PROOF ISSN 1322-0330

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

51ST PARLIAMENT

Subject CONTENTS Page Thursday, 11 November 2004

PRIVILEGE ...... 3471 Comments by Minister for Health ...... 3471 PETITIONS ...... 3471 PAPERS ...... 3471 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3471 Annual Reports ...... 3471 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3472 Remembrance Day; Anzac Day Commemoration Committee AGM ...... 3472 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3472 Homelessness ...... 3472 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3473 Griffith University Film School ...... 3473 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3474 Research and Development ...... 3474 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3475 Cape York Justice Study ...... 3475 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3476 WorkCover Queensland ...... 3476 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3477 Pindara Private Hospital ...... 3477 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3477 Smart State Strategy Forum ...... 3477 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3478 Images of Queensland Photographic Awards ...... 3478 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3478 Commonwealth Youth Parliament 2005 ...... 3478 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3479 Death of Mr C. Reeve; Stem Cell Research ...... 3479 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3480 Australian Commercial Radio Awards ...... 3480 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3480

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2004 Table of Contents — Thursday, 11 November 2004

Queensland Conservative Party ...... 3480 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3481 Shafston House College Ltd; Mr K. Lloyd ...... 3481 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3482 Education and Training Reforms for the Future ...... 3482 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3483 Biotechnology Industry ...... 3483 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3483 Australian Red Cross Blood Service ...... 3483 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3484 Architectural Practice Academy; CITEC ...... 3484 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3485 Antihooning Legislation ...... 3485 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3486 Primary Industries ...... 3486 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3486 Department of Child Safety, Annual Report ...... 3486 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3487 Homelessness ...... 3487 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3488 Cabinet Process ...... 3488 Epilepsy ...... 3488 State Infrastructure ...... 3489 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3489 Mr G. Maddock ...... 3489 Attorney-General ...... 3490 Queensland Conservative Party ...... 3490 Mr G. Maddock ...... 3491 Employment Creation ...... 3491 Racing Appeals Tribunal ...... 3492 Ethanol ...... 3492 Health Services ...... 3494 REMEMBRANCE DAY ...... 3494 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3494 Literacy ...... 3494 Organ Donation ...... 3495 Mount Lofty, Electricity Supply ...... 3496 Citrus Canker ...... 3496 Coal Industry ...... 3497 Engineers Australia, Report ...... 3497 Consumer Protection ...... 3498 Horse Riding Trails ...... 3498 PRIVILEGE ...... 3499 Mr G. Maddock; Coroner’s Inquiry ...... 3499 PRIVILEGE ...... 3500 Mr G. Maddock; Coroner’s Inquiry ...... 3500 TOBACCO AND OTHER SMOKING PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3500 Second Reading ...... 3500 Consideration in Detail ...... 3515 Third Reading ...... 3528 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3528 REVOCATION OF PROTECTED AREAS AND FOREST RESERVES ...... 3528 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3531 Second Reading ...... 3531 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3537 Unemployment ...... 3537 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3538 Freedom of Information ...... 3538 PRIVILEGE ...... 3540 Comments by the Premier and Minister for Trade ...... 3540 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3540 Second Reading ...... 3540 Consideration in Detail ...... 3557 Third Reading ...... 3558 SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT ...... 3558 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3558 Lake Lawyers; Mr M. Wakeling ...... 3558 Queensland Police Service; Lord Mayor of Brisbane; Death of Ms J. Oliphant ...... 3558 Patient Transit Scheme; Kingaroy Hospital ...... 3559 Table of Contents — Thursday, 11 November 2004

Awards in Science ...... 3560 Trucking Industry ...... 3561 Burpengary Creek, Replacement of Bridge ...... 3561 Public Servants, Psychiatric Testing; Dr C. Wong ...... 3562 Youth Homelessness ...... 3562 Solar Energy ...... 3563 Death of Ms H. Bonner ...... 3563 Table of Contents — Thursday, 11 November 2004 11 Nov 2004 Legislative Assembly 3471 THURSDAY, 11 NOVEMBER 2004

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

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Minister for Health Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I refer to a letter dated 21 October 2004 from the member for Moggill regarding an alleged matter of privilege arising from a statement made by the Minister for Health in the House on 20 October 2004 and requesting that the matter be referred to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. I have considered the minister’s statement of 20 October 2004. In particular, I note that waiting list information varies and the information provided by the member for Moggill was dated 1 July 2004, almost four months before the question. I also note that the minister stated he was repeating advice from his department. In light of the above, I do not consider that the minister intended to or did in fact mislead the House. Accordingly, I do not propose to refer this matter to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

PETITIONS

The following honourable member has lodged a paper petition for presentation— Moorooka Police Station Mr Finn from 301 petitioners requesting the House to ensure local residents have access to a 24 hour staffed police station in Moorooka and to undertake an awareness campaign in local areas to inform people of how to access police services. The following honourable member has sponsored an e-petition which is now closed and presented—

Child Care Legislation Mr Purcell from 313 petitioners requesting the House to improve and clarify Child Care Legislation.

PAPERS

MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by The Clerk— Minister for Education and the Arts (Ms Bligh)— • Queensland Tertiary Education Foundation—Annual Report 2003-04 • Non-State Schools Accreditation Board—Annual Report 2003-04 • Queensland Studies Authority—Annual Report 2003-04 Minister for Child Safety (Mr Reynolds)— • Department of Child Safety—Annual Report 2003-04 Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors (Mr Pitt)— • Department of Communities—Annual Report 2003-04 • Disability Services Queensland—Annual Report 2003-04

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Annual Reports Hon. F.W. PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (9.34 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House the 2003-04 annual reports of the Department of Communities and Disability Services Queensland. In relation to the report of the Department of Communities, I draw to the attention of the House that there has been substantial change to the department since the period covered by the report. The newly formed Department of Communities amalgamated a number of major functions from other portfolios including Smart Service Queensland, the Office of Rural Communities, the Community Engagement Division, the Office of Youth Affairs and the directorates not dealing with protection issues from the former department of families. In the period since 1 July, the transition of all of these diverse areas into the Department of Communities has been finalised and a new organisational structure has been put in place. I draw to the attention of honourable members the current organisational structure of the department which I now table. 3472 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Remembrance Day; Anzac Day Commemoration Committee AGM Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.35 a.m.): On this Remembrance Day, and on behalf of all Queenslanders, I want to pay tribute to those Australians who have given their lives and fought for our democracy, which I believe is one of the great democracies of the world. I, along with all other members, look forward to paying tribute to those Australians with two minutes silence. I recently had the honour, once again, of chairing the Anzac Day Commemoration Committee’s annual general meeting, which the Leader of the Opposition attended. Since its inception in 1916, a total of 17 premiers have chaired this committee. Over the past 100 years the world has been through two world wars and numerous conflicts. This committee has done a marvellous job. I seek leave to incorporate a tribute to their work in Hansard. Leave granted. The war against terror is now a part of our lives and the 2nd anniversary of the Bali bombing was a stark reminder of our uncertain times. Every nation at some stage is tested for its courage, its strength and its commitment to peace. One such test was in April 1915 at Gallipoli. That event lead to the proclamation of a day in which we commemorate the efforts of all Australians and New Zealanders involved in wars. The ANZAC Day Committee exists because of our commitment to commemorating our fallen heroes and honouring our surviving veterans. The Annual Report of the Committee for 2004 contains a healthy balance sheet and proposals for another record year. This financial year, the ANZAC Appeal grossed $623,196. That’s $145,600 more than last year. Donations totalling $72,000 were made to 134 veteran welfare beneficiaries. 13 community war memorial projects received subsidies and donations were made to 51 school memorials. This year, 2800 students from 140 schools attended the annual Students Commemoration Service in ANZAC Square—the highest number since its inception. The Administration Report is also a reflection of the Committee’s efficiency—for every dollar spent on ANZAC Day projects, 15 cents was spent on administration. Turnover was $712,139—an increase of $154,139 on last year—a remarkable effort for a small committee administered by volunteers! Most of the funds raised go to aged war veterans and their widows, commemoration ceremonies and to the upkeep of graves. It is all part of honouring those who fought for the freedoms we enjoy today. I would also like to advise the House that the Government has presented $27,500 to the Returned Services League at the launch of the 2004 Poppy Appeal. The Appeal raises funds to assist veterans and their families as well promoting more awareness of Remembrance Day, on November 11. I encourage everyone to support the Appeal and wear a red poppy.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Homelessness Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): I am not aware of any society in the world, no matter how well organised, which does not have people who are homeless. The problem is not a simple one because people become homeless for a wide variety of reasons. Some young people leave home because they are being abused both physically and sexually. Others leave home because they refuse to abide by standards being set by their loving parents. There are alcoholics. There are people who are mentally ill. There are people with drug problems. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Despite the availability of beds in hostels, many choose to sleep rough. But this government has worked hard to find solutions and we have a number of programs in place to help these people. At the weekend, I took time to listen to a group of young people living rough in Brisbane. They were outside City Hall. This morning I am having a further meeting, as I promised, with representatives of Brisbane’s young homeless people who came up and approached me on Saturday. I will be joined by a number of my ministerial colleagues. The Minister for Communities will be announcing this morning further help from my government. In addition, a committee of chief executive officers which has been examining the problems from a whole-of-government perspective is due to report to me in the near future. At the moment, support is provided by the Department of Communities through the Supported Accommodation Assistance 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3473

Program, which is jointly funded by the state and Commonwealth. In Brisbane, the inner city places project has been operating for two years and coordinates all levels of government help. We provide youth workers to offer help and advice to the young homeless. The government’s Education and Training Reforms for the Future agenda is providing new flexible pathways and less formal styles of education that allow education outside of traditional classroom environments. They represent this government’s no-holds-barred commitment to re-engage young homeless people in learning and earning—through skills that can get them off the streets and keep them off the streets. The Brisbane Housing Company is currently building a new $7.4 million boarding house in Warry Street, Fortitude Valley, to provide accommodation for 105 people. The Minister for Public Works and I will be opening that in the not-too-distant future, or at least will be part of the starting process. It is expected to be completed in May next year. The new complex will have 43 boarding house rooms and 62 studio apartments. This project will address the loss of this style of accommodation in inner city Brisbane during recent years. This is what the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing, Robert Schwarten, has been trying to do. This has been a major problem. This is one of the reasons we have so many people in these circumstances. This project will bring the total number of dwellings managed by the Brisbane Housing Company to over 250. Since the state government established the Brisbane Housing Company with the support of the Brisbane City Council in late 2002, the Department of Housing has provided around $60 million in financial and land contributions to the company. This government has allocated more than $200 million since we were elected to boost affordable housing and housing related assistance in the inner city of Brisbane. This includes: $6 million to construct new boarding houses in the inner city for people at risk of homelessness; $3.34 million to the Brisbane Boarder Association delivering 60 dwellings for crisis accommodation; $10.52 million through the Crisis Accommodation Program and community rent scheme to lease crisis and temporary accommodation; $35 million for new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing construction; and $3 million through other housing related services such as bond loans and rental grants to help more than 4,300 people secure private rental accommodation. We will continue to do what we can to assist the homeless, but one of the issues that needs to be addressed—and I will say this very deliberately and very clearly—is a matter that the Minister for Housing has repeatedly raised with me, and that is the lack of contribution from the Commonwealth. One simply cannot allow the market to determine all of these matters, because it will not. It will not. When it comes to the homeless, the market has, frankly, no heart and no care. That is why we need to have a state government doing what we are doing but supported by the Commonwealth. I say to the Prime Minister: we need your help. You do your share. We are doing ours.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Griffith University Film School Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.40 a.m.): This evening I will officially be opening the Griffith University Film School. The film and television sector is one of our new smart industries, and that is why my government has provided a one-off $5 million grant to the Griffith University Film School. I am particularly pleased to be able to announce today our decision to sell to Griffith University the former Queensland Academy of Sport building in South Brisbane to be the home of the Griffith University Film School. I want to thank the Minister for Sport, Terry Mackenroth, and the Minister for Housing, Robert Schwarten, for their assistance in this. Having all facets of the school under one roof makes sense not only for an efficient use of resources but also by bringing all of that creative talent together to share skills and ideas. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard for the information of members. Leave granted. The Film School was created in 2003 through the consolidation of a number of existing programs at Griffith, including Film & TV, Digital Media, and Animation. The Griffith Film School is Australia’s largest university supplier of broadcast films with 11 documentaries made by post-grad students having been screened on SBS or the ABC since 1995. The documentary “Grandfathers and Revolutions” by Griffith post-grad student Peter Hegedus, has won more international awards than any other Queensland-produced documentary. Griffith University Film School is one of our valued export earners, with 20% of its students coming from overseas. That was part of the reason why Griffith University won Best Education Exporter at the 2004 Premier’s Export Awards. The film and television sector is one of our new, smart industries and that is why my Government has provided a one-off, $5 million grant to the Griffith Film School. This complements our Creative Business policy, outlining strategies for increasing local production and investment in the industry, and providing an extra $4.5 million in funding for the Pacific Film and Television Commission. 3474 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

I’m particularly pleased to be able to announce today our decision to sell to Griffith University the former Queensland Academy of Sport building at South Bank to be the home of the Griffith University Film School. Having all facets of the school under the one roof makes sense not only from an efficient use of resources but also by bringing all of that creative talent together to share their skills and ideas.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Research and Development Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.41 a.m.): The presence of 200 international delegates in Queensland for AusBiotech has highlighted the Smart State's stature as a centre for excellence in research, development and commercialisation. Biotech is just one of many fields of research in which Queensland shines. We have a distinguished and sophisticated research community winning worldwide acclaim. So it beggars belief that the federal government continues to underinvest in research and development in Queensland. We receive less per capita funding for research and development than the national average. Queensland received $38.46 per capita for Commonwealth funding for R&D compared to a national average of $76.54 according to 2002-03 Australian Bureau of Statistics data. To aggravate this insult, the federal government gives us less health and medical research funding per capita than any other mainland state or territory. Come on, Prime Minister! What are you doing? In 2004 we will receive $11.48 per capita through the Commonwealth’s National Health and Medical Research Council compared to the national average of $16.69 per capita. The Smart State deserves better. I intend to raise this issue with the Prime Minister. I intend to pursue it, because we want to ensure that we get our fair share. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. My government is passionate about fostering research, development and commercialisation. Since 1998 we have invested $2.4 billion in innovation, science and research. Since 1999 we have invested approximately $210 million in health and medical research facilities and programs. Our commitment grows ever stronger. In contrast, the Federal Government’s neglect of health and medical research is a great disappointment not only for Queensland, but for the nation as a whole. In funding terms, our national government is taking us further and further behind competitors such as the USA, Canada and Europe. I’m advised that the Government health research budget as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product has increased by the smallest of increments—from 0.11% in 1998 to 0.12% in 2002. I’m further advised that over the same period, the United States Government investment grew from 0.17% to 0.25% of GDP, and the OECD average increased from 0.15% to 0.21% of GDP. The Howard Government’s parsimony is a cause of growing alarm in the health and medical research community, which fears an exodus of Australia’s best and brightest science and medical research graduates. The research community was broadly welcoming when the Federal Government announced the Investment Review of Health and Medical Research in October last year. The review was led by John Grant, chairman of two successful medical technology companies. In announcing the project, then Health Minister Kay Patterson said it would be completed by March 2004. The Federal Government created an expectation this review would be unveiled eight months ago—but we are still waiting for it. I understand that submissions have been made to the Investment Review recommending an additional $2 billion in spending over 5 years, to: increase base funding; improve the career development of medical researchers; increase policy and practice-related research; and improve the operations and resources of the National Health and Medical Research Council—particularly its structure. Provided Queensland received its due share, I would warmly embrace the additional funding and these reforms. Access Economics has calculated the return on Australia’s past health and medical research investment is 240%. Add to that the enormous benefits in terms of quality of life and longevity, and the value of funding for this area is beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am confident Queensland will continue to punch above its weight in terms of State Government investment in innovation, science and research. Our scientists will go on winning the admiration of their peers the world over—and we will continue working to reverse the brain drain. However our edge would be even sharper if the Federal Government pulled its weight, increased funding, and released forthwith the report of the Investment Review of Health and Medical Research. 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3475

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cape York Justice Study Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): November 19 will be the third anniversary of the government’s release of Tony Fitzgerald’s Cape York Justice Study. The report portrayed chaotic and dysfunctional communities which tacitly accepted alcohol abuse and violence as ‘normal’. Our plans are working. There are signs of improvements, and they are filtering through. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard to show how they are progressing. Leave granted. The government could not accept this situation; we acted, and on 8 April 2002 I tabled a wide-ranging response to the Cape York Justice Study: Meeting Challenges, Making Choices. Meeting Challenges, Making Choices extends beyond Cape York Peninsula to cover 19 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Its broad aims are to tackle alcohol, substance abuse and violence. Pivotal to the strategy are alcohol management plans, underpinned by laws that gave legislative strength to community justice groups. Radical improvements in community life were never expected to occur overnight because, sadly, the decay has been occurring over generations. However, signs of improvement are filtering through. Alcohol management plans have progressively come on line. All but two of the 19 communities, Cherbourg and Palm Island, now have alcohol management plans, and preparations for a plan at Cherbourg are in the final stages. In communities where official data is available, improvements include significant reductions in injury and alcohol-related presentations at community health clinics, reductions in offences against people and some improvement in school attendance. Specifically, for the period between January and June 2004, achievements included: • a 48% reduction in monthly average in the number of alcohol-related presentations to community health services in Aurukun, Doomadgee, Lockhart River, Mornington Island and Pormpuraaw; • funding for four child health workers, two women’s health workers and two new alcohol, tobacco and other drugs positions on Cape York; • appointment of a full-time officer to work with Aurukun youth to reduce abuse of substances such as petrol, and to tackle youth crime; • appointment of a Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) team co-ordinator for Cape York/ Torres Strait; • implementation of economic development projects such as a nursery and market garden at Mapoon, upgrade of the Napranum concrete block plant, and several Indigenous tourism projects including Silver Plains camping infrastructure, the Umagico camp ground, Wujal Wujal Walker Family Tours, and projects at Chuula and Yorke Island; • 19 visits by government “community champions”—departmental chiefs designated to work with particular communities; • five negotiation table meetings—forums for government and communities to come together to identify and agree on ways to address local priorities; • funding to support an additional 100 youth support co-ordinators to provide prevention and early intervention in schools; and • additional funding for sporting and recreational facilities and programs. I am the first to acknowledge that there is plenty more work to do. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children deserve greater safety, better health, stronger educational results, better job opportunities, brighter futures. My Government has a renewed commitment to working with their communities. We are now more strongly focused on education, housing, and reviewing the alcohol management plans after they have been in place for more than a year. This is a team effort by Cabinet and by the bureaucracy. I will work closely with the Minister for Education and the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy on education priorities. Indigenous parents, elders and community leaders share the government’s desire for better results for school children. Like them, we want the young ones to be better prepared for work, further studies and job training. Cabinet has elevated housing as a priority. I am working with the Minister for Housing on this issue, which must include a greater commitment by the Federal Government. I will certainly take housing issues up with the Prime Minister, as I have done in the past. Importantly, while the alcohol management plans address supply of alcohol, the government is developing a strategy to better manage the demand for alcohol and other substances. I am concerned about the continued reports of high levels of domestic and family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and the Minister for Aboriginal And Torres Strait Islander Policy, the Minister for Communities and the Minister for Women will work together to give greater support to women affected by family violence. 3476 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

Of course, we will also continue our emphasis on health, child safety, community safety, and creating jobs and economic opportunities. Three years on, my government is encouraged by improvements in some aspects of community life, and we are more determined than ever to build a better future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

WorkCover Queensland Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): Under my government, Queensland has the fairest and most efficient workers compensation scheme in the country. Today WorkCover Queensland boasts the lowest premiums of any state and is fully solvent. WorkCover has come a long way in six years. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Let’s take a look at the state of WorkCover when my Government came to office in 1998. Outstanding common law claims at any one time exceeded 7,500, and injured workers were waiting on average at least three years for these claim outcomes. Queensland employers were paying the highest premium rates in Australia at $2.15 per $100 in wages, and the worker’s compensation scheme was burdened with a deficit of $320 million. Through important legislative reforms and the hard work of the Chair of the Board, Ian Brusasco, and the Chief executive officer, Tony Hawkins, WorkCover turned the corner and hasn’t looked back. This has been achieved with the underlying philosophy of “providing the best possible benefits to injured workers at the cheapest possible premiums for employers”. The aim is to get that balance right. Queensland has maintained the lowest worker’s compensation premiums of any State every year since 1999-2000. In 2003-2004 Queensland’s average net premium rate was $1.55. Victoria’s average net premium rate was $2.22, Western Australia’s net premium rate was $2.34, New South Wales’ net premium rate was $2.57 and South Australia’s net premium rate was $3.00. This is just one reason why it is good to do business in Queensland, the Smart State, with cheaper, stable and predictable business costs translating into more job opportunities. Employees injured at work are much better off than they were six years ago. 70% of all statutory claims are turned around within fourteen days and injured workers receive compensation faster than ever before. The Board of WorkCover Queensland have set an even higher target of 75% of all workers’ compensation claims to be satisfactorily decided within 14 days of lodgement. I’m confident this target can be attained. Further, the Government legislated to increase injured worker benefits. Under the Bill passed by Parliament on 9 November 2004, the maximum statutory benefit of $174,625 will now be exclusive of weekly benefits. The maximum death benefit will increase to $300,000. During this time, Queensland workers have had access to unlimited common law. WorkCover has minimised the wait and expense for the employee, the expense for the workers’ compensation system, and the volume of claims clogging up the courts, by reducing the number of outstanding common law claims at any one time from more than 7,500 under the Nationals-Liberals to less than 2,700. Common law claims are now settled within an average of twelve months. For a workers’ compensation scheme to deliver for employers and injured workers, it needs to be financially solvent. The key benchmark for solvency is the level of equity—the extent to which net assets exceed net liabilities. In other states, workers’ compensation scheme net liabilities exceed net assets, sometimes by large margins. For instance in New South Wales at 30 June 2003, net liabilities exceeded net assets by nearly $3 billion. In Queensland it’s the other way around! At 30 June 2003 WorkCover’s net assets exceeded our net liabilities by $444 million. Even though state-owned workers’ compensation schemes are exempt from Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) standards, the WorkCover Board will be benchmarking itself against their capital adequacy standards. What a contrast this is to the WorkCover of six years ago, burdened down with a $320 million deficit! Through investment in staff training, commercial reorientation and a focus on outcomes rather than process, the WorkCover Board and its people have transformed an ailing bureaucracy into a workers’ compensation scheme that is the envy of the country. This clearly shows that a Government-owned authority can be both efficient and financially sound, and can hold its own with any private insurer. I thank the Board and staff of WorkCover, who continue to serve the employers and workers of Queensland. I am confident that WorkCover’s outstanding performance will continue well into the future. 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3477

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Pindara Private Hospital Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): The health and welfare of all Queenslanders is a top priority for my government. For that reason, we support the expansion in health services in the private as well as the public sector. For that reason, I will be pleased tomorrow to officially open a new $5.8 million development at the Pindara Private Hospital. The hospital has built a new state-of-the-art cardiac catheter laboratory and operating suite for cardiac patients in the Gold Coast community. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. We demonstrated the high priority that we place on health in our 2004-05 Budget. We allocated a record $5.1 billion to health, which was an increase of 11% on the previous year’s figure. That means we are spending an additional $500 million on health care in this financial year. In health, we are increasing our focus on preventive health measures. This will free up more health resources to concentrate on chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease. We allocated $7.5 million to improving treatments and prevention programs for heart disease. We also rely on organisations like Affinity Health Limited, which owns the Pindara Private Hospital, to supplement public health facilities and services. Affinity Health Limited is Australia’s largest private hospital provider and operates 12 private hospitals in Queensland. I would also today like to mention the role Affinity Health has played in the Government’s long-term, $110 million strategy to reduce the back log of patients facing longer than normal waiting time for elective surgery. It has made a significant contribution to reducing waiting lists for public hospitals in many areas, particularly in the field of ophthalmology. This is the kind of positive collaboration between the public and private health sectors that we are seeing more and more of in Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Smart State Strategy Forum Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): On Tuesday, 16 November my government’s drive to renew our Smart State strategy moves to Townsville. More than 60 of north Queensland’s business, research and community leaders are to attend the Smart State Strategy Forum at the Museum of Tropical Queensland. The forum is another part of our process asking Queenslanders to contribute to the future of this important initiative. I table the various documents that will be handed to delegates on arrival. Mike Reynolds, the Minister for Child Safety and member for Townsville, will open the forum. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Professor Peter Andrews, Queensland Chief Scientist, and Professor Russell Reichelt, CEO of the Cooperative Reef Research Centre, will speak on Smart State Strategy topics such as using knowledge and innovation for sustainable development, and research, development and commercialisation. Last Friday we held a hugely successful forum here at State Parliament with more than 150 attendees, including 30 students. We also had an energetic youth gathering in Toowoomba last week with more than 60 students and teachers attending. As well more than 125 submissions have been received since I called on Queenslanders on September 30 to make their Smart State submissions. As I said earlier this week it was clear to me when my government was first elected in 1998 Queensland needed to re-position itself both nationally and internationally. Six years on we need to do it again. We must be better planned for the next 10 years. That positioning involves all Queenslanders, no matter where they live. We have had some excellent Smart State examples in this house this week highlighting how we are delivering for the regions in our strategic planning. For example Minister McGrady talked about the successes of our $1.8 billion a year convention industry. While we have had Ausbiotech 2004 at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre over the past few days tomorrow it makes its way up the coast for the two-day Club Biodiversity in Cairns. The Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre has confirmed bookings for 61 new national and international conventions, worth in excess of $110 million. The Cairns Convention Centre has confirmed bookings for 23 national and international conferences. This will attract more than 14,000 delegates and inject more than $57 million into the Cairns region. 3478 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

The Gold Coast Exhibition Centre is enjoying equal success. It opened in June and already has advance bookings for more than 154 events in its first year. This is expected to inject $168 million into the Gold Coast region over the next two years. Again this Smart Convention centre business is akin to our aviation success having created nearly 5000 jobs since 1998. Mr McGrady has more good aviation news about Cairns Aviation in a couple of minutes—7 million items of regional good news. As well in the past six years, the Smart State’s exports have grown by 24 per cent and now earn $30 billion a year. With one in four of the jobs linked to that being in the regions. We are entering a new Smart State era and the regions are crucial. I want to know what people want the Smart State to be and to achieve, and I want their views whether they live at Wilston or Winton, Teneriffe or Tambo, Aspley or Atherton. Our Queensland's Future—Building on the Smart State strategy provides a blueprint for Queensland's development over the next 10 years. The discussion paper can be accessed online at www.smartstate.qld.gov.au, by emailing [email protected], or by contacting the Department of the Premier and Cabinet on (07) 3224 5100. Ideas can be submitted at www.smartstate.qld.gov.au, forwarding comments via email to [email protected] or mailing comments to: Smart State Strategy, Policy Division Department of the Premier and Cabinet PO Box 185, Brisbane Albert Street QLD 4002 The deadline is 30 November 2004. I thank those who have made a submission and look forward to others doing the same. Mr BEATTIE: I should mention while on that subject that there is an advertising campaign—a limited one—that the government is running to encourage people to make contributions before the end of November, and our advertisements appeared in some press today.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Images of Queensland Photographic Awards Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): The government will roll out the red carpet on Friday night for our own Academy Awards for multiculturalism when my parliamentary secretary responsible for multicultural affairs, Karen Struthers, and I announce the winners in the first Images of Queensland Photographic Awards. I would urge members to participate in those awards. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The awards have attracted 251 entries from across the state and Members whose constituents are in line for an award may be eagerly awaiting the opening of the envelopes. The entries capture multiculturalism in action in the Smart State. They are proof that the new Queensland is a place where all cultures are valued. It is the right thing to do, and it makes smart business, social and educational sense for Queensland to be promoted as a place that is proud of its diversity. Tomorrow night, winners and highly commended entrants will be $25,000 richer. I will also present a Premier’s Encouragement Award of $200 worth of photographic equipment and $1,000 of photographic equipment will go to the People’s Choice winner, voted on by thousands of Queenslanders. The judges include 2004 Queensland Great Mr Nick Xynias, Special Exhibitions curator at the Queensland Art Gallery, Anne Kirker, the 2004 Young Queenslander of the Year, Leisl Packer, Courier-Mail deputy pictorial editor Kevin Bull, Australian newspaper photographer David Sproule, the president of the Queensland Centre for Photography, Maurice Ortega, and the Executive Director of Multicultural Affairs Queensland, Hurriyet Babacan. The 20 short listed entries are now on display in the foyer of the Executive Building and will remain there until November 19. The images are set in workplaces, a farm, the bush, a shop, classrooms, neighbourhoods, playgrounds, backyards and homes. Most importantly, they show the human faces of multicultural Queensland. If you haven’t already seen them, I encourage Members to take time to view the exhibition.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Commonwealth Youth Parliament 2005 Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): Queensland’s democracy has notched up another achievement: this House has been selected, as you know, Mr Speaker, to host the next Commonwealth Youth Parliament in April 2005. The event, which is 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3479 expected to involve about 100 delegates from Commonwealth countries, will occur between 18 and 24 April 2005. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. It will be the third Commonwealth Youth Parliament, the first outside the United Kingdom, and the first held in a functioning Parliament House. It will be historic, and I know Mr Speaker is a strong supporter. The Smart State was chosen from ten competitors for the event. The Youth Parliament, for people aged between 18 and 29, strengthens the democratic processes in the Commonwealth by deepening young people’s understanding of parliamentary democracy. It is an opportunity for a diverse group of young people from nations with a common thread to share ideas, concerns and expectations about democracy and development, and to forge new friendships. Four Queenslanders will be selected to join in the youth parliament, and representatives from the 53 members of the Commonwealth will be invited to attend. Proceedings will follow formal parliamentary practice adapted from several Commonwealth countries, under the guidance of experienced parliamentary officials. Participants will take part in processes including debate on matters of national and international concern; debate on legislation (including discussions of legislation in committee); and making and enforcing rules of conduct. They will try out both the Opposition and Government benches. Queensland Parliament will host the event on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and its Queensland Branch. The branch is calling for applications from Queenslanders aged 18 to 29. Details can be found at www.parliament.qld.gov.au/cpaYouthParliament2005, or by contacting the Conference Coordinator, Lucinda Osmond, on 07 3406 7314. Nominations close on 26 November 2004.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Death of Mr C. Reeve; Stem Cell Research Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.44 a.m.): Last month the world stood still for a moment upon hearing of the death of Superman, Christopher Reeve. He played a significant role in encouraging stem cell research, which is part of our Smart State agenda. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement, which is a tribute to him, in Hansard. Leave granted. Many of us grew up knowing Superman—a comic hero—but a man we knew as one with super human strength and an inspiring decency and humanity. That Clark Kent role became more famous when Christopher Reeve donned the Superman kit—underpants on the outside and all. But even later from his wheel chair, Reeve was still a Super Man offering the world hope. You might ask why would I be paying due respect to this American movie star’s death? The answer is simple. What he sought as a result of his 1995 horse riding accident is what I too hope for—a cure for spinal injuries. In 1995 Reeve, an experienced rider, was thrown head first from his horse during a jumping competition in Virginia. The then 42-year-old lost sensation in most of his body and the ability to move his arms, legs, and torso. He, like millions of others with spinal cord injuries, hoped new treatments would at least lessen the severity of their paralysis. He became a tireless campaigner for spinal chord research, including visiting Australia to push his message. Like he believed—and I do too—Stem Cell Research holds the key. A cure can and will be found. Stem cells, the biological comparison to potters clay, will, I believe, one day be taken to form a new form, like the potters clay forming a teapot or a plate or vase, depending on your need. This will be the Smart use of science making life better for millions of people. Just like when an article appeared in The Daily Planet written by the bespectacled mild-mannered Clark Kent meant integrity and honesty and offered hope, so, too, Christopher Reeve offered us the same in his fight for something better for those with spinal injuries. Let us hope and pray his dream comes true. 3480 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Australian Commercial Radio Awards Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 a.m.): The 16th annual Australian Commercial Radio Awards were presented at a gala ceremony on the Gold Coast last month. The new convention centre on the Gold Coast is attracting these sorts of ceremonies and these sorts of events. It is a great success for the state, and I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. I was pleased to officially open the 2004 Australian Commercial Radio Conference and even more pleased to see that two Brisbane radio stations were honoured in the Best Community Service Project category. The B105 Morning Crew was recognised for its 2003 Christmas Appeal, which raised $700,000 for the Royal Children’s Hospital. The money raised was used to purchase specialist equipment including critical care monitors to record the vital signs of patients in intensive care; a special bed for patients with severe burn injuries; specially-designed lightweight resuscitation trolleys and Emergency Department trolleys. Also recognised on Saturday were the members of the Triple M team of Fatcat, Marto and Tanya for the extremely successful Jaymee Zeller day last September. At the time, Jaymee, a five year old child suffering from a rare form of eye cancer, needed specialised treatment available only in Toronto, Canada. The Triple M team raised $170,000 for Jaymee, who travelled with her family to Toronto in May this year and her family reports that her eye has been saved. Both projects were very worth while and I am pleased that they earned the local radio stations awards from their peers.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Conservative Party Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.45 a.m.): We live in a rapidly changing time, as we all know. But the Leader of the Opposition is proposing in relation to this new one conservative party a marriage that will be unique in Australia's political history—one in which there is a bridegroom but no bride. The Leader of the Opposition is effectively proposing to himself. He would be the partner. The Liberals are not interested. It has no role in planning the wedding or the drafting of the prenuptial agreement. The Liberal state president was so disinterested that he was in China on a business trip when his state council dismissed the proposal even before it was released. The proposal is born out of sheer desperation by the National Party. The National Party booted the Liberal Party out of the state coalition in March this year. It wanted to deny the Liberal Party any resources and to keep all of the generous— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite can complain about it, but they are going to hear it. It wanted to deny the Liberal Party any resources and keep all— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The last time the conservative parties merged was in South Australia. Then the Nationals broke up and now the Nationals’ only state MP is a minister in the Mike Rann Labor government. I do not think that those opposite have a long way to go, but I am going to finish this. The National Party booted the Liberal Party out of the state— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He is so rude, Mr Speaker. The National Party booted the Liberal Party out of the state coalition in March this year. It wanted to deny the Liberal Party any resources and keep all of the generous taxpayer funded resources made available to the opposition for itself. The basis of a good marriage! Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. That includes his extra pay! Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here he goes. I do not know. The $64,000 man or whatever he was. Who knows? Who remembers? Now it is demanding a marriage. Nothing has been forgotten or forgiven. We do not even know if this proposal has been supported by Terry Bolger or the member for Callide, for that matter, or the member for Toowoomba South. It would be very interesting to see how this fits into his future leadership aspirations. We will see how that goes. The proposal has been developed, we are told, by the Leader of the Opposition and his business backers—which is another term for Commerce 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3481

