words, people are forcing doctors and their insurers to incur considerable expense complying with the provision of the act in circumstances where there is absolutely no case, in some cases, to answer. The amendment inserts a procedure whereby a person who wishes to make an allegation of medical negligence must first obtain their own medical report supporting that claim. The procedure put in place allows them total access to the relevant records and considerable time—in fact, up to one year—in which to obtain that medical report. The result of the amendment will ensure that only genuine claims proceed. Amendment agreed to. Clause 84, as amended, agreed to. Clause 85— Mr WELFORD (5.55 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 35 Clause 85— At page 46, after line 12— insert— '(4) Subsection (2) or (3) has effect whether the notice under the subsection was given before or after the commencement of the subsection.'.'. This amendment also amends clause 85 as a result of section 7 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. Under that section, the procedures set up in the act are made part of the substantive law. This ensures that all personal injuries claims that arise in Queensland are required to proceed through the pre-court procedure. Without the section it would be possible for a claim to be commenced in another state or jurisdiction without the benefit of the act. A further result is that argument may arise that the provisions which apply to an incident may be the provisions as at the date of the incident as opposed to the date of entry into the pre-court process. This amendment will ensure that in relation to arguments upon insurance contracts no such argument may be made. Amendment agreed to. Clause 85, as amended, agreed to. Clause 86, as read, agreed to. Clause 87— Mr WELFORD (5.56 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 36 Clause 87— At page 47, line 10, from '12' to 'that'— omit, insert— '10 or 121 within the prescribed period under the'. 1 Section 10 (Person to whom notice of a claim is given must give preliminary response to claimant) or 12 (Respondent’s response to part 1 of a notice of a claim) Again, this is a technical amendment arising out of the need to align procedures with those in the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. Amendment agreed to. Clause 87, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 88 to 91, as read, agreed to. Clause 92— Mr WELFORD (5.57 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 37 Clause 92— At page 49, after line 11— insert— '(2) This division applies regardless of when the personal injury to which the claim relates arose.'. 38 Clause 92— At page 49, line 19, '1 year'— omit, insert— 1284 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

'18 months'. Amendment No. 38 is a consequential amendment. Amendment No. 37 amends clause 92 by inserting the early notification procedures for claims by children injured through medical negligence and inserts the procedures into the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. Proposed section 20B sets out the application of the provisions. Transitional provisions for implementation of the procedure are contained in clause 107 of the bill. The amendment will clarify the transitional application of the provision at the request of the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. Amendments agreed to. Mr SPRINGBORG: I move the following amendment— Clause 92— At page 49, line 27, 'A' omit, insert— 'Wilful'. This amendment arises from a board meeting of the Queensland Law Society held earlier today. I considered what it had to put forward and I believe it is worthy of the deliberation of this House. Under this amendment, the clause would read 'wilful failure by a lawyer to comply with subsection (2) is unprofessional conduct or practice'. The contention which has been put forward by the board of the QLS today is that for a person to be found to have acted unprofessionally it should be demonstrated that the person has wilfully acted in a particular way. I understand that the motivation behind this is that there might be administrative issues or something which has gone wrong which may have been beyond that lawyer's reasonable control where he or she has not lodged a notification that a claim is going to be made by a child or their parent or a guardian acting on their behalf. This clarifies it to make sure that, if there is a matter where a lawyer has not set out in a callous disregarding way not to lodge a particular document within the time that it has actually happened, it will not be considered to be unprofessional conduct on behalf of that person. I believe it is something worthy of consideration and deliberation. I would be pleased to know what the Attorney has to say about it and how he personally feels. Obviously, that will probably determine what happens in the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I advise the House that I will be opposing this clause. I have been in a situation—not me personally but in my role in the office; and it was not in this circumstance obviously— The CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the amendment? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: That is fine. The member could oppose the clause later; that is what I am saying. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: No, I am opposing the amendment. The CHAIRMAN: That is fine. The member is entitled to do that. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: This amendment will effectively change just one word—that is, 'a' to 'wilful' failure. The proposer, the Leader of the Opposition, has said that it is possible that a claimant will go to a solicitor and ask for that solicitor to handle the process for claiming damages on behalf of the child. Those parents—it is normally the parents—will be relying on the ability and reliability of the solicitor to progress the claim in a timely manner. The Leader of the Opposition said that it might be an administrative process in the office that stalls the claim; that for some reason he does not get the notification in in accordance with part 1. The ramifications of being out of time are outlined in the clause. It allows for the person to whom part 1 of the notice is given to apply to the court for an order that the claim not proceed further. This amendment will allow a solicitor who is less than careful as far as complying with all of the constraints placed on these applications to be able to be not responsible personally for what could be significant loss to not only the parents but the child involved in this notification. In a case not involving a child but another case, a person referred a workplace injury to a solicitor and it was referred to the Industrial Relations Commission. There were time frames for that application and the paperwork to go to the IRC. The solicitor put the application in his bottom drawer and went on holidays. He was unable to proceed with the claim because it was deemed to be out of time, although he went through the process of applying for an extension of time and the company involved gave him that first extension. But at the conclusion of this entire issue his case did not proceed because some of the initial paperwork was deemed out of time. The IRC had 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1285 written and said, 'You'll have this paperwork in within a seven-day time frame,' and the solicitor failed to comply with that. It may not have been wilful; he was just being slack. But it did not affect the result at the end of the day. He got no consideration of his claim against the company. He has been struggling for a number of years to get some action from the Law Society in relation to the actions or inaction of the solicitor. He is out of work, his marriage has broken up and his house has gone—all because 'a' failure might be changed to 'wilful' failure. The repercussions of changing that are significant, because it allows a solicitor, without casting aspersions on anyone, not to bother to follow up on the necessary time frames that are being inserted in this bill, and it gives the person against whom the claim is levied an opportunity to ask the court to order that the claim not proceed. It is a significant change, not a small one, and can have terrible implications for injured parties. Mr SHINE: Irrespective of whether the amendment should or should not be supported, the honourable member for Gladstone should take into account that all solicitors have to be compulsorily insured. In the circumstance that she has indicated there is a clear case of negligence and there would be a claim against the solicitor in that instance. I think her fears would be unfounded. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I respect the comments made. This case that I am referring to—and it is not in relation to this bill—relates to complying with very stringent time frames. That person has not been able to get a case of negligence up. The Law Society has refused it. He does not have the money and the resources to mount a case himself. He is left in a quandary. I would ask the Attorney-General to reject the amendment on the basis that it makes it possible for a person who is already a victim of an incident that has left that person vulnerable and disadvantaged to be further disadvantaged simply because the engaged solicitor could merely say, 'It was an administrative error. Sorry about that. I'm not unprofessional. I'm not negligent,' and as a consequence that family's case can be thrown out of the process. I believe it is a significant amendment that should be rejected. Mr WELFORD: I did indicate at the time the member for Gladstone rose to speak on this amendment that I would retain an open mind on the issue. I was genuine in saying that. I did not have a concluded view. When the Leader of the Opposition put the proposal up my first reaction was that perhaps it did not make a material difference. But I think the point that the member for Gladstone has made is a sound one, and that is reinforced by looking at the wording of subsection (2), which imposes the obligation that the lawyer has. If the effect of subsection (3) was that no account could be taken of mitigating circumstances affecting the lawyer's behaviour, I might agree with the Leader of the Opposition that some reference to more intentional or wilful behaviour was justified. However, if one looks at subsection (2) the obligation is couched in these terms— A lawyer acting for a parent or legal guardian required by subsection (1) to give part 1 of a notice of a claim for a child must, as soon as practicable after being instructed by the parent or legal guardian to give part 1 of the notice to the person against whom the proceeding is proposed to be started, give part 1 of the notice to that person. So if the requirement was to give a notice within a specified time, it is conceivable that there are inadvertent circumstances beyond the control of the lawyer that make strict liability under subsection (3) appear tough. However, that is not what is required by subsection (2). It simply requires the lawyer to make sure that they give notice as soon as practicable. That allows the court to take into account whether they have acted responsibly or not and take into account whether there are factors that mitigate against holding the lawyer responsible for their conduct. I think the member for Gladstone has sustained her argument by saying, if in addition to allowing the flexibility that is provided by subsection (2)—allowing someone to lodge the claim as soon as practicable—that they are only unprofessional in their conduct if they do it wilfully, in other words, if they receive instructions and virtually refuse to do what their client asked them, they are liable, and then you leave them to have to fund a claim for negligence which the Law Society may or may not accept, or the lawyer's insurer may or may not accept without a full court case, then I think that we leave ourselves exposed to not being able to take action promptly against the lawyer for that negligent behaviour. To be fair, it is generally accepted in the legal profession that failure to give a notice within appropriate time limits is negligence. The member for Gladstone indicates that there may have been an incident whereby a failure to give a notice within time did not result in the professional liability insurer accepting that they should pay out for the negligence in that case. That would be a matter of some concern to me if that sort of incident arose. Cabinet made a conscious decision to put this clause in the bill, because we wanted to make it very clear that if we were going to put obligations on parties who are children to give notice and 1286 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003 the failure to give that notice, through no fault of the child or their guardian, resulted in the child having the risk of their claim being stayed or rejected, then the person who has responsibility, once instructed to ensure that that notice is given in time, should not escape sanction lightly. For that reason, a conscious decision was made to impose on a lawyer, who, having been instructed by the parent or guardian of a child to put in a notice, to do so as soon as practicable. A court, in assessing whether they have done it as soon as practicable, can take into account any inadvertent circumstances that the lawyer could not have predicted or controlled. So on balance, I must advise the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot support the amendment. Mr SPRINGBORG: When I moved this amendment, I thought that it was reasonable based on the fact that a person may do something that may not have been deliberate negligence or unprofessional conduct and it may have been as a consequence of something inadvertent. Would it be fair, in all the circumstances, to punish that person for unprofessional conduct? I have absolutely no time whatsoever for lawyers who do the wrong thing and who are negligent and who are unprofessional in the actions that they may undertake. I do not think that any member of this parliament would have any time for them whatsoever. This was just simply a matter of realising that there may be circumstances, which may be unforeseen for us here tonight, for which a lawyer may not lodge something, but they may not have been unprofessional in their conduct or deliberately negligent in their conduct. As the Attorney-General says, the clause certainly prescribes an obligation for that lawyer to lodge a notice of claim for a child within a particular time. That is very, very true and those circumstances are laid out in new sections 20C(1)(a) and 20C(1)(b). I think that it is also essential to consider that there are other aspects of this legislation that may potentially overcome the concerns that are raised by the honourable member for Gladstone—those concerns being genuine—and that is, as I understand it, there is an ability to consider a late claim. Of course, it is at the discretion of the court to decide whether that is a valid consideration and the respondent has a role to play in the determination of the court's final decision. I would have thought—and I considered it when I moved this amendment—that if there were circumstances where somebody who had a legitimate claim, which should proceed against a respondent, was to be disadvantaged, that the court would consider that it was not the fault of the claimant, that it was a problem with the process. Because the process had failed and the claimant had made all of the right moves with regard to consulting the lawyer within a particular period and setting about making a claim within a particular period, then that would be considered in favour of that claimant by the court. Of course, we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios and there may be circumstances notwithstanding where the court may decide otherwise. That is why I thought that there were probably enough checks and balances in this bill to overcome the concerns, which are not illegitimate, which were raised by the honourable member for Gladstone. It was just basically to seek to cover a situation that may arise where a lodgment did not happen within a prescribed period, but it would not have been generally or genuinely considered by most reasonable people unprofessional conduct or negligence. The honourable member for Toowoomba North indicated that lawyers have negligence insurance. That considers negligence whether that be deliberate or otherwise. However, I wish to advise the committee that I have listened to the debate on this clause. I think that, in the absence of having the chance to be able to go through it fully and look at the way in which it may impact unfairly on a claimant and may not necessarily have the right amount of checks and balances in it, which would overcome the case of where a claimant may be disadvantaged by the actions of their lawyer in not lodging it within a time, I would just simply ask leave of this committee to withdraw the amendment. Leave granted. Mr WELFORD: I move the following amendment— 39 Clause 92— At page 49, after line 28— insert— '(4) For subsection (1)(b), consultation by a claimant with a community legal service as defined under section 67A(2), whether before or after the commencement of this subsection, is to be disregarded.'. 3 Apr 2003 Civil Liability Bill 1287

Again, this clause amends clause 92 outlining the times applicable to the notification of claims. Amendment agreed to. Clause 92, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 93 and 94, as read, agreed to. Clause 95— Mr WELFORD (6.19 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 40 Clause 95— At page 52, line 27, after 'despite section'— insert— '9A(9),'. Amendment agreed to. Clause 95, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 96 to 104, as read, agreed to. Clause 105— Mr WELFORD (6.19 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 41 Clause 105— At page 56, lines 10 to 12— omit, insert— '"community legal service" means an entity, prescribed under a regulation, that provides free legal services to the community or a section of the community.'. This amendment inserts a new definition of 'community legal service' into the touting provisions. Concern was raised that some unscrupulous legal practitioners may attempt to avoid the touting provisions through setting up their own free legal service which in fact simply was a referral point to their firm. This amendment will ensure suitable controls over which bodies have the protection offered by the proposed section. Amendment agreed to. Clause 105, as amended, agreed to. Mr WELFORD: I move the following amendment— 42 After clause 105— At page 56, after line 15— insert— ' 105A Omission of ch 3, pt 2 'Chapter 3, part 2— omit.'.'. This is a technical amendment only. Amendment agreed to. Clause 106, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr WELFORD (6.21 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 43 After clause 106— At page 57, after line 4— insert— ' 106A Amendment of s 77D (Alteration of limitation period for personal injury arising out of an incident happening before 18 June 2002) Section 77D(2)(a), after '2003'— insert— '—before or on 18 June 2003'.'. This inserts a new section 106A into the bill. The purpose of the clause is to clarify section 77D of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The provision recently came to the attention of the court in the matter of Lamb v. State of Queensland. The parties in that case are currently relying upon the interpretation given to the section by His Honour Judge McGill. The result of the amendment is that the decision of the court will be confirmed as correct. Amendment agreed to. 1288 Civil Liability Bill 3 Apr 2003