Queensland, I should say. It is supposedly backed by an opinion poll in which there were 80 respondents in five electorates including mine—Brisbane Central—and that is less than 20 voters per electorate. Some sample! Some poll! This proposal is about saving the Leader of the Opposition, not providing a united conservative force in Queensland politics. Just think about this: if the recent Senate election results are any guide, it might be also about saving the National Party from political extinction. Bob, listen to this: in the Senate poll in which the two conservative parties opposed each other, the Liberals outpolled the Nationals— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not want to hear about this because they are about to become extinct, so they would not want to hear about it either. Let me tell them about their extinction. In the Senate poll in which the two conservative parties opposed one another— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: I tell members this: the last sound of an extinct animal is a cry, and that is exactly what we are getting here. I am going to tell those opposite this whether they like it or not. In the last Senate poll in which the two conservative parties opposed each other— Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Oh, Mr Speaker. They are so injured. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I tell members this: they do not like it. Goodness! I am trying to give him a build-up for his speech tomorrow. This is a great opportunity to promote his speech. He is so ungrateful. Let me get back to the vote between the Nationals and the Liberals. The Liberals outpolled the Nationals in 25 of the 28 Queensland electorates. In Wide Bay, held by the National Party Minister for Agriculture, the Liberals polled 25.9 per cent while the Nationals could muster only 18.4 per cent. In Kennedy—the heartland of the National Party—the Liberals polled 24.9 per cent while the Nationals polled just 15.1 per cent. I would want one conservative party, too, if that was the vote. Ms Bligh interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. But the real story is on the Gold Coast. Bob should listen to this. Where does the new Nationals senator want to put his electorate office? On the Gold Coast! About as far away from St George as he can get! I just say to all of those bushies who voted for him: what a joke! He gets elected by the people of St George, so where does he go? He goes to the Gold Coast! I can understand that. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: The squeals go on. This is outrageous! In the three Gold Coast based seats— Fadden, McPherson and Moncrieff—the average Liberal Senate vote was 49.1 per cent. What was the average National Party vote? Just 2.1 per cent! That is even worse than the Democrats got! That is how bad it was. I have to say to Bob that I would not get into bed with them, either. I have to be honest. You never know what would happen. You never know what you will catch. Senator-elect Joyce has the job ahead of him if he wants to rebuild the Nationals' support on the Gold Coast. As I said—and this is really important—the last time the conservative parties merged was in South Australia. Then the Nationals broke away and now the Nationals' only state MP is a minister in the Mike Rann Labor government. Mr Mackenroth: Did you tell them we won't take them? Mr BEATTIE: I have to be honest, if the Nationals fall out with the Liberal Party, we are not going to have any of them. That is it! We are not going to have the National Party. All I can say simply is that I wish Lawrence well. I wish him good luck with his speech tomorrow. He needs to understand this: we are right with him.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Shafston House College Ltd; Mr K. Lloyd Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (9.52 a.m.): I wish to inform members of the outcomes of the government's investigations into the operations of Shafston House College Limited. Members will recall that following the media allegations of improper relations with students against the proprietor of Shafston, Mr Keith Lloyd, the government was quick to act. The departments of Education and the Arts and Employment and Training commenced coordinated investigations into Shafston’s compliance with vocational education and training and higher education regulations.The Department of Education and Training audited Shafston against the requirements of the 3482 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

Australian quality training framework. The audit concluded that Shafston was compliant with the requirements for its vocational education and training courses. My department’s investigations into Shafston’s policies and practices in a range of areas have recently concluded. I asked Shafston to provide a comprehensive response to a number of serious matters, including their administrative arrangements, staff development practices, the marketing and branding of higher education courses and their financial arrangements. Shafston was warned that they would be asked to show cause why accreditation of all higher education courses should not be cancelled if the response was not satisfactory. Shafston’s response, received on 8 October, is satisfactory in the main and I have determined not to implement cancellation proceedings. However, I intend to ensure that Shafston is developing good-quality systems and practices, unrestricted by non- academic considerations. A range of conditions have been placed on Shafston’s continued accreditation, including that Keith Lloyd have no involvement in the management and administration of the college. I have also required that the ministerial advisory panel on higher education approval processes closely monitor Shafston’s operations over the next 12 months. This is in addition to the monitoring mechanism of the annual reporting process for all providers of accredited courses the government has implemented under the Higher Education (General Provisions) Act 2003. Continued accreditation of Shafston’s higher education courses is conditional upon a full and total separation between Shafston’s ownership and corporate governance and institutional governance and management. Shafston has current applications for accreditation for three new diploma programs and reaccreditation of one existing diploma. I am now in a position to consider the recommendations from course assessment panels on these applications. Although I am not cancelling Shafston’s accreditation, under my instruction the Department of Education and the Arts has implemented formal legal proceedings in relation to possible breaches of the legislation by Shafston. This is the first prosecution in Queensland under the new legislation. Our government is serious about ensuring quality in education services and maintaining safe environments for students. We will not hesitate to uphold the provisions of the legislation to ensure that the interests of students are protected. The issues arising in relation to Shafston underline the importance of a robust regulatory and quality framework for higher education in Queensland. Their resolution is testament to the effectiveness of our framework in assuring the quality of Queensland higher education for local and international students.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Education and Training Reforms for the Future Hon. T.A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (9.55 a.m.): By 2006 every young Queenslander aged 15 to 17 will have a greater range of options for their education and training than ever before. The reason will be the government’s Education and Training Reforms for the Future initiative. As my ministerial colleague Anna Bligh has also reported, ETRF is being run in partnership by Education Queensland and the Department of Employment and Training. Recently, more than 350 students from nine schools in the Maranoa district of south-west Queensland have taken part in information sessions about the reforms. Students from years 8 to 12, their parents and teachers, as well as local employers, heard about school based apprenticeships and traineeships, the Pathways and Get Set for Work programs, as well as accelerated learning. These sessions showed students and parents exactly how each of these options might work for a young person. Whether it be the 15 students and teachers from Dirranbandi or the 140 from St Johns Catholic School in Roma, all benefited from hearing about the learning and earning pathways available. The participants were also able to hear first-hand about these programs from young Queenslanders who have taken up apprenticeships or traineeships. At Mitchell State School, 23 students heard about the experiences of local aged-care trainee Sharna Dodd, while at Roma Middle School former student and second-year apprentice mechanic Kirsty Blinco shared her story. Other centres visited included Injune, Surat, St George and Wallumbilla. I am also encouraged to hear that one of the most enthusiastic groups to attend these workshops was the group of 15 from the Charleville School of Distance Education who gathered at Roma. These students come from as far west as Thargomindah, north to Injune and south to the border. I am informed that this group was very involved in the discussion about their future pathways and the exciting possibilities that the reform process is opening up. The ETRF initiative is ensuring that students in our state’s remote locations as well as in other areas of the state have access to information and increasing opportunities akin to opportunities for 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3483 students in large population centres. The students of Maranoa have shown that they are more than willing to look closely at the exciting opportunities on offer.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Biotechnology Industry Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (9.57 a.m.): Commercialising biotech discoveries is certainly no easy business. It can often take years to get a product out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. This can be rather discouraging for potential investors. As any business-minded person would know, you do not really have a business without financial backers. I believe that Queensland’s biotech industry is facing up to this challenge and I know that the Beattie government is facing up to this challenge as well. What we need now is for the federal government to stand up and support our fledgling biotech industry. But the problem with biotech is that most Australians are not fully aware of its significance to our everyday lives. They are unsure of what it is all about and, more importantly, what it means for our future. It is not a barbecue stopper, as Mr Howard would say. As we witnessed during the last federal election, it is those barbecue stoppers that get the federal government attention, that get the Commonwealth funding. So I am issuing a challenge to the biotech industry. It needs to sell convincingly the industry to everyday Australians. The industry needs to do this in a way that those of us without a science degree can understand, because if we get people talking about biotech—if it registers on the radar—then we can be sure that it will quickly appear on the federal agenda. Biotech is the science behind many of the great medical breakthroughs. Without a conscious push from government to promote and fund the biotech industry, the potential cure for cancer could be washed down the drain. Despite the federal government's woeful record in funding Queensland's biotech industry, we really are the lucky state when it comes to biotech. With a Premier like Peter Beattie, the biotech industry does not need to sell itself to our government. It is at the very heart of our Smart State strategy. We have invested $2.4 billion in science research and innovation since 1998. As a result, our local industry has flourished and we now have a climate of increased investment. I am sure that the industry is up to the challenge to promote itself within the general Australian public. The question is: will the federal government stop dodging the bullet and commit to supporting a Queensland industry to fully realise its economic and of course its social potential?

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Australian Red Cross Blood Service Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.00 a.m.): As we approach the Christmas-New Year period, it is timely that I speak about the Australian Red Cross Blood Service. The use of blood and blood products is critical in treating patients with injuries and patients with certain medical conditions within our hospitals, and the end-of-year holiday period is a particular crucial time to ensure blood supplies are maintained. Patients require blood and blood products in many instances, such as the replacement of blood during trauma and surgery, after chemotherapy, for bleeding disorders, shock, burns, leukaemia, liver and kidney disease. Nearly 70,000 Australians donated blood during the Australian Red Cross Blood Service's appeal for blood last month, helping to build up the blood supply to a record level in just three weeks. The tremendous community response included 10,000 new and lapsed donors, resulting in a 50 per cent increase in bloodstocks and sufficient reserves in all blood groups. The national blood supply had dropped to 33 per cent of required levels in September and again in October, prompting the appeal for new donors. In Queensland, more than 400 bags had to be imported from other states in August to maintain supplies. Like the rest of Australia, Queensland has responded magnificently, with more than 18,000 donations in four weeks from among the state's nearly 91,000 registered donors. There is no room for complacency. The Australian Red Cross Blood Service needs an average of 20,000 donations every week to meet demand. It is estimated that 80 per cent of us will require blood or blood products at some stage in our lives, yet less than three per cent of the Australian population gives blood each year. Given that donated blood and blood products have a limited shelf life after collection, ranging from 24 hours to 42 days, the demand is constant. Queensland Health recognised the increased demand by allocating a record $40 million to acquire blood and blood products in 2004-05. The additional funds will ensure that we can continue to treat patients with quality whole blood and plasma products and some imported products used in the treatment of rare blood disorders. Our focus, like the Red Cross, is to ensure Queenslanders continue to 3484 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004 have access to the safest blood supply possible. To ensure that the blood supply is maintained, I encourage all Queenslanders—and today all honourable members of this House, the staff who work at this parliament and the staff who work for our honourable members who can just step outside the House to the mobile service—to give blood. It may well be a lifesaving experience.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Architectural Practice Academy; CITEC Hon. R.E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (10.03 a.m.): I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Public Works will be establishing the state's first architectural practice academy to foster the talents of Queensland's best architect graduates. This Smart State initiative, delivered in partnership with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that they have the manners of a razorback pig, but they do not have to show them here. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will just continue with the ministerial statement. Mr SCHWARTEN: This Smart State initiative, delivered in partnership with the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, is an investment in architectural innovation and sustainable design for Queensland's future. The architectural practice academy will give six architecture graduates a chance to set up and operate their own micropractice under the professional guidance of some of Australia's leading architects. It will be a hub for innovation in architectural training and play a pivotal role in the professional development of our brightest young architects. This is a proactive project to ensure we have the home-grown talent and skills to resolve some of the significant growth and development requirements Queensland will face in the future. This initiative has the support of the architecture schools of the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology. I am confident that the academy will fulfil its objective of giving members a comprehensive exposure to all aspects of the practice of architecture, with a strong design emphasis, particularly in sustainability, hands-on experience in client management, project management and design documentation. The members will also be responsible for the day-to-day running of the business, including office management, developing business practice and systems. Through their two years work at the academy, graduates will be able to develop a comprehensive personal portfolio that will help them establish their own industry profile. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: I know that it is boring for them because it is something that is interesting and it is something that is intellectually stimulating, so it would be boring to them. Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: They are not interested in— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Darling Downs. Mr SCHWARTEN: I am trying to get a message across here, and the incessant interruption that I am receiving from the other side of the House— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, may I be allowed to continue? Mr SPEAKER: You will be allowed to continue. The House will come to order. Mr SCHWARTEN: If we could get some order over there, it would be great. I will start again from the top. I am confident that the academy will fulfil its objective of giving members a comprehensive exposure to all aspects of the practice of architecture, with a strong design emphasis, particularly in sustainability, hands-on experience in client management, project management and design documentation. The members will also be responsible for the day-to-day running of the business, including office management, developing business practices and systems. Through their two years work at the academy, graduates will be able to develop a comprehensive personal portfolio that will help them establish their own industry profile. They will have real life experience working on key government projects across Queensland. So far 27 architecture students have registered their interest in this academy. The six inaugural positions will be advertised in the Government Gazette tomorrow and the Courier-Mail on Saturday. I encourage architectural graduates 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3485 to grab this opportunity to launch a productive and innovative career. Applications for the first intake close on Monday, 29 November.

I am also pleased to announce today that information and communication technology service provider CITEC has been appointed as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's supplier of SAP finance system application and infrastructure services. This five-year multimillion dollar single supplier deal will see CITEC, the only Australian owned SAP hosting partner, deliver and manage the ABC's financial management system. It is indeed a great coup for this state. Winning this contract against interstate and international competition is an acknowledgment of CITEC's extensive experience and another Smart State success story. CITEC has built its reputation by providing SAP clients with a seamless, fully integrated solution with a focus on their clients' core businesses ranging across resource and mining, financial and legal and government sectors. This new contract increases the number of CITEC managed SAP instances to approximately 110 across public and private enterprise clients and reinforces CITEC as a national SAP service provider.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Antihooning Legislation

Hon. J.C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services) (10.09 a.m.): Mr Speaker—

Opposition members interjected.

Ms SPENCE: They are obviously all excited to hear this ministerial statement, Mr Speaker. Two years ago the Beattie government demonstrated its commitment to road safety when its tough antihooning legislation came into effect. Police were given the power to impound for 48 hours vehicles used for hooning. Repeat offenders risk having their car taken off the road for three months, with a possible forfeiture of their vehicle to the state after a third or subsequent offence.

Since 4 November 2002, 1,598 drivers across the state have had their vehicles impounded by police after they were caught for a first-time hooning offence. Of those, 564—or about one-third—were in the south-east police region, which includes the Gold Coast and Logan. The north coast police region recorded 364 first offences, with 116 in the central region, 111 in the north, 68 in the far-north and 150 in the southern region; while the metropolitan north region recorded 119 offences and there were 106 offences in metropolitan south.

I am sure these drivers are not very happy about their prized vehicles being taken away from them. However, public roads are not racetracks and all motorists have a responsibility to abide by the law. To demonstrate just how successful the antihooning laws have been as a deterrent, only 22 people have been charged across the state with a second offence since the legislation was introduced and three people have been charged with a third offence.

In another measure to reduce hooning in 2002, the Queensland Police Service expanded the role of the state traffic task force to include a traffic response group. The traffic response group is staffed by six experienced traffic police and is supported with intelligence and research from the state traffic support branch. Since the commencement of antihooning legislation, the state traffic response group has impounded 271 vehicles or about 17 per cent of the 1,598 cars impounded for first offences. The group also travels around the state to assist regional police in deterring antisocial driving by enforcing the antihooning legislation.

The reality is that illegal drag racing, burnouts, hooning and other dangerous driving practices pose a significant risk to the community. These drivers endanger themselves and others. Hooning also has an impact on the quality of life of the residents who live in or near the streets some people choose to turn into a racetrack. Apart from the public safety concerns, undue noise created by this hoonish behaviour is also a concern. I acknowledge the right of car enthusiasts to drive the streets and show off their vehicles, and I congratulate councils which are working with their local car enthusiasts to investigate sites where people can meet and display their cars in a safe manner instead of driving around the streets. I know the antihooning legislation is not very popular among some car enthusiasts and young drivers. However, the message is clear: if people abide by the law, there is no reason why this legislation should affect them. If people drive in a manner that is dangerous or causes excessive noise or smoke or participate in street racing, then they will be caught by police and they risk seeing their vehicle impounded by police. 3486 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Primary Industries Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.12 a.m.): I have great news for Queensland. Mr Springborg: When are you resigning? Mr PALASZCZUK: I think that was said tongue in cheek, Mr Speaker. When our government came to office in 1998, Queensland agriculture was regarded as a $6 billion industry. In the 2001 state election campaign, the National Party estimated the sector's value at $5.5 billion. I can announce today that our primary industries continue to well and truly exceed those expectations, and the gross value of the sector's production is now more than $10 billion. The department's forecast of a slight increase reflects mixed prospects for the largest industries. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Whinge, whinge, whinge! The cattle industry is to remain the state's largest in 2004-05, despite a $3.08 billion result which would be a four per cent decrease. A major factor for the beef industry's performance being revised downwards is the looming re-entry of US beef onto the Japanese market. This is part of the good news: after question time today I will be departing for a 10-day trade mission to Vietnam, Japan and Korea. Beef will dominate talks in Japan and Korea, where I will be seeking to cement as many of the gains made by Queensland beef during the absence of US beef following its mad cow disease detection late last year. The state's horticulture industry is forecast to increase by four per cent to $2.99 billion. Sugar cane is estimated to increase by 12 per cent to $815 million this financial year from last season as a result of an expected increase in world sugar prices. Cotton production is also forecast to increase by four per cent to $435 million, with the area planted under cotton increasing by almost 40 per cent to 140,000 hectares. The gross value of cereal grain production is projected to fall by 17 per cent to $465 million, and the reason for that is the prolonged drought. Fishery production is expected to remain relatively steady, with a one per cent decrease to $360 million. The Prospects publication goes into greater detail with projections across the commodity groups. I will ensure all honourable members will receive a copy of our department's Prospects publication later on today. A new part of the latest Prospects is the section on the volume of production index of Queensland's major agricultural commodities, and it shows—using 1996-97 as the base year—the volume of production this financial year is expected to be 12 per cent higher than that of eight years ago. The results and projections I have outlined today once again highlight the industry's resilience but also point to its innovation and its commitment to profitability.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Department of Child Safety, Annual Report Hon. M.F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (10.16 a.m.): This morning I tabled the first annual report of the Department of Child Safety—a report for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004—which unfortunately highlights some of the aspects of our society which tragically impact on our children and young people but which also gives a great deal of hope for the future. The figures show an increasing level of notifications of child abuse and neglect in a year when systemic failure and dysfunction had occurred in our child protection system. The figures also show that the Department of Child Safety is making massive inroads into swiftly dealing with the backlog of child abuse notifications. The Beattie government is determined to continue to ensure that the safety of children and our young people in this state continues to be our top priority. This annual report reflects the period during which the CMC inquiry was conducted and reported, the preparation and delivery of the blueprint for reform, and the initial stages of the change process within the child protection system in Queensland. It clearly demonstrates why the unprecedented additional resources committed to child protection by the Beattie government were so desperately needed. This is why we now have a stand-alone government department focused on the protection of children—the first of its kind in Australia. Queensland is not alone. The number of reported cases of child abuse and neglect is increasing at a rapid rate right across the country and around the world. As members will see, the report highlights that the number of child protection cases notified has risen by 3,955 since 2002-03. This, despite the often tragic nature of these notifications, is in fact a positive sign. It means more people are reporting cases of abuse and neglect than ever before. It means that more people are becoming aware of the horrific nature of this abuse and are taking steps to prevent or expose these cases. 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3487

The CMC report of last year forced the issue into the public domain. We are fortunate that this issue has had significant publicity and that perpetrators can be exposed. Much has been achieved in a relatively short period of time, and we are progressing at a rapid rate. Cases of suspected child abuse and neglect are being dealt with more swiftly than ever before, with the establishment of the new Department of Child Safety. Figures released in the 2003-04 Department of Child Safety annual report show that the department is making massive inroads into swiftly dealing with a backlog of child abuse notifications. Since the January 2004 CMC inquiry, the backlog has continued to decrease despite an overall increase in the number of child abuse notifications recorded. In June this year the number of initial assessments finalised by the department was 2,498—the largest number ever completed in one month. A number of very successful departmental campaigns have brought child abuse and neglect to the forefront of public awareness. Our parents, grandparents, neighbours, teachers, nurses and children are becoming more aware of the warning signs of child abuse, and where to go for help, and they are becoming more aware that this abhorrent abuse should not be tolerated in our community. As a result, we are receiving more notifications of child abuse than ever before. In fact, reporting has become mandatory for nurses. Despite more people coming forward and raising alarms for us, we are also more equipped than ever before to respond to these notifications. A massive recruitment campaign held earlier this year saw the appointment of an extra 48 fully qualified child safety officers permanently appointed to the most important priority areas throughout the state. A further 60 existing, long-term temporary positions in area and zonal offices have also been made permanent. Over the next three years an additional 518 front-line and support staff will be employed by the department, with 318 of these positions to be filled by the end of 2005. Increased culturally competent support offered by the Department of Child Safety for vulnerable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families is ensuring the safety and wellbeing of their children. Three hundred families were assisted during the trial period. Of the 451 children supported, 97 per cent did not enter or re-enter the statutory system. As a result of this initiative, 48 indigenous child safety support officers will be employed across the state to continue this important work. The 2003-04 annual report outlines that, although the cost of individualised placement and support packages increased in the last financial year, more children and young people are now able to receive this very specialised care as a result of the extra funding. Children who are unable to be looked after in the mainstream foster care system are benefiting from the additional $11.7 million worth of funding given to the Department of Child Safety for alternative care earlier this year. Children are the No. 1 focus of my department. The next two years will see the establishment of some of the most progressive approaches to child protection in the world. Child protection is everybody's business.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Homelessness Hon. F.W. PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors) (10.22 a.m.): This issue of people sleeping rough in the city and using drugs and alcohol has existed for many years. It is sensible to acknowledge that this is an unfortunate and common experience in most large cities and towns throughout Australia and, indeed, the rest of world. We must acknowledge how challenging it is to engage with these people and to find ways to help them, particularly young people, get back on track. The Department of Communities is currently coordinating a number of government and community services to ensure that these young people have access to the services and the advice they need because the typical person who may be living rough in the city will have needs that cannot be met by just one department or just one worker. They may need health, education, training and accommodation services, for example, so we are taking a whole-of-government approach. The Beattie government is building on this base with a number of initiatives in the inner city. Today I am pleased to be able to inform the House that I have approved one-off funding totalling $125,000 to enable the Brisbane Youth Service and the Indigenous Youth Health Service to respond to the needs of homeless and at-risk young people. The funding will enable the two organisations to address the immediate needs and longer term safety and support needs of these young people and respond to the reasons why they are not living with their families or in their communities. In addition, I am pleased to announce that I have approved a one-off $80,000 grant to the Indigenous Youth Health Service to provide specialist services for young indigenous people who are referred to the place-of-safety service. This funding is on top of the initiatives announced by the Premier that will establish a dedicated centre to better coordinate support for homeless people in Brisbane. This service will be established with an initial grant of $350,000 from the Department of Communities and 3488 Private Members’ Statements 11 Nov 2004

$50,000 from the Department of Housing. I thank Minister Schwarten for his commitment and his contribution. The issue of homelessness can only begin to be effectively addressed if we adopt not only a whole-of-government approach but also a whole-of-community approach.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Cabinet Process Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.24 a.m.): In this place yesterday this government was exposed again for using the cabinet process to cover up on the things that it is doing wrong in Queensland. It exposed its complicity in using that cabinet process to cover up information which is potentially embarrassing to it. The latest example of that was the admission by the Minister for Industrial Relations that he did not even listen to the tapes of the interrogation of Greg Maddock that went to cabinet. This was an absolute confirmation that the tapes went there to be hidden for 30 years; that the tapes were taken there so that the people of Queensland would have no idea whatsoever of the extent of the intimidation and the bullying to which this government will go when it comes to dealing with people who in any way affront its willingness or desire to stay in government. Yesterday afternoon we saw one of the most despicable and vile performances by the Premier that we have ever seen. He came into this place and he sought to make himself the victim. He stood there yesterday and he said that he had been through far more than Greg Maddock had been through. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: He said that! Greg Maddock was put in a position where he took his own life. Yesterday we saw the Premier playing victim because the media asked him some hard questions. I say this to Mr Beattie: if the heat is too much, then get out of the kitchen. If he is not prepared to be accountable, if he is not prepared to answer those questions, then he does not deserve to be in this place. We know now that Mr Beattie uses the cabinet process to launder the dirty linen. The only difference, of course, is that it does not even wash; it goes straight into the spin cycle, and it has an extended spin cycle. That is the way that they do things in Queensland, and it is just the latest litany of bullying and intimidation that we have seen. Time expired.

Epilepsy Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (10.26 a.m.): Epilepsy is a condition that is as old as humankind. Many high achievers through the ages have been sufferers, such as Alexander the Great, Lewis Carroll and Leonardo da Vinci. Epilepsy knows no cultural or geographic boundaries. The challenge for us is in recognising that epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition among Queensland's children. In fact, an estimated 4,100 children are affected by it in this state. This is an enormous burden on these children and their families. I was delighted to represent the Minister for Health at the Epilepsy Queensland Inc. AGM and inform them of a very important announcement—that is, Queensland's first coordinated epilepsy service—through the allocation of an additional $1.13 million this year and recurrent funding of $1.03 million to enhance statewide services provision for paediatric and adolescent epilepsy. There is also a new centre for excellence to be based at Mater Children's Hospital with formal links to the Royal Children's and Townsville hospitals. The centre will run outreach clinics to regional and rural Queensland, providing specialist diagnostic procedures and neurosurgery that will build on existing specialist centres where specific assistance is available to people with epilepsy—assistance for children as well as adults. It will also increase the capacity of regional health services and general practitioners to care for children with epilepsy. The new centre for excellence provides the opportunity to develop new partnerships between tertiary hospitals and non-government organisations. I want to acknowledge Epilepsy Queensland and the wonderful service it provides. I am particularly impressed by the family support program and the Living in the Shadows report—the first study in Australia to investigate the needs of families who care for a child with uncontrolled seizures and epilepsy. It identified areas of unmet need relating to information about available services. Epilepsy Queensland is addressing this need with enthusiasm through imaginative public education programs and awareness campaigns. The examples are fantastic with the Little Poss mascot web site for kids, visiting children in schools to read stories, plays and other activities, and raising awareness through Epilepsy Week and in-service training for epilepsy workers. I congratulate Epilepsy Queensland on the fantastic effort it makes to support people with epilepsy and their families in Queensland. Time expired. 11 Nov 2004 Questions Without Notice 3489

State Infrastructure Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (10.28 a.m.): In the State Infrastructure Plan 2003-04, there are a number of issues listed as impacting on future infrastructure planning. The first is— Impact of population growth in south-east Queensland and increasing pressures on urban sprawl, transport and availability of industrial and future transport corridors. Population growth is a given in the south-east Queensland region, and nowhere is this clearer than on the Sunshine Coast. The government has recently announced funding for a number of roads across Caloundra which impact directly on the economic viability of the region, including the Caloundra Road upgrade to four lanes by 2008-09 and the multimodal corridor linking to Caloundra Road by 2007- 08. Caloundra Road cannot, at this point in time, take heavy duty vehicles en masse, nor will it do so without the required infrastructure being put in place. The Caloundra commercial and industrial precinct is one area on the Sunshine Coast which allows for industrial development having a direct impact on the economy and on many of the social issues facing people in the region. The requirement to move the planning forward, upgrading Caloundra Road and linking the multimodal corridor to Caloundra Road, must be considered an economic essential to the region, not just to Caloundra. So much depends upon the diversity of an economy in an area to sustain the region and its population. The government must rethink this question and bring forward the completion dates for the construction of both roads to 2007. Time expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Mr G. Maddock Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier's admission yesterday that the tapes of the interrogation of Greg Maddock were not part of cabinet deliberations on 27 September 2004 and his subsequent proposal to supply transcripts of that interrogation to Mrs Maddock. Sally Pitkin resigned as a director of Energex and claimed that her record of interview with Treasury officials was inaccurate. As this proves significant errors in the transcripts compared with taped interviews, how can anybody believe the integrity of any transcript provided by this government? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. I arranged for one of the government drivers to try to deliver the transcript to Mrs Maddock this morning. That was unsuccessful. I will obviously now get one of my staff to contact her to ensure that the transcript is provided to Mrs Maddock. I indicated yesterday when I was asked questions by the media that I would seek to listen to large sections of the transcript, which I did. I have to say that the Treasury officers behaved in an entirely appropriate way. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: They examined the issues that needed to be examined. The tone was an appropriate tone. There were no threats; there was no nastiness. Greg Maddock responded in the same way in endeavouring to answer the questions that were put to him. Let us just put that clearly in perspective. The second point is this: I indicated that I took to cabinet, prior to making a detailed statement in this House, all the relevant material for cabinet consideration. That was the transcript. It is not just naive but plain stupid to think that cabinet was going to sit there for several hours listening to tapes. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: The suggestion that cabinet would sit there listening to tapes for hours on end is just plain silly. What you do—this is logical and sensible—is have a transcript made, which is made available to cabinet, and cabinet can access it and read it, as I have done. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: What is the difference between the transcript and the tape? The transcript is simply the written words that are on the tape. That is all it is. Mr Springborg interjected. 3490 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2004

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you have asked the question. I am going to hear the answer and so is the rest of the House. Mr BEATTIE: This is not rocket science. It is appropriate for the Premier of the day to come into this parliament and deal with a matter raised by the Auditor-General. I notice that in some of the newspaper reports on this issue the reference to the Auditor-General has conveniently slipped off. This all started with a question from the Auditor-General; it did not start from the government. It was, let me tell members, an appropriate request from the Auditor-General. I have no criticism whatsoever of the Auditor-General on this matter. The flip side of this coin and what the opposition is really saying is that the government should have carried out no investigation and should have ignored the Auditor-General. I have made it clear that my government is accountable. Not only that, the appropriate place to take this material is to cabinet. That is where it should go. Let me make it absolutely clear to everyone that cabinet will consider matters of importance to this state. I will not be intimidated or bullied by anyone into moving away from the cabinet process. Cabinet will do its job in leading Queensland. I make no excuse for it. I am not prepared to back down from that position. That is the end of it. Attorney-General Mr SPRINGBORG: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. I refer to the Attorney-General’s obligations regarding workplace bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment contained in the ministerial handbook. I have been denied access under FOI to certain documents regarding the Attorney-General's alleged misconduct at a staff Christmas party because the executive director of the Attorney-General's department considers that there is a real and substantial concern that the persons who made the allegations would be victimised by senior officers. Is victimisation common in the Attorney-General's department or restricted to matters regarding his behaviour? Can the minister give an assurance that these people will not be discriminated against so that the relevant documents about his behaviour can be released? Mr WELFORD: The Leader of the Opposition has once again used the final weeks of parliament to stoop into the gutter— Mr Seeney: Come back next week. Mr SPEAKER: Deputy leader of the Opposition, order! Mr WELFORD: —and seek to make malicious smears against public servants as a way of attacking me and, through me, the government. Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. My question was to do with what his own executive director said regarding real concerns about victimisation. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. You have asked the question; we will hear the answer. You are debating the question. Mr WELFORD: If the Leader of the Opposition has been denied certain documents under the freedom of information legislation, he has been denied those documents according to law and the exemptions in that law.