Clause 107— Mr WELFORD (6.21 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 44 Clause 107— At page 58, line 11, after 'be'— insert— 'the day 18 months after'. 45 Clause 107— At page 58, after line 11— insert— ' 81 Particular provisions having continuing effect The following provisions as in force immediately before the commencement of this section continue to have effect in relation to personal injury arising out of an incident happening before the day the Civil Liability Act 2003 received assent as if that Act had not been enacted— ¥ chapter 2 (Claims), part 2 (Expressions of regret) ¥ section 51 (Damages for loss of earnings or earning capacity) ¥ section 52 (Discount rate to be applied in calculating the present value of future loss or gratuitous services) ¥ section 53 (Damages for loss of consortium or loss of servitium) ¥ section 54 (Damages for gratuitous services) ¥ section 55 (Interest) ¥ chapter 3 (Other matters), part 2 (Protection of persons performing duties to enhance public safety).'.'. Amendment No. 44 is a consequential amendment made to allow effective operation of the initial notice procedure for medical negligence cases. Amendment No. 45 inserts a transitional application provision into the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act to ensure that those provisions transferred from that act into this bill continue to apply to those incidents that occur prior to the commencement of this bill. Amendments agreed to. Clause 107, as amended, agreed to. Clause 108— Mr WELFORD (6.22 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 46 Clause 108— At page 58, line 19, 'given under section 9 or 14'— omit, insert— 'complying with section 9 and, if a respondent is added under section 14, section 14'. This amendment amends clause 108, changing the definition of 'complying part 1 notice of claim' at the request of Parliamentary Counsel. It is a technical amendment to grammatically reflect the application of various provisions within the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. Amendment agreed to. Clause 108, as amended, agreed to. Clause 109, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1, as read, agreed to. Schedule 2— Mr WELFORD (6.23 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 47 Schedule 2— At page 63, line 12, 'on tort'— omit, insert— 'in tort'. This simply amends the definition of the word 'claim' in schedule 2 of the bill. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported, with amendments. 3 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1289

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

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Resumed from 3 December (see p. 5233). Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (6.25 p.m.): The proposed amendments to the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 have three aims—to improve the balance of legal obligations at the workplace; to strengthen the consultative arrangements between employers and employees to provide greater consistency with other safety legislation; and to streamline reporting requirements for employers. The changes place obligations to ensure safe workplaces on persons who conduct work undertakings, on persons who design buildings and on persons in control of buildings used at workplaces. In addition, the changes will ensure designers, manufacturers and suppliers of equipment have an obligation to provide safety information with the equipment and to ensure that it has been tested and checked. Similarly, manufacturers and suppliers of substances will have an obligation to provide safety information. The changes will clarify the specific obligations that employers have to meet to ensure health and safety. In strengthening the consultative arrangements, the changes to the act will also require workplace health and safety officers to conduct annual inspections at the workplace and will provide for accredited training for workplace health and safety officers. To provide greater consistency with other safety legislation and streamlining reporting requirements for employers, the changes will bring the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 into line with recent changes to the Electrical Safety Act 2002, with the introduction of unforeseeable undertakings as an alternative to prosecution, and will align penalties with that act and the Dangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2000. In addition, investigation powers are to be clarified. The reporting requirements will mean that in some cases employers will not have to report the same accident twice, as has been the case in the past. A consultation and issues paper was released for public consultation in December 2001. Consultation has been undertaken with industry bodies, unions and those persons who had expressed an interest in making submissions to the issues paper. Policy papers were subsequently developed and considered by the Workplace Health and Safety Board in April and June 2002. Issues raised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee include self-incrimination. The committee refers to the parliament, as it has done frequently in the past, the question of self- incrimination. The committee noted that clause 27 inserts provisions which remove the protection of the self-incrimination rule in relation to a restricted range of documents. Clause 27 deals with the power of workplace inspectors to conduct investigations into workplace incidents. The inspectors will be allowed to require persons to give information or produce documents to assist in the investigation. In the case of a selected category of documents, there is no right to the rule against self-incrimination. I therefore ask the minister, as the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has, whether these provisions are reasonable in the circumstances and what type of documents the minister envisages will be involved where the rule of self-incrimination will still operate. The next area of concern raised by the committee goes to the issue of enforceable undertakings. Enforceable undertakings are already a feature of the recent Electrical Safety Act 2002. Enforceable undertakings allow for greater scope in negotiations with persons who have breached the workplace health and safety or electrical safety rules. An example of an enforceable undertaking may be that where a breach has occurred the company may be required to conduct a community awareness campaign or to undertake some sort of safety advertising. Generally the person will be required to give some sort of undertaking as to their future behaviour. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has explained that where an enforceable undertaking is accepted by the chief executive the other enforcement processes of the act are suspended while the undertaking remains in force. In the view of the committee this denies a right to review under an enforceable undertaking. However, the committee explains that it does not consider the denial of review significant. I ask the minister to address this issue. There may be circumstances where an enforceable undertaking that is negotiated with the chief executive may at the first instance be beneficial to both parties. However, unknown factors may occur which may render the 1290 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 3 Apr 2003 conditions harsh for either party and it is in these circumstances that a review of the enforceable undertakings should be available. I offer my qualified support to the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. There are some issues that need to be further articulated, as I indicated. I have asked the minister to address two issues—the recrimination provisions and the enforceable undertaking provisions. I turn to the amendments proposed to be moved by the minister during the committee stage. Regardless of the merits of the changes, there are a number of concerns I wish to raise. The first is the process the government has used in proposing these amendments. The subject matter the amendments deal with is significant. The definition of 'worker' for the purposes of the WorkCover Act has many ramifications, no matter how minor the mooted changes are. The government is proposing a new results test to determine whether a person is considered to be a worker or an independent contractor. Those who help me were notified of the changes only two weeks prior to their introduction. It is felt that this is an inadequate timetable for the opposition to undertake a thorough investigation and examination of the changes and to conduct sufficient consultation with the necessary stakeholders. It is upon this issue that I will not be supporting the amendments to the WorkCover Act. I hope that in future the minister will be able to give more consideration to the opposition when he undertakes legislative changes. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (6.34 p.m.): I am pleased to rise in support of the Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 2002. The bill amends the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and makes some amendments to the Electrical Safety Act 2002. It also gives effect to the recommendations of an independent review of the act conducted in 2001-02. Essentially, the bill aims to improve the safety of workers while accommodating the fluidity of the modern workplace. It brings Queensland legislation into line with that of other jurisdictions around the country in relation to some important areas, such as the supply of equipment, and broadens the scope of legal obligations to better reflect the realities of the workplace. It does this by specifying that the legal obligation to ensure a safe workplace includes providing safe systems of work, equipment, substances and training, and includes parties such as suppliers, those in control of buildings and others who may affect the workplace in the scope of the legislation. These amendments will make the act fairer to small business employers who purchase equipment and substances in good faith, who make every effort to provide a safe workplace but may be let down by supplies which have not been adequately tested or have falsely been purported to meet safety requirements, and by property owners who have neglected their duty to maintain grounds or premises then hired out as workplaces. The amendments will require suppliers to supply plant and equipment that is safe, along with information to ensure it is used safely. This provision is a particularly good one because it will help employers, particularly small business operators, to manage their responsibilities in relation to ensuring the safety of plant, equipment and substances. This is just one of the raft of progressive, responsible and necessary changes to the workplace health and safety regime of Queensland which this bill brings. I will not be able to cover all of those provisions, but I will touch on a number of them. I am sure that honourable members who speak after me will cover many of the others. Each year in Australia some 500 workers die while at work and a further 50,000 are injured or become ill. Work related motor vehicle deaths also feature significantly in the road toll, which is quite a tragic fact in itself. These largely avoidable tragedies cost our society dearly, not to mention the huge economic cost of $20 billion a year. The human tragedy is simply unacceptable. No worker should head off to work without the expectation that they will return home safe and well. I have long been passionate about workplace health and safety, having spent 12 months as the state's media liaison and communications officer. I was the first person in the state to be notified about any workplace incident by workplace health and safety investigators from throughout Queensland. I prepared the reports for the minister and I managed communication with the media and follow-up. During this time I became convinced—hearing about and reading the details of incidents and subsequent investigations and seeing the effects on victims, families and workmates—that there are no such things as accidents. Every incident causing death or injury to a worker or in a workplace can and should be avoided. Every incident has a cause, whether it is human failure, mechanical failure or system failure, and in each instance the failure could have been 3 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1291 avoided—through better training and supervision, by establishing and adhering to risk assessment plans and codes of practice, by following safety guidelines, by maintaining plant and equipment and ensuring their safe and appropriate use, and by overall implementing safe work practices. It is true that the nature of our workplaces is changing and that many are evolving into environments where these methods may become harder and harder to implement and enforce. More and more people are working alone or unsupervised for longer periods of time as technology continues to replace human labour. More and more people are contractors or consultants, as business and even the public sector seeks to save on overheads and just hire experts when they need them for distinct periods or tasks. So the nature of work and the workplace itself is changing, and we as legislators have to respond to that. That is what this bill does. It responds to the complexity of new work arrangements, balances the legal obligations of the workplace and strengthens the consultative mechanisms between employers and employees. It provides the flexibility to accommodate new technologies, and allows businesses to function and develop to meet consumer expectation. For example, the existing focus on the employer has relied too heavily on the traditional employer/employee type relationship, and the amendments proposed in this bill seek to strike a more appropriate balance of legal obligations based on who has control of the workplace. One way in which they do this is by addressing the risks associated with buildings, fixtures and fittings. Currently employers are liable when they may have little or no control over the actual building in which the workplace is located. For example, they could be leasing premises as temporary locations, a situation which is becoming more and more frequent as companies seek to reduce their overheads. They are not buying their own premises; they are leasing or they are providing mobile or outreach services. This bill requires persons who are in control of a building and its fixtures and fittings to meet their legal requirements in providing a safe workplace if they are going to lease those facilities as workplaces. Again, this will distribute responsibility and will benefit small employers, and it also makes good commonsense. The changing nature of the labour market also means that workplace arrangements are changing, and the workplace health and safety regime has to be flexible enough to respond to those changes. To this end, the bill also includes amendments which will make it easier for workplace health and safety inspectors to carry out their duties, carrying out safety inspections and investigating the causes of incidents. I am particularly pleased to see the amendment to the definition of 'serious bodily injury' because from my experience in the department I cannot iterate enough how important it is that accurate statistics are kept that reflect what is going on in the workplaces. They are very important in the ongoing management and response to health and safety across a range of industries. The limited definition of 'serious bodily injury' or SBI that currently stands requiring an overnight stay in hospital is too narrow. It potentially means that serious incidents where the injury may be of a low level and the patient has not been required or has not agreed to stay in hospital overnight are not recorded. For example, if a worker loses the tip of a finger in some machinery or equipment at work, it could happen early in the shift, they could spend a few hours in casualty, get it sewn up, get some painkillers and prefer to go home than stay overnight in hospital. Instead of sitting there with their finger in the air, they may as well go home. So that sort of incident will not be recorded as an SBI, but it could be an indicator of more systemic or endemic problems. In fact, it is luck more than anything that they did not lose their whole hand or something more serious, such as their life. If we cannot record that incident, we cannot follow up if there is a problem with machinery or if it is a more systemic problem. Ms Keech: And then to make improvements. Mrs REILLY: I take the interjection from the member for Albert. These sorts of incidents are serious and they may provide the first indication of such failures. By picking up these in data systems that are available to inspectors, we will be able to better monitor and support industries to identify future risk and to prevent and address these hazards to prevent future incidents. Personally, I cannot say the word 'prevention' often enough. It is all about prevention. Prevention, management and enforcement go hand in hand, and this government has made a clear commitment through this bill to all of these aspects, but it has also through these amendments especially focused on prevention, as it should, because: is it not better to prevent the tragic waste of a life than to have to mop up the pieces afterwards? We must at least aim for that goal with real conviction and real vigour if we are going to get close to it. 1292 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 3 Apr 2003