Queensland Conservative Party Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Premier. I refer to the fact that after a taxpayer-funded trip to Canada to talk to party leaders about the formation of a new conservative party and after months of planning, the Opposition Leader, Lawrence Springborg, will announce his recipe for uniting the Liberals and the Nationals into one conservative party for Queensland. With great anticipation, I ask: what will the formation of one conservative party mean for Queenslanders? Mr BEATTIE: This is a great day for Queensland. Queenslanders will find out very shortly just what a great day this is for Queensland. I thank the whip for the question. I just say to Lawrence: in terms of this wedding, I would not be out ironing the wedding dress just yet. I find this extraordinary. We have got the leader of the National Party offering one conservative party, yet he cannot agree with the Liberal Party on key issues. Just think about this: where are the parties on daylight saving? The Leader of the Liberal Party says, ‘Let’s have it’; the Leader of the National Party says, ‘Let's not have it.’ What have we got? Two policies, two parties! That is the first one. In relation to tree clearing—remember tree clearing?—the Liberal Party had the good sense to vote with us. Thanks, Bob. The National Party did not. So on tree clearing: two parties, two policies. Do members recall the antidiscrimination legislation the Attorney brought in? The Liberal Party very sensibly voted with us. The Liberals were very intelligent. The Nationals did not; they voted against us. Do members recall Sunday trading? Where were the Nationals? They were against it. The Liberals were in favour of it. This will be a wonderful wedding. This is the sort of wedding where there is a divorce on 11 Nov 2004 Questions Without Notice 3491 the wedding night. That is what will occur. They will be seeking lawyers; they will be seeking assistance on the wedding night. Mr Schwarten: The wedding car won't turn up. Mr BEATTIE: The wedding car will not turn up. It will be all hobbled and flat-tyred. The question is: where is John Howard on all this? Where is the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is the one who has had these thumping big figures—these results. Does he agree with this? Is there going to be a national amalgamation of both parties? Does Peter Costello really have to worry about John Anderson? Is he going to be the next leader when John Howard goes? Mr Terry Sullivan: Santo and Barnaby Joyce. Mr BEATTIE: Exactly right. The interesting thing is this—this is the best test—Mr Springborg said that this was a matter of leadership. 'I stake my leadership on this', Mr Springborg said. What is the Leader of the Opposition going to do if he does not get it up? Will Mr Springborg resign? Or is it just a case of, ‘It’ll look good on the six o'clock news, but please don't remind me a few weeks down the road that I staked my leadership on it and it did not work’? If we look at these figures, the Liberal Party would be off their cotton-picking minds to agree to this one party. Just listen to this: in McPherson the Liberal Party vote was 52.1—this is in the Senate. The National Party vote was 1.7. That must have been the informal vote. In Moncrieff the Liberal vote in the Senate was 42.3 and the National Party vote was 2.1. In Forde 49 per cent for the Liberals, 2.7 for the Nationals. There he is—one of the remnants going to extinction. Mr G. Maddock Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Attorney-General. Under section 45(2) (E) of the Coroners Act the coroner has the power to determine ‘what caused the person to die.' Given public concerns over the tragic death of the late Greg Maddock and as first law officer of the state will the Attorney confirm that under section 45(2) (E) of the act the coroner has the power and indeed the responsibility to investigate the concerns expressed by Mrs Maddock, Don Nissen, Sally Pitkin and Brian Kilmartin in relation to the Treasurer’s investigation of Mr Maddock? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Clerk has advised me that this is getting close to asking a legal opinion of the Attorney-General. The minister has the right to refuse to answer on those grounds. Mr WELFORD: I am happy to advise the opposition that, while it is not appropriate that I give them a legal opinion, the act sets out the circumstances under which a sudden death of a person is referrable to the state coroner. It is then a matter for the state coroner to determine whether a coronial inquiry should be conducted. Those inquiries are normally conducted only where the immediate cause of death is in some respect uncertain or unknown. I think it is most regrettable that, given the tragic circumstances that occurred in this instance, the opposition would seek to have me suggest or indeed suggest itself that it is proper for the coroner to inquire into matters entirely ancillary to the immediate cause of death of the person concerned. The opposition is misconstruing and misleading us to suggest that the Coroners Act has any practical operation in relation to matters that have previously been the subject of questions in this House this morning. They are unrelated to the immediate cause of death which, I understand, is known and in which circumstances the coroner would have to make a decision about any inquiry. Employment Creation Ms NOLAN: My question is directed to the Premier. Can the Premier inform the House of the latest results of the state government's employment drive? Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to advise the House that the latest labour force figures have just been released and Queensland's unemployment rate is five per cent. I promised five per cent and we have delivered. I must admit that I may have been a year or so late, but we have delivered a five per cent rate. I remember all the criticism my government has taken. All my ministers have worked very hard to deliver this for Queensland. I promised jobs, jobs, jobs and we have delivered, delivered, delivered. This is a great day for Queensland. What it shows is that the vision that this government had when it was working in opposition has been delivered. The Smart State vision for Queensland has worked. I want to thank in particular every one of my team, every one of my cabinet colleagues, and everyone on the backbench who has worked their hearts out for this. Mr Seeney: John Howard. Mr Mackenroth: Half a percent below Australia. Mr BEATTIE: Let me tell members what the figures are. We waited for the member to say that. We knew that he could not help himself. I take that interjection and I want it on the record. Do members 3492 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2004 know what happened? Queensland's rate is five per cent and Australia's rate is unchanged at 5.5 per cent. Thank you, Jeffrey. We are the engine room of Australia. Let me read from the official document. The official figures say that trend unemployment growth in Queensland has been very strong, with growth of 0.5 per cent or above recorded for the fifth consecutive month. In comparison, national jobs growth over the same period has been just 0.1 or 0.2 per cent. Queensland has recorded the strongest jobs growth of any state in each month since April 2004. They are the official figures. I just say this, ‘John Howard, you owe Queensland a great debt.' We have helped produce for Australia the sort of economic figures that those opposite boast about. Without us the Australian figures would look very ordinary indeed. Those opposite want to talk about jobs. Our annual employment growth in October was 5.1 per cent. That is more than double the national average. In the past 12 months Queensland has created 93,000 jobs, accounting for more than 44 per cent of the national total. We have 19 per cent of the population. Jeffrey, thank you for your interjection. That is not bad. What happens? You whinge, we work! You whinge, we work! You whinge, we work! Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Darling Downs, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Gladstone West State School in the electorate of Gladstone. Racing Appeals Tribunal Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Public Works and Housing and Racing. I refer to the decision of the Racing Appeals Tribunal in relation to Lauren Michelle Abbott and David John Petersen in which the tribunal again questioned the impartiality of integrity services manager Bob Mason. The tribunal found that there is no power in Queensland Racing or its delegate Dr Mason to cancel indentures for the reasons given in this case. The tribunal further found that Queensland Racing improperly cancelled or refused to renew Abbott's licence or permit to ride. What is the real reason for this young female apprentice jockey having been targeted by the controllers of Queensland Racing? Will the minister extend the terms of reference of the Daubney-Rafter inquiry to investigate this further example of abuse of power by Bentley and Mason? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question. Outside the jacarandas are blooming, at the university the kids are going through their exams and on this typical November day the opposition is back in the gutter. The truth is that this matter is the subject of appeal by Queensland Racing to a higher court, to the District Court. For the honourable member's information, it is inappropriate for me to comment on that particular case. I want to say to the honourable member what I said yesterday. Any matter whatsoever that he has a concern about or anybody has a concern about should be sent off to the inquiry. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: The fact is that Mr Daubney SC has advised me that the terms that he is working to are suitable to him and that if there are any matters that come before him— Mr Hopper interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Darling Downs will cease interjecting. Mr SCHWARTEN: If there are any matters that come before him that warrant more serious investigation or the widening of the terms of reference he will not hesitate to contact me. I repeat: the gentleman concerned should put any matters of concern before that inquiry. I caution the member to get a copy of the act. On a number of occasions this week the honourable member has belittled this inquiry in this place and in the media. I particularly draw his attention to section 9(2) (C) of the act which talks about threatening and insulting behaviour. It would appear the member has done both of those things in his media release. The act is very specific about contempt, and I would caution the honourable member to discontinue with this. I do not want to see the honourable member in strife, and he gets himself into enough of that—we know that—with his incapacity to understand most things pertaining to anything decent. The reality is that the commission ought to be able to go about its business unfettered or without any interference whatsoever from the member opposite or any of his colleagues. The truth is that this commission has all of the powers set out under that act. It has its powers set out under that act and, as a result of that, has the opportunity to deal with any matter whatsoever. Ethanol Ms STONE: My question is to the Premier. Premier, it is indeed a great day for Queensland— Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Toowoomba South, order! Ms STONE: My question is to the Premier. It is indeed a great— 11 Nov 2004 Questions Without Notice 3493

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South will cease calling across the chamber. Ms STONE: I will try again. Premier, it is indeed a great day for Queensland. We lead the nation in the unemployment rate and we lead the nation when it comes to pushing for ethanol blends in unleaded fuel. Opposition members interjected. Ms STONE: This month the Premier announced— Opposition members interjected. Ms STONE: Can I finish my question, please? Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ms STONE: This month the Premier announced that Jack Brabham is our ethanol ambassador. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, can we please give the member a go? I want to hear the question. Mr Seeney interjected. Ms STONE: And I would like to finish the question. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. That is my final warning. A government member interjected. Ms STONE: I will. It is a great day for Queensland. We lead the nation when it comes to the unemployment rate and we lead the nation when it comes to pushing for ethanol blends in unleaded fuel. This month the Premier announced that Jack Brabham is our ethanol ambassador. Can the Premier detail our initiatives being undertaken— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. That is also my final warning. Ms STONE: Can the Premier detail what other initiatives are being undertaken to push ethanol blends? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Springwood for her question. I know from her representations to me that she has a particular interest in ethanol. Before I answer, for the permanent record of this parliament I am going to table for the House the economic policy branch labour force October 2004 document which shows Queensland with five per cent unemployment. I table that for the information of the House. In line with my government's strong support for the creation of an ethanol industry and following on from this month's announcement of Jack Brabham as an ethanol ambassador, tomorrow I will be opening the first service station to market ethanol blended motor fuels in south-east Queensland. The success of this station at Mount Warren Park will determine whether the joint venture partners, Petro Fuel Group and the Queensland Fuel Group, open more outlets. I am saying to everyone in this House and all Queenslanders: please use it. I would hope that the opposition would actually get behind it instead of whingeing about it, because we have a unique opportunity. We need to get people out there to support it. The Evolve ethanol service station sells both unleaded motor spirit containing 10 per cent ethanol and a premium motor spirit also containing 10 per cent ethanol. There are 22 outlets now selling motor spirit containing 10 per cent ethanol in the central and north Queensland regions of Queensland. We would like all Queenslanders to have access to this fuel. We are trying to get more and more people to access it and to use it. Not only is it a renewable source; it also reduces pollution. My government is committed to the development of a sustainable renewable fuels industry, and ethanol is central to that policy. Queensland is well placed to develop a significant ethanol industry, and ethanol is most commonly derived from sugar cane and grains, as we know. We produce 94 per cent of Australian sugar cane. Earlier this year, as members know, I led a trade mission to Brazil. The motor fuel in Brazil ranges from a blend containing 25 per cent ethanol to pure ethanol. It subsequently hosted an ethanol roadshow featuring experts from the ethanol industry in Brazil who came to Australia to talk to people working in our sugar industry. In June my government released a V8 ethanol blueprint with short-, medium- and long-term aims, and I thank the Minister for State Development for that. As I said, my government released that plan in June. The plan includes hosting an international ethanol conference here next year exploring export opportunities for Queensland industry and exploring opportunities for best practice technology transfer from Brazil and the USA. We also have a $10 million Sugar Industry Innovation Fund which is set up to assist the industry in diversifying and becoming more efficient. 3494 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2004

Here is a service station that is doing it, and I want people to go and fill up at that service station. We cannot get the federal government to mandate ethanol, so the only way that we can go now is to get better access to it. Instead of getting some support for it, all we get is this undermining from the National Party. You whinge; we work. That is what is going on here. Health Services Dr FLEGG: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Given the minister's comments on ABC Radio this morning that Queensland is the best performing state when it comes to the provision of health services, I ask: why is it that Queensland has the highest cardiac mortality? Why is it that Queenslanders have the lowest likelihood of getting an intervention for their heart disease? Why is it that heart disease mortality is highest in low socioeconomic groups who are dependent on the public hospital system's cardiology services? Mr NUTTALL: As most people would know, there are a number of reports that are commissioned which determine what our benchmarks are. There is the Productivity Commission and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. I will come to those organisations in a minute in terms of their reports. The honourable member would be well aware of the difficulties that we have in terms of attracting specialists to work in the public hospital system. An opposition member interjected. Mr NUTTALL: Let us just look at some of those issues that are raised by the honourable member. He continues to say that we have a range of difficulties. Let us just go through a few of the specialists in our area. In cardiology there are 12 who work in the public sector and 47 who work in the private sector. It is very difficult for us to retain specialists. Dr Flegg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! You have asked the question, member for Moggill, and now you will hear the answer, otherwise you will hear it outside. Mr NUTTALL: I will give the House an example as to why it is difficult for us to retain specialists in the public sector. Let us look at the area of pathology. When someone finishes studying at university and comes to work in the public system, we pay the indemnity of those doctors during all of their study. At the end of their study, the majority of them leave to work in the private system. Do members know why they leave to work in the private system? Because we offer them maximum salaries in the vicinity of $250,000 or $260,000. If they go to the private sector, they can earn $350,000. I cannot—and I said this the other day—compete with that, and the member would be well aware of that. He is well aware of those difficulties that we have in retaining specialists in the public system. He is well aware of the fact that in the eighties the planning was all wrong. It was done all wrong, and we are paying for that now and we are now playing catch-up in terms of training doctors and training specialists. The member stands up in this parliament and all he continues to do is to say that we are the worst in this and we are the worst in that. I refer to an article in the Melbourne Age on Tuesday, 9 November. Some 50 per cent of elective surgery patients are treated within 21 days in Queensland, in Western Australia it is 27 days, in Victoria it is 28 days, in New South Wales it is 29 days and in South Australia it is 34 days. We are the best in the country. Some 90 per cent of patients— Time expired. Interruption.

REMEMBRANCE DAY Mr SPEAKER: Order! I rise to interrupt question time to ask honourable members to observe the tradition of Remembrance Day. In 1918 at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month the guns of the Great War fell silent. At this historic hour, we pause to remember those who were lost and those who suffered in all conflicts since. We also reflect that Australians continue to serve overseas in dangerous circumstances. We therefore also hold high in our thoughts the Australian military personnel on duty throughout the world. All members will rise in their place for two minutes’ silence. Honourable members stood in silence.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. Literacy Mr McNAMARA: My question is directed to the Minister for Education and the Arts There has been significant debate in the media this week about student literacy. The federal Education Minister 11 Nov 2004 Questions Without Notice 3495 has announced that he intends holding a national review into the teaching of reading, but I note that the federal minister still has not delivered on the $700 literacy tutorial voucher scheme that he announced in May. I ask the minister: what sort of message does she think that this sends about literacy? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think that he, along with other members in the House, understands the fundamental importance of literacy to all future learning. I welcome any genuine interest in literacy and any genuine attempts by the federal government to do whatever we can to assist schools and families and children in this regard. But I have say that we would really have to start questioning the sincerity of the federal minister on this issue. I would like to remind members that on 19 May this year the federal minister announced a new tutorial credit scheme for students struggling with reading. One of the reasons for this, members will remember, was that originally the minister planned to exclude Queensland children from the scheme. I think within about four days he reversed his decision on that. The minister promised parents of children who had not received their year 3 national benchmark in reading in 2003 a $700 voucher for private tuition. It has now been seven months since that commitment was made—seven months. Not only have we not seen one single dollar come to Queensland—or indeed to any other state in Australia—but also the brokers that the federal government intended to put in place have yet to be appointed, even though the tenders for the brokers closed on 30 July. The federal minister promised that the scheme would begin at the start of term 3, which started in Queensland on 13 July. It came; it went; it finished on 17 September. We are now in term 4. Not only are we in term 4; we are getting very close to finishing term 4. Not one voucher has been sent to one child anywhere in the country. The web site for this program states that following the election—and I understand that that would have intervened—the appointment of brokers for the implementation of the initiative would be available once the minister had an opportunity to consider these matters. In other words, when the minister gets around to it. There have been 24 working days since the federal election on 9 October. Still no brokers; still no vouchers. This is a disgrace. This scheme was clearly nothing more than a pre-election stunt with no intention of getting dollars out to children. The minister promised to help children in need. I ask members to remember that these children were struggling in their 2003 year 3 test. At this rate, these children are going to be in year 5 next year sitting their next national literacy benchmark test and they still will not have seen one bit of help from the federal government. We now have 22 school days left in term 4. Today, I issue a challenge to the federal Minister, Brendan Nelson, to get the money to our kids. In the next 22 days he should spend some time getting the dollars into Queensland and into the other states. I will even offer to help him. If the minister gets the funds to my department, I will have those funds at every school that is eligible and to every eligible child whose names we sent to him months ago. We will have that available before the end of the school year. So I call on the federal minister to stop mucking around with this scheme, to stop talking about literacy, to stop pretending that he cares and to get the money out to where it is needed: in our classrooms. Mr SPEAKER: Before calling the member for Gympie, I welcome to the public gallery a second group of students and teachers from Gladstone West State School in the electorate of Gladstone.

Organ Donation Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Health. As we are all aware, there is a shortage of organs available for transplant with a number of people dying while waiting to receive a transplant. One of the contributing factors could be the fact that a relative and/or next of kin of a deceased person has the ability to override the wishes made clear by the deceased person, prior to their death, of their desire to donate their organs at the time of their death. I ask the minister: is it true that such wishes can be ignored when an individual has died? If so, is there any way that the intentions of these people can be protected so that no surviving party can intervene to contravene the wishes of the deceased? Mr NUTTALL: I thank the honourable member for the question. The honourable member is correct in saying that the register is actually a register of intent and not a register of consent. Therein lies the difficulty. When a person passes away and their intent is that they wish to donate some of their organs, the difficulty that doctors have is that they go and ask the family at a very distressing time about the donation of the organs and sometimes family members say no. Sometimes people believe that although the person had registered their intent, they may have changed their mind at a later date. The Council of Health Ministers is looking at a national approach that would say it is a register of consent and that it is taken as a given that the organ would be donated. This way the families would then not be asked. If we have a register like that, there cannot be that overriding factor. We are looking at that. It is an important issue. In the past 30 or 40 years we have had about 30,000 organ transplants. Organ transplants continue to be in great demand. 3496 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2004

We really need to have a national approach. We need to take away from the families that terrible stressful time when they are asked whether it is true that the deceased person wanted to donate their organs. So we are trying to look at whether the register should be changed from a register of intent to a register of consent.

Mount Lofty, Electricity Supply Mr SHINE: I direct my question to the Minister for Energy, and I ask: would the minister inform the House of steps that have been taken to improve the reliability of electricity supply in the Mount Lofty area of my electorate? Mr MICKEL: Before I get to the substantive part of the honourable gentleman's question, on behalf of this side of the House could I simply congratulate the people who work for Ergon and Energex for the work that was done over the last couple of evenings with the violent storms that took place. We had 80 crews out on Tuesday night and the last crew finished at around about 2 in the morning. So on behalf of this side of the House, the Independents and the Liberals, we thank those people. Often times we take it for granted that in all sorts of weather conditions those workers will just naturally turn up. I want to place on record my appreciation for that. I think it is important, with Ergon particularly, to place in context the terrain and the substantive distances over which Ergon provides electricity. It is the largest electricity grid in the world with about one million power poles. It provides electricity to 97 per cent of the state—an area six times the size of Victoria. This year it will have a capital works and maintenance program of some $700 million. This morning the Premier announced some records. I thought I should announce an energy milestone. According to the figures available to me, today we have excess electricity generation of 36 per cent. That is a magnificent result and I thank those generating that capacity. In relation to Mount Lofty, there are a number of strategies to improve and safeguard power supply to the Mount Lofty area. Ergon Energy has carried out approximately $350,000 in maintenance work, including the replacement of 13 poles and 58 cross-arms in the Mount Lofty area in the past year. All of these were done with planned outages for maximum safety for the workers concerned. Both the Mount Lofty and the Harlaxton feeders are due for inspection in March or April next year under Ergon Energy's asset inspection and defect management program. The program aims to identify and repair defects before customer supply is interrupted. The inspection program covers power poles, cross-arms, insulators, conductors and transformers. Ergon Energy has also spent $360,000 replacing conductors on the Kate Street and Harlaxton feeders in the past year. Ergon Energy has also advised me that its vegetation management crews will be inspecting the Mount Lofty feeder this month as part of an ongoing cycle of inspections. The inspections will identify any trimming or pruning that needs to be done along that line. If the inspection identifies any urgent work that needs to be done, it will be treated as a priority and carried out as soon as possible. Citrus Canker Mr HORAN: My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industries. I refer to the fact that it is now five weeks since the second outbreak of citrus canker was detected and to the call by the Queensland citrus growers organisation yesterday for the immediate implementation of the Pressler plan to destroy all citrus in the Emerald region to save their future and the future of all other Queensland and Australian citrus growers. I am reliably informed of a further outbreak now detected in Emerald. As time is now critical, I ask: is the minister now prepared to make the hard and only decision to implement with urgency this grower initiated plan to destroy all citrus trees in the contained Emerald area? Mr PALASZCZUK: I thank the member for the question. I can confirm that I have been advised that the owner of the second infested property was advised this morning of the latest test results on samples from his property. Notification of further positive samples from an infected property is confirmation, I am informed, of the thoroughness of our surveillance effort being carried out on the property. Yes, it is five weeks since the detection on the second property was notified to the national management group. Of course, a process is currently in place. That has been— Mr Johnson: It's a slow process, though, Henry. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory will listen to the answer. Mr PALASZCZUK: We understand that. If the member goes back to the ministerial statement I made on Tuesday, he will understand why things are going the way they are. On 5 November there was a telephone hook-up of the national management group. The national management group endorsed the current course of action but also accepted the fact that the Department of Primary Industries is going to put together the technical advice on the proposed Pressler plan. That will be considered at the next consultative committee group on 12 November this year. 11 Nov 2004 Questions Without Notice 3497

Mr Johnson: That's tomorrow. Mr PALASZCZUK: That is tomorrow. After that a recommendation will go to the national management group. I understand the frustration being felt by the citrus growers in the Emerald region. They believe that things are going too slowly for their liking. I understand that, but there is a process we have to go through. Unfortunately, Queensland cannot make the decision for the Commonwealth, the other states and the citrus industry in Australia. That decision is made by all participants because they are all part of the cost-sharing arrangement. I would like to make a decision on the Pressler plan, but I cannot. The assurance I can give to the honourable member and the citrus growers in Emerald is that we should have a decision on their proposal by the end of this month. Mr Johnson: The end of the month! Mr PALASZCZUK: It could be earlier, but I am saying ‘by the end of this month'. I cannot make the decision for the national management group. It is a national decision and the national management group— Mr Copeland: Do you support it? Mr PALASZCZUK: It does not matter who or what I support. My input is of little value because the decision is made by the Commonwealth, every other state and territory and the citrus industry. Mr Johnson: They support it. Mr PALASZCZUK: Well, the decision should be made by the end of the month. Coal Industry Mr MULHERIN: My question is directed to the Minister for State Development and Innovation. Many of my constituents work in the coalmining industry. Could the minister provide an update on the future development of this industry? Mr McGRADY: I thank the member for the question. As he rightly said, many of his constituents do work in the Queensland coal industry. I get very fired up about coal, because it is Queensland's No. 1 export industry. Indeed, it is largely responsible for the economic advances we have made in recent years. It contributed about $8 billion in export revenue in 2002-03. The five per cent unemployment rate announced this morning by the Premier has certainly been helped and assisted by the coal industry. We achieved record overseas sales, to the tune of a massive 135 million tonnes, for the 12-month period ending June this year. Coalmining is an industry that provides jobs and real futures for about 40,000 Queenslanders. I can proudly inform the member for Mackay that our dominant position in the world coking coal export market is certainly set to continue. Indeed, we have seen soaring demand for automotive and constructive steel in China push benchmark prices up 23 per cent this year. We are also expecting another large benchmark price increase early next year. We anticipate demand for coking coals from countries such as China, the United States, Brazil and India to skyrocket. Experts again predict this to push prices up by as much as 50 per cent over the next five years. At the same time, the state's thermal coal sector is benefiting from a tight global market. Strong demand for thermal coal in China, particularly for coal-fired power generation, has resulted in higher prices, and we are working with the mining industry to make sure that we take advantage of these very favourable market conditions. Indeed, the honourable the Treasurer and the honourable the Minister for Transport should be congratulated for working to improve our already world-class coal infrastructure. They have authorised a $162 million expansion to the R.G. Tanna coal terminal in Gladstone which will significantly boost capacity and a $228 million rail link between the Rolleston mine and the Blackwater rail system in central Queensland. And the Treasurer has allocated more than $30 million in this year's very excellent budget to upgrade Queensland's coal trains. I thank him for helping this important Queensland industry continue to grow. Members can well understand the laughter coming from the Premier and the Treasurer this morning after those wonderful announcements which were made in Canberra. Engineers Australia, Report Mr LANGBROEK: My question without notice is directed to the honourable the Treasurer. I refer to his decision to take a $147 million dividend from Energex last financial year despite the ongoing energy crisis in Queensland and to the fact that the Engineers Australia infrastructure report card gave Queensland's electricity distribution network a damning D rating. I ask: given that his newly appointed Energex CEO says that it will take $3 billion to fix the years of his neglect, will he give an undertaking to cease taking dividends from both Energex and Ergon until such time as the electricity distribution network in Queensland is returned to a standard fit for a Smart State? Mr MACKENROTH: No matter how many times one says it, these people on the other side just do not seem to listen. The reality is that all of the GOCs said through their statement of corporate intent what they intend to achieve for the year. In that they set out what they will be spending on capital works. 3498 Questions Without Notice 11 Nov 2004

The government has not stopped any GOC—and specifically Energex and Ergon—from spending one cent on capital works. Not one cent since we have been in government have we stopped Energex or Ergon from spending on capital works or maintenance. We became concerned earlier this year in relation to the operations of the electricity industry, and the government established an inquiry. That inquiry found that for the past 12 to 13 years Energex, in particular, had not been spending sufficiently because of the policies that it had in place. So we established an inquiry and, yes, we got a D+ in the Engineers report. Wasn't it very helpful that it had the Somerville report to base its D+ on! This is the exact same report that we had commissioned and had said we would make public so that the public would be aware of what the real situation was. Also, we gave a commitment that once we got that report we would act on it, and that is what we have done. In relation to Energex and Ergon, for this financial year we have given them the approval for their capital works expenditure that they have asked for. So we have given them what they have asked for. In relation to Ergon, we have made a capital injection. In other words, we have put money into that company to help it meet its capital works budget. Energex did not ask us for a capital injection. It can manage it within its own resources and ability to run its company. With Ergon, it asked for a capital injection; we gave it one, as we did with the Gladstone Port Authority this year to build its new coal handling facility. That is the situation. At the end of the year, if there is a profit made, like all companies the profit is paid to the shareholders, and the shareholders are the people of Queensland. Consumer Protection Ms BARRY: My question is directed to the Minister for Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development. The Beattie government is committed to consumer protection, because we have in place a whole raft of measures to protect and educate Queenslanders against things such as rip-off scams and general products. At this time of the year, can the minister offer any advice to help Queenslanders protect family members against product related injuries? Ms KEECH: I thank the honourable member for her question and commend her for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents for consumer protection. When it comes to Beattie government commitments, I want to congratulate the Premier and the Treasurer on achieving their goal and the goal of the Labor government of five per cent unemployment, particularly on behalf of Gold Coast members. I know Sue Lapperman has a smile from ear to ear because much of that jobs growth has been in the Gold Coast. So I congratulate the Premier. Not only does Queensland lead Australia when it comes to jobs growth; we also lead the nation in consumer protection safety. The Beattie government, through the Office of Fair Trading's Product Safety Unit, strives to ensure that products supplied in the marketplace are safe. Each year the unit investigates around 90 complaints from consumers about unsafe products, many relating to toys and household products. Unsafe toys can be banned or removed from shop shelves. There have been recent instances of toy trucks being removed and flashing novelty dummies banned because they can be choking hazards. Mr SPEAKER: Can I just interrupt the minister. Members can hear an alarm. That alarm is in the Parliamentary Annexe. I request that all members not enter the Annexe. Ms KEECH: Consumer product related industries in Australia cost approximately $1.7 billion annually. They account for 70 per cent of all unintended injuries requiring medical attention. Unfortunately, so often young children are the victims of unsafe products. With Christmas fast approaching, it is timely to warn parents to be on the lookout for toys and other items which can cause injuries when buying presents. In particular, consumers should be wary of buying half a present. If they are buying a bicycle, skate boards, in-line skates and scooters, remember to buy helmets and protective gear. If they are considering buying a trampoline, remember to buy safety pads to cover springs, hooks and frames. It is also important to remember the age of a child and keep that in mind when buying a gift—namely, the smaller the child, the bigger the toy should be. Product related injuries cost everyone in the community both financially and emotionally. This Christmas season remember that product safety is everyone's responsibility. We hope all children have a wonderful Christmas with the products that their parents buy them. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery of the parliament a very special group of students and teachers today from the Brisbane School of Distance Education. Its headquarters is in the electorate of the Minister for Education. Horse Riding Trails Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: In rising to direct a question to the Minister for Environment, I would also like to put on the record from all non-government members our appreciation to Ergon and Energex workers for their tireless work in very challenging and dangerous conditions. With regard to horse riding in national parks, the minister's amendment last night identified over 250,000 hectares of land available in south-east Queensland for horse riding. Could the minister identify where that land is located and 11 Nov 2004 Privilege 3499 whether it is envisaged that the land will remain available to trail and endurance riders after the completion of the study? Ms BOYLE: I thank the honourable member for her question and recognise the importance of the answer to this question and the other issues that have been raised by recreational horse riders, particularly in south-east Queensland, though I inform members that concern has also been expressed in the forests to the west of Cairns. These are people who have enjoyed horse riding for very many years—some of them with their families and others who are more inclined to long trail rides, as I understand it. I have been pleased to meet with some representatives, particularly through the auspices of Peter Wellington, the member for Nicklin, and Elisa Roberts, the member for Gympie. While I understand their concern about their future, it is important to emphasise, as the member did in her question, that some 250,000 hectares—a very large, expansive tract of land—will be available in a continuing way. Of course, I am not in a position to say that necessarily for the next 50 years, but it is land that is not presently committed by us to be changing tenure. It is the way that I can reassure horse riders that our commitment within the next four years to find alternative trails is dinky-di. I and others who will be part of this will put very considerable energy into taking the patchwork of land that is available in a continuing fashion to ensure that they go together into viable and enjoyable trails where the pristine environments can be protected, and yet at the same time the rights and the interests of the recreational horse riders will also protected in an enduring way. Today I am not able to detail to the member the 250,000 hectares because it is, as I said, a patchwork. I have seen the lists of where exactly the land is spread right across the hinterland from the New South Wales border through to the hinterland of Noosa. They are names of areas that are not familiar to me as a far-north Queenslander so I have not remembered that tremendous list of names and the sizes of the different parcels of land, but I will be pleased to provide those to the honourable member and any other honourable members of the House who are interested to see this. In fact, I would encourage other honourable members of the House to work with us. We have an opportunity here to create a network of great trail rides that in time will become not only places for our existing riders to enjoy but also places where those who are interested in visiting south-east Queensland may take their eyes off the coast for a moment, look west and see that there will be an opportunity to enjoy many of the beautiful bushland areas in hilly country to the west in south-east Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! The time for members' questions has expired.