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the minister to continue to ensure that adequate resources are directed into the promotion and communication of workplace health and safety issues. It was particularly frustrating as a media communications manager within that field to understand that in the broader society workplace health and safety and workers dying at work is not considered seriously enough. There seems to be a societal acceptance that if someone is killed in work it is all part of the danger. No consideration is given as to whether or not that is fair or should be acceptable. It is simply not acceptable, and it comes down to changing attitudes. Ms Keech: That is what we are trying to do. Mrs REILLY: That is what we are trying to do. I thank the member for Albert again. We have to get everyone at all levels, from employers, managers and supervisors down to employees, thinking about safety at work all of the time to put it at the top of their agenda and not take it for granted. When you take it for granted, you take your eye off the ball and that is when things go wrong. I want to congratulate the minister and his staff for bringing before the House yet another example of progressive, modern and relevant legislation and also for the extensive consultation which preceded its introduction. I want to especially congratulate the staff of the Division of Workplace Health and Safety throughout the state, many of my former colleagues, because I know of their deeply personal and fast held commitment to improving the safety of all workers. That is why they are there. I was deeply moved by the conviction and quality of many of these public servants during my time with them, and I am very proud of their ongoing efforts. This bill strikes the perfect balance between protecting the rights of workers to feel safe and be safe and the needs of industry to remain viable and commercially competitive. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (6.44 p.m.): In rising to support the Workplace Health and Safety Act and Another Act Amendment Bill, I would like to particularly congratulate the minister for bringing the bill to the House. I would like to confine my comments this evening to the amendments which will be moved in committee by the minister. Unlike the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Keppel, I will be supporting the amendments. As a member of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, I particularly thank the minister for the explanatory notes which have accompanied the amendments. The growth in self-employment and other contracting arrangements in the building, construction and other industries has significant implications for industrial relations, workplace health and safety, workers compensation, public revenue and training systems and policies. It is clear that in many industries contrived or disguised employment arrangements are being used to contract individuals out of the protection of our employment related laws, and this is a real concern, particularly to me as the member for Albert as I represent a large number of people who work in building related industries. If an employer wishes to contract out of the traditional employer/employee relationship, unfortunately it is relatively simple. How do they do this? The usual method is to structure the contract in such a way that it has as many indications as possible that it is a contract for services. These indicators usually include payment by results rather than a regular wage, the requirement to invoice a payment and the right to work for others. Other indicators include an absence of leave entitlements, supply by the worker of their own tools or equipment, a requirement for the worker to make their own personal injury insurance arrangements and the power to subcontract parts of the job to others. Another way of circumventing the employer/employee relationship is to create a partnership or proprietary limited company or some other form of legal entity so that a direct contract between the two parties cannot be formed. In examining the manipulation of contracts, it is useful to look behind these arrangements to the common law underpinning the notion of employment. Under the common law, an employment relationship assumes the existence of a contract of service between, on the one hand, the person who pays for work to be performed and, on the other hand, the person who is to perform that work. I note that the courts have been unable to state any single test or set of criteria for determining whether or not a contract of service exists. The question of whether or not a given working relationship falls within the definition of a contract of service is therefore answered by examining all the various elements which constitute the relationship between the parties. It is for this reason that legislators around Australia have been reluctant to introduce a statutory definition of a contract of service. For example, the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 defines a worker as a person who works under a contract of service. Schedule 2 of the act also deems a certain class of 3 Apr 2003 Workplace Health and Safety and Another Act Amendment Bill 1293 persons as workers. The act does not attempt to define a contract of service. The main reason for this is that a statutory definition of a contract of service would simply fall back to common law tests if disputes or ambiguities are tested before a court. The High Court in Stevens v. Brodribb Sawmilling states that there is no single objective test for determining the existence of an employment contract. It states that all of the circumstances of a case must be considered on an individual case by case basis. The multifacet test ultimately used by the court in the Brodribb case required the court to look firstly to the element of control and then to consider the totality of the relationship between the parties. The Queensland Law Reform Commission noted that this test is now regarded as the proper approach for determining whether a relationship is one of employer and employee or, on the other hand, principal and independent contractor. The commission subsequently recommended that there should be no legislative change to the common law concerning the determination of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor. Taking into account the findings of both the High Court and the Queensland Law Reform Commission, I believe the importance of the amendment proposed by the minister is that it does not seek to replace or expand upon the common law meaning of 'contract of service', 'worker' or 'employer'. In determining the true nature of a contract that involves one person working for another, the courts have always looked past the written contract to consider the true nature of the agreement between the two parties. The statutory test which is proposed will operate in addition to, and not in place of, the accepted common law meanings of these terms and the substantial body of case law which currently exists and which will no doubt develop further over time. In determining whether a person is covered by the workers compensation scheme, the principal concern is whether a person is a worker and has sustained an injury within the meaning of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. I want to be quite clear: the amendment before the House this evening does not seek to interfere with the meaning of a contract of service. Rather, it simply prescribes a class of persons as workers. Schedule 2 of the act deems many other classes of persons as workers despite the fact that they may or may not be working under a contract of service. These include, for example, sharefarmers, commission only salespersons, labour only subcontractors and outworkers on piecework rates. Under the proposed results test, a contract of service is immaterial. This is so that the common law landscape in this area is not encroached and employers and workers need only refer to the three simple tests in the legislation to determine their obligations or entitlements in relation to the workers compensation scheme. I congratulate the minister and his hardworking staff for bringing the bill to the House. I also thank the minister for the consultation which has occurred over time with industry associations, unions and legal associations. Before concluding, I commend the member for Mudgeeraba for her passionate support of workers and for her desire to improve the safety of workplaces. I commend the bill to the House. Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (6.52 p.m.): No-one in this House understands the importance as I do of having a strong and workable Workplace Health and Safety Act. For many years before entering this parliament I was a workplace health and safety officer with a federal union and saw on many occasions what can happen due to unfortunate circumstances or simply negligence in the workplace. It is even more distressing when an employer tries to argue his or her case that a worker is not covered due to their perceived interpretation of a contractor or subcontractor. In the past, many workers were mistaken in believing that they were exempt from both the Workplace Health and Safety Act and the WorkCover Act because the boss was calling the employee a contractor while they supplied nothing but their physical labour. This amendment bill clarifies what is meant by the term 'employee' and if only labour is supplied they are by definition not a contractor or a subcontractor but a direct employee. This is especially prevalent amongst the security industry. I suppose an employee has been fooled into the belief that he or she is for some reason better off if they are called a subcontractor. This might be okay until an incident arises and they find that the arguments are coming thick and fast arguing that they are not covered for WorkCover or believe they cannot apply to the Industrial Relations Commission for a decision because of what they have been called by the employer. This should no longer happen as a strict set of criteria now applies and one of the tests is determined by the Income Tax Assessment Act. Another aspect to this bill will hold suppliers responsible for their equipment or goods supplied. Just as substance and chemicals are strictly controlled by way of material safety data sheets that guarantee the facts are available, the supplier of machinery or equipment will make sure that all 1294 Adjournment 3 Apr 2003 reasonable steps have been taken to allow an employer to assume that the product is safe at the point of supply. I am also pleased to see the role of the workplace health and safety officer is defined clearly in this amendment bill. It was a Labor government that first gave us the Workplace Health and Safety Act in 1989 and which required a workplace with 30 or more employees to have a trained and accredited workplace safety officer on the team. This role has become more specific and requires the officer to do an annual assessment of the workplace, and of course they must not be hijacked in that assessment. The criteria were developed by the Division of Workplace Health and Safety. I am sure that since 1989 all the legislation put in place has taken effect and plays a huge role in the reduction of workplace accidents and incidents. Annual premiums hinge on a workplace's reduction of accidents at work and this is a huge benefit to business as it is a user- pays system that encourages safety. Those that do not comply and claim for accidents pay a higher premium, which compounds and hurts the employer in the hip pocket. On behalf of Queensland workers, I compliment the minister for his ongoing commitment to a healthy and safe workplace. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mrs Pratt, adjourned.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.56 p.m.): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 29 April 2003. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. G. R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.56 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