PRIVILEGE

Mr G. Maddock; Coroner’s Inquiry Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday in this place the Premier misled the House when he was asked about, or commented on, the capacity of the coroner to access information and the extent of the coroner's powers to inquire. Mr Beattie said yesterday in this place— The coroner will have full access, as is his power, to whatever he wants. That includes the transcripts, that includes the full tapes ... He went on to say— The appropriate person to investigate this matter is the coroner. In this parliament this morning the Attorney said with regard to coroners’ inquiries— Those inquiries are normally only conducted when the immediate cause of death in some respects is uncertain or unknown. He further went on to say that in this instance it was wrong for the opposition to seek to have him suggest, or indeed suggest itself, that it is proper for the coroner to inquire into matters entirely ancillary to the immediate death of the person. He went on to say that we were misconstruing and misleading in suggesting that the Coroners Act had any practical operation in relation to matters that had previously been subject to questions in this House. What we have is the Attorney saying that the coroner does not have the broad powers to investigate, to do whatever he wants, but the Premier said yesterday—and he misled the House—in relation to the coroner's powers— The appropriate person to investigate this matter is the coroner ... The Premier also said that the coroner had full powers to do whatever he wanted. Mr WELFORD: The Leader of the Opposition is regrettably again misleading the House and misinforming the House as to what I said in respect of what the Premier said. What the Premier said was that, if the coroner were to conduct an inquiry, the coroner would have full access. That is what the Premier said, and that is absolutely true. What I said was that it occurred to me that the matters in respect of which the opposition had asked questions earlier today were unlikely to be matters into which 3500 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 the coroner would inquire because they do not relate to the immediate cause of death. The Leader of the Opposition is having two ideas pass like ships in the night. He has absolutely no clue.

PRIVILEGE

Mr G. Maddock; Coroner’s Inquiry Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (11.33 a.m.): I rise on a very brief matter of privilege. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the detailed statement I made to the House yesterday afternoon in relation to transcripts provided to the police, what the coroner had sought and what had been provided to the coroner. It is all in yesterday's statement. Because of the five per cent unemployment level, I would just say to Lawrence: have a good day. Nothing is going to ruin our day today, Lawrence—nothing! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Wallace): Order! May I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that if he believes there is a matter of privilege he should write to the Speaker.

TOBACCO AND OTHER SMOKING PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 10 November (see p. 3422). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.33 a.m.): I rise to generally support the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004. The growing rate of smoking in certain sections of our community is of concern. The number of young people smoking is a matter of grave concern. It is also a matter of grave concern that we have been unable to arrest the growth in the desire of people to smoke and to use tobacco products. It is very concerning that, despite the education campaigns that we have had throughout Queensland and Australia over a long period of time, an extraordinarily large number of young people are taking up the habit of smoking. It is a particular concern in relation to young girls. It is extremely concerning that they might think there are benefits associated with it. Some young girls take up smoking because they think it is good for their figures. Some young people take up smoking because they believe it is cool and that they have to smoke to fit in with their peers. I think that generally as people age they become more concerned about the health effects of tobacco smoking and they realise that they made the wrong decision when they were younger. However, we as a state—and probably as a nation—have failed abysmally to deter young people from smoking. The overall intention of this bill is commendable. The opposition does not argue against the intent of the bill, and the government deserves commendation for introducing it. However, we do have some serious concerns about the practicality of it and the workability of it. The shadow minister outlined those concerns during the course of debate yesterday. Legislation has come before this place previously which sought in some way to tighten the regulations regarding the sale of tobacco products to young people or the sale of tobacco products in general but there has not been the oversight and there has not been the policing of those regulations by the government. That is something that we need to really work at. How many prosecutions have there been with regard to the sale of tobacco products to young people under the new regulatory regime? Virtually none, as I understand it. I would encourage the government to address that issue as part of any ongoing review or re-evaluation of the effectiveness of its legislation. As I have mentioned, some aspects of the legislation are unworkable. According to the figures that are used by the various health departments throughout Australia, the cost of tobacco smoking is somewhere in the vicinity of $25 billion. That is the overall per annum cost of the effects of tobacco smoking in this country. Maybe the Health Minister has some more up-to-date figures on that, but those are the most accurate figures that I have to date. The revenue that is raised by governments around Australia from the sale of tobacco products is somewhere in the vicinity of $5 billion. It seems to me that we are caught in a nexus between the desire to ultimately phase out or do away with tobacco smoking and the receipt of revenue from the sale of tobacco products—products which ultimately cause the ill health and death of many Queenslanders and many Australians. We need to do something about that. I do not think we should be afraid to debate it. There is a great degree of cynicism in the community. Many people in the community say that the reason why the government does not want to go further with this is that it gets too much revenue from it. That is one view. You would have heard it yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. Certainly the minister would have heard that view expressed, and many other members in this place would have heard it, too. We have to debate this issue intelligently and attempt to address the concerns of the general community. As can be seen from the figures, the health effects of tobacco—the health costs of tobacco 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3501 smoking—outstrip any revenue raised by five to one. The simple question that has to be asked in this place and elsewhere is: where are we going with smoking policy? Where are we going to be in five years time? Where are we going to be in 10 years time? Where are we going to be in 15 or 20 years time? Hopefully we will have nobody smoking in Queensland or, for that matter, in Australia. That would be a very good objective. If that is the objective then how are we going to get there? Sometimes the legislative response is somewhat piecemeal. Small businesses and those people who run shopping centres or entertainment venues where alcohol and meals are served are simply saying, ‘There is one level of regulation this year, there will be another level of regulation next year, another level of regulation the year after, and we will have to go into ongoing discussions and negotiations with the state government about the practicality or otherwise of those regulations.’ That is what they are saying and they cannot really be blamed for that. I have suggested before—and it created some degree of eyebrow raising—that we should be setting ourselves an objective. We have set an unemployment objective in this state so why not set nonsmoking targets? Why not set a date after which no Queenslander will take up smoking or continue to smoke? I suggest we are going to have this problem well into the future, possibly even decades into the future. There is a role here for all parliamentarians. I have previously said that we should have a bipartisan select committee to inquire into setting an ongoing long-term objective for tobacco smoking in this state. The principal objective of this committee would be to come up with a date after which we would hope that nobody would be smoking. What is wrong with that? What it would do is underpin what every member of this parliament seems to be saying: that nobody should be smoking or taking up smoking. What we should do is take that objective and put it into a long-term plan so that regardless of which government was in power the plan would be in place. It is not going to be piecemeal; it is not going to be changed from year to year, from decade to decade. However, at this time we are not doing that; we are not prepared to look at the issue in the long term. I believe that we should be prepared to do so. There are some aspects of the announcements that were made a while ago that concern me. I do not like anyone smoking on the beach; it destroys the amenity of it. Having areas where people can smoke, such as inside the flags, creates some practical policing issues. There are serious questions about the effects of outdoor tobacco smoking. I have spoken to people who have studied this over a long period of time. Whilst most people are not affected by smoke outdoors, there is a small percentage—maybe 10 per cent—who are. Some people have particular medical conditions that are triggered by the smallest amount of cigarette smoke. I know myself that when I go for a jog in the morning and I run by somebody over at South Bank who is smoking, it does tend to tighten my airways; it tends to reduce the capacity of one’s airways to be able to deliver the right amount of oxygen. That is not an issue for everyone, and I understand that. Some people respond very, very sensitively to the effects of cigarette smoke regardless of whether it is indoors or outdoors. There will be some outdoor restrictions. There will be bans in some places and not in other places. I ask again: is that the best way to do it in the long term? There have been concerns expressed by small businesses in Queensland and I share many of those concerns—we should all share many of those concerns. I am not saying that we agree necessarily with selling tobacco products, but we do share those particular concerns. Businesses in Queensland will have to carry the burden of this implementation, as will entertainment venues such as pubs and clubs and restaurants. Those businesses will have to bear the cost of meeting these regulations. I am not sure that all of their issues have been properly addressed in this bill. The government is moving towards cutting the display area size to one square metre. I can understand where the government is coming from in that regard. I personally struggle with the concept of whether one square metre, five square metres or 50 square centimetres makes any difference: if a product is there, a product is there. How do you decide which products will be put in there? What is the real point? We do not want people to smoke. We want to restrict the display area, but there is still a capacity to advertise it at the back of the shop with this particular display area. Ultimately we have to look at where we are going. I am concerned about the disparity between the states. I know that there will be further and ongoing discussions between the health ministers regarding those matters. That is why the shadow minister will be moving an amendment that there be one national standard and that it be four square metres. Frankly, I am not sure there is any evidence indicating that four square metres or one square metre of display area will stop anyone from wanting to take up smoking. I do not know what evidence there is to suggest that the display area makes a difference. I would like to see qualitative and powerful evidence that suggests there is some positive effect that comes from restricting the size of the cigarette display at the back of the shop or behind the counter. A while ago I said that there needs to be at some stage a full socioeconomic impact study into the effect of the legislation. I suspect it will come out on the positive side; I really do. If these things are got right in the beginning, then in the long term there will be an overall positive outcome: health care cost 3502 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 savings from growing health benefits. However, there are some border issues and the shadow minister has mentioned those border issues. There is the issue in relation to the Tweed. There are issues in my own electorate where I represent a lot of the border areas. If there is a different rule applying to Queensland pubs and clubs then, frankly, it stands to reason that there will be an economic impact on businesses in this state. It does not mean that we are enhancing the health benefits for Queenslanders because they will just step across the border. We do run that risk. We could have the same sorts of issues arise as we saw with poker machines where Queensland did not have them and New South Wales did. If that is a policy decision that this states wants to make through this parliament, then that is a decision that it will make, but there does need to be some degree of uniformity across the country with regards to tobacco laws. We need to establish a national size standard in relation to display cases. The shadow minister will be moving an amendment that there be a common start-up date of 1 July 2007. That in itself makes some sense. If everyone can agree on what the date is for the whole package to come into place some of those potential cross-border issues will be dealt with. It reduces confusion amongst people, particularly those who travel and many people in business. An annual review for three years to monitor its implementation and effectiveness is sensible. Many people are concerned about the effectiveness of the laws and how they are going to play out. Members should also be concerned. What is wrong with our being prepared to be open-minded and assess the positive effect of what we pass in this parliament? The shadow minister has mentioned the issue of the sale of bongs. I notice there is a wry smile on the face of the Health Minister over there. It has been mentioned to me in the past—no doubt it has been mentioned to the minister—that there is this irony that people are not supposed to be partaking in cannabis products but utensils are sold which are principally used for the smoking of cannabis. People found in possession of these utensils come up with excuses such as it was going to be used as a vase. Like hell it is going to be used as a vase! Pull the other one! Everyone knows what it is going to be used for. Why would anyone use that as a vase? Why wouldn't you drop down to Myers, David Jones or even Crazy Clark’s or Silly Solly’s and buy yourself a vase? That is probably one of the most timeworn and over-utilised excuses that we have ever had. It is a bit like the debate we had in this place some time ago with regards to bath milk. This bath milk was going to be banned because people were buying it saying they were going to bath in it, but they are actually drinking it. We were concerned about a product as healthy as bath milk, which probably would not kill anyone. If they wanted to drink it, they wanted to drink it. We ban a milk product because somebody is going to buy it as bath milk and then drink it! Yet we could allow the sale of bongs. I hope the minister is open-minded to banning the sale of bongs. We are not going to allow people to sell bath milk because somebody might drink it, but we are going to allow someone to go down the road and buy a bong because they want to use it as a vase. I have never heard of anything so stupid. It is about time we faced up to these issues. As the shadow minister has pointed out, it will be a serious offence to sell to kids lollies that look like cigarettes. I think the fine will be about $10,000. I am ashamed to say it, but when we were at school—and I am sure the Health Minister knows of these—we had ‘Fags'. The ‘Fags' became ‘Fads'. I have seen them in the shops recently. I understand now as an adult what that was all about. I have no doubt that kids running around thinking they are cool and chewing on this lolly ultimately aspired to smoke. They even had the little red tips on them. I have no problem with them being banned. I think that is sensible. There is no doubt it encouraged young people to take up smoking at some stage. I am sure that virtually every member of my generation and even those from an earlier generation would appreciate what I am saying. Mr Copeland: I used to love them, but I don't smoke. Mr SPRINGBORG: He does not smoke. Nevertheless, the intention was clear. The kids were running around pretending to smoke, putting them behind their ears and trying to be like dad or mum. We are going to have a big fine for selling those lollies—and I commend the Health Minister for that. If we do not ban bongs, which are principally used—and I suggest only used, quite frankly—to smoke cannabis products then I think that we have got this by the wrong end. We have to have consistency. We have to consider the way people will look at this issue generally. They will shake their heads when they find out that we are going to fine a retailer $10,000 for selling to a kid a lolly that looks like a cigarette but we are going to allow the ongoing sale of bongs which are principally used to smoke marijuana. I hope the parliament will face up to that today. I strongly support most aspects of the bill before the parliament. I hope it works. I think there are some questions about the practical application and implementation of it. I think we need to be open- minded enough about that. I say to the Health Minister that we should look long term. Let us sit down and work out where we want to be in 20 years time. I do not think we have done that well enough. We should develop a policy that we can all basically support and then we could have an ongoing plan in this state about where we want to be. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3503

There has been a common thread throughout this debate. We want to see an end to smoking in this state. We want to see an improvement in people's health as a consequence. There are some issues concerning the detail about how we get there. There is a perfect opportunity to do that. We should establish a select committee so that we have a long-term strategic plan in this state that we can all commit to and abide by. Dr LESLEY CLARK (Barron River—ALP) (11.52 a.m.): I rise to proudly support the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004. In my view, this is the most important piece of public health legislation that has been introduced by a Labor government since I was first elected in 1989. I make no apologies for the fact that this is the toughest legislation in Australia to restrict smoking. A total ban on indoor smoking in licensed premises will be effective from July 2006. To reinforce the point I want to remind members of some statistics that confirm the seriousness of the health impacts of smoking and the cost to the community and business of this addiction. Smoking is the largest contributor to preventable mortality in Australia and is known to increase the risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and several other conditions. From 1999 to 2001 there were an average of 3,402 deaths per annum attributable to tobacco smoking in Queensland. In 2001-02 it was estimated that 168,115 hospital bed days were directly attributed to smoking related conditions at a cost of $137.8 million. Passive smoking is a proven health hazard. Over 600 medical reports have been published linking passive smoking to diseases. From 1999 to 2001 in Queensland, environmental tobacco smoke caused an estimated 21 deaths per year in children aged zero to four years. It has been estimated that fires caused by smoking caused $26.3 million in social costs, including public and private property damage and loss of life. The total smoking related financial burden on the Queensland community is estimated at $2.2 billion annually. This includes health care costs, loss of productivity through sickness and absenteeism and the impact of premature deaths. In 2000, Australian smokers diverted more than $7 billion of their incomes to purchasing tobacco products. The total cost to Australian businesses in 1998-99 from production losses in the paid work force due to past and present tobacco use was estimated at over $2 billion. These are all very sobering statistics. I turn now to particular aspects of the bill. Nothing will convince me that any benefits of increased advertising, as requested by small independent retailers, outweighs the costs of smoking to the community as I have described them. I do not think smokers will change their buying habits. They will continue to get their cigarettes from their local corner store if that is what they currently do. I commend the hotel and club industries for their cooperation with the legislation. The provision of small, specified outdoor areas where smokers can take drink away from the bar and food service areas strikes a good balance. Having visited Ireland earlier this year where smoking has been banned, there was no evidence that this had been anything but good for business. It will take more than a smoking ban to stop the Irish from singing and drinking in their pubs. More cooperation with the state government from the Cairns City Council would have been appreciated, but that was never likely based on its past record. Maybe it will reconsider its stance when it sees how a partnership works with other councils whereby councils can retain fines imposed for smoking on patrolled beaches, in playgrounds and in other outdoor areas. I particularly welcome the new measure to make it more difficult for young people under 18 to buy cigarettes. Large numbers, particularly girls, are still taking up smoking. Young people will no doubt be a particular target group of the major education campaign that will be launched about these public health reforms. Finally, I turn to the issue of the loophole in the legislation that allows for the sale of bongs, the implements for smoking of marijuana—including at my Smithfield shopping centre. Clearly this is entirely inappropriate. I am pleased to know that the minister will be rectifying this situation. While there may be some people who consider themselves losers from this legislation, they are far outweighed by the winners. Employees and patrons in clubs, pubs and restaurants and other victims of the effects of passive smoking, all those potential smokers who will never become addicted and those smokers who finally kick the habit are all likely to lead longer, healthier lives. Our community will have more money to spend on priorities to improve the quality of life for families across a range of areas. This is undoubtedly historic legislation. I congratulate the minister and all those many people, both government and non-government, who have worked so hard over so many years to reach this point. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (11.57 a.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004. I put on the record my support for this bill. I table letters from some of my constituents who wrote to me about their views concerning the issues contained in this bill. The letters I table are from Anthony McClellan, Mr and Mrs Weight of Woombye, Mr Tim Smith of Nambour and Mr Cameron Prout. 3504 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

In my younger days I can remember being around adults who were smoking. At the end of the day I was totally sick. I suppose that was my first introduction to smoking and it certainly turned me off smoking. I can still today as I stand here in this chamber vividly recall the feeling of nausea I experienced and the headaches I got from being around people who were smoking. I certainly would not wish that on anyone. It is interesting how times have changed. It used to be the norm that everyone smoked and accepted that all our TV stars and journalists would have a cigarette. Today the situation has turned around. The norm is that people do not smoke. Governments seem to work harder and harder at trying to encourage people not to take up the habit of smoking. As other members have said, it is very concerning to see so many young women smoking. That certainly is a concern that I have. Ms Molloy: It's a shame. Mr WELLINGTON: It is a real shame. I support the minister's intent to improve the laws in Queensland in relation to the ready availability of tobacco to Queenslanders. I am very pleased that there will be a review of the act within seven months, and I understand that the outcome of that review has to be tabled in the parliament by May next year. It is a great move for the minister to ensure that after a new bill passes there is a review process and that the outcome of that review is tabled in the House so everyone can see how things are unfolding. There is widespread community support for the intent of this bill, and that certainly is another reason why I support the bill. I also note that in the bill outdoor eating areas are no-go areas. As I walk down the footpath in the centre of Brisbane it is evident that there are many courtyard or outdoor eating areas, so smoking and its impacts affect everyone. I certainly support the bill. I share many of the concerns that other members have raised about how on the one hand the government is receiving significant revenue from the proceeds of the sale of cigarettes while on the other hand it is trying to rationalise those proceeds in relation to the costs on our health system. It is a bit like gambling legislation. My view is that Queensland and Australia have a significant gambling problem, but that generates an enormous amount of money while also impacting on our communities. Without further ado, I commend the bill. I look forward to debate on the clauses, especially the amendments which the opposition is proposing to move. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (12.01 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004. While supporting this legislation, I acknowledge that this legislation will hurt people. For the last number of years now things have changed in that smokers are no longer the centre of consideration. Indeed, nonsmokers and those whose health issues were exacerbated by cigarette smoke were the last to be considered 20 or 30 years ago. As the member for Nicklin said, Australian, American and British movies starred people who were almost constantly smoking. The issue of cigarette smoking in public places was not one that was given a thought. If someone chose to go to a public place—whether that was a restaurant, hotel, club or anything like that—they went knowing that they would probably walk through a shroud of smoke and remain in that shroud of smoke while inside the premises. Slowly over time there has been more consideration given to the impact of smoking and quality of life issues, particularly in terms of those spaces that are fully enclosed, to the point where smokers now comment that they are lepers because they are forced to line up outside a building to have a smoke, whether that is at morning tea, lunch or afternoon tea. If one walks up the street, they will find a little group of people outside a high-rise building having a fag. They do look rather displaced. This legislation will further erode what smokers see as their rights. This legislation will hurt shopkeepers. I have had some communication from smaller businesses. It appears that it is the smaller businesses that have responded to the proposed legislation more vocally than the larger ones. Shop owners in my electorate would reflect the feelings of others in the state in terms of the impact on them, particularly the reduction in showcase size and the reduction in their ability to visibly carry stock. I want to quote from a letter I received from Rod's Food Market in my electorate. It states— Just a short note with regard to the government tobacco plan. ‘Lethal Tobacco Displays' See media statement 20/9/04 ‘1 square metre of display area'. Does he live in a CUPBOARD? Perhaps the minister can correct that. The letter continues— Will W/Worths—Coles—BiLo—Action—Safeways etc have 1 square metre. It is my understanding that the legislation covers everybody—that is, that small shops, large shops and supermarkets will all be restricted to one square metre. The writer of the letter continues— What deals will they make. I ask the minister to give an assurance that all shops will be treated the same and that they will all only have one square metre. The letter continues— Tobacco products represent 32% of our business. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3505

This is a small independent business in my electorate, and I would imagine that for many small retailers in rural and regional Queensland and the south-east corner the sale of tobacco products would be a significant percentage of their business. The letter goes on to say— Jobs! Small businesses need help. I thought ‘Stalin' was dead. I do not even think the minister looks like Stalin. The letter continues— Will the government do what Premier Pete says. Further consultation is needed. Like S/A-NSW and Victoria? The letter attached for me a media release from South Australia. I want to put on the record the elements of the South Australian news release that this small retailer appears to feel more comfortable with. It is a statement by the South Australian Health Minister, Lea Stevens. It states— ‘The pub and club industry has been gearing up for this change since last year and is ready to go,' says Ms Stevens. ‘October 31 has been the target date set for the first phase of this historic process, and we need the Legislative Council to pass the laws this week. The first phase of the smoking restrictions will see smoking banned within one metre of all service areas (including front bars and casino gaming tables), and a requirement for one bar in all multi-bar venues to be non-smoking or, for single bar venues, at least 50 percent of the floor area to be non-smoking. Half of all bar areas at the Adelaide Casino are to be non-smoking. For gaming rooms, 25% of the gaming floor area (which contains at least 25% of the gaming machines) is to be non-smoking, increasing to 50% in October 2005. A complete ban on smoking in pubs, clubs, gaming rooms and the casino will come into effect from 31 October 2007, in line with the timetable agreed by industry and health groups last year. The writer of the letter from Rod's Food Market appears to support that type of phase-in much better. I have to say from experience, though, that Queensland had legislation that required restaurants to have a certain part that was nonsmoking. There were no walls dividing it. It was as if it was considered to be okay because the cigarette smoke would stay on its half. It did not. Even if someone sat in the nonsmoking area, the cigarette smoke drifted across. The intention was fine; the cigarette smoke just did not do what we wanted it to do. This legislation will also affect clubs, and I have been contacted by one club in my electorate. This club would not be regarded as a large club. There are a number of very large leagues clubs not only in the south-east corner but also up the coast. This would be a medium sized club. It has been run very effectively. It has demonstrated good sound financial management and has grown as a result. But it was concerned about the blanket ban coming in on 1 July. The club's representatives actually spoke to me before the change—that is, when cigarette smoking was going to be banned in all contiguous areas, including the banning of taking a drink outside to have a smoke. That provision has now been changed. That would be some comfort to this particular club, but I do not think that we should entertain this legislation, albeit with the best of intentions, without recognising that detriment will come hand in hand with the changes—a detriment to business and a detriment to those people who are already hooked on smoking. Many of our senior citizens smoke. My dad started smoking when he joined the Army. He was not quite old enough, but he told them that he was old enough. In his ration pack he was given cigarettes, and that is when he started smoking and he died of lung cancer and secondaries in his 70s. There are many older people whose commencement of cigarette smoking was not forced on them—there is always the word ‘no'—but was part of a living style and an experiential pattern, particularly during the wars, that was used in part as a support. So there will be people who are hurt by the legislation. Mr Keith Mann wrote to all state members and stated the following— Dear state member, Whilst agreeing in principle to some proposed bans I have grave concerns about proposed bans in hotels and clubs. Consideration needs to be given to the rights of the owner, staff and patrons. I suggest having three signs as follows: non- smoking, smoking and smoking verandah. The owner or members (by vote) should have the right to determine their situation. Non-smoking is self-explanatory. Smoking verandah would only allow smoking and drinking in a designated area— which I guess effectively is partly what could be incorporated with the changes where a person could go outside with their drink and have a smoke on the veranda. Keith Mann states further— Both of these would be up to the owner or club manager to enforce. Smoking venues need to consider anti-smoking staff and restaurant facilities. Pro-smoking staff would need to sign an indemnity prohibiting smoking related claims. Also the smoking venues should have adequate extraction fans and possibly air curtains around the service area. Restaurant facilities need to be isolated from the smoking area and this could be achieved by having walls with doorways requiring plastic curtaining and air curtains. All new smoking hotels or clubs wanting air-conditioning would require two independent plants. Anti-smoking staff would need to advise their union with a copy to management to their decision to prevent any unfair dismissals. These staff should not be forced to work in a smoking environment. I believe many clubs would opt for smoking verandahs and this would give anti-smoking staff another avenue to change employment without loss of benefits. 3506 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

Whilst the above may need some refining it would overcome many associated problems (especially with regard to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (covenant signed by all states) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991— 1. No government enforcement or litigation 2. Employees have a choice—no litigation 3. Patrons have a choice—no discrimination 4. Future employees have a choice 5. No loss of jobs or revenue. I would appreciate your thoughts and comments. Keith Mann has given some thought to having multiple areas available for smokers to participate in their activities and for nonsmokers to be able to also enjoy a smoke-free environment. Despite those people who will be affected detrimentally, the benefits to the legislation must also be recognised, and recognised in stark contrast with the statistics that show that smoking related illnesses in Queensland and smoking related deaths in Queensland are an issue that begs attention. I received a couple of other letters that were in opposition to the legislation, but they pretty much said the same as those that I have read. One is from the National Alliance of Tobacco Retailers. I know that the shadow minister referred fairly extensively to their submission. I acknowledge Anthony McClellan's email in relation to that. I also have some material that has been referred to already from Michael Hudson, who is the general manager of the QHA. However, the Queensland Cancer Fund has long been campaigning for more proactive and more active disincentives and the banning of smoking. It has commended the minister for the moves that he has made. The fund states in some correspondence that I have that every year tobacco kills 3,402 Queenslanders and costs the Queensland community $4.4 billion. They are horrendous statistics but, more importantly, it should be remembered that those 3,402 Queenslanders are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. The family members who have to nurse those people who have emphysema and smoking related diseases—and that includes heart disease and lung disease—and who have to support them during the end of their lives know that the cost is not just a statistic; it is a cost to the family both in terms of losing a family member and in terms of the trauma that all the family goes through as they see somebody whom they love very much deteriorate. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee pointed out a couple of issues, but one that I just wish to raise is the use of Henry VIII clauses in the legislation in terms of the transitional powers. To my knowledge, the use of such provisions has always been criticised by the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, and deservedly so. An honourable member interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: It is an excellent committee. The minister responded to that committee's concerns by saying that the phasing-in process has not yet been determined. To my mind, that is a criticism of the department in terms of having legislation that opponents of the legislation say has been hastily prepared. Some people have criticised the legislation by saying that it is ill conceived. Statements such as 'the phasing-in process has not yet been determined' only adds weight to their argument. However, since the earlier announcements of this smoking ban the minister has made no secrets of his intentions. I hope that he has had time to talk to all of those who have had concerns in relation to the proposal. The briefing paper from the Queensland Parliamentary Library—which again I would commend; they are always well-informed, interesting documents—outlines the role of local governments in administering the new prohibitions on smoking in patrolled areas, on patrolled beaches, prescribed outdoor swimming areas, within four metres of non-residential building entrances, and also within 10 metres of children's playground equipment located at a public place. I welcome the ban on smoking within four metres of non-residential buildings. When smoking in this building was banned—and I am not casting aspersions on any individual—the smokers would stand just outside that door on the fifth level. It was like walking through a wall of cigarette smoke. You needed your asthma puffer just to get from level 5 to the chamber. So imposing that buffer area means that people who are sensitive to smoking—and a lot of people are—can actually enter and leave buildings. Four metres is a reasonable amount of space in which to allow smoke to dissipate. It at least gives safe entry and exit to those who want to, or need to, access residential buildings. I am interested in the response from the Local Government Association in relation to these impositions. The explanatory notes state that there was consultation with the Local Government Association of Queensland. This is not a question that the minister can answer, but I would be interested in that association's consultation with its own councils. At times, I have found that the Local Government Association may consult with the government, but sometimes the point of view of the LGAQ differs from that of the councils that I have talked to on certain issues. The explanatory notes state that there will not be a duty on local governments to enforce these provisions, but it goes on to say, however, that Queensland Health will collect information regarding which local governments decide to exercise their powers to enforce the smoking bans and to monitor the overall enforcement of the bans. The 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3507 explanatory notes state further that the chief executive of Queensland Health may, by written notice to a local government, require a local government to provide information about the local government's administration and enforcement of the prohibition of smoking. My question is: in the longer term, is there an intention to in some way coerce local governments, or cause disadvantage or detriment to local governments that choose not to proactively enforce or be involved in these bans? I think the bans will be difficult. People are used to going down the beach and lighting up while the kids are in the sea or in the pool. As I said earlier, there are costs and imposts with this legislation. It just sounds rather ominous that, whilst local authorities will not have a duty to enforce the bans, the government will collect information. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I do not think, but I would be interested in what impositions the government may be considering placing on those councils that do not perhaps fall into line. Smaller councils often do not have enough resources. They have been the vehicle of change for the last 15 years. There was enormous change taking place when I was still in local government, and that has continued. There is significant devolution, from the state government in particular—there is a little from federal government but it is primarily state government—and councils constantly have to absorb more and more responsibility for areas of legislation that they have no control over, hence my concern about this devolution and any intention the government may have to disadvantage those councils that choose for a number of reasons not to be so directly involved. I acknowledge again that there will be people who find this legislation difficult to accept and difficult to abide by. They will see disadvantage to their business, I would hope only in the short term. The information from the American experience was that in some places businesses that thought they were going to lose a lot of patronage because the smokers just would not bother coming made up that patronage by nonsmokers who appreciated the cleaner environment. Equally, though, there were areas in America that said they lost the patronage and it really was not made up. I think that cost has to be acknowledged; however, one would hope that the result in the long term is that fewer young people will be encouraged or tantalised to commence smoking and that fewer people will then have to go through the excruciating process of lung cancer or other smoking related illness. In closing, I acknowledge that I will be supporting the banning of the bongs. It has always been ironic that the smoking of cannabis and other illegal substances is clearly mandated in Queensland—it is legislated—yet even in service stations we can find some rather ornate apparatus. If you say to somebody at the serving counter, ‘What are they for? Are they for drugs?' they will say, ‘No. You can smoke tobacco in those,' or, ‘It is Turkish culture.' There are some really novel answers, but the reality is that they are instruments for smoking prohibited substances. I commend the member for Cunningham for seeking to include that prohibition. I refer to his amendments in relation to an expansion of the area available for display of cigarettes and tobacco from one metre to four metres. Whilst I can understand those businesses that have approached him and implored that he move those amendments, and whilst I support the businesses in my electorate that will suffer as a result of these restrictions, for those families who have lost loved ones through smoking and smoking related deaths, for those of us who have children whom we nurture and try to grow through the temptation of cigarette smoking and for future generations who will benefit from this because of a reduced access and accessibility to cigarette smoking and cigarette products, I will not be supporting that part of his amendments. I commend the bill to the House. Ms MOLLOY (Noosa—ALP) (12.23 p.m.): I rise in support of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill. I have spoken before in the House about my antismoking position. As a person who took years to give up the habit, I know only too well what a grip the habit has on individuals. We have heard from previous speakers of their often tragic experiences relating to cigarette smoking. There are no arguments that can justify supporting the trade and all that is related to the trade of cigarettes. My husband, Ivan, managed to give up smoking some years before me and used to encourage me to kick the habit and often used some great arguments. One of those was how sad it was that young women—as I was then—would willingly get a jar of black tar and wipe that through their lungs. To turn that around, after showering and dressing to go out would we paste our faces and bodies with black muck? That is what I was doing to myself—wiping black tar all over my lungs, slowly killing myself. So when a 27-year-old friend of mine killed himself as he was driving on the Old Melbourne Road in Sorrento, I guess his death was a big wake-up call to me and I managed to make the choice to live— and by good fortune I am still here today. That is not to say that I have not confronted the matter of my own mortality, because I have—and that was not of my doing—but we as a community need to create within our culture a psyche that acknowledges and actively discourages its members—its young people—from putting the nails in their own coffins. The legislation is not made with the intention to punish shopkeepers, but retailers need to be made in part responsible and aware of their trade in what is nothing more than poison. This legislation is intended to protect our citizens from that poison. It is a bit like taking the horse to the water. The challenge is: are we up to the challenge? In an ideal world, cigarette manufacturers would turn their resources to addressing issues of world poverty or 3508 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 reducing greenhouse gas levels. The options for improving the human condition are infinite, I am sure. Our options for improving the lot of our citizens is somewhat hindered in the face of the multinational corporations that rule the world, but let us at least make some attempts to prevent senseless loss of life. This legislation can only stand as a testimony that this government is serious about helping its community to improve the health of its citizens. This is a terrific piece of legislation. To Minister Nuttall I say: congratulations, well done and thank you. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (12.26 p.m.): I rise to support the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill. In relation to supporting this bill, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Somewhere along the line, all of us will be criticised or praised. In saying that, I believe that this bill is one that does have to be supported. As we all know, tobacco is a legal substance. A lot of people probably ask whether it should be. There are many arguments against it being legal, and I hear them every day, particularly in relation to health. Smoking is like a lot of other things we have in society. Fast foods are now killing us, processed foods are now very suspect, cars kill every day and, in general, attitudes kill people every day. Tobacco is legal, as is alcohol. Gambling kills and affects members of families. So there are a lot of things out there that impact on us negatively. The health impacts are very serious because of the costs on our services and on society as a whole. Smoking represents a slow and insidious death. At the moment I am on the palliative care committee in Kingaroy and an old friend of mine is in palliative care. It is a huge impost on the family as well as the services in our region. The saddest thing for me is the number of young people who are smoking. Other people have mentioned especially the number of young women who smoke and how rapidly that number is increasing. I know from when I was a child that if adults ever told kids something was bad then that was the prime reason they went out and did it, because the adults did not think they should. I can remember a lot of instances like that in my life—and I really was not a rebel as a child, I can assure you. I was a very placid child. I can actually remember the very first time I rebelled against my parents. Both my parents smoked very heavily—three packets of Capstan a day, which was a lot of cigarettes. It was necessary for me to travel to high school some 12 miles away on the bus. Every morning I was given money to go across the road from the bus stop and buy the cigarettes for my family. I can remember very distinctly coming home one day and handing the money back to mum and dad. I said, I thought very bravely for me, ‘If you guys want to kill yourselves, don't ask me to help you.' For my impertinence I remember feeling the sting of the jug cord. Believe me, although it hurt like hell I was very proud of myself for, just once, standing up and saying what I thought. The truth is that we cannot overcome human nature. My parents smoked heavily. None of our family members smoked because of that. We all hate it with a passion. A lot of parents today do not smoke. In fact, I cannot think of one of my friends who now smokes. A lot used to smoke but they have all given it up. However, one of my children smokes and smokes like a chimney. I must say, though, that he has the courtesy to go outside to smoke, knowing how much I abhor it. Looking at the younger generation, I have one son who smokes, a son-in-law who smokes and a daughter-in-law who smokes, and all of them take it for granted. I honestly cannot understand it because, as far as I am concerned, it is an inhibitor. Marijuana inhibits sex, I am told. My husband tells me when I eat garlic that it inhibits sex, but to me when you go for a cuddle and smell smoke in someone's hair that is the biggest turn-off in the world. People do not have to be smokers; they only have to be out in a group to have the smell of it in their hair. I just cannot understand how people think it is attractive. I can only assume that it is addictive because most people say they cannot give it away or they have extreme difficulty in doing so. We have had many health campaigns about the dangers of smoking and there are proposals to place gruesome photos on cigarette packets. People take patches and chew gum to try to suppress their cravings. It is a terribly addictive habit. As was mentioned earlier, the member for Cunningham is introducing a bill to ‘ban the bong' so to speak. I can remember my youngest son saying to me, ‘Mum, if marijuana is so bad for you, if it does all of these terrible things, why can you buy a bong?' How can I argue against that? Kids sees things from a different perspective to most of us. With regard to smoking at the entrances of buildings, at most shopping centres there are boxes with sand lined up out the front. In Kingaroy they are not little; they are one metre square drums of sand in which cigarettes can be stubbed out. People literally have to go through a cloud of smoke to get inside. It is not a comfortable situation. I prefer to pick the times when I go into supermarkets and other places. I have been petitioned by club workers about smoking in clubs. The member for Gladstone mentioned designated smoking areas and how food was served in a nonsmoking area but just over the other side of the table people could smoke. I know quite a number of people who would go to clubs if there was no smoking and they were therefore not affected by it. So whilst I believe there will be a loss, I believe there will also be a gain. Objections have been raised regarding visual displays. Small shop owners believe that they will be penalised compared to supermarkets. It was my understanding that all shops would be subject to the 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3509 same rules—big or small, supermarkets or not. I hope that has now been clarified for those people. I do not believe the size of the display will have an effect. Advertising—a macho image for the boys and executive images for the girls, progressing through life as tall, slim, sexy and successful—is what sways a lot of young minds. There is no doubt that, if smokers choose to, they have the right to smoke. For me, nonsmokers have the right to fresh air. It is a very simple formula. It is a requirement of life to have fresh air to breathe and survive. It is not a requirement of survival to smoke. With those few words, I support the bill. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (12.34 p.m.): I, like many in this House, am a reformed smoker. Whilst I do not mind if people have a smoke around me, I cannot bear the smell of the stuff when I am eating. There would be many in this House who would agree with me on that. The changes in this bill were inevitable. No-one could say that the changes were not expected. This is a worldwide phenomenon. What we have done here in Queensland is get on the bus at an early stage and get rid of smoking indoors. Smoking kills. There is absolutely no doubt about that. My father is suffering from lung cancer at the moment, and he is for the high jump as a result of a lifetime of smoking. It has been a tough few months in the extended Briskey household because of that. My father lived at a time when a beer and a smoke went together like a pie and peas. You could not have one without the other. For many in our society that is still true. What is important about this bill is that it will allow those who still enjoy a smoke and still enjoy a beer and who cannot have one without the other to continue to do so in a designated smoking area. My father has no regrets about being a smoker. He enjoyed every bloody smoke he ever had, and so too do a lot of his mates. For that matter, a lot of my mates still smoke and they enjoy a beer and a smoke together. But, as I said, there is no doubt that smoking kills. I am vehemently opposed to it. I guess one good thing that has come from seeing the results of my father being a lifetime smoker is that our four children hopefully will never touch the stuff because they have seen what has happened to their grandfather. For many, it is one of their only forms of enjoyment or forms of pleasure. We can legislate to protect people from harming themselves, as we are with the bill before the House at the moment, and that is a good thing. I look forward to the day when no-one smokes. I look forward to the day when smoking is so— Mr Wilson: Reviled. Mr BRISKEY: —reviled by our society that no-one will take it up. All the education programs and TV advertisements run by the minister's department and the Education Department are great. I hope one day we will get to the stage where no-one in our society will light up. But we cannot legislate and we should never legislate away the rights of people to engage in a legal activity which for them is pleasurable. I applaud the government on this legislation. As I said, it was inevitable. We are going to see it right across the world. It cannot happen too soon. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (12.37 p.m.): I rise to support the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill. In doing so, I congratulate the government for endorsing the motion proposed by my party in May of this year, yet I must ask why it has taken the government so long to bring this bill into existence when medical research stretching back many years is quite clear as to the effect of both smoking and passive smoking. My party is dedicated to ensuring that the lives of Queenslanders are not adversely affected by smoking, and we will continue the fight to ensure that people—in particular our children—are not adversely affected by it. This is an emotive debate, and so it should be as it deals with lives. As such, it falls to this House to assist people in protecting themselves from what all the scientific evidence clearly states is a dangerous substance. Tobacco contains over 4,000 chemical compounds which are taken into a smoker's lungs every time they inhale and into the lungs of passive smokers whenever they are with or around smokers. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we have an obligation to protect children from the ravages of tobacco when we consider the number of chemicals contained therein. It is important that children be provided with correct guidance, and this is one more instance where adults have an obligation to ensure that children are protected. On many occasions the protection of children has to be, in fact, from themselves and their actions. It may seem harsh to children, but it is an obligation we cannot shy away from. Our actions, of course, may mean constraints on certain groups for the benefit of the whole of our community, but this is nothing new as history is littered with many such instances. What is important to understand is the danger caused by smoking. In 2001 well over 15,000 people died in Australia as a result of tobacco smoking compared to 4,200 deaths from illnesses and injuries associated with excessive alcohol consumption and 821 deaths by way of illicit drug use. Let us not kid ourselves: smoking is a major contributor to the unhealthiness of the Australian population and places significant strains on our health system. The Australian government's Department of Health and Ageing states that for men the largest number of tobacco related deaths is caused by cancer, which is responsible for around 43 per cent of all male tobacco related deaths, whereas cancer in women is responsible for 32 per cent of all tobacco 3510 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 related deaths. Of equal concern are those who choose not to smoke but inhale cigarette tobacco as a consequence of their employment and children who commence smoking at an early age and thus expose themselves to significant health risks as time goes by. The Australian government Department of Health and Ageing states that children who are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke are 40 per cent more likely to suffer from asthma symptoms than children not so exposed. The government goes on to state that an estimated eight per cent of childhood asthma in Australia is attributable to passive smoking, and it is estimated to contribute to the symptoms of asthma in 46,500 Australian children a year. Asthma in our children is an increasing concern and therefore must be a concern for this House. In addition, people who never smoke but live with a smoker have a 30 per cent greater risk of developing lung cancer than those who never smoke and live with a nonsmoker. Legislation sometimes needs to take a definitive stand. Nowhere is that clearer than when we are dealing with the lives of the people we have a responsibility to serve and to protect to the best of our ability. The bill itself is divided into a number of areas with one of its prime purposes being to remove smoking from certain areas by 1 July 2006. It is not my intention to go into detail in relation to those areas as they have been dealt with by others in this debate. Suffice to say that the exclusion of these areas will also assist in reducing passive smoking. One of the contentious issues raised by the opposition has been the advertising of products. If this legislation is to be effective—and let us bear in mind its intent is to limit the number of deaths and major health issues in the Queensland population including smokers, family members of smokers and the community as a whole—there needs to be a regime that deals with all potential risks that could induce smoking or could further encourage people to continue smoking. Equally—and this is the important issue—let us stop our children even contemplating smoking. Given this background, we should not be apologising for taking a definitive, firm stand on an issue that we believe in and that all members in this House see as needing to be undertaken. The penalty provisions have seen large increases in fines. I hope that there is a much stronger resolve to enforce the laws surrounding the sale of tobacco products to children than there has been to date. The bill achieves a major step forward—a step forward that has been coming for many years—and now it is time to make the hard determinations and make it law. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.43 p.m.): I congratulate the member for Caloundra on the comments he made about the fact that smoking deals with lives and that tobacco is a dangerous product. I rise belatedly in this debate to bring to the attention of the House the fact that John Howard, our Prime Minister, said on Southern Cross radio today that he thinks there will come a time when penalising people who choose to smoke goes too far. He went on to say in this interview that he does not support increased taxes because cigarettes are already very expensive. This is our Prime Minister saying that today. I just wanted to put that on the record. I remember being a member of the Goss Labor government in 1992 when we substantially raised taxes. We actually had the cheapest cigarettes in Australia. I applauded that decision, and I told my constituents who rang me that I applauded that decision. In the end, the public actually supported us in that decision, as they will support the legislation brought forward today by the Health Minister. It is gutsy. It is tough but it is necessary. I want to put on the record the impact that my son Andreas had on me to stop smoking. It started when he was in his early teens. He actually understood that smoking was bad for my health. He did not want me to be one of 3,400 people who die every year from cancer. He started cutting my cigarettes with a little cut and I could not draw on them. He then started putting little match heads in them. He got worse than that—he actually started putting tom thumbs in my cigarettes. They were blowing up in my face. He said, ‘Well, dad, I don't care if the tom thumbs kill you; you're killing yourself anyway.' The worst thing that happened was that we had a silly rule in my family that any three members of the family could call together a family meeting if something upset them. I was called to this family meeting and the issue was my smoking. In fact, they banned me from smoking inside my house. The rule was passed, and I was not allowed to smoke inside the house because they understood that passive smoking was an issue, as this legislation does. Can I say belatedly to my son, who is currently lecturing in mechanical engineering at Monash University, ‘thankyou', because I have a very bad family history of heart attacks and I know smoking is closely related to heart attacks. We talk about saving the community a fortune in health care costs. My father died in his fifties from a heart attack as did my brother. It is important that we understand the causes of heart attacks and the causes of cancer. I am delighted to be here today as part of a Labor government that has the guts to bring in this legislation. Can I say about John Howard: what a populist he is! Is it not just so simple? He runs the country. He is the most unprincipled man who has ever been Prime Minister in this country, and his statement today absolutely underlines that. I commend the bill to the house. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3511

Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (12.46 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to rise and support the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill. This bill will fundamentally change people's lives. Many smokers, particularly some of my best friends, have voiced their opinion on this legislation, and they have not always been favourable opinions. The reality is that this bill is not about them. If they have been smoking for 25 or 30 years, their habit is probably not going to change. Some people's habits do not even change when a doctor tells them to change; when a doctor forces them to change. This legislation is about my children's generation. This is about smoking not being an acceptable part of life. It is a bit like what the member for Cleveland was saying about pies with peas—and I never liked peas either, just quietly, but that is another point. This is about having a situation where smoking is not part of the norm. This is about young people, particularly young females, going into nightclubs and lighting up to be fashionable, just to be part of the trend and just to be so-called cool. It will not be cool anymore. Most people know that it is not cool anymore, but it is there. By making it— A government member interjected. Mr REEVES: Obviously, from what the member for Ashgrove just said. By having it restricted to a number of areas it will not be cool. It is not cool sitting on the street corner outside the nightclub, but it is cool being inside the nightclub where all the dancing is going on. If there is no smoking going on it obviously has to be better. It will have a bit of an impact on the people who are smokers now and who have the habit, but I really think it is going to have the biggest influence on my children’s generation. That is going to be a good thing—not only for the climate and not only for the people who do not smoke but obviously for health providers and for smokers themselves. Research suggests that more than 20 Queensland pub and club workers may be dying each year as a result of their exposure to tobacco smoke in their work place, according to the Queensland Cancer Fund. The Queensland estimate follows the release of a detailed study of New South Wales pub and club worker deaths conducted by a leading international expert in the field, Professor James Repace. Professor Repace estimated that each month five pub and club workers in New South Wales died from passive smoking exposure in their workplace. Queensland Cancer Fund Executive Director Jeff Dunn said the equivalent scientific number crunching had not been undertaken in Queensland. ‘However a rough estimate, based solely on population difference, suggests that each month two and possibly three Queensland workers in pubs, clubs and casinos may be dying as a result of exposure to passive smoking at work.' ‘Two deaths each month are two too many. This finding highlights the need for an indoor smoking ban to be introduced in pubs, clubs and casinos without delay. ‘Each month's delay means another two and possible three Queensland workplace deaths. This legislation is about those people who have to spend their days working in the pubs and clubs. They should not have to put up with smoking in their workplace. We can all give examples of the effects of passive smoking. I have never been a smoker; I am vehemently opposed to it. We have all been to pubs and clubs and have walked out of there absolutely stinking of tobacco, even if friends around us have not had a smoke all day; the smoke is in the air. Prior to becoming a member of parliament I did a fair bit of work in the club industry. It was common that your clothes stank after attending those premises. What is it doing to your insides? Luckily I only spent an hour in those places; I did not have to spend eight hours of my day putting up with it. This is commonsense legislation. Some clubs and hotels within my electorate have expressed concern in relation to one section of the legislation. Southside Sports and Community Club, on the old Skateway site, have a huge bingo club, Southside Bingo. The rules in relation to smoking in bingo halls came in around 18 months ago. Southside Bingo conduct one of the biggest bingo games in Queensland, if not Australia. I am happy to report that their bingo attendance numbers are at the same level, if not better than they were prior to the smoking bans coming into effect. In fact, they are saving money. The club has been able to take an airconditioning unit out of its huge hall and put it into its licensed club because there is not the need for as much ventilation. The Southside Sport and Community Club have designed some ‘get out’ areas. I said I would express their concerns to the minister and to the parliament. Most hotels and some clubs have large outdoor areas such as beer gardens and al fresco dining areas and we can understand the need for such a control under those circumstances. However, most clubs, including our club, do not have outdoor areas and we are in the process, during the current $2.5 million extension of the premises, of providing two outdoor ‘smoking terraces' to provide our members and patrons who smoke with somewhere to go when the premises is totally non smoking. Under the above section of the Bill we will now have to reduce the areas, which are currently under construction, by 50% and construct a wall no less than 2.1 metres high to divide the areas. When you consider the smoker's terrace off the gaming room is 40 square metres and the other one, off the lounge area, is only 22.5 square metres, this situation becomes totally absurd. We support the Bill in principle and thought we were working towards a sensible outcome to comply with the Non Smoking legislation but if we are forced to comply with the Bill as written it will create major problems for the club in trying to provide adequate facilities for our members and patrons. The club is a big supporter of the community. I visited the club and viewed the area that was of concern. I understand what this legislation is doing and I totally support it, particularly in relation to large 3512 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 beer gardens. In future we may need to look at the situation where the minimum area is only 40 square metres and that is a designated smoking area with no access in and out from pedestrian flow. There needs to be a minimum area of perhaps 50 square metres that can be smoking only. While I support the legislation I can understand the concerns of the Southside Sport and Community Club. The club thought it was doing the right thing; it was being proactive. Unfortunately, it should have waited until it saw the legislation. That was not the case. I told the club that I would bring up the concerns that it has. Legislation has to be prescriptive in relation to areas. There are sometimes anomalies that affect certain situations, as can be seen in this case. Obviously if the club has chosen to make those areas just smoking areas without people being able to take their beers out there that will not be a problem. That is the sort of decision that the club is going to have to make. I gave an undertaking to the club that I would make the minister aware of the concern that it has in relation to the size of it. It is not a huge beer garden; it has actually been designed as a smoking terrace. Maybe the minister could look at that. I want to finish as I started. This legislation fundamentally change people's lives. The member for Barron River said that she has been a member of parliament since 1989 and this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that she has been involved in. I too believe that. This will fundamentally change the lives and the lifestyle of people in the future, particularly workers and those potential smokers of my children's generation. That has to be a good thing. It is even a good thing for some of my close friends—who will not talk to me for at least two minutes regarding this. If my friends put off having one cigarette because of this legislation it has to be good for them, even if they do not know it. I support the bill. Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.00 p.m.), in reply: Some members present today will remember a debate in this House in the mid 1990s in response to the stunning statistic that 13 children drowned in backyard swimming pools in Queensland each year. The government's response, with overwhelming community support, was to introduce mandatory pool fencing. Each year 3,400 Queenslanders die as a direct result of smoking or smoking related illness, including 21 children under the age of four. There is no question that these reforms are about the health of the 80 per cent of Queenslanders who should not be at risk from the irrefutable lethal effect of tobacco. Importantly, I do not want the significance of these changes to be underestimated. This government has taken the boldest move in Australia in the history of the tobacco debate and, as Health Minister, I make no apologies for that. We are talking about reforms that other states have not yet considered in the consultations they are already undertaking. This is about protecting our children and giving back the outdoors to nonsmokers. We have the justification. Scientific research has repeatedly shown that young people are more vulnerable than most, with long-lasting effects on brain pathways and a higher dependence on nicotine than older people. As the member for Gregory pointed out, an early decision to take up smoking sets young people up for a lifetime of suffering from smoking related disease. In 2002, 14 per cent of Queensland school students aged 12 to 17 smoked in the week prior to being surveyed. That equates to approximately 38,800 students inhaling highly addictive nicotine—a mix of 4,000 chemicals reaching the brain, heart and other organs within 10 seconds of the first puff. This legislation is the circuit-breaker. This is where we draw the line in the sand. There is clear evidence that children who live in smoke-free homes and communities where most facilities are smoke free are less likely to take up smoking. Teenagers are much less likely to take up smoking when the community norm is against smoking. It is a fact that 80 per cent of smokers started smoking before the end of their teenage years. The majority of these smokers have gone on to regret their decision so early in life. I thank all speakers who participated in the debate yesterday and today for their very strong support for an unprecedented outcome in promoting better health for all Queenslanders. The honourable member for Cunningham raised several questions about some of the practical details of what is being proposed. I do sincerely hope that his comments that these changes are just about avoiding a dirty ashtray award were not serious, or he has truly missed the point for the majority of Queenslanders. Specifically, the member for Cunningham raised the claim that there have been no prosecutions since the reforms were introduced in 2001. In fact, five retailers have been prosecuted since 2001 and a further four prosecution cases are pending. In addition, two adults have been prosecuted for giving tobacco products to minors. But, importantly, since 2002 there have been almost 500 on-the-spot fines for retailers having illegal tobacco advertising and displays, retailers failing to display mandatory quit smoking signs and retailers failing to train employees about not selling to children. Queensland's prosecution rate is similar to that of Western Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory. It is not as high as New South Wales where enforcement figures are enhanced through the use of children to entrap retailers. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3513

I know the member for Cunningham and the Opposition Leader have raised the issue of child entrapment. This practice is not supported by the Queensland government because trapping retailers and shop assistants by using children sends the wrong message to our children. Furthermore, it could mean that children become involved in and witness illegal activity. There are better ways to reduce smoking and illegal activity. I believe the comprehensive reforms before the House today will help achieve that. I do agree with the member that legislation alone will not reduce the incidence of smoking. It needs to be balanced with a strong commitment to education. That is why we have proposed a massive education and assistance campaign to support these changes. A substantial budget will be committed to mass television, newspaper and radio ads—in particular targeted at young smokers and women smokers—and posters to help pubs and clubs educate their patrons about the new laws, school education programs, a new information phone line about the changes, more staff for our quit smoking service and kits to help smokers, nonsmokers, retailers and hotel and club owners to understand the changes. As an employer, there will be new policies for our staff and clients, including restrictions on smoking around public hospitals. The honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Gladstone noted that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee referred some matters to the parliament for its consideration. I note that the committee did not raise any major concerns about the bill. The explanatory notes to the bill provide a thorough analysis of possible fundamental legislative principle issues. As noted by the committee, the increased penalties are to provide a sufficient deterrent against smoking related practices and behaviours dealt with by the act. The increases are warranted and are supported by the comprehensive monitoring and enforcement program. The claims that our plans to increase enforcement activity are still under wraps is not correct. On the contrary, they have been covered in the media. I am happy to outline them today. The honourable member for Maroochydore has also raised the issue of enforcement. In the remainder of this financial year Queensland Health will boost spending on enforcement by an additional $1.7 million. Those funds will employ 18 new enforcement officers around the state; they will allow for intensive training; and they will be used to set up a statewide support network. Senior Queensland Health staff will also be trained to assist in information gathering to help enforce the new laws. It must also be remembered that through our massive education campaign for all Queenslanders smokers and nonsmokers alike will have a better understanding of what they can expect when they are dining outdoors or enjoying the beach, playgrounds or major sporting stadiums. The majority of ordinary Queenslanders will play a valuable role in assisting us to enforce these new laws in areas where smoking is no longer allowed. We should not underestimate the power of community expectations, particularly where it involves people's own health and wellbeing. The honourable member for Cunningham and the honourable member for Warrego, among others, raised support for a plan to reverse the retail restrictions on tobacco displays. I have to say that this argument is seriously misguided. The fact is that they are talking about protecting the sale of a product that kills. Yes, it is a legal product, but it is toxic, it is carcinogenic and it is addictive. It is reasonable to expect that strong regulations will be applied to the way these products are displayed in much the same way as some products are required to be behind the counter in chemist shops because they are more dangerous and need to be regulated more stringently than other products. It cannot be denied that Queensland communities expressed strong views about the issues in the discussion papers. International research has shown that tobacco advertising at retail outlets leads young people to think that most people smoke and is a key determinant in their decision to try smoking. Research on the effect of tobacco advertising on young smokers indicates that young people are able to name and recognise cigarette advertisements. They can match cigarette brand names with cigarette slogans. The vast majority of adolescent smokers prefer the most advertised brands and report that they would smoke the brand whose advertisement they like the best. Research shows that children are more likely than adults to determine the brand of cigarettes they smoke based upon advertising or displays, so the move to restrict retail display space is very much aimed at preventing a new generation taking up smoking. The honourable members for Cunningham and Warrego also raised criticism from some individual retailers that they had not been consulted with regard to these changes and that the process had been rushed. All stakeholders have been aware since the amendments made in 2001 that a review would be carried out. The government has been involved in extensive consultation with peak bodies representing retailers, including the National Alliance of Tobacco Retailers and the Queensland Retail and Shopkeepers Association, at every step of this debate. I would hope that they have communicated well with their members. We will be communicating heavily with industry peak bodies throughout the reform process to reach as many individual retailers, pubs and clubs and their clients as possible. Also, retailers were invited to be involved in the discussion paper that has shaped these reforms. Thousands of Queenslanders took up that opportunity to have a say. 3514 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

The honourable member for Cunningham also raised the proposal to delay the introduction of total bans for another 12 months—that is, from 1 July 2006 to 1 July 2007. I want to make it very clear: we are not going to sit back and wait for national uniformity, not even on retail displays. Queensland is leading Australia in these reforms. We will have the most extensive smoking bans, the only bans in outdoor areas in Australia, the toughest restrictions on displays and the highest fines and penalties in this country. As the Health Minister, I will not stand by and make the majority of Queenslanders wait until other states understand the importance of further bans on smoking or the very clear changes in community expectations around the issue of smoking. These changes are because this government is responsive to the changes that our community wants and demands. Queensland will not be a follower on this issue. We will be a leader. The member also raised questions around the phasing in of these new laws for pubs and clubs. We will be working closely with the industry to make sure that everyone understands the government's expectations around a progressive ban: one-third of premises to be smoke free by 1 January 2005; two- thirds by 30 September 2005; and a total ban in indoor premises by 1 July 2006. We will also be clearly explaining the requirements for the management plans that pubs and clubs, which choose to introduce a designated smoking area, will have to develop. Importantly, those plans will be enforceable. As for golf clubs, if the whole of a golf club is licensed, smoking will be banned in all areas that are an outdoor eating or drinking area. Golf clubs that choose to accommodate smoking can set aside areas where no eating or drinking is permitted. Smoking would then be allowed where eating or drinking is not permitted. The honourable member for Gregory raised concerns about the growing incidence of heart problems as a result of smoking. I am sure he would agree with me that these new laws are about making sure that the children of today are not the heart patients of tomorrow. He did ask about a number of matters covered in the bill which I will address briefly. The buffer zone between smoking and nonsmoking areas in outdoor areas of pubs and clubs must be two metres. It will not be an offence to smoke while walking past an al fresco dining area. Smoke extractors are permitted, but as they are not effective that does not change the eventual ban on smoking in licensed premises by 1 July 2006. In terms of enforcement, the member is right; this will not be about a big-stick approach in the first three months. Just as I promised when we introduced the new electrical safety reforms in 2002, for the first three months after the legislation takes effect we will be taking an educative approach and warning people about any activity contrary to the new laws. However, after that three-month period, we will be taking a tougher stance on enforcement because the community expects that of us, and certainly some members have raised the need for stronger enforcement today. As for the honourable member for Gregory's suggestion about smokers contributing more to their own private health insurance, he needs to take those matters to his colleagues in the federal government who do have jurisdiction over those matters. The honourable member for Tablelands's arguments were a little unclear given that she was supporting tobacco growers but condemning tobacco. Contrary to her claim that we have been arrogant and hypocritical, we are taking a balanced approach to this problem. That is why there has been considerable consultation and these changes reflect the majority of views within that consultation. Smoking products should be taxed, and given that they are legal products will continue to be so. If anyone in this parliament believes for one minute that the money raised in tobacco taxes in Queensland goes any way to fully recover the costs incurred in treating tobacco related diseases, they are seriously mistaken. The honourable member for Burnett raised the specific issue that these changes would put unnecessary pressure on smokers at beaches, and he and the member for Currumbin raised issues around pressures on lifesavers who may be used to enforce the new laws. My department has already met with the Surf Life Saving Association of Queensland at the association's request to show its considerable support for these new laws. In addition, Queensland Health is considering a sponsorship arrangement with Surf Life Saving Queensland to help educate beachgoers about the new laws. There is no expectation beyond the association's support for these new laws for it to directly enforce the laws. Again, nonsmokers who are aware that smoking will be banned in those areas will be a significant help in supporting compliance. The honourable member for Charters Towers claimed that we were becoming a police state in Queensland. He is clearly out of touch with the massive shift in community views about smoking. I am talking about the majority of Queenslanders who do want better health outcomes, not the minority of people who argue that we should continue our old ways because it is what we have always done. That is what a minority of people said about smoking in workplaces. That is what they said about smoking on planes, smoking in cinemas and smoking in bingo halls, and today we do not think twice about it. As for the member's and others members' concerns about lost revenue at hotels, several studies have found that there is no evidence of a negative economic impact on business. In fact, in many cases, business has been found to improve as a result of going smoke free, including new patrons who have avoided pubs and clubs because of the issue of smoking. In New York after one year of smoke-free bars and restaurants business tax receipts in restaurants and bars have increased by 8.7 per cent. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3515

Employment in restaurants and bars has increased by 10,600. Air quality in bars and restaurants has improved and levels of nicotine in the blood of nonsmoking workers in bars and restaurants fell by a massive 85 per cent. While the Ireland experience is too early to fully analyse, early indications suggest that the number of smokers visiting pubs has remained the same and the numbers of nonsmokers now going to pubs has increased. The honourable member for Currumbin, among others, raised questions about enforcement. In particular, she sought clarification about who will enforce the smoking bans at major sports facilities and beaches and specifically whether police would enforce the new laws. Enforcement of the legislation will primarily be undertaken by authorised officers appointed by the director-general of Queensland Health or the chief executive of a local government where local government officers are already on the streets enforcing local laws. In response to the honourable member for Gladstone, this is not a devolution to local governments. Local governments have an opportunity to assist us in enforcing these new laws. So the primary personnel for this program will be the state government in that environmental health officers will be able to direct smokers to stop smoking in nonsmoking areas, issue on-the-spot fines and commence prosecutions in court if necessary. In addition, police may also enforce this legislation as part of their normal law enforcement duties. They do have a general power under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 to take steps reasonably necessary to prevent a person from committing, continuing or repeating an offence. Finally, the security staff of our major sports facilities will play an important role in reminding patrons not to smoke in their venue, and meetings with the Major Sports Facilities Authority have been very positive in this regard. The honourable Leader of the Opposition raised the suggestion of a bipartisan select committee to put in place a plan to eradicate smoking in Queensland in the absence of a broader plan. I can tell the honourable member that a national plan will in fact go before all Australian health and police ministers at a meeting in Brisbane tomorrow. Closely following that will be a detailed Queensland action plan to achieve the goals and objectives of the national plan. I would welcome the opposition's contributions to the state plan when it goes out for consultation. I would also like to address another issue that has been raised with me and that is a concern that supermarkets will be allowed to sublet space to tobacconists who are allowed a slightly larger retail display than normal retail outlets. This is simply not true. The legislation is very specific about preventing this arrangement. I draw all honourable members' attention to the definition of a tobacconist on pages 38 and 39 of the bill. Furthermore, I will be moving three minor amendments to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004 in the consideration in detail stage. I table for the information of the House supplementary explanatory notes for these amendments. I will propose an amendment to allow casinos to designate an area as an outdoor smoking area. I will also propose that the exemptions to the ban on smoking within four metres of a building entrance be extended not only to pubs and clubs but also to the entrances of casinos. The amendment provides for consistency across casinos, hotels and licensed clubs. The Major Sports Facilities Authority requested an amendment to clarify the smoking ban that applies to facilities that it manages, particularly for those general grounds that may be used for leisure activities such as family picnics. In response, I will propose an amendment to specifically exempt the car park, a road, parkland or picnic area of a major sports facility from the smoking ban. These amendments are minor and clarify the intended application of the bill's smoking bans. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clause 1, as read, agreed to. Clause 2— Mr COPELAND (2.21 p.m.): This clause details the commencement dates of a whole range of initiatives that this bill will introduce right through to the total ban on smoking indoors and in some outdoor areas as well. The opposition has supported the intent of this bill right throughout the second reading debate. There is no doubt at all that we support the fact that we have to discourage young people from taking up smoking. We have to encourage people who smoke to stop it. I think that there will be a number of provisions later on down the track that we should be looking at—for example, enforcement regarding retailers selling to minors. We support the intent of the bill. We recognise the very difficult health problems that people encounter as a result of smoking and the really terrible habit that smoking is. The amendments that we have proposed are really amendments to try to assist those people who are going to have to cope with the changes that will happen over the next two years or so—those people who will have some sort of difficulty along the way—to help them with the transition. The amendments that I will be proposing through this consideration in detail stage should be seen in that light. They should not be seen as any opposition to the intent of the bill. I thank the minister for his acknowledgement of that. 3516 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