Toowoomba Events Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.56 p.m.): Last week in Toowoomba was a great week for its annual show week. I want to say a few words tonight about the success of the Weetwood and Toowoomba Cup racing carnivals, the Toowoomba Royal Show and what is happening to harness racing on the downs. The Weetwood carnival was once again a great event and congratulations should go to Neville Stewart and his committee at the Toowoomba Turf Club and to Alan Voles and all the staff and helpers. It is a great carnival held on show holiday which attracts at least 8,500 people. In many ways the Weetwood racing carnival has become to Weetwood what the Melbourne Cup is to Melbourne. It is a wonderful day particularly for young people and it is followed up on the Saturday by the Toowoomba Cup. This year there will be two Toowoomba Cups because it is to be moved later in the year to October. The Toowoomba Royal Show was an outstanding show. Congratulations go to John McDonell and his committee, Damon Phillips and all the staff and volunteers associated with the show. With a crowd of over 50,000, it was the best attendance for many years. The work and effort that so many volunteers and the committee put in has really turned the show around. There was a great line-up of entertainment on the Saturday night and every evening with the hour-long production of Salute to the Outback which involved students from Harristown High School, Harlaxton school and about 28 horse riders on Australian stock horses with Australian flags. It involved people on motorbikes, people in utes with lights, linedancers and country and western music and singing. Altogether it was a great pageant with horses, cattle and sheep being run through the pageant by riders at different stages. It was a great pageant and a great salute to the outback. Congratulations once again to the Toowoomba Royal Show. It is well and truly back. The last issue I want to talk about is the Darling Downs Harness Racing Club. With the downs being the breeding ground of many great harness racing horses, it is so sad to see the gradual demise of harness racing from regional centres like the downs. The club fought a long court case and won its case to have its 26 meetings a year reinstated. Now of course the Queensland Harness Racing Board is going to take away those dates and give them to Redcliffe and give Redcliffe's TAB dates to the Gold Coast. It is a real mistake to see this gradual decline and 3 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1295 withering on the vine. If we do not look after the grassroots, if we do not look after the nursery of a sport, then that sport will become a sport that is restricted to only two or three venues and a sport without that broad spectrum of people all over the state who have an interest in following and seeing the sport. I pay tribute to the Darling Downs Harness Racing Club. It is still working hard to get its dates back. I will give it every possible support I can. If harness racing is to survive, it needs strong meetings in places like Toowoomba in order to make it a profitable sport.

Polo Amusements Mr POOLE (Gaven—ALP) (6.58 p.m.): I would like to speak on an important issue in my electorate of Gaven, and set the record straight. I want to speak about Polo Amusements's application before the Gold Coast City Council for a material change of use for land in Nerang. Polo Amusements is a Delhi based privately owned company which has two water theme parks in India. It was willing to commit $130 million in establishing a snow, water and international food park. Polo Amusements, run by the Chawla Brothers, are no fly-by-nighters, as mentioned by some quarters. Obviously, the rumours have been started by commercial objectors. Recently, it was published in the Gold Coast Bulletin that a former disgruntled consultant employed by the Chawlas said the Chawlas had done a runner and that the MCU would not get up. Anyway, nothing is further from the truth. All of the Gold Coast City councillors I have been in contact with support the project, including Mayor Gary Baildon. The alternative for the land in question as it stands now is for all the trees to be bulldozed, a huge expanse of concrete poured and about a hundred industrial sheds erected. Polo Amusements' ambitious plans would see a world-class facility employing more than 300 locals and encouraging tourists to stay an extra day on the Gold Coast. Those opposing the project should be aware of all the facts. Polo Amusements has spoken to the local Aboriginal community so as to include it in its long-term plans and in particular as the guardians of the wetland area. I have spoken to Mr Graham Dillon, a local elder on the coast, who is very enthusiastic and supportive. So those people who think that it will scare away the shiny black cockatoo or create an environmental impact to the area should just wait until the huge concrete slabs start getting poured and the industrial sheds become a reality.

Infrastructure Spending Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (7.01 p.m.): This morning the Courier-Mail's new business editor, Paul Syvret, published an article titled 'Smart State running on empty'. In that article, he addressed a number of the issues that the opposition has been talking about for some time, namely, that there has been a budget deficit for the last three years and there are sectors crying out for more funding—areas such as Health, Education and the like. However, the part that really caught my attention—I thought Paul could have done more on it—was a paragraph which said this— As it is, Queensland outspends on infrastructure on a per-capita basis vis a vis the other states. We need to, given the population growth. Mr McNamara: Hear, hear! Dr WATSON: I note the 'hear, hear'. But what Paul did not say was simply this: in the 1990s there was a big decrease in the amount of infrastructure spending following the National Party government at the end of the eighties. For the whole of the Labor government infrastructure spending fell dramatically in Queensland. It was not until the coalition government came into power in 1996 that infrastructure spending increased. Members do not have to take my word for it. All they have to do is look at a Queensland Treasury document called Capital infrastructure in Queensland put out last year, which shows quite clearly that the reason we had a significant increase in infrastructure spending was that the hard decisions were made by the coalition government to put the money in there. How did we fund that? We funded that through making hard decisions with respect to the way we use capital tied up in certain industries in the Queensland government. In particular, we ended up privatising Suncorp. Where was the Labor Party on that particular issue? The Labor Party was against it. The State Financial Institutions and Metway Merger Facilitation Bill 1996 was opposed by the Labor Party. The Labor Party opposed getting the money to pay for the infrastructure—the Gold Coast motorway—which they are now lording and saying were part of Queensland's great infrastructure development. Where were they on that particular issue? 1296 Adjournment 3 Apr 2003

On the same day as they opposed that bill a motion was moved by then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Jim Elder, along the lines that the parliament expresses its grave concern at the government's proposed $1.2 billion upgrade of the Brisbane-Gold Coast highway. Today the Beattie Labor government can lord the expenditure on infrastructure development because of the decisions made by the coalition government when we were in office— Time expired.

Ms K. L. Hearn Mrs SMITH (Burleigh—ALP) (7.04 p.m.): Yesterday, Kirsty Louise Hearn, a 25-year-old graduate from Brisbane's Oxley Police Academy, was inducted into the Queensland Police Service. For Kirsty, this was the culmination of a dream. As a 17-year-old, Kirsty joined the Australian Regular Army and served for a period of seven years. In 1996 she became a military police officer and was the first female military police officer in Australia to successfully complete the close personal protection course, commonly known as body guarding. Subsequently, she went to England in the capacity of assistant instructor of CPP to the English military police. From there she was posted to Bosnia for two months and then back to Edinburgh on official duties. Kirsty was appointed as a member of Major Colonel Peter Cosgrove's Close Personal Protection Unit in Timor and undertook a specialist role protecting VIPs and dignitaries. On returning to Australia, Kirsty lost her father in tragic circumstances. Showing a strength far beyond her years, she continued her studies and subsequently won the Peter Boyle Memorial Trophy which is awarded to the top military police officer for the year. Kirsty then spent a year in Canberra in the Federation Guard and ultimately reached sergeant level, in charge of a military police dog unit at Oakey. Her ambition since leaving high school, however, had always been to join the Queensland Police Service. She applied and was rejected three times. Her mother, as mothers do, wrote to the Police Commissioner to ask just what were they looking for in a police officer. I am not sure what his response was, but Kirsty, through sheer perseverance, was finally accepted as a recruit to the Queensland Police Service. During her training she has been an outstanding recruit and at the induction ceremony yesterday she received the leadership award, which is presented to the recruit who displays leadership qualities, teamwork, is a team player and has contributed to academy life and spirit. Kirsty also won the firearms award and the physical skills education award, both of which demonstrate her abilities in the skill areas. The ultimate prize, however, is the commissioner's award. This is presented to the recruit who has achieved the highest standard of professionalism based on academic and skills performance, service, integrity, diligence, industry and ethical attitudes—and, yes, the commissioner's award also went to Kirsty. Kirsty's mother, Judy, was at the ceremony to see her daughter achieve her dream. I know her love and support gave Kirsty the courage to persevere and her pride in her daughter is well founded. Kirsty has been assigned to the Gold Coast as a first-year constable. This is the Gold Coast's good luck. I am sure there is no finer officer in the QPS than Kirsty Hearn and I wish her all the best in her new career.