I also acknowledge representatives from the Heart Foundation who are here to witness what will be a significant change and something that I know that they have worked very hard for over a lot of years. I think at the end of the day that they will probably be happy with the result. Having said that, I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 2— At page 6, line 6, before ‘47(1)’— insert— ‘44A,’. 2 Clause 2— At page 6, line 9, before ‘41’— insert— ‘40A,’. They are consequential amendments that relate to the starting dates of other amendments that I will move later on in this consideration in detail stage. Mr NUTTALL: In terms of these amendments that we are currently looking at, I clearly indicated that we are not supportive of them. We are not going to change the dates. As I said, we are going to lead the way. Amendments negatived. Mr COPELAND: I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 2— At page 6, line 15, ‘2006’— omit, insert— ‘2007’. This is the amendment that I foreshadowed regarding the change to the start-up time by 12 months for the final step in terms of the bans that will be put in place. This amendment extends the date from 1 July 2006 to 1 July 2007. When the changes were first mooted that there would be a total ban on smoking indoors and in a lot of outdoor areas, one of the things that came to mind—and it was a matter that I mentioned in my contribution to the second reading debate—was the effect that that would have on the clubs, hotels and retailers that exist on the border areas. Many members would remember the huge exodus of money that we saw out of Queensland into New South Wales when very large clubs were built on the border that had poker machines when Queensland did not. At the time that these changes were proposed, New South Wales had not given any indication that it was going to follow. We would simply have had to have gone it alone. We have to recognise the fact that New South Wales and Victoria have now said that they will be making changes to their smoking laws. They have done it in consultation with each other and they have accepted a common start-up date so that they do not experience the problems on the Victorian-New South Wales border that we will now experience on the Queensland-New South Wales border. I think it is a concern. For example, the member for Currumbin, in her contribution to the second reading debate, raised the concern that she had regarding the ease with which people could cross the border into the Tweed and spend money there and cited the experience of one of the clubs in her electorate that said that they support the changes in the law—as do we all—and they have time to implement a smoking management plan, but there will still be a financial cost. If we had to go it alone, then, yes, we could have lived with that start-up date of 1 July 2006. But given the fact that New South Wales has now come on board, I think that we have to recognise that those clubs, hoteliers, retailers and everyone else who flank the border are going to experience some problems for that 12-month period. I think that we have to recognise that we have to try to assist those people through the transition stages. We have to recognise that there will be a financial cost. This amendment simply tries to make it a common start-up date so that none of those things will happen. Importantly, it will give those facilities time to adjust to the changes that will then come into place. Mr NUTTALL: The government will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the honourable member in terms of changing the date from 1 July 2006 to 1 July 2007. The initial changes to the tobacco laws started back in 1998. The next major reform was in 2001. We have consulted widely with the clubs and the pubs. I acknowledge that some of them would have liked a longer lead-in date, but we felt that, because we had for quite some time consulted with them—we indicated to them very clearly that these changes were coming and they were well aware of that—we chose to phase in the changes rather than just have one start-up date very soon so that the economic impact would be minimal and so that job losses would not occur. We felt that if we phased it in people would get used to it. I understand the issue around the border, but it is only for a 12-month period. I had people speak to my colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria and I encouraged them to come forward to July 2006. They have chosen to stay with July 2007. That is a matter for them. As I said, from our point of view we intend to lead the way in this major reform that is so important. I think that there is no logical 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3517 rhyme or reason to extend the date out to July 2007, other than to fit in with New South Wales and Victoria Mr Copeland: And to preserve our own people's livelihoods. Mr NUTTALL: I understand that, but we believe, and the statistics show—we have spoken to the hotels and the clubs—that business can actually grow when there is no cigarette smoking if it is managed right. We do not accept the fact that we need to change it to July 2007. Mr COPELAND: I acknowledge that the phase-in is welcomed by the people who actually have to cope with the changes. If the change had been in one hit, there would have been all sorts of problems. I have no argument with that. As I said, if New South Wales had not said it was going to make similar changes we would have had to go it alone. I recognise that the minister says he approached New South Wales to come into line with us, but the disadvantage is not to its people. Yes, it could have come into line and we would have been fine, but the disadvantage is to Queensland businesses and clubs, and that is where we should be looking—not relying on New South Wales to do the right thing so that our people are not penalised. I refer to the exemptions put in place in relation to high rollers rooms. We support that proposal, because the people who access that particular function of a casino are highly mobile. They have the ability to go somewhere completely different, not just within Australia but indeed internationally. That exact same reasoning can be used in relation to a much smaller example, which is simply along the border. People can afford to go across the border and spend money elsewhere. The reasons are identical to those given for exempting high rollers rooms. I think it is worth considering for that one 12- month period for those businesses that will experience similar challenges. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 17—Copeland, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone NOES, 59—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, E.Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Male, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Quinn, Reilly, Reynolds, N.Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C.Sullivan, T.Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clause 2, as read, agreed to. Clauses 3 to 20, as read, agreed to. Clause 21— Mr COPELAND (2.39 p.m.): Judging by the response of a lot of members during the second reading debate, this is probably one of the most contentious amendments we have circulated. It is a recognition that there will still be sales of cigarettes no matter what happens with this bill today. People will still buy cigarettes. People will still sell cigarettes. It is a matter of where those sales are going to occur. I am on record many times in this parliament expressing my concerns about transfer of sales and market power on a whole range of products from small retailers to large retailers. That is a concern that will continue to exist. I note that in his reply to the second reading debate the minister advised regarding the fact that large retailers will not be able to sublet to tobacconists, but there is no doubt at all that once these changes go through small retailers will lose sales to large retailers. I have no doubt about that at all. I think that will be a detriment to our small businesses. That is the concern we are trying to address with the proposed amendment. A display area of four square metres will be consistent across all retailers whether they are tobacconists, small retailers or large retailers. That is consistent with what is being proposed by the retailers for a national standard. It may simply be that it was easier to defer any decision on this until after the national standard had been agreed upon. That way there would not be a double change—a change from what retailers will have to live with under this legislation and then another change to what they will have to live with after any national standard is agreed to. The opposition suggests that four square metres is the appropriate size, given that it looks like that is what will be pushed for in relation to a national standard. We hoped that would be supported by the government, but the government—and many speakers, I have to admit—has disagreed with that. Again, this is more about where the sales of tobacco are going to happen rather than about trying to encourage people to sell tobacco. It is a concern to small retailers. A very large proportion of the turnover of small retailers is in tobacco. During the debate a number of members have said that people will not change their buying habits, that they will still know that they can go to their corner shop and get their tobacco. That may be the case in the short term—tomorrow they will still know that—but I have no doubt at all that as time passes sales will transfer to the major retailers. That is the rationale behind the amendment I will move. 3518 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

Mr NUTTALL: This has been a contentious issue amongst some retailers, and I know that there has been a rearguard action on this. I just want to say this: I believe that people have been sold a pup on this issue, and I will explain why. The retailers are running around now saying that they want to have four square metre displays. When we were in consultation with the retailers, we went out and surveyed some garages, some newsagents and other retail outlets—a number of outlets—on the size of their displays. The average size of display was 2.2 square metres, not four square metres. The reason they are running around asking for four square metres is that we have said in this legislation they will not be able to advertise; they will only be able to display. So what they are asking us to do is to double the size of their average display so that makes up for the advertisements. I have said no. I ask honourable members to have a look at this one square metre display. What the member and the retailers are asking me to do through this amendment is to increase that fourfold. The average size display is 2.2 square metres. We are simply saying to retailers that we will cut that down to one square metre. Their argument does not stack up because they are saying they should be allowed to have displays of four square metres. Imagine that display fourfold across a wall in a shop. It is not going to happen, and that is why it is not going to happen. I am not going to support it. The second issue is that sales for Woolworths, Coles and the bigger supermarkets will increase. The legislation clearly points out that Woolworths, Coles and the like can have only one square metre— the same as a small shop. It also clearly stipulates that they will not be able to turn themselves into a tobacconist so they can get around it. It clearly states all that. We were very mindful of the possibility that the big retailers might try to take advantage and get around the legislation by applying for a tobacconist licence and having a sublease in Woolworths or Coles to have a tobacconist shop. We are not allowing that. The definition of a tobacconist is basically that 80 per cent of the shop's sales have to be in tobacco. If it is less than 80 per cent of sales, it is not a tobacconist shop. As members know, we are allowing tobacconists to have a three square metre display, not one square metre. That is because we have a lot of shops that are purely tobacconist shops. They have long-term leases in the shopping centres, and I understand that. We do not want to wreck their businesses; we appreciate that. We have said to them that the display has to be three square metres, but I will not support four square metres. I do not think anyone would reasonably expect us to change it to four square metres. As I said, the reality is that the average size display is 2.2 square metres. We have been sold a furphy. I think they were telling some people that the average size was six and a half square metres and they are happy to have it dropped down to four. The average size was never six and a half square metres; the average size was 2.2 square metres. They are now saying that they will cop four square metres. I am not falling into the trap. We are not going to do it. Mr HOBBS: The minister mentioned that the average display size is 2.2 square metres, but he has cut that in half. He has gone beyond that. He implied that they could all have four square metres. It is up to four square metres. Depending on the size of the shop, if it were a big outlet, for example, it may have a display unit at each outlet counter over 20 or 30 metres. One square metre is not very big, in reality, when we are talking about the size of a shop. The display that the minister showed us in the House does seem quite large, but the reality is that it is not if it is put in a shop on a display up high. The other thing which is important to note is that there is no evidence at all—even in the minister’s response to my question on notice—that those displays lead to an increase in smoking. He has no evidence. He says in his letter that he has no evidence that that occurs. What the minister showed the House a while ago is not an influencing advertisement. An influencing advertisement is someone diving into the surf or riding a horse like the Marlboro Man did. That is more inviting. All he is doing there is displaying what product is available out of that dispensing machine. That is not an influencing advertisement. How come other states seem to be happy to go down the four square metre line? If the minister is saying that we now have 2.2 square metres, he is cutting it in half again. Is there really any need for that when there is no evidence at all that those display units—they are only a mechanism in a shop—in fact increase the consumption of tobacco? Mr NUTTALL: In Victoria, where it actually mandated four square metres—and we have done our homework on this as well—it was found that once the Victorian government said retailers could have four square metres the displays actually increased. Mr Wallace: Because it's advertising. Mr NUTTALL: That is exactly what it is; it is advertising. In this legislation we have said that there can be a display of cigarettes but no longer can there be advertising like a big packet of cigarettes or whatever the case is. The way around that for the retailers is, ‘Well, we'll have four square metres,' and they will expand it. This legislation is not about the rights of tobacco companies; it is about better health outcomes. It is not about making it right for people to be able to sell cigarettes. It is one rule for everybody. There can only be one display of one square metre. The major retail outlets like Woolworths and Coles will not be able to have bits and pieces at each checkout which add up to one square metre; they will be able to have one display to a maximum size of one square metre. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3519

They will not be able to have 10 displays of 0.5 square metres or whatever the case may be. They can only have one display and that is it. It is the same rule for everybody. Everybody is on the same playing field. Mr Wallace: Level playing field. Mr NUTTALL: They are on a level playing field. Nobody is disadvantaged if we reduce it to one square metre. There was some debate when we were in the consultation process about not having any displays at all and actually putting them totally under the counter so that there would be no displays. Because of the consultation process and because of the issues raised by the retailers, we agreed that they could have one square metre. All we have done is halve the average signage or the average display at the moment. That is where we intend to stay with it. Mr HOBBS: Minister, I have one more point. I want to make it quite clear that we want to discourage smoking. By the same token, we also want to make sure that those in the industry who are able to sell a legal product should be able to do so. Yes, we agree with a lot of the restrictions. As the shadow minister has said, we are, in fact, supporting the general thrust of the legislation. However, in relation to that one display unit only having room for a certain number of the product, if somebody comes into a shop and is looking for another packet of cigarettes, does the minister say to the staff that they then have to go and either put their heads down under the counter or turn around, particularly in the case of a service stations at night-time? There is quite a serious situation here in relation to the security of staff. All the submissions that have come in have mentioned this. These are people at the coalface who are saying that their staff are really going to be at risk. I think that is a very serious matter, Minister. Mr NUTTALL: I understand the issue that the member is raising about the safety of staff; I accept that. If the member goes into a shop now and purchases cigarettes, the staff have to turn around anyway. I really think the member is clutching at straws to say that the staff are going to be in danger because I am reducing the display size to one square metre. I do not know how many packets of cigarettes were on that display. A government member: Ninety. Mr NUTTALL: Ninety packets of cigarettes. Mr Wallace: How many? Mr NUTTALL: Ninety packets of cigarettes. If a person cannot pick their cigarettes out of 90 packets, I do not know what they are smoking. In the main, that should cover the needs. As I said— Mr Rickuss: He can’t pick it out if he is going to use a bong to smoke it with, though. Mr NUTTALL: We will get to that. We have to get to that one yet. As I said, we have been through a great deal of consultation in this area. We believe that it is a reasonable outcome for everybody. It is an area that we looked at very, very closely, and we will not be supporting the amendment. Mr COPELAND: I move the following amendment— 4 Clause 21— At page 14, lines 24 to 26— omit, insert— ‘be not more than 4 m2.’. There are clearly differences of opinion regarding this. As I said earlier, I have very real concerns about the transfer of sales. That has been the primary motivation for my moving this amendment. I think there are some relevant concerns that small businesses have and it is something that we need to work through. As I said, even a deferral till after the decision had been made on a national standard may have saved a step for those retailers. There is a concern out there, and a lot of those small businesses will be facing those changes. Question—That the amendment be agreed to —put; and the House divided— AYES, 15—Copeland, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Messenger, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Tellers: Hopper, Malone NOES, 61—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L.Clark, Cummins, E.Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Male, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Nuttall, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Purcell, Quinn, Reilly, Reynolds, N.Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C.Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative. Clause 21, as read, agreed to. Clauses 22 to 31, as read, agreed to. 3520 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

Clause 32— Mr COPELAND (3.03 p.m.): This is a question to the minister in relation to the mechanics of section 26PA regarding the image of consumption of a smoking product. It states— A supplier must not, at a retail outlet, display an image that promotes a person or thing consuming, using or being otherwise associated with, a smoking product. I clearly understand and support the intention of that particular clause. The question that I have is if there is a TV or a screen running wherever the particular outlet may be and there happens to be an image of someone smoking. During this debate a number of members have commented that popular entertainment far too readily depicts smoking in a positive way. I wholeheartedly concur with them. As I have said before in this House, what is worse and probably even more annoying is that they depict drug use in a positive way—for example, marijuana or other drugs. I have a real problem with that. People in the arts community need to take stock of some of the images that are portrayed in movies or TV shows. I am concerned in relation to that. Quite inadvertently an owner of one of these outlets may have those images showing. Will that qualify under this section as being an offence? Obviously it would be an inadvertent offence on the strictest reading of the section: ‘A supplier must not, at a retail outlet, display an image that promotes a person or thing consuming, using or being otherwise associated with, a smoking product’. However inadvertent it may be, the way it looks to me it could certainly be a bit of a trap. Mr NUTTALL: The issue the member raises is valid and important. There is no evidence that at the moment that is happening in retail outlets. To answer his question in short: no, it would not be an offence under the drafting of the current legislation. It is something we would need to monitor and keep an eye on. Certainly if it became a trend we would have to do something about it, but not at this stage. Mr COPELAND: I suspect it would be more an inadvertent breach if it was to happen. I do not think it would be something that retailers would set out to do. As the minister would be aware, big screens run in these outlets and it is entirely possible for something that is shown on those screens to actually depict those images. I would not like to see those people inadvertently compromised by this section and being in trouble as a result. Mr NUTTALL: I reassure the honourable member that if this became a trend we would act very quickly in that regard. Mr COPELAND: If it was a trend, but if it was inadvertent— Mr NUTTALL: Yes, that is right. Clause 32, as read, agreed to. Clauses 33 and 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— Mr COPELAND (3.07 p.m.): Regarding the regulation that may require areas of licensed premises to be set aside as nonsmoking areas, if the minister could put on the record when it is likely that those will be known, what period will be given in advance before the regulation comes into effect once it is introduced and in what types of areas is it envisaged that it is going to happen. I ask the minister to put on the record the process for that regulation from now on. Mr NUTTALL: To be clear, the member is talking about smoking outside; is that right? Mr COPELAND: No, this is 26RA. A regulation may require areas of licensed premises to be set aside as nonsmoking areas. A regulation may require the licensee of licensed premises to progressively set aside parts of the licensed premises. What will that entail—when and how? Mr NUTTALL: The regulation will come in at the end of November and takes effect, as you know, on 1 January 2005. That is the one-third regulation. The reality is that in most clubs and pubs at the moment one-third is already there because there are dining areas where you cannot smoke anyway. The next stage, as you know, will be 30 September. That is two-thirds. Then the full three-thirds by 1 July. The regulation will come in at the end of November. Mr COPELAND: That is all that will be in the regulation? Mr NUTTALL: Yes, that is right. Clause 35, as read, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 39, as read, agreed to. Clause 40— Mr COPELAND (3.09 p.m.): This clause is very large so I have a number of questions. Most of my questions relate to what the changes will mean for the people who will be operating under this part of the legislation. We do not have any problems per se but we just want to clarify how the people who will be trying to make this work will do it. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3521

Proposed new section 26W relates to an outdoor eating or drinking place. The example I raised related to a special liquor licence for a golf course. The minister touched briefly on this when summing up the debate. A special liquor licence for a golf course, for example, would cover the entire course and the club would run a buggy around the course selling alcohol and food. Obviously that is going to have some practical implications. How will that liquor licence operate, because it covers the whole golf course, not just the clubhouse? Would that make the entire golf course a nonsmoking area? Even though the minister did touch on this in summing up the debate, I am still a little confused. That application would also cover other areas where a special liquor licence may apply. I know from my days working for showgrounds that that certainly would have been a consideration. This is an issue that people will have to face. Proposed new section 26Z relates to defences if there is a contravention of this law. It is an offence if the occupier can prove that the occupier was not aware and could not have reasonably been expected to be aware that the contravention was happening or the occupier, employee or agent of the occupier directed the person to stop smoking and told the person it was an offence not to comply with the direction to stop smoking. What procedure would be involved? For example, if a hotelier found someone who was sitting in the bar smoking and said, ‘Sorry, you are not allowed to smoke in here because it is against the law,' as long as they did not serve that person drink or food would that be okay for them? Would they then be deemed to have complied with the law? Would that be a defence? I would like to confirm that that would be the procedure. Proposed new section 26ZA relates to the designating of an outdoor smoking area. This provision allows for a licensed premises to actually have a designated outdoor smoking area. I think that is a good change to the original proposal. The original proposal would have been very difficult to comply with. It has caused some concern. One hotel very close to my electorate office does not have an outdoor area at this stage. They only have indoor areas. What will be the ramifications for them if they put in an outdoor area now? Can they make that a total smoking area because there was no nonsmoking area? Do they have to comply? Has consideration been given to the costs of that? If they decide not to put in a designated outdoor smoking area is it okay for their patrons to leave the hotel and go outside to have a smoke? The member for Warrego has a number of examples as well. For small premises that do not do a lot of capital expansion or capital works this could be a real concern. Mr NUTTALL: So that we can get through these issues, perhaps I could address them as we go. Mr Copeland: I only get three chances to ask. Mr NUTTALL: I know, but this will help. In relation to the golf buggy issue, the banning of smoking would apply where the golf buggy is. Once the golf buggy moves off the boys can walk around having a smoke and a drink. That is fine; they can do that. Does that clarify it for the member? Mr Copeland: That is good. Mr NUTTALL: In relation to the second issue, which was the hotelier telling someone to stop smoking, I point out that once he has done that he is clear. As long as he does not continue to serve the person alcohol or food the hotelier is okay. The owner of the establishment or the manager of the establishment will not get a fine. Mr Copeland: What about if he continues to provide food or alcohol after he has told them not to smoke? Mr NUTTALL: He is committing an offence. The third issue the member raised related to a licensed premise that does not currently have an outdoor area. There are a couple of things to consider here. Firstly, there are a number of establishments that are landlocked—that is, they do not have an outside area. There are lot of clubs and pubs in the main streets of regional and rural Queensland and in Brisbane. That is why we have allowed an exemption to the four-metre rule outside. This means that people can go outside and have a smoke. That provision is to try to look after the people in those clubs and pubs. In rural or regional Queensland a person can go outside the pub and have a smoke and stand there with a beer. That is not a problem. If facilities choose to build an outdoor area, half of that will have to be nonsmoking. Mr Copeland: As long as there is a two-metre wide pathway or other separation, that is okay? Mr NUTTALL: Yes, or they can build an outdoor area and still choose not to have smoking out there. It does not have to be 50 per cent. They might choose to use only 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent of that area for smoking. It can be up to 50 per cent. The two-metre rule would apply. Let us just say that we had an area of 100 square metres, which is huge; the two-metre buffer zone would be a metre from the nonsmoking area and a metre from the smoking area. It is still fifty-fifty. Mr COPELAND: Proposed 26ZB relates to the consumption of food in a nonsmoking area. It states that the licensee must ensure that food is not consumed. Would the defence in the previous section where the hotelier said ‘You are not allowed to smoke in here' be okay in this case? As I read 3522 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 this section it does not allow that as a defence, but I may have missed it. If the licensee says, ‘Sorry, you are not allowed to eat in this area,' is he likewise covered by that as a defence? Mr Nuttall: It is exactly the same. Mr COPELAND: I missed it under that section. Proposed new section 26ZC relates to smoking management plans. It has to be put in place for any of those outdoor areas. Paragraph (2)(d) states how the licensee will minimise the exposure of staff and patrons to environmental tobacco smoke. What sort of information would the minister expect that sort of plan to entail? It could be a pretty brief document or it could be a very detailed document. Mr NUTTALL: I can answer that very quickly. Mr Copeland: I am going to run out of spots. Mr NUTTALL: We will not let the member run out of spots. I will not do that to him. Mr Copeland: Thank you, Minister. Mr NUTTALL: What we have said to the club, hotel and casino people is that when the legislation is passed we want to sit down with them and develop a template plan so that it can be used everywhere. It will not be detailed; it will just be a brief plan. It is not about us telling them what has to go in the plan; it is about working with them. The reason we have done it that way is that there are 4,300 clubs and pubs. They all have different configurations. We could not do a plan for every single one. They agreed to that in our consultation process. We will sit down with them and develop some sort of template plan and then they can adjust it to suit their premises, but it will be very brief. Mr COPELAND: I thank the minister for that. Proposed new section 26ZH relates to other outdoor places. One of the areas is a patrolled beach. A number of members referred to this. I appreciate the minister's comments when summing up the debate that there will not be any impost on Surf Life Saving. From the contact that I have had they support the concept. The one concern that they have relates to forcing people outside the patrolled areas. I think that is something that we will have to be concerned about. We may have to target an education program at those areas. I know that if we have the cooperation of some of the local governments that may be a lot easier. Proposed new section 26ZI refers to a person not smoking at prescribed outdoor swimming areas. Section (1) says that that is limited to between sunrise and sunset. For a real beach that is not included. It is included for an outdoor swimming area. Could the minister explain why sunrise and sunset has been put in there? Mr NUTTALL: With regard to the patrolled beaches, it applies when the flags are up. Once the flags are down, the beach is no longer patrolled and it does not apply. The sunrise to sunset provision relates to places like Airlie Beach, the one at Cairns and the one over at South Bank. I think that covers what the member asked. Mr COPELAND: I now turn to proposed new section 26ZJ, and I do appreciate the minister allowing us to get through all of these because it is a very big clause relating to those practical applications. The issue of the call centre was raised by me in the second reading debate. It was also raised by the member for Toowoomba South as the call centre is located very close to his office. In order to comply with the four metres from the entrance, if those people walk outside the front door and go four metres to the side they will be encroaching on that four metres with regard to the next public entrance. There is the defence that if they are walking past it is okay. I can envisage streams of smokers walking back and forth along the footpath. That may be fine, but there are issues of safety, for example, at some times of the night or at other times. It is going to be a practically difficult one to implement, and I note that with the amendments it has been changed so that it is consistent with casinos, pubs and clubs where that provision does not apply. Mr NUTTALL: I understand the issue that the member raises. It will be difficult—I have no doubt about that—but that will be the law. If someone comes out of a place where there is, say, a call centre and right next door there is a bank, a CES office, a Medicare office, a post office or whatever, people will be going in and out of those premises. We would be encouraging employers to promote an antismoking campaign to help their clients, but it will be difficult. We accept that. Mr COPELAND: Minister, proposed new sections 26ZM and 26ZN relate to the role of local government. I think this is actually the final one for this clause, so we are just about through it. In relation to the responsibilities of the local government authorities, section 26ZM states— (1) Both the State and local governments have a role in administering this division. (2) However, nothing in this division imposes a duty on a local government to enforce this division. Does that mean that, for example, if a local government authority does not want at all to enforce the four-metre rule or the outdoor swimming area rule it will not be enforced, or will the state come in on top of that and possibly enforce it? Obviously they will not have the officers on the ground to do it as 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3523 regularly, so it may not be as commonplace. Just where do the responsibilities of local government sit? Also, what has been the response? As the member for Gladstone said, the LGAQ has been consulted during this process. What was its feedback in relation to this and has there been any conflicting response from individual councils? Mr NUTTALL: There are a couple of issues there. Firstly, we did meet with the LGAQ and there is a difference of opinion with some councils. Some councils are reasonably relaxed about it; some councils are bitterly opposed to it. What I said to the LGAQ was that we were not going to put the burden on the LGAQ to have to enforce these new bans. That is important, because quite often the LGAQ believes that too often state governments throw the stuff down to local governments to deal with. What I said to it was that the officers it already has who are authorised to issue parking fines, litter fines and who do inspections in cafes for food will be authorised under this bill to do this if they choose to. So it is not compulsory. It is not incumbent upon the councils to do it. They can choose to do it. I read somewhere recently where one of the councils is doing something about smoking on beaches and stuff like that. What we have said to the council about beaches is that we will work with them in terms of providing butt bins. So we will work with the councils on that. If the councils want to choose to enforce this, they can, and they get to keep the fines. If they choose not to, as I said in my speech, we already have 60 environmental health officers. We are employing an additional 18 environmental health officers. In addition to that, there will be up to 200 senior Queensland Health officers who will be authorised not to issue the fines but authorised to do incidence reports so that the environmental health officers can then go out and enforce the law. I would be less than honest if I did not say to the member that some councils were not all that happy about it, and that is fine. That is a matter for them. Some councils have embraced it. There is a bit of a mixed view about it. It is not about saying to them, ‘You have to do it.' It is about giving them the power to do it if they choose to do it. Mr HOBBS: Minister, I refer to proposed new section 26ZA in relation to the designating of outdoor smoking areas. Has any consideration been given in particular to those very small hotels in smaller towns? In many instances they can be anywhere from 20 kilometres, 120 kilometres or 200 kilometres from the nearest town. There is a real problem. I raised one good example during debate on the second reading in relation to the Glenmorgan Hotel. Mr Schwarten: A good pub? Mr HOBBS: It is a good pub. It has a beer garden that is probably not really suitable at this stage. It would cost the hotel $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000—I am not sure what it will cost—to put an outdoor area together. That would really place the hotel in a position of very marginal viability. What can the minister tell me that I can take back to these people as to how they are going to manage this in the short time frame they have? I know it is 2006, which is not all that far away. It is a very difficult time for them. Mr NUTTALL: The issue that the member raises is an important one. We were very mindful about that, because a lot of the small hotels particularly in country and remote Queensland are not big establishments that make a lot of money. We did not want to impose on them cost burdens that would basically send them broke. I am very mindful about that. That is why when we talked to the QHA we said that we would do some sort of template plan. If they need some advice and some help, we are happy to work with them so they can find out whether patrons can smoke without the establishment having to spend any money. We are happy to have people work with them on that, or the QHA can help those establishments with that if they are members of the QHA. They may or may not be, but those things can be worked through. It is not about saying to them, ‘You've got to go and build a big outside area,' or anything like that. I think that that is what the member is getting at. We were very mindful that, with regard to those small hotels that are small businesses basically run by mum and dad, we did not put an impost on them in terms of cost. Mr HOBBS: Thanks, Minister. At the end of the day, they still have to build something or do something. So the council will monitor the footpath in that instance and then there are the officers—the smoke police I suppose we call them. Are they the ones who will visit those establishments? How often are they likely to see them? That is the other thing. How many enforcement officers are there likely to be? Will there be more involved in this whole legislation? Can these people expect to see them more often or not? Mr NUTTALL: No, they will not. It is not about—and I want to make this very clear to the parliament—sending out all of these smoke police and being heavy-handed and hiding around corners looking to find people. I would be very upset if that was the approach that the environmental health officers took. The approach is an educative one. The approach is about working with them. As the member knows, at the moment in most clubs and pubs people cannot smoke in the restaurant area. We do not have people running in there checking out if people are smoking, because it is just an accepted standard. It becomes an accepted community standard. If we got a complaint by some patrons, we would certainly investigate that complaint. But unless we get a complaint, we are not going to run around there being heavy-handed looking to be difficult for people. We want to work with them on this issue. 3524 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 40— At page 23, lines 15 and 16— omit, insert— ‘ ‘(1) This section applies to the licensee of— (a) premises to which a general licence or club licence under the Liquor Act 1992 applies; or (b) premises, to which a special facility licence under the Liquor Act 1992 applies, that contain all or part of a casino.’. 2 Clause 40— At page 26, lines 8 and 9— omit, insert— ‘ ‘(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the following areas of a major sports facility— (a) a road or carpark; (b) a picnic area or area of parkland.’. 3 Clause 40— At page 28, lines 25 to 27— omit, insert— ‘(c) premises to which a general licence or club licence under the Liquor Act 1992 applies; or (d) premises, to which a special facility licence under the Liquor Act 1992 applies, that contain all or part of a casino.’. These are minor amendments to clarify a few things. Casinos operate under a different licence. So these amendments are just to accommodate the terms of their licence so that people can smoke outside and smoke within four metres of the entrance. Also, the Major Sports Facilities Authority has some establishments that have big picnic areas, parking and all the rest of it. We just want to allow people to have a smoke in those areas. That is all. Mr COPELAND: The opposition does not have any problems at all with those amendments. It makes sense to make the laws consistent. I would say that these amendments show that there will be anomalies in the legislation that will be picked up as we go along. I hope that the minister keeps that in mind when we come to the amendment regarding a review of the legislation, because I think that we are going to need it. Amendments agreed to. Clause 40, as amended, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr COPELAND (3.31 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 5 After clause 40— At page 31, after line 6— insert— ‘40A Insertion of new pt 2D ‘Before part 3— insert— ‘Part 2D Cannabis utensils ‘26ZQ Production, sale or public display of cannabis utensils ‘(1) A person must not produce, sell or publicly display a cannabis utensil. Maximum penalty—140 penalty units. ‘(2) In this section— cannabis utensil means an object for smoking cannabis sativa, colloquially known as a ‘bong’.’.’. This amendment relates to cannabis utensils—the bongs. In my contribution to the second reading debate I foreshadowed that I would be moving this amendment. I thank all members on both sides of the House who have expressed to me that it makes a lot of sense to restrict the sale of cannabis utensils. It is a difficult thing to define what a cannabis utensil is. All of us know what a bong is, but to try to put it into legislation is quite difficult, because they will be called tobacco utensils, they will be called vases—they will be called all sorts of things, as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his contribution. But that does not take away from the fact that a bong is a bong is a bong. We know what they are there for. They are there primarily to smoke cannabis. Everyone who has contributed to this debate has been very much in the spirit of getting a good health outcome for Queenslanders. We have been debating legislation that restricts the sale of tobacco, of tobacco products, of smoking products—for example, of tobacco papers—all of those sorts of things and, yet, in many service stations, in many tobacconists and in markets, there are people selling bongs everywhere across Queensland. In my previous life when I was the CEO of the Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland in Toowoomba at the showgrounds, a lot of stall holders would come to the showgrounds. We would 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3525 reserve the right to expel anyone from the grounds if we were not happy with their conduct or with what they were selling. I remember the first show that was held when I was running that organisation. One person came to me and said, ‘I think this person is selling something that he should not be selling down there.' So I walked past the stall and, of course, there on full display was a bong. It was quite legal to do that, but it was only because of the restriction that we put in place that it was not able to be sold at the market. The seller gave me all sorts reasons why he should not be expelled. He said, ‘No, that is for tobacco.' I said, ‘Don't be stupid. There is a marijuana leaf printed on the front.' He said, ‘Is that what that is?' It was just ridiculous. An honourable member: How did you know? Who told you? Mr COPELAND: I can honestly say that the education process of people of my generation about what is marijuana and what is not marijuana has meant that at least we know what a marijuana leaf looks like and we can crack down on it. An honourable member interjected. Mr COPELAND: I can honestly say here and now that not only have I not smoked tobacco in my life, I have not smoked the other one, either. So not only did I not inhale, I did not even draw. I am going to be serious now. This is part of the problem with marijuana. We trivialise it, we accept it, we joke about it, and yet it is a very, very serious problem. It is something that we should have cracked down on ages ago. We have not done it and, to be honest, we have to ask ourselves why we have not done it. Some members have come to me and said, ‘Gosh, I did not even know that they could sell it’ or ‘I walked past this shop and there is a whole window full of them.' That is exactly what there is. It is a real problem and we need to make sure that we take this opportunity to crack down on it. I know that there has been a suggestion that this proposed amendment should be inserted into the Drugs Misuse Act. I do not know that I agree with that, because the Drugs Misuse Act is actually about consuming the product itself, whereas this proposed amendment is about cracking down on the sale, display and distribution of the utensil itself. The amendment refers to a cannabis utensil. To my way of thinking, I regard that as a catch-all term. Regardless of what anyone thinks, or tries to call it, that is what it is; it is a cannabis utensil. I think that this legislation is the appropriate place in which to insert this amendment. As the Leader of the Opposition said, for us to impose a $10,000 fine to sell to a child a lolly that looks like a cigarette but still allow bongs to be sold shows that our priorities are completely mixed up. I know that this issue has annoyed me for a long time. This is the first opportunity that it has certainly crossed my mind to propose an amendment in this regard. I am very glad that a lot of members from all sides of the House—certainly from the opposition and the Liberal Party—have expressed their support for the amendment. I think that all of the Independents expressed their support for the amendment. I know that at least the member for Barron River in her contribution did the same. I thank all of those members for their support, because they recognise what a silly situation it is. What sort of signal would we be sending when we impose incredibly tough restrictions on the sale of products associated with the smoking of a legal product, tobacco—and quite rightly and that is supported by everyone—but we do not then take the further step and crack down on the sale of a utensil that is used to consume an illegal or an illicit product? I think that the opportunity is available here to insert this amendment. I would really encourage the minister to support it. I have my fingers crossed that the minister will support this amendment. I hope that he does. If he does not, it will really send the wrong message and, I think, undermine what the minister is trying to achieve with the legislation in total. It is a matter that I put forward in the opposition party room. I am very glad that the other opposition members supported me and that I have had this opportunity to introduce this amendment. I certainly hope that members support this new clause to ban the production, sale and public display of cannabis utensils, or bongs. Mr NUTTALL: The government has had a look at this amendment that has been proposed by the shadow minister. We actually believe that it is covered already under the Drugs Misuse Act. However, having said that, in order to make it abundantly clear to everybody that we are trying to get the best outcome for smokers, we are prepared to accept the amendment that has been put forward. Mr COPELAND: I thank the minister. I appreciate that. I think that it is probably the first time since I have been in parliament that an opposition amendment has been agreed to. That certainly does the minister credit. There are 18 other ministers who have not done that, but I appreciate that. The minister commented that he thought that this issue was covered under the Drugs Misuse Act. Obviously, it is not, because the bongs are on display for all to see. They are on display for sale. I hope that, if this amendment does not prove to actually crack down on the sale of bongs and there are still loopholes, the minister or the minister responsible for the Drugs Misuse Act will introduce an amendment to rectify that. In this amendment, we have tried to use a catch-all definition. But if the definition is ever tested—and I hope that it is still regarded as a cannabis utensil—and it turns out that these things are still able to be sold, I hope that an amendment is introduced that we can pass to ensure that these things cannot be sold as a matter of course in retail outlets or markets. 3526 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