Bayhaven Nursing Home Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (7.07 p.m.): The Health Minister has quoted the Fraser Coast Chronicle's recent highly personal attack against me regarding my criticism of the government's sanctioned inquiries into closing the state nursing home, Bayhaven. Unfortunately, this newspaper will not print my letter to the editor in reply, which is disappointing as this tends to compromise the paper's perceived independence. However, worst of all, it denies a voice to some of the people who have contacted me about the issue because the member for Hervey Bay does not represent their views. I will not be intimidated by those who have ignored the plight of the elderly who have contacted me about the proposed closure of Bayhaven Nursing Home and the way the supposed consultation has been undertaken. I now table a petition from 1,200 signatories calling for Bayhaven Nursing Home to be saved and for the state government to fulfil its commitments to the aged in the community and their state government nursing home. The frail elderly are not chess pieces to be moved about without consideration of their opinions. The option I was pushing for was the prospect of a rehabilitation centre being developed without Bayhaven having to be closed. Furthermore, even Queensland 3 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1297

Health's own documents show that best practice for effective rehabilitation centres is to co-locate them with acute facilities. Only a few years ago the Beattie Labor government hotly denied it had accepted a recommendation in a leaked cabinet submission to close state nursing beds and to privatise those beds. In 1999, Premier Beattie and Wendy Edmond also wrote in to Health staff, stating— Recommendations, such as investigating privatisation of aged care, are beyond the scope of the project's terms of reference, are contrary to government policy and are rejected out of hand. I refer to an AWU union alert this year, which states— At 10.35 a.m. on Friday 31/1/03 AWU Organiser Keith Ballin was contacted by Health Minister Wendy Edmond's office saying that at no stage will the state government sell Bayhaven or any other government nursing home. Yet the Health Minister now states that she has given permission to the district health council to look at the issue of closing the state run Bayhaven nursing home. Just like the Premier's no new taxes promise, it seems that shutting state nursing home beds is another broken promise. I want to quote from some of the letters that I have received from local people and their families. One woman whose husband had been a patient in Bayhaven wrote— There must be other means of acquiring a rehabilitation service for the elderly other than selling or closing Bayhaven. Another lady wrote— My mother is now a resident of the home having just been admitted. She has became too much of a handful for my 72-year-old father to look after by himself. My father told me a few weeks ago of a 'plan' he had been made aware of by the staff who work at Bayhaven, to close the facility and farm the residents out to other facilities in Maryborough, some 30 minutes drive from Hervey Bay. Time expired.

Brisbane Urban Corridor Study Ms STRUTHERS (Algester—ALP) (7.10 p.m.): The Howard federal government is the highest taxing government Australia has ever seen. The public could rightly expect their taxes would equal better services. We are being duped. Medicare and bulk-billing are under threat, education funding is not keeping pace with demand, and in Queensland alone taxpayers have shouldered the burden of a $57 million shortfall in federal government road funding in the past year. In my area, the public is enduring severe traffic congestion and noise due largely to the failure of the federal government to fund urgent road improvements on the National Highway route along the Ipswich Motorway through to Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Road. However, the opportunity for redemption for the federal government is now available. The joint federal-state Brisbane urban corridor study involved extensive public input and has offered many constructive recommendations to improve the Brisbane south-side road network. I know that the state Transport Minister, Steve Bredhauer, is taking the recommendations of this BUC study very seriously. I urge the federal minister, John Anderson, and his colleague Gary Hardgrave, the member for Moreton, to also go in to bat for local residents and find the dollars that are needed to fix these major problems on the National Highway. Local residents have put a lot of thought, goodwill and effort into the BUC study. I commend their efforts, I commend Phil Stay and other members of the Main Roads Department for their great efforts. I also commend Jan Taylor and other consultants involved in the BUC study. It has been a great effort and a great model for other departments to follow. A welcome recommendation of the BUC study, particularly for the residents of Forestdale, is a trial allowing trucks to travel free between 10.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. on the Logan Motorway and Gateway Motorway extension. I have supported calls for toll reductions for heavy vehicles to get them off the Ipswich Motorway and local roads and onto the Logan Motorway. It is a bit rich for MPs such as Gary Hardgrave to expect Queensland taxpayers to foot the $800 million-plus bill to remove the Logan Motorway toll completely. The Queensland taxpayer is still paying the $200 million or more price tag resulting from Joan Sheldon's removal of the Sunshine Coast toll. The residents certainly want all levels of government working cooperatively to fix the south-side traffic problems. Public patience is wearing thin with the all talk and no action federal minister for Moreton and his ministerial colleague John Anderson. 1298 Adjournment 3 Apr 2003

Attention Deficit Disorder Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.13 p.m.): Recently, I received a letter from another desperate mum. This mum states that her 14-year-old daughter has ADD and is completely out of control—roaming the streets, pregnant and in with a bad crowd. Her mother says that she has tried to get help from the police, who say that they are not babysitters and that no crime has been committed. This woman tried contacting the Department of Families, but as no violence has been committed and there is no sexual abuse, nothing can be done. But to me, a pregnant 14-year-old sounds like there has been abuse. So this woman tried local agencies. The CTC offered help by allowing the girl to stay at a hostel, but not for very long periods. The school tried. It had some communication with the child, but the child never responded. But what have the governments done? They enable children to roam the streets and they pay them to stay away from home. They remove the right of the parents to keep children at home. On the one hand, the government tells kids not to take help from strangers, but on the other hand, it encourages them to do so by enabling children to stay away from home. This child, who has been diagnosed with ADD, is normally a good child. But she is involved in drugs and alcohol abuse, sex and criminal activity, and refuses to take her medication as prescribed. When she is off her medication, she becomes violent, abusive, has no tolerance, has no understanding and is unable to focus. When she is on her medication, she becomes focused, she is able to talk about any subject, she is lovable and enjoys being cuddled, she has a beautiful nature and is very helpful. Even though this child is in no danger at home, the parental right to keep her there and safe seems to be removed. This child is allowed to roam streets, live in parks and under houses. She also breaks into flats. The parents discipline their daughter. The punishment fits the crime, but the government allows the girl to run away. It pains her if she does not have everything that other kids have. Other people do not help, either, when they extend aid to the child after she has run away. Once a woman abused this mother because her daughter was on the streets. She had no clothes other than the ones that were on her back, no food, was dehydrated and dirty. So this woman gave the girl a meal and a drink. This woman was asked, 'Please don't do that again.' The woman was quite surprised. She asked, 'Why?' The mother said, 'Because she has everything that she needs at home. It is just her choice to roam the streets.' The mother says, 'I am only guilty of loving and caring for my daughter and trying to avoid what the government seems to feel is okay by allowing a 14-year-old out on the streets to get pregnant.' It seems that governments fail to address the reality of what is really happening to children who just want freedom with no-one telling them what to do and no responsibility for anyone other than for themselves. This is not the first case that I have had; it is actually the third. I would like all governments—this government and the federal government—to look at this issue and to make sure that these young kids just do not go out on the streets and that it is not too easy for them to do that.

Drivesafe Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (7.16 p.m.): This year, the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee is focusing on novice driver and rider issues. I would like to draw the attention of the members of the House to a fine submission from an eminent person in Cairns, Mr Peter Roggenkamp, who runs the company Drivesafe. Mr Roggenkamp has a fine history indeed. As a younger man, he was involved in motor racing, but in terms of safety on the roads he is very highly regarded in Cairns. His submission to the Travelsafe Committee is instructive. He says that education is not enough. He reports to us that in the 17- to 20-year age group there is gross overrepresentation in the reported crashes involving males and females between 12 and 80 years. He points out that there is a considerable economic cost, which is estimated at $675,000 per fatality in metropolitan areas, and in regional areas, $750,000 per fatality. But as Mr Roggenkamp says so eloquently— The human cost is immeasurable. The people in this age group are our country's greatest asset and at that age they are budding young people beginning their adult life. Mr Roggenkamp's recommendations centre on the following: driver and rider education, including such topics as attitude and driver/rider responsibilities to be part of the curriculum of senior year at high school; skills and knowledge to obtain a drivers/riders licence to be of a higher standard, for example, hazard recognition, wet road driving, night driving and emergency procedures, particularly emergency breaking; and defensive and emergency skills training within 12 months of obtaining a licence. 3 Apr 2003 Adjournment 1299

Mr Roggenkamp notes that the second highest contributing factor in both reported crashes and fatal crashes is inexperience and lack of expertise. Mr Roggenkamp states that the novice—in fact, all drivers and riders—should be taught to recognise hazards by using foresight and judgment along with the skills of crash avoidance, such as threshold breaking, smooth steering and so on. Mr Roggenkamp's submission is instructive and, I hope, will be seriously considered, firstly, by the Travelsafe Committee and then by our government. There is a trial under way at the Gordonvale State High School in Cairns of increased driver education for our young people. The question is: will this make them feel too confident on the roads and thereby they will not contribute to avoiding accidents and fatalities, or will it in fact do as Mr Roggenkamp believes, and I also believe, and that is protect our young ones by minimising the risk of accident fatalities in this young age group?

Yeppoon Police Station Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (7.20 p.m.): I am delighted, actually, that the member for Cairns has raised issues dealing with the Travelsafe Committee. In relation to driver education, that committee has put in a lot of hard work. Let us hope the fact that submissions and representations from people being displayed in the parliament will ultimately save lives. That is really what it is about. I refer to the police station at Yeppoon where a total of 22 staff comprises 18 officers, three plain clothes officers and one person undertaking administrative duties. Amongst that, we have three senior officers. We have seen this police station build up over time as a result of the population building up over time. We are now the third-fastest growing area in Queensland and eighth fastest in Australia. With this comes a lot of police issues. Quite obviously, we are getting more people, some of whom we do not know, and some people cause trouble. But, functionally, the Yeppoon Police Station has increased considerably along with the services that it delivers. It operates out of a building that did not contemplate the significant advancement, changes, growth in population and increased demands that have occurred since it was constructed. Since the local station has provided 24-hour coverage for Yeppoon, the need for a better police facility has grown. Queensland's finest, the excellent officers of Yeppoon under the leadership of Senior Sergeant John Hamray, have been working out of the same building for a considerable period of time. Over that period, the needs and expectations of the community have changed significantly, along with improvements in technology procedures; so, too, has the way in which the police do their work and perform their duties. Honestly, we are at a point where we need a new police station at Yeppoon. It is as simple as that. The minister has been very fair to me; he has listened to what I have had to say. I do appreciate the fact that we have been given a new state emergency centre and indeed ambulance and fire brigade in the old Telstra building. We just need these other facilities in anticipation of what is happening in Yeppoon, no doubt as a result of the goodwill of everybody in the community, the local member, the government and indeed everybody concerned.

Hervey Bay High School, Seniors Leaders Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (7.23 p.m.): Recently, I was honoured to be invited to present Senior Leaders badges to students at Hervey Bay High School. Hervey Bay High was Hervey Bay's first high school and has a very proud history of producing community leaders. I know that QUT School of Justice study head and former CJC chief investigating officer Michael Barnes is an old boy and that current Hervey Bay city councillor Belinda McNeven, who was elected to the council at the age of 30 as the youngest councillor ever, is also a graduate of the school. As in previous years, 2003's crop of Senior Leaders are an outstanding bunch. I was very impressed with their poise and presence as they ran and addressed the school assembly for the Senior Leaders presentation. I wish to particularly congratulate those students elected to the student council. They are president Renee Taylor, vice-presidents Wendy Fairbrother and Daniel Kopacz, council members Chris Bayer, Melinda Canarvo, Sarah Hill, Lawrence Eckard, Scott Codner and Nicole Kemp. Hervey Bay High will be well served by these outstanding young people. I wish to congratulate particularly Lawrence Eckard who recently won the Lions Youth of the Year regional competition. I also recognise Scott Codner's one-man campaign to try and 1300 Adjournment 3 Apr 2003 persuade his peers to tuck their shirts in. He may have more luck perhaps in finding a cure for cancer, but leadership is always about doing the hard things. I encourage him to continue with his campaign. Hervey Bay High runs a very successful Senior Leaders program. Senior leaders are drawn from years 11 and 12, which gives continuity to the program and reflects the senior years of high school are years 11 and 12 together. I commend principal Glenn Vaughan and teacher Evan Goodall, who oversee the program which is of such a benefit in developing fine young members of my community. I note that one of last year's school council leaders, school council vice- president Kara Roffey, was last week presented with the T. J. Ryan scholarship and medal. This award was well earned on the basis of her leadership in the student council, on her outstanding sporting achievements representing Queensland at touch football and on her community work and outstanding academic results. I offer Miss Roffey my congratulations on winning this prestigious scholarship. She is a credit to her school and is a terrific role model not just for young people but for us all. Miss Roffey carries on the proud tradition of Hervey Bay High's Senior Leaders program. I have no doubt that this year's senior leaders will meet those very high standards as well. State schools are great schools, and Hervey Bay High is a great school. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.

K. A. TYNDALL, ACTING GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2003