Mr NUTTALL: I think the amendment proposed by the member is fairly embracing of all areas. We have had a fairly serious look at it, as I said, and we cannot see where there would be any loophole there. It is like any piece of legislation that we pass in this parliament. If there are difficulties and faults, good government revisits them. Amendment agreed to. Clause 41— Mr COPELAND (3.40 p.m.): This clause relates to the powers an authorised person has been given under the act. In his reply to the second reading debate the minister did touch on this. In my speech I raised an issue regarding authorised persons. They are not there just to enforce; they are actually there to assist with compliance. The minister has again confirmed that, but I thought it was important to put that on the record. Proposed section 30B relates to the production or display of an identity card. This is for those people who are actually out there in the field. Subsection (2) states— However, if it is not practicable to comply with subsection (1), the authorised person must produce the identity card for the other person's inspection at the first reasonable opportunity. Subsection (1) states— ... an authorised person must— (a) produce the authorised person's identity card for the other person's inspection before exercising the power; or (b) have the identity card displayed so it is clearly visible to the other person when exercising the power. Why would an authorised person not be able to comply with either (a) or (b) in that case? The subsection states ‘if it is not practicable'. What may those circumstances be? Mr NUTTALL: I think that is there simply from the point of view that an authorised officer out on the road may have had their wallet stolen or they just do not have it with them. It is nothing more than that. Clause 41, as read, agreed to. Clause 42, as read, agreed to. Clause 43— Mr COPELAND (3.42 p.m.): I referred to this clause in my contribution to the second reading debate. Proposed subsection (1) states— To remove any doubt, it is declared that this Act does not create or preserve a right for a person to smoke in or at any place. This basically says that smokers do not have any rights. A lot of members said in their speeches that they should not have any rights and asked, ‘What about the rights of nonsmokers?’ I agree in relation to the rights of nonsmokers. We have to ensure that the rights of nonsmokers are preserved, but I urge the minister, while these changes are going through, to recognise that people do smoke and that people are addicted to nicotine. We have heard some stories about how difficult it is to actually break that habit. During this process we should recognise that people do have rights—they will certainly feel that those rights have been infringed upon—and ensure that we are not too heavy-handed in the application of some of the changes as people get used to them. Mr NUTTALL: I am advised that all this does is simply update provisions that are already in the act. Clause 43, as read, agreed to. Clause 44— Mr COPELAND (3.43 p.m.): This clause provides for the omission of the review of the act. I have said that I will be moving an amendment to make it compulsory for this legislation to be reviewed. I note that in his contribution the member for Nicklin stated that he thought it was a good thing that there was a review in the act, but my understanding is that once this legislation is passed there actually will not be one. We have proposed the amendment because we also think it should be reviewed. I note that in his contribution the member for Mansfield related the experiences of a club in his electorate and spoke about the redevelopment that it is going through. He also stated that there will be a need to look at how this legislation is affecting retailers, clubs and hotels. The amendment I will move will make it compulsory for there to be an annual review for three years. The reason we have settled on that is that there is a phase-in period. So the review will be a catch-all of each of the steps before final implementation. So the first tranche of changes can be looked at, and for the ensuing three years after assent all changes as they come through can be reviewed for their effectiveness—whether they are working, whether they are not working—the practicalities and the difficulties. The amendments circulated by the minister this morning have come about after a fortnight, so in 12-month blocks I am sure other things will come up. 11 Nov 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3527

I do not see that this legislation will be relaxed. I actually have my suspicions that some sections of it will even be strengthened, for example on the issue of supplying tobacco to young people. I think that is an area in which we still have some work to do. I think that if 12 months or two years down the track we find that there has been no significant change then perhaps we have to look at it, but if there is a review in legislation then that makes us do it. We do not just rely on the department and the good intentions of the minister to come back and do it. The current act contains a provision for a review. The current act states that a review has to be done and tabled in the parliament. I think this bill should contain that provision as well. Mr NUTTALL: I will say two things. Firstly, in relation to the amendment we have accepted we will have to revisit clause 2. We have a mechanism there in relation to the start date. We will sort that out with the shadow minister. The review contained in the current act is after three years. The opposition is asking for a review every year. My concern is that it does create uncertainty for people. I do not want that expectation. Reviews do take time, and while the reviews are going on there is uncertainty in terms of people's business. If we were to do any review it would be just tidying up what was happening in the act, but there would be expectations and concerns by retailers, pubs and clubs in terms of what we were doing. The reason we do not want to put a yearly review into legislation is that it creates uncertainty. Mr COPELAND: I see that the review would look at only those parts of the legislation that had been implemented at that stage. Obviously further changes would happen after the review. I think it would provide some assistance to people struggling with the changes in that they would at least be reviewed and they could look at it. I accept the minister's explanation. Clause 44, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause— Mr COPELAND (3.47 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 6 After clause 44— At page 35, after line 18— insert— ‘44A Insertion of new s 52A After section 52— insert— ‘52A Annual reviews of Act ‘(1) The Minister must ensure the operation of this Act is reviewed at the following times— (a) the first review must start 1 year after the date of assent of the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Act 2004; (b) the second review must start 1 year after the first review starts; (c) the third review must start 1 year after the second review starts. ‘(2) Each review must be completed within 1 year after it starts. ‘(3) The Minister must prepare, and table in the Legislative Assembly, a report on the outcome of each review.’.’. We discussed this amendment in relation to the previous clause. I do not think it needs further discussion. Mr NUTTALL: I think we have already covered it. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 18—Copeland, E.Cunningham, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, Lee Long, Lingard, Messenger, Pratt, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Simpson, Springborg, Wellington. Tellers: Hopper, Malone NOES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Briskey, Choi, L.Clark, Cummins, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, E.Roberts, N.Roberts, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Stone, Struthers, Stuckey, C.Sullivan, Wallace, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Nolan, T.Sullivan Resolved in the negative. Clauses 45 to 48, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to. Mr NUTTALL (3.56 p.m.): I move— That clause 2 of the bill be reconsidered by the House. Motion agreed to. Clause 2— Mr COPELAND (3.56 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 2 Clause 2— At page 6, line 9, before ‘41’— insert— ‘40A,’. 3528 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 11 Nov 2004

This was an amendment that created the starting time for the ban on the sale, display and production of cannabis utensils which was the subsequent amendment proposed by me which has now been accepted by the government. This has necessitated our returning to this amendment to have a start date. Again, I thank the minister for supporting us on this amendment. Amendment agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (3.58 p.m.): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos 2 to 13 be postponed. Motion agreed to.

REVOCATION OF PROTECTED AREAS AND FOREST RESERVES Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (3.58 p.m.): I move— (1) That this House requests the Governor in Council to make a revocation by regulation of the dedication of protected areas and forest reserves under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 of those areas as set out in the Proposal tabled by me in the House today on 17 August 2004, viz— (a) All those parts of Blackbraes National Park, Blackbraes Resources Reserve and Kennedy Road Gravel Resources Reserve described as being within stations A-B-E-F-G-A on plan SP108012 and containing areas totalling about 425 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'A'; (b) All those parts of Daintree National Park described as Lot A on plan SR804238 and being within stations 2-5-6-3- 2 on plan DP160642 and containing an area of about 1.56 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'B'; (c) All that part of Dryander National Park described as being within stations A-B-C-D-A on plan SP113313 and containing an area of 0.0265 of a hectare as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'C'; (d) All those parts of Expedition National Park described as being within stations A-B-C-D on plan TR65 and the area shown as road to be opened on plan RA4365 and containing an area of about 55.2 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'D'; (e) All those parts of Great Sandy National Park described as Lots 702, 704, 706 and part of Lot 703 on plan SP129573 and containing an area of 7.934 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'E'; (f) All that part of Hull River National Park described as being Lot 114 on plan SP123190 and containing an area of 0.968 of a hectare as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'F'; (g) All that part of Iron Range National Park described as Lot A on plan AP3164 and containing an area of about 9 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'G'; (h) All those parts of Lamington National Park described as being within stations 132-43-68-91-201-203-185-158- 134-150-132 and 41-42-13-23-33-110-108-122-113-41 on plan SP110556 and containing an area of 10.121 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'H'; (i) All that part of Lochern National Park described as being within stations 19-28-D-E-29-20-19 on plan CP907114 and containing an area of 5.56 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'I'; (j) All those parts of Porcupine Gorge National Park described as being within stations 1-A-B-C-D-E-F-1 and H-2-3- K-J-I-H and M-5-6-8-P-N-M on plan SP119544 and containing an area of 159.3 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'J'; (k) All that part of Keatings Lagoon Conservation Park described as being within stations A-B-C-A on plan CP896130 and containing an area of about 0.33 of a hectare as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'K'; (l) All that part of Lake Broadwater Conservation Park described as Lot 67 on plan SP139357 and containing an area of 8.358 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'L'; (m) All that part of Palmer Goldfield Resources Reserve described as being within stations A-B-C-D on plan CP907719 and containing an area of about 6.3 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'M'; (n) All those parts of Bellthorpe Forest Reserve 1 described as Lots 23 to 29 on plan SP119039 and containing an area of about 0.427 of a hectare as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'N'; (o) All those parts of Bunyaville Forest Reserve described as being within stations 24-34-A-B-C-D-E-24 and 21-F-32- 23-G-22-H-21 and 15-J-31-20-K-17-L-15 and M-N-P-Q-33-R-S-14-29a-29-M and 30a-T-U-10-10a-12-30a and 7- 7a-7b-V-8-11-10b-7 and 5-6-32-5 and 4-W-X-Y-3-3a-4a-4 and 1-1b-2-16-3b-1a-1 on plan SP163986 and containing an area of 0.7936 of a hectare as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'O'; (p) All that part of Dan Dan Forest Reserve described as Lot A on plan AP10000 and containing an area of about 4.3 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'P'; (q) All those parts of Gympie Forest Reserve described as Lots 1, 2 and 3 on plan AP6531 and containing an area of about 4.353 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'Q'; 11 Nov 2004 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 3529

(r) All that part of Kroombit Tops Forest Reserve described as Area A on plan AP10001 and containing an area of about 6 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'R'; (s) All that part of Mount Binga Forest Reserve described as Area A on plan AP9988 and containing an area of about 7 hectares as illustrated on the attached sketch marked 'S'. (2) That Mr Speaker and the Clerk of the Parliament convey a copy of this resolution to the Minister for Environment for submission to the Governor in Council. My support for the revocation of land from the forest estate will, in every case, be dependent on there being a clear demonstration of a broader public interest. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service is the biggest land manager in Queensland. Working collaboratively with the owners of neighbouring properties is an important focus. It is an inescapable fact that the boundaries of many of our forests and national parks have been based on old and often inaccurate survey information that is, in some cases, over 100 years old. In the past, fences were not always placed on boundaries but instead in the most practical locations given the local topography. In most cases, these revocations have come about because of a request from a neighbour, be they a private owner or a local government. A revocation does not always represent a loss of land for the protected area estate. In fact, in most cases before the parliament today, there is a net gain for conservation as owners hand over to the state an area that is greater than that revoked. I will now outline the background of a select number of proposals and the relevant offsetting arrangements. Blackbraes National Park—the first proposal is for the revocation of an area totalling about 425 hectares from parts of Blackbraes National Park, Blackbraes Resources Reserve and the Kennedy Road Gravel Resources Reserve. This aggregation is located about 280 kilometres west of Townsville. This proposal represents a net gain for conservation of 483 hectares. The biodiversity values of area being revoked from the national park and the resources reserve are not as extensive or as sensitive as the areas being gained. The Daintree National Park—this proposal is for the revocation of an area of about 1.56 hectares from a section of the Daintree National Park that is located about 64 kilometres north of Port Douglas. The Bloomfield Lodge is a small privately owned area surrounded by the national park. It was originally leasehold land that was subsequently converted to freehold land. At that time it was discovered that part of the tourist development was inadvertently constructed on the national park. The owner has agreed to pay the market value of the land proposed for revocation as determined by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The payment will be used to purchase a replacement area of high conservation value for addition to the Daintree National Park. This purchase will be in addition to the recently announced Daintree buyback scheme that is currently under way. Dryander National Park—this proposal is for the revocation of an area of about 0.0265 hectares from Dryander National Park. It is located about 19 kilometres north-east of the town of Proserpine. Eighty-five hectares of land will be added to the national park and will more than offset the very small loss that will result from this revocation. Hull River National Park—this proposal is for the revocation of an area of 0.968 hectares from Hull River National Park that is located about a half a kilometre south-west of South Mission Beach. It has been discovered that the boat ramp at the end of Jackey Jackey Street at South Mission Beach is within the boundary of the national park and not on the adjoining road reserve, as previously thought. A net gain for conservation will be achieved as the Department of Natural Resources and Mines has agreed to transfer about 448 hectares of land for addition to Hull River National Park as part of the South Mission Beach land strategy. These parcels of land being added to the national park have been identified as habitat for the endangered species of southern cassowary and the mahogany glider. Keatings Lagoon Conservation Park—this proposal is for the revocation of an area of about 0.33 hectares from Keatings Lagoon Conservation Park that is located about four kilometres south-west of Cooktown. A net gain for conservation will be achieved as the Department of Natural Resources and Mines has agreed to transfer an area totalling about 17.4 hectares to the Environmental Protection Agency for addition to Keatings Lagoon Conservation Park. I will not detail the other revocations this afternoon. However, I can assure the House that very careful consideration has been given to each of the proposals contained in the motion. We have conducted detailed consultation with relevant state and local government bodies and carefully examined each proposal for native title considerations. Only after such careful consideration has it been determined that each revocation should proceed. I commend the motion to all members of the House. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.04 p.m.): I second the motion moved by the minister. While I do not like to make a habit of standing up in this place to support revocations of our national parks, this is the second occasion recently on which I have done such a thing, but I think that in both cases they were quite defensible and for a good cause. I support one of the revocations in particular in this motion, and that is the revocation from Dryander National Park because it is going to formalise access to an area set aside for a tourist development at Castaway Bay. This development will provide the mainland with an island resort that will be accessible by both land and sea. The project will be a boost to mainland 3530 Revocation of Protected Areas and Forest Reserves 11 Nov 2004 tourism in the Whitsunday area. It is supported by both the local government authority and Tourism Whitsunday. The revocation will act to assist the Whitsunday Shire Council in providing road and water infrastructure to this part of the shire as well as creating jobs during the construction and operation of the new resort. The area proposed for revocation is the minimum area necessary to facilitate the road action, and it is the only practical solution to the ongoing need for legal access to the proposed tourist development. It is also a win situation for conservation as the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking and will receive 85 hectares of land which will be added to the national park. That is a sizable gain when considering the loss of less than a hectare for access to the development. I know that this revocation will be welcomed in my area. I cannot wait to pass on the good news that, after what has been a number of years getting to this point, it will hopefully be passed by the House this evening. The revocation affirms the government's commitment to supporting people in regional Queensland by ensuring a sensible balance between protecting the environment and supporting development in Queensland. Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.06 p.m.): I support this revocation. I would like to thank the minister and her staff for providing a briefing on this, which was actually quite a few months ago. The Blackbraes National Park revocation—which is probably the only really big revocation involved in this— is actually for a quarry for one of the local councils, if I remember rightly. I think revocation C is actually for only 26 square metres. That is a very small area. A lot of the other small areas are just for road easements and the like. Some of them involve only 300 square metres, which is a tenth of a football field, so it is not very much land at all. Some of the councils have been trying to get some of these revocations through for their road reserves, et cetera, for a number of years. I have spoken to a number of members whose electorates are affected by these revocations, and everyone I have spoken to has been quite happy to see them go through. I support the revocations. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (4.07 p.m.): In speaking on these revocations, I have to say that they do not come about easily. A lot of work goes into them. No silly moves are ever made in this way. One of the things that I would like to speak about is the part that includes Lake Broadwater, which is situated just west of Dalby. This is about the revocation of part of Lake Broadwater Conservation Park so that the area can be declared a recreation reserve under the trusteeship of the Wambo Shire Council. I happen to live in that shire myself. Such revocations are extremely necessary for the protection and wellbeing of these recreational areas. I know that the Wambo Shire Council has been trying to get this through since Brian Littleproud was the minister. It has taken many years and a lot of work. I have copies of a lot of letters and a lot of literature on this which go back a number of years. On a non-political basis, I personally thank all those involved for bringing this to a head. I approached the minister last night and spoke to her about it. She said it was hoped that it would come up today, and it is great that it has. I know that the CEO of Wambo shire, Mr Colin O'Connor, has sent numerous letters to a number of ministers for the last five years. I can assure the House today that this is the end of a series of communications between Wambo shire and the Queensland government on this matter. Lake Broadwater is a great attraction. Not only does it cater for locals; a heck of a lot of tourists go there as well. Our progressive shire has provided some wonderful facilities out there, and it has all been at its own expense. It is only fitting that that council should be put in charge of this small area. This has been Colin O’Connor’s vision. Colin has been a big player in establishing that recreation reserve. I know that Colin has recently resigned from the Wambo Shire Council. He is still there at the moment, but he is moving on, so I take this opportunity to wish Colin and his family all the very best. He will be very hard to replace. This revocation in relation to Lake Broadwater is a small example of the work that he has done over the years. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.10 p.m.): I rise to speak on this revocation in relation to two areas, one adjacent to my electorate and one in my electorate. As the minister has said, there are a lot of historical agreements in terms of road reserves and then practical road construction sites that over time have been gradually rectified in terms of record keeping and there is nothing amiss there. There was one in my electorate that caused some grief. I think that was as much personality as it was fact. As time progresses, and litigation continues to increase, much of this is being rectified. In the area of the Dan Dan Forest Reserve there is a boundary realignment to allow access to plantation forestry. We have been in this chamber before talking about the need for access to timber, particularly harvest timber, to allow for jobs, job creation and security in the forestry area. The second revocation is at Kroombit Tops. It rectifies a problem that many councils find very, very difficult to cope with and that is land-locked property blocks. There is a block of land that is land-locked at Kroombit and this will allow 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3531 for a dedicated access to that block to be declared. I thank the minister for those two rectifications and support the revocation. Motion agreed to.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 19 October (see p. 2935) Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (4.14 p.m.): I thank the minister and her staff for the briefing on this bill. The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 is designed to help the environment and tidy up and improve the administration and efficiency of the EPA. This is surely needed with the ad hoc way the Labor government has treated the EPA. In relation to the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, I can understand why these changes that have been made to the act are required. It does seem reasonable. These changes legislate for the assessment of tidal work and ensure that works in a coastal management district are assessable development under the Integrated Planning Act. This would simplify the act so that it is not too cumbersome for local councils. These amendments should make the process more streamlined and remove minor works from the approval process. Local councils would be able to be exempted from minor works, for example rubbish collection, beach raking and that type of thing. Hopefully this part of the bill will also clarify the definition of a canal and the local government's responsibility in relation to these areas of marinas, boat moorings, et cetera. It also gives the chief executive the right to have tidal works removed and repaired. Quarries and dredging have also come under the notice of this bill, with the chief executive having the right to refuse an application. The chief executive also has the right to approve exemption certificates. I wonder if the minister could speak on this in her summing up because I do not know whether that is the best way to deal with that or whether it should go to a committee of some sort. This bill will also amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 as it relates to the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. It also has to relate to the Petroleum and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2004. There will be two types of environmental authorities, a code compliant authority and a non-code compliant authority. The code compliant authority will be issued immediately as it will conform. The bill does appear to bring the older bill into today's culture. The Integrated Planning Act 1997 will also be amended by this bill, introducing a transitional period for development approval until March 2006. This appears to be commonsense and will result in better governance of development issues. The bill also converts some forest reserves to protected areas under the South-east Queensland Forestry Agreement and Wet Tropics tenure. I congratulate the minister and her staff for realising that the bee industry is an important industry in Queensland and that excluding the industry over the short term would be detrimental. I have spoken to the National Parks Association, which is a well qualified and very old environmental group, and they can support the process of consultation with the apiarists. As with any diverse group, there is even a view that the European bees do not do a lot of damage to national parks. An old beekeeper hopes that the EPA staff will be able to produce a good Powerpoint presentation so that the bees will fully understand that they cannot collect honey from national parks. The beekeepers have virtually said that they are going to park the bees on the outside of the national parks anyway. They fly 5k or 6k in. That is 10k around the national park—it is a fairly big area. Ms Boyle: You need bee police. Mr RICKUSS: I think so. That is right. The apiary industry and National Parks need to continue to discuss the matter of bees in parks, of bees just outside parks and other issues that are important to both groups. That is a point for discussion. The National Parks Association, which is a very credible group, really does not know whether the bees are causing damage or not. I was listening to Radio National recently where it was stated that the bee industry in Australia started 200 years ago. It was a big industry back in the early 1800s, exporting honey back to England. The industry started in Australia very quickly. I am sure with realistic discussions and time frames some positive resolutions will be put forward. Unfortunately, this bill does not solve the problem of horse riders. I had to change a fair bit of my speech last night when the minister brought in that amendment to the motion. I realise that the motion amended before the House last night goes some way to alleviating the problem with horse riders. However, I feel that all that is being done is postponing the shut-out. I am sure that the minister's staff will tell her that feral animals in parks do much more damage than responsible horse riders on historic tracks that have been maintained by forestry staff for fire control and other issues of weed control. Many of these areas are very robust with established tracks and creek crossings. Surely the idea of banning these low- 3532 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 impact uses of the old forestry reserves would not be in the best interests of the public. I urge the minister to stop sending mixed messages out on this horse riding issue and bring forward a workable process to clarify the issue to the horse riders. On page 161 of the bill it is an offence to keep or use native wildlife reasonably suspected to have been unlawfully taken. It actually says— A person must not keep or use native wildlife if a reasonable person in the person's circumstances ought to have suspected that the wildlife may have been unlawfully taken unless— It goes on. It seems a bit complex. Maybe it is my inexperience, but it does seem a complex statement for a simple law—do not deal in stolen wildlife; it is an offence to keep native wildlife that is unlawfully taken. Maybe I am being too simplistic. I am sure that the minister, who has vastly more experience than I, will look into the matter. I found the miscellaneous provisions bill rather complex. I understand these bills do deal with technical matters, but I do feel that the bill is more complex with its amendments to penalties. I did find it very hard work reading through this bill, I must admit. There are many little changes. It put me to sleep a few nights. Ms Boyle: Should I admit: me, too? I don't know that I should admit it. Mr RICKUSS: On page 175, dealing with provisions for commercial activity permits for former forest reserves, in section 4 it actually says— However, the grounds on which the chief executive may refuse an application to renew the commercial activity permit include the ground that the carrying out of the commercial activities under the permit is not consistent with the management principles or a management plan for the protected area. I was wondering whether a right of appeal should be put in the legislation. We are talking here about commercial activity, some of which has been going on for a long time. If there is a right of appeal it could be to the minister or some other bona fide group. Is there any capacity in this legislation to have these decisions reviewed in a non-ad hoc way so that operators do not feel disadvantaged? Surely some form of appeal would be appropriate. I turn now to the Meaker Trust (Raine Island Research) Act 1981. I am advised that the Meaker family is very happy to have this asset transferred to the Australian Rainforest Foundation as the cost of running the trust was becoming prohibitive. It does make good sense to transfer the money to a group that the Meaker family is happy with. The money can then be used to better advantage. Other members on this side of the House will, I am sure, raise other pertinent issues relating to marine parks, the Hinchinbrook Channel and other coastal areas. I commend the bill to the House. Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (4.20 p.m.): I rise to speak in the debate on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 makes critical amendments to several pieces of environmental legislation in Queensland. This continues this government's commitment to effective environmental legislation. It is designed to protect Queensland's environment and enhance our nature conservation measures while improving our administrative efficiency by enhancing the regulation of coastal developments, streamlining the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and Wet Tropics forest tenure transfer to protect areas of tenure and implementing legislative amendments recommended by a major wildlife management review carried out last year. This review fulfils a commitment by the government to streamline wildlife management, reduce red tape and simplify the National Conservation Regulation 1994 and the Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 1994. The review recommended amendments to the Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Nature Conservation Regulation 1994. I want to raise an issue that I have brought to the attention of the House a number of times. I am hoping this review may result in amendments to the Nature Conservation Act 1992. I am seeking the issuing of the appropriate permits to remove flying foxes from Charters Towers and other areas of Queensland. The flying foxes are still there. They have been flapping around for four years. The community is asking the government to issue the appropriate permit to remove the flying foxes. Later on I will describe for members very simply the appropriate permit. It would be so simple. It has been four years and they are still there. A government member interjected. Mr KNUTH: That is why I am here. I am taking this issue to the parliament and putting my view to the parliament so that hopefully the government will address this problem. In the last four years Charters Towers residents have been putting up with plagues of flying foxes inhabiting residential areas. Right now there are 1,000 bats roosting above a number of people's homes. Would those opposite like a thousand bats above their homes? They would want their government to remove those bats. They have been there for the last 18 months. Mr Lawlor interjected. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3533

Mr KNUTH: You would like someone to remove them for you, wouldn't you? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Shine): Order! The honourable member will address his remarks through the chair. Mr KNUTH: Every Queenslander has the basic right to a safe and healthy environment. Normally when this quality of life is disturbed, health departments, environmentalists and compassionate governments would move in to help. The residents of Charters Towers have been totally and absolutely denied this right. The residents of Charters Towers have been putting up with flying foxes in their backyards ranging in numbers from 100 to 5,000. These people cannot sleep because of the noise and they cannot peg out their clean clothes on the line without them being covered with bat excreta. They turn on their airconditioners in the 40 degree heat and the stench enters their homes. In some cases it has made people physically ill. This problem has affected the majority of the community at one time. Adults, children of all ages, babies, high school students, the elderly and the infirm have suffered from a lack of sleep, high levels of stress and a substantial decrease in their quality of life. Health warnings have already been issued telling the general public not to attempt to touch these animals or to pick up the dead or injured flying foxes off the ground for fear they may contract lyssavirus. The other day a child at Bushland Beach north of Townsville was injured by a flying fox. Flying foxes were captured at the scene and tested positive for lyssavirus. The child had to undergo medical treatment, which included several painful injections in the face. A significant number of baby bats have been swooping at people. This problem has continued for the last four years. If a crocodile takes up residence in a populated area it would be removed. Two years ago a crocodile was found in a river near the Burdekin. It was causing problems so it was removed. If it is good enough to remove the crocs, it is good enough to remove the bats. This is a state government issue as the black and red flying foxes are a non-threatened species under the federal government's Biodiversity Act. I have a media release dated 7 December 2001 which states that the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service has issued Charters Towers City Council with permits to shift some of the flying foxes roosting in parts of Lissner Park. The permits would allow the council to remove little red flying foxes from residential areas. The permits are useless. Why are they useless? We cannot touch, remove or harass those bats after 7 o'clock in the morning. That is the reason the bats are still there. We are asking for a decent permit so that we can harass those bats after 7 o'clock in the morning so that we can get them out of town. If we cannot harass the bats after 7 o'clock in the morning— Ms Boyle: You have got to have the place to take them. Mr KNUTH: Okay, that is what the people of Charters Towers want to know. We have been hearing about a bat habitat for many years. This has been going on for three years. They want to know what is going on and when it is going to happen. Ms Boyle: I understand that it is up to the council to supply the plot of land that everybody has agreed is the best. It is waiting for council approval. Mr KNUTH: If it is waiting for council approval, is the government doing anything to issue that land approval? Ms Boyle: I will double-check it. Mr KNUTH: That is what we want to find out. We want to get the ball rolling. We want to see these bats removed. I do not want bring up this issue again. We want them removed. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FRASER (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (4.27 p.m.): I rise to support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. It addresses many aspects of environmental regulation in this state such as mining, coastal management and planning and the Meaker family trust. These are all matters which are ripe for timely amendment. I am going to address my remarks to the amendments that the bill makes to the Nature Conservation Act, which as been around since 1992. At the time it was clear that the parliament viewed seriously any offence involving the taking, keeping or using of wildlife. At the time the maximum penalty was set at 3,000 penalties units or two years imprisonment and declared an indictable offence. As the previous member mentioned, there was a well publicised wildlife review concluded last year. Wildlife offences range from the relatively minor such as keeping a blue-tongue lizard without a licence to extremely serious offences, for example killing an endangered species. The objective of these changes, highlighted in the wildlife management review discussion paper which was released last year, was to create infringement notice penalties for minor wildlife offences so as to minimise the number of minor offences being referred to courts for prosecution. Clearly the use of infringement notices for minor offences is more practical and reasonable, saving the most stringent 3534 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 penalties for the more serious offences. It also provides for more efficient and efficacious enforcement which can only be to the ultimate benefit of the wildlife protected under the Nature Conservation Act. Refining the provisions of that act will provide more practical enforcement options for minor breaches while definitely retaining higher maximum penalties for serious offences. The clear emphasis of the 1992 act is the protection of biodiversity in the wild. Despite all efforts at all levels of government, the conservation status of many native species is in decline, and this bill also provides for amendments relevant in this regard. Captive breeding is one strategy used by governments to conserve a species where all other attempts have failed. This bill provides amendments for a captive breeding administrative regime. Captive breeding provides an opportunity to learn more about a particular rare or threatened species through cooperative research and captive observation. The knowledge gained from a captive breeding program can greatly assist in the ultimate survival of the species. Captive breeding agreements provide an opportunity for the state to enter into partnerships with professional institutions and organisations to gain a better understanding of our native wildlife and create a species repository in the event that they become extinct in the wild. Naturally I would encourage any partnerships and cooperative management regimes the Environmental Protection Agency can put in place with private individuals, research institutions and commercial organisations, for that matter, that have positive conservation outcomes. It must be emphasised that the captive breeding of animals is part of a broader strategy. The emphasis of the Nature Conservation Act is the conservation of wildlife in the wild, and that is where the government is definitely focusing its attention. But, as I said, there are times when captive breeding is an issue of last resort for governments interested in saving particular species. Under the bill, a captive breeding agreement may authorise a party to take wildlife within or outside protected areas. However, any such agreement does not permit the person to take wildlife without the land-holder's approval. When moving wildlife, they will be required to carry a copy of the agreement with them to evidence that fact. It should also be noted that captive breeding agreements will not interfere with the collection authority granted under the biodiversity act, which we passed earlier this year. Finally, I also want to make mention of the bill's provisions that relate to the capacity for wildlife that is the subject of legal proceedings to be held in situ. In some circumstances, for practical reasons or for the wellbeing of the animals concerned, this may be preferable to removing them to temporary accommodation. With those few words, I commend the bill to the House. Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (4.31 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. The Liberal Party will be joining other members of the House in supporting this bill. I have a couple of observations, and I will try to keep them short. I certainly share the sympathy that many members of the House had with the horse riding community where land previously classified as state forest was moved into the national park classification. I note that the minister has listened to some of those concerns and some concessions have been made. It does not strike me that the idea of a national park should totally exclude people entering or enjoying that park provided it serves the principal purpose of protecting the environment. Our parks are an important part of the tourist industry, and certainly horse riding is common in the tourist industry. Many resorts offer horse riding. Quite frankly, I would be much happier to see horse riding in those areas than some of the four-wheel drives going up the beach and other vehicles which are much more environmentally threatening in my view than some well controlled horse riding on formed tracks that avoid environmentally sensitive areas. The other area of concern—and I appreciate the minister again taking consideration of this issue—is in relation to beekeeping and in particular the issue of Capilano Honey, Australia's major producer of Medihoney. It produces a product called Medihoney which I used to use in my former occupation. Medihoney is a natural product produced mostly from the forests of northern New South Wales and Queensland that has an action against golden staph, which is a serious problem in our hospitals. It also has healing properties and is used for the healing of leg ulcers. This is a significant biotech discovery for Australia. It is marketed overseas. It has been subjected to three years of clinical trials, and it highlights the importance that a lot of our natural environment can have in producing medical products and scientific discoveries. I note that the minister has kindly met with the company and considered its position, and that is something that I would thank her for. The whole issue that arises out of this is human access and activity within national parks. I would suspect that, as the population grows, this is an issue that will arise—whether it is horse riders, whether it is honey production, whether it is tourism, whether it is scientific study—time and time again. It may be that the department down the track might like to prepare a discussion paper and look at these issues, because they can only become bigger and bigger issues as the tourist industry and the population grow. The issue of tracks in national parks will continue. It has been said that perhaps the beekeepers will not be able to get in anyway because the tracks will become overgrown. The issue of firebreaks is clearly going to be an issue in national parks, particularly when they are close to human dwellings. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3535

The general maintenance of national parks requires trail access. One of the arguments against horse riding is of course the introduction of exotic weeds via seeds from the horses, but the issue of weed control in national parks, which would require regular study and access, again is an issue. So there are all of these areas of human access for scientific study, for management of the park, for tourism and for human recreation and the ability to look at them. It is important that the national parks themselves have been scientifically studied, because within a given national park, particularly in Queensland, some of the areas are going to be very environmentally sensitive and others less so. It is a worthwhile scientific exercise to understand where those areas are so that when human access is allowed, whether it be for research or for maintenance of the park or for firebreaks and so forth, the most sensitive areas can be the ones removed the farthest from that impact. Other than that, and with those few comments, we support the bill. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (4.37 p.m.): I rise to speak very briefly on this bill. This bill will provide improved effectiveness and efficiency of Queensland's environmental legislation and important linkages with interrelated legislation will be developed. The implementation of the government's commitment to transfer South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and Wet Tropics forest reserve lands to national park or national park recovery tenure will be streamlined through the introduction of this bill. I have the great pleasure of having Daisy Hill Forest in the Springwood electorate. It is also very close to Chatswood Hills State School. The school focuses on environmental protection and has been recognised internationally and nationally for environmental awards. After listening to the member for Charters Towers, I am thinking about asking Chatswood Hills State School to take on a bat project. I think it could come up with some great ideas for his town. At the state awards ceremony for the annual Green and Healthy Schools competition, Chatswood Hills this year was the winner for south-east Queensland's green and healthy school and also the protection of the environment award, the Inland South-East Queensland Region Award. As members can see, it is very much into a very good environmental program. I am also very pleased to say that Chatswood Hills State School won the state award for protection of the environment. This is a great achievement by the school, and I congratulate it. It has plenty to celebrate, because after years and years of hard work it has now raised the funds for a school hall. I did the official groundbreaking ceremony just recently. The school has raised over $95,000 towards this project. It is really looking forward to it opening for the 2005 school year, and that will mean that some of its environmental projects will be able to be held in that hall. So I would like to congratulate them. While the minister is in the chamber, I would also like to ask her to come on down and have a look Chatswood Hills State School, because that school has a wonderful environmental program that I would love to show her. The students would be very pleased see the minister. I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (4.39 p.m.): In rising to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, at the outset can I say that this is the first time that I have spoken to a bill applicable to this portfolio and applicable to this minister since her elevation to this responsible role. I congratulate the minister on her elevation to this very important portfolio of Local Government and the Environment. I believe that those two areas are very important to the ongoing prosperity and development of our state. The portfolio area of Local Government is in the spotlight all the time. Those people who represent those shires are the ones who are out there at the coalface all the time, knowing full well what is affecting their constituency on a daily basis. With an electorate such as mine, which encompasses some 12 local authorities, I get that understanding. I know many people in this chamber are in a similar situation. Other members have to work only within the confines of the Brisbane City Council. However, those local authorities are still important areas of responsibility. I want to touch on a few issues relevant to this legislation. When I raise them members will probably ask, ‘What does that have to do with the legislation?' However, I believe that they are cross-agency issues and the minister will understand where I am coming from. With reference to coastal management, I want to talk about Fraser Island and the dingo problem there. That has been an ongoing problem for a long time. I have raised that dingo problem, or wild dog problem—whatever we want to term it—in this House before and I want to raise it again today while the minister is present. It is certainly an impost on the wool industry in western Queensland. In recent times, there have been numerous meetings of councillors of western Queensland shires. There is a crisis in those areas. For example, Winton shire used to have 1.2 million to 1.4 million sheep. Currently, that figure has been reduced to 200,000. It is much the same in the Barcaldine shire, where there are about 200,000 sheep left. The wild dogs in those areas are a real menace. The areas of Blackall, Tambo and Longreach—right throughout the cattle country of central-western Queensland—are no different. Last Tuesday in Barcaldine there was a meeting chaired by Mayor Rob Chandler. That council is looking for assistance and certainly to work in cooperation with the government to address this problem in western Queensland. I say to the minister today that this wild dog problem is not just a problem in western Queensland; it is a problem statewide, whether it is Fraser Island, the far north or the west. Wherever I drive in my electorate I see dingoes on a daily basis and they are inside and outside the 3536 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 barrier fence. One thing that I want to say today is that it is important that we develop interagency management strategies. I will touch on that a little bit later. The real issue is that those western towns are the economies of rural Queensland. I talk about the shearing industry and the kangaroo industry, which is another responsibility of the minister. In a lot of those towns, the macropod industry is virtually taking over from the wool industry. It is one of the major income earners for people who live in those places and who are not professional people. But I will say that they are now professional people, because they run very professional operations in the harvesting of the macropod. I hope that the minister is able to do a tour of western Queensland in the not-too- distant future. I would be only too happy to be able to take her to places such as the kangaroo processing works in some of those towns so that she can see the way in which this industry is managed and the professionalism of this industry, the dollars that are generated and where that product is going, such as to the European market. The macropod processing industry is a very, very integral part of the economies of these towns now. Some of these blokes can earn $1,000 or $1,500 a week in this industry. The same applies to the shearing industry. The people who work in that industry have worked hard and have delivered for a long time to those rural areas. Many of these people have always had to find ways and means of earning an income. I believe that is sacred in western Queensland. From St George and Cunnamulla right through to Hughenden and Richmond, in recent times we have virtually seen the demise of the sheep industry. I will come back to the Barcaldine shire meeting on Tuesday morning. A leadership stance has to be adopted. We may have to put bounties on dingoes to try to eliminate them. I realise that that is a cross-agency issue that could involve the Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Another area that I want to address with the minister is the feral animal problem in national parks: wild pigs, foxes and, of course, wild dogs. If we are going to address the wild dog problem in western Queensland, we certainly have to address it in national parks, because the breeding program is the same in those areas. Come this time of the year, or even in the earlier part of the autumn, the dogs breed. The young dogs are on the run now. They certainly are in a playful mood and they are in a killing mood. That is when the real problems arise. There has been a lot of talk about taking away the 1080 poisoning campaigns. I believe that those poisoning campaigns are a very positive way of controlling the wild dog problem—and the pig problem, for that matter. I appeal to the minister to certainly have coordinated, controlled campaigns not only in the pastoral lands but also in the national parks. It can be done professionally and it can be done responsibly. If the minister's department, the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Primary Industries worked in conjunction with the responsible local governments, we could get positive outcomes that would return some dollars back into the economy of this great state, whether that be through the wool industry or increased productivity of rural lands. The real issue is that, with a controlled campaign, the poisoning has to be at the right strength and it has to be done properly. As I just said a while ago, if we can have interagency management strategies in place—and I think that is very, very important—in conjunction with these individual local governments, we could get an outcome that will address this problem. It will not totally wipe out the problem, but it will certainly go a long way towards addressing it. Another issue that I just want to touch on seems to be becoming a greater problem. As members would be well aware, in this House last night I addressed the issue of citrus canker in the citrus industry in Emerald. I have to say again that this is another issue that goes across portfolio boundaries. Today Mike Horan and I had a briefing from DPI in relation to this disease. We also spoke with the minister, Henry Palaszczuk, this morning. We have native fruit trees that grow in those areas in question. That is another area that we have to address, and DPI is trying to address it. No doubt if the disease goes into national parks, this issue will fall into the minister's portfolio area. I believe that it is only going to be a matter of time before we see the government working with local authorities. In this case I am talking about the Emerald Shire Council. No doubt Mayor Peter Maguire, and the Chairman of the Local Government Association of Queensland, Paul Bell, will outline to the minister the seriousness of the situation. If we can arrest this problem at Emerald, that would be fantastic. But if we cannot and the problem is bigger than we think it is, we will be looking at getting assistance from all government agencies. I think that we all have to shoulder this responsibility. I know from being a minister that such problems confront us on a daily basis. I know that sometimes they are hard to address, but please God we can address this problem to the advantage of all the people affected at the moment. The industry in that area employs 200 people annually, but in the peak season it employs 1,000 people. So members can see what a citrus canker outbreak is going to do to the economy of that region. I refer to the bilby. The bilby program at Charleville, managed by the Parks and Wildlife Service, is a fantastic concept. Just this week I spoke with James Purtill, the Director-General of the EPA. We talked about the great work Peter McRae has done there. I think Peter just about lives at the bilby centre in Charleville. He has done such a wonderful job— Mrs Carryn Sullivan: And Frank Manthey. 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3537

Mr JOHNSON: I will come to Frank in a minute. They are great men, the two of them—Frank and Peter. Frank has moved away from the area at the moment, but I believe that Frank and Peter are the two gentlemen responsible for saving the bilby. There is an enclosure at Currawinya National Park. If we can get a return to some sort of normal seasons, hopefully we will soon see the release of the bilbies into that enclosure so that people who visit that national park can see bilbies in their natural habitat. That brings me to the issue of the Parks and Wildlife Service in Charleville. In raising a matter of public importance on Tuesday I outlined some of the problems that have been endured by some of the rangers. On Tuesday afternoon I spoke to Mr Purtill about this. The minister has some good people in Charleville. They may be under investigation for certain issues, but I believe that those matters are very petty. The minister needs to ensure an outcome before Christmas to let these people get on with doing the job they are doing—that is, providing management and educational strategies to the children and young people who want to learn about EPA issues. I do not say this lightly. I spoke fairly strongly about the issue on Tuesday morning. I trust that the minister, along with her director-general, can monitor that so that we can get outcomes to stop these people if they are being bullied or pushed in the wrong direction. I mention the issue of rangers in national parks. I have already spoken to the director-general about this. The department is seeing fit to relocate rangers out of national parks. Personnel from the national parks in my electorate—mainly Lochern, Welford and Idalia—will be relocated to Longreach and will work from there. Whilst the government has spent tens of thousands of dollars upgrading facilities at national parks and building residences for people to live in, I fear that these properties will be vandalised if people are not living there. Bearing in mind that local people in that country will keep an eye out to make certain that that element of society does not creep in and vandalise EPA property, we always see buildings deteriorate when people do not live in them. Welford has a magnificent homestead. It would be a travesty if that national park in western Queensland was left idle with nobody residing there. The director-general said to me on Tuesday that the department is looking at options to get better output from our rangers—working them in groups rather than as individuals. An element could creep in there that could be detrimental to the whole exercise. I do not say that lightly. It is a serious issue. I wrote to the former minister about it. I know that the Barcoo and Blackall shire councils have expressed concern, as have other shire councils in western Queensland. These are all relevant issues. Whilst some might not be totally relevant to this piece of legislation, they do fall within the confines of the operation of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are all conscious of the environment. We are all there to make absolutely certain we preserve our wildlife and the nature that goes with it. It gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. I trust that the minister can monitor those few issues I have raised here today. Debate, on motion of Mr English, adjourned.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Unemployment Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (4.55 p.m.), by leave: I am proud to head a state government which leads the country in job creation. When I stood in the parliament this morning to announce that Queensland had reached the five per cent unemployment target I set in 1997 in opposition, those opposite could only carp and whinge. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition credited this great result for Queensland to John Howard and the federal government. That claim does not stand up to scrutiny, and I want the record to be very clear on this. I want to set the record straight. Queensland's five per cent unemployment rate is 0.5 per cent lower than the national average— half a per cent lower. The result is even more striking when it is noted that the participation rate actually rose to 65.5 per cent—the highest participation rate in the country. What that means is that more people are looking for work in Queensland than anywhere else in Australia. That is more people—I emphasise this—looking for work and more people finding work. That is why this result is so extraordinary, which is why it is very much an historic day for Queensland. In fact, Queensland recorded the largest annual rise in employment of any state, accounting for around 44 per cent of national jobs growth. Honourable members should just think about that—44 per cent of jobs growth, and we got them here. We created 44 per cent of the jobs and we have only 19 per cent of the population. Last month we created 55 per cent of all full-time jobs in Australia. That is the sort of energy that exists in this state. Queensland's record low unemployment is in trend terms only exceeded by Western Australia, with its lower participation rate of 65.2 per cent. So it has a lower participation rate. 3538 Ministerial Statement 11 Nov 2004

Let us compare the states. New South Wales's unemployment rate is 5.3 per cent. Victoria's unemployment rate is 6.1 per cent. South Australia's unemployment rate is six per cent. Tasmania's unemployment rate is 6.5 per cent. Western Australia's unemployment rate is 4.8 per cent. Queensland's unemployment rate is five per cent. When we compare trend employment growth we see that Queensland leads the country. New South Wales's employment growth was 0.0 per cent—in other words, zero. Victoria's unemployment growth was 0.2 per cent. South Australia's employment growth was 0.1 per cent. Western Australia's employment growth was 0.2 per cent. Tasmania's employment growth was 0.2 per cent. Queensland's employment growth was 0.5 per cent—more than double the nearest state. John Howard owes Queensland a great debt. The month of October is no anomaly. Queensland has recorded the strongest jobs growth of any state in each month since April 2004. How about that? The month of October is no anomaly. Queensland has recorded the strongest jobs growth of any state in each month since April 2004. My government makes no apology for making jobs, jobs, jobs the priority of our Smart State government, and we will let the opposition whinge, whinge, whinge. Mr Terry Sullivan: They whinge; we work. Mr BEATTIE: That is right. They whinge; we work. They whinge; we deliver. Today's stunning figures demonstrate that, through Smart State policies and hard work by businesses and the work force, our targets have become a reality. I congratulate Queensland's private sector for being a great partner with the Queensland government, for being aggressive in job creation and for adopting Smart State strategies to improve their competitiveness, answering my challenge to increase exports and thriving in the economic climate my government has created. It was in September 1997 when I was Opposition Leader that I set this target of reducing the unemployment rate to five per cent if we won government and announced job creation policies to help achieve that target, which we now have. I did so because the National and Liberal parties in government had announced that they could do nothing to lower the unemployment rate which reached— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr BEATTIE: What did it reach when they were last in office when the Opposition Leader was a minister? 9.5 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition is bleating there, yet the unemployment rate of 9.5 per cent is higher than his party’s vote when his party was last in office—and higher than his approval rating. Our policies have helped produce the lowest jobless rate since the current labour force format began in 1978. Just think about that. I will repeat that for the leader of the bleating opposition—the whingeing opposition: our policies have helped produce the lowest jobless level since the current labour force format began in 1978. We created 93,000 jobs over the year, proving that we are the undisputed jobs factory of Australia—the engine room of Australia. Queensland is now at a point where our annual employment growth of 5.1 per cent is more than double the national rate of 2.2 per cent. The national rate is 2.2 per cent; ours is 5.1 per cent. John Howard owes Queensland a great debt. The news is encouraging for the year ahead, with leading indicators suggesting jobs growth in the coming months is likely to remain solid. I am very proud of this target being reached. I want to thank all my colleagues and all members of the government who have worked very hard against all the cynics, all the whingers and all the white- anters who try to destroy it. We have delivered for this great state, and let me tell you: you ain't seen nothing yet. The facts of life are that the Smart State has a long life. We are going to deliver on it. We are going to deliver positive things for this state. We will leave the opposition in the gutter because that is what it is good at. I have to admit that there is one thing this opposition will always be better at than my government and I, and that is dirty tactics and being in the gutter. It is much better than we are at it. I am not in its league and I never want to be.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Freedom of Information Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.01 p.m.), by leave: My government is strongly committed to freedom of information legislation. Let me reinforce to the House the basis for that commitment. This government acts to promote openness, accountability and public participation. FOI enables members of the public to have access to government information to find out more about what the government is doing. The public increasingly demands more complex and sophisticated public sector governance and accountability mechanisms, and we have delivered that. There has been a growth in the scrutiny of administrative decision making under administrative law. Bodies such as the Ombudsman, the Information Commission, the Crime and Misconduct 11 Nov 2004 Ministerial Statement 3539

Commission—which no other state has—the Integrity Commission and the Queensland Audit Office and a range of tribunals and freedom of information mechanisms have increased public accountability for public servants at an individual level, making the Public Service more open to public scrutiny.

There is only a limited number of exemptions from the release of information. They include documents that are part of the cabinet process and specific exemptions relating to matters such as secrecy, commercial-in-confidence and legal proceedings. All other Australian jurisdictions—state, territory and Commonwealth—now have FOI laws and all of them have a similar range of exemptions. All of them have cabinet exemptions—every one of them. What we do here is consistent with the rest of Australia.

Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: I do not hear the bleating Leader of the Opposition campaigning against John Howard to get rid of the cabinet exemption. I do not even see our newspapers—the Courier-Mail, for example—campaigning against John Howard to change the cabinet exemption. We are consistent with the rest of Australia. These exemptions are there because they are necessary for the good workings of government. FOI legislation is not meant to make public every piece of information used by government in making decisions. It would not improve the quality of government to release every internal opinion or evidence of frank debate. Freedom of information legislation was never intended to do that. To do so would also undermine the Westminster principle that members of cabinet must be able to freely discuss matters while maintaining the concept of collective responsibility.

We have a dedicated and committed network of FOI coordinators in government who actively assist applicants to refine their request and thus minimise processing fees and other costs. The government also has an extensive system of administrative release of documents. This means that citizens have access to relevant government information without having to make a formal FOI application.

Let me restate some of the statistics regarding the application of the FOI Act in 2003. These clearly demonstrate my government's commitment to openness in government and to the operation of the FOI Act in particular. There was a total of 11,101 applications made to state and local governments in that financial year under the act. Of those applications, 9,872 were made to state government agencies. Of those, more than 5,000 were free of charge as they were personal applications. The remaining 4,510 applications were non-personal, with an application fee of $33.50. No charge is made for non-personal applications that consume less than two hours in staff time.

The release of documents is of a very high proportion. More than 90 per cent of documents sought were released. In 85 per cent of applications, all documents sought were released. In 93 per cent of all applications, all or part of the documents sought were released. This is clear evidence of a system that is working well and meeting the object of the legislation in extending as far as possible the right of the community to access information held by the Queensland government.

All this openness comes at a cost to the taxpayer. As I have said before—and I say it again—it is a cost worth paying. But let me be clear about what the cost is. In 2002-03 the total cost to departments and agencies in administering these applications is estimated at $9,294,935.20, and that does not include, as I understand it, the costs of the opposition's FOI applications. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might like to come into the House when we return and put the full cost of his FOI applications before the House.

This sum is assessed according to the average cost of processing an application and includes consideration of a number of factors—salaries of dedicated freedom of information officers, management and a range of corporate services costs. On the other hand, the revenue derived from fees and charges payable under the FOI Act in this period was only $251,091.84. The estimated total net cost to Queensland government departments and agencies in 2002-03 is $9,043,843.40. As I said, we believe this is a cost worth paying, and it underlines our commitment to freedom of information.

The costings I have given are based on data from the 2002-03 freedom of information annual report. The 2003-04 annual report will be finalised early next year. Some more up-to-date costings will be available then. I intend to make a further statement to the House in the near future detailing the cost to the government of the full range of accountability and integrity systems, both internal to government agencies and external. Perhaps I will also include the costs of the opposition's FOIs.

Let me make one thing very clear: the cabinet exemption will remain. It will not change. It is about good government. It is about the Westminster system. It is about a consistent policy adopted by both sides of politics around Australia, and it will not change. 3540 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

PRIVILEGE

Comments by the Premier and Minister for Trade Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.07 p.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. The Premier misled the parliament a moment ago when he indicated that he has delivered on his promise or pledge of five per cent unemployment. I refer him to a letter to the editor in the Courier-Mail of 11 April last year, where he said it was never a promise— A government member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: This is where he has misled the House. He said, ‘I said a target of five per cent would be ambitious but possible as long as we receive federal government help.' It is bah humbug for the Premier to say that this has nothing to do with the federal government. The Premier himself said last year in the newspaper that as long as he receives federal government help— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fraser): Order! This is not a matter of privilege. Mr SPRINGBORG: He went on to say that the caption was wrong referring to it as a promise or a pledge. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will not debate the issue. Mr SPRINGBORG: The Premier himself said that it was not a promise or a pledge— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3537. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (5.08 p.m.): The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 is an extremely wide-ranging bill impacting on many issues concerning the environmental management of Queensland. I wish to speak about one small aspect of this legislation which impacts significantly on my electorate. Before I do so, I would like to voice my concern that in his contribution the shadow minister alluded to the fact that he had difficulty understanding the bill. It scares me that, as the shadow minister, he is having difficulty understanding bills. I think it is a sad reflection on the opposition's ability to hold itself up as a future government of Queensland. As my electorate borders Moreton Bay, quite often work is needed to be done to the foreshore and in that intertidal zone. We have a number of rock retaining walls around the beach and quite often councils are required to go in and do minor repair work to these rock walls. In the past it has been somewhat problematic for councils to try to get authorisations to undertake these works. I am pleased that these amendments will give greater clarity to local government about the development assessment process. It will remove the requirement for local government to actually make application for minor works that will not impact on coastal management. One of the regular complaints I get from my local councillors is the amount of bureaucracy and red tape involved in dealing with the state government. I compliment the minister and her department for making the life of local governments easier in this small way up and down the coast of Queensland. As I said, given the fact that a significant portion of my electorate borders Moreton Bay, this will go a long way towards lightening the workload of Redland Shire Council and I am sure it, along with me, compliments the minister. I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (5.11 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This bill addresses a number of areas. They include improving the integration of the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 with the Integrated Planning Act 1997, environmental protections associated with petroleum activities and the transfer of the Meaker Trust to the Australian Rainforest Foundation. Also included in this bill are amendments to the Nature Conservation Act 1992. It is these that I want to speak about. These amendments are aimed at streamlining tenure transfers affecting Wet Tropics areas and areas under the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement. This is a far more troubled issue than it may appear from the simple amendments included in this bill. Here we have, essentially, the finetuning of the legal framework under which the land tenure transfers can take place; that is, the system by which state forest and forest reserve areas can have their tenure changed to become a national park or, in a few instances, national conservation tenure. In the north Queensland Wet Tropics we are looking at something like 500,000 hectares of country—a massive stretch of land. The major issue with this entire proposal, however, is that so many 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3541 stakeholder groups are being affected and they believe they have had no useful input into how they are to be affected. Stakeholders have been able to sit down with the departmental staff about the transfers, but the decision had already been taken about which areas were to be transferred. The stakeholders cannot influence the single major issue, that is, which land is going to be locked up. So, on the one hand, we have a consultation process that is serving no real purpose in terms of what land is affected and, on the other hand, we have the legal framework coming before us without any apparent connection to the stakeholder concerns. In the Wet Tropics area the areas to be transferred—much of which is in my electorate—are listed in the issues paper put out by the EPA and QPWS. They are the Curtain Fig, Danbulla, Dinden, Dirran, Gadgarra, Gillies Highway, Graham Range, Herberton Range, Little Mulgrave, Malbon Thompson, Mount Fisher and Trinity Forest Reserves and Mount Chalmynia. This represents a very significant portion of public land, especially when it is remembered that this is only one stage of a multistage process. This tenure will mean that many existing users of these areas will be locked out, particularly horse riders. Motorcyclists and four-wheel drivers and so on will be able to continue to ride on gazetted roads within national parks. There is great concern as to how long this will be so as these gazetted roads and bridges deteriorate over time and, as we all know, there is never enough resources to keep them in reasonable repair. They do not need to have them in reasonable repair. That is what they have their four-wheel drives for—to ride on the rough roads. The other thing they have concerns about is that the gazetted roads may not go very far into the forests. The length of the road will determine how far these two- and four-wheelers will be able to go. This could mean a massive devaluation of the equestrian values of the far north, particularly within my electorate. Horse riding is an extremely popular family and youth-friendly activity widely practised across the Tablelands electorate and in the far north in general. This is in no small part because of the excellent locations riders have been readily able to access in the past. If the proposed transfers proceed, this activity and its associated economic and social benefits will effectively come to an end. Further, horse riding is also a traditional activity with a history of thousands of years. It is a legitimate activity which Queenslanders have every right to be able to pursue without the enormous restrictions proposed by this Beattie government. I mention motorcyclists. I understand that in general these riders operate according to strict rules, especially when they are taking part in club activities such as those organised by the Geriatric Riders of the Atherton Tablelands. As an example, this club, through its affiliation with the Dual Sport Motorcycle Riders Association, operates in a very low impact manner. For example, on overnight trips soap is not taken so washing will not have any impact on waterways and all rubbish is packed up and taken out of the area at the end of the event on a support vehicle. The government's proposals do not appear to make any allowance for such highly responsible user groups. Again, there is no apparent consideration of the economic impact. Limiting the activity will directly impact on sales and service industries across the region. In relation to the expectation that growing populations in coastal cities will lead to greater visitation rates, this raises the issue of local user rights. The introduction of access management plans, such as bookings, should give local and neighbouring residents favourable treatment as many have deliberately bought land, often at premium prices, specifically because of its location in relation to such public lands. It is farcical for this government to argue that non-native animals such as horses must have access restricted or even banned on the basis of protecting the environment when state managed lands are a major haven for feral plants and animal infestations in Queensland. To insist, as has happened in at least one incident that I am aware of, that a horse rider remove its animals' droppings from a forest reserve while at the same time allowing feral pigs to tear up areas uncontrolled is a joke. There is, frankly, no credibility in the environmental arguments while the government does not properly manage its existing estate, does not fund more than token feral pig control measures and other feral pest control measures, does not maintain even existing levels of rangers and is widely acknowledged as being the worst neighbour a primary producer can have. The proposal to lock up such large tracts of land will further aggravate the situation because existing resources are insufficient for the present demands placed on the park service. The government will not fund it adequately now, and it can be guaranteed not to do so for these new park areas either. To make it even worse, it is proposed that all user groups would be restricted to limited locations in my electorate, making it a foregone conclusion that those areas will be overused and suffer accordingly. Grazing opportunities will also be affected as this activity is unavailable on national parks with no allowance for existing leases or permits to be renewed once they expire. I note on pages 15 and 16 of the discussion paper that there are comments about QPWS taking the initiative to develop and maintain good relationships with park neighbours and local communities. I believe that this will be a significant challenge when the parks will be areas that the community was once able to access for many uses but will now be severely restricted in enjoying. 3542 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

I suggest that serious consideration be given to at least increasing the number of areas that will remain accessible to include Danbulla Forestry Reserve, Dinden Forest Reserve, Gadgarra Forest Reserve, Herberton Range Reserve and all of the Bluff. It will ensure that the burden is not concentrated on only a limited number of locations. It will ease the mounting community outrage, and it will ensure that Queensland and north Queensland's environment is able to be enjoyed by as many Queenslanders as possible. Mr CHOI (Capalaba—ALP) (5.19 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. Clearly, this is another piece of legislation that shows that the Beattie Labor government is looking after the environment of Queensland. It is designed to protect the Queensland environment and enhance our nature conservation measures while improving our administrative efficiency. There are a few objectives in this bill. It seeks to amend quite a few pieces of legislation, including the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995, the Environmental Protection Act 1994, as well as the Nature Conservation Act 1992. This legislation also seeks to make transitional arrangements for the currency period for certain development applications. It is in this regard that I want to speak this afternoon. This legislation inserts a new part into the Integrated Planning Act 1997, which introduces a transitional arrangement affecting the date upon which certain development approvals for material changes of use lapse. This arrangement is made in response to difficulties regarding the lapsing of development approvals for material changes of use involving works before the works are complete and the relevant proposed use can commence. This amendment to the IPA will provide certainty for applicants whilst a more permanent solution is sorted out. A section of the IPA establishes the periods within which development approvals lapse if they are not acted upon. For a material change of use, this approval period is four years, whereas for work approval it is two years. The industry has assumed that starting work associated with a proposed material change of use effectively preserves the validity of the development approval for the material change of use. In fact, the two currency periods are totally independent of each other. Consequently, it appears that there are development permits that have lapsed before works are complete. This misunderstanding is quite understandable. Although the IPA has been in force for quite some time, the development industry was still under the influence of the old development application and the building application system, which has been used for many, many years. Understanding these difficulties, this amendment manages this problem by preserving the validity of material change-of-use permits given since IPA came into effect until March 2006. This will allow time for applicants to address any issues relating to the currency period. It is a very sensible amendment as part of this bill and I commend it to the House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.21 p.m.): I wish to briefly touch on the aspect of this bill that relates to the ultimate exclusion of beekeeping from national parks. I note that there is this transitional arrangement which will enable beekeeping to continue in certain areas until the year 2024. I am interested in beekeeping, I am an amateur beekeeper myself, and I have always been sympathetic to beekeepers because, in my view, they are involved in what is the ultimate sustainable industry. There is very little, if any, environmental impact and, frankly, a lot of the stuff that some people go on about—hybridisation and those sorts of things—is supposition. We have to understand that the European honey bee has been a part of our landscape, basically, for as long as Europeans have been. We have to understand that. I understand that the minister has already met with beekeepers and will probably meet with beekeepers at some future time. This has been an ongoing issue in Queensland for at least a decade. The minister's predecessor, probably four or five times removed now, Molly Robson, under some degree of negotiation, discussion and pressure, as I understand it, agreed to arrangements where, as these national parks come on line, if there had been beekeeping previously then that would be allowed to continue. That is my understanding. I encourage the minister to look at this. Even though we can say that it is 20 years down the track, I am very concerned about what will ultimately happen as we go through the process of excluding these areas as their reserve tenure becomes far more of an environmental focus. As they go through the forest reserve protected area process into national parks, it does ultimately mean this exclusion. I do not think there will be a great deal of ease in finding alternatives for apiarists to continue producing honey. The minister would understand that beekeepers are very mobile people. They are affected by drought, seasonal conditions and the various flora which bud at particular times around Queensland and Australia. Moving hundreds of kilometres is not an activity that is alien to beekeepers. They certainly do so routinely. The areas they can access for their premium honey are not everywhere. Some people think that if you have a tree then a bee will fly to it, take nectar from it and go through the process of converting it to honey. That does not always happen because not all species of timber or flora are suitable. I am sure the minister understands that. There are premium honeys and 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3543 species of trees and flora which beekeepers pursue with a great deal of vigour right throughout this state. Yellow box is not really locked up in the areas that we are talking about, but producers chase ironbark, other eucalypt species and other timber species for the nectar. If we ultimately make hundreds of thousands of hectares unavailable to beekeepers, then that will have an impact. There is absolutely no doubt about it. I understand from my discussions with beekeepers that the minister has expressed some degree of empathy with them. We can say now that in 20 years it will be all right; we can fix it; it will not have an impact—but it will have an impact. Premium honey producing areas are impacted. Some of the forest areas that we are dealing with produce some of the best honey available on the market. We already have a shortage of honey in this state and, indeed, in this country. Honey is being imported. That does happen. If we compare the quality of honey that is produced in Queensland, particularly from our eucalypts, with the quality of the honey coming in from some of the Asian countries such as China, there is just no comparison whatsoever with our honey. There are people within the department and elsewhere who are looking at the project of Trees For Bees. It is not necessarily as simple as setting aside an area of plantation which will ultimately be available for timber production and beekeeping. It depends upon the tree species and the seasonal conditions at the time. Generally, trees will flower each year—they do that—but that does not mean that they will produce sufficient nectar for a honey crop each year. They just do not do that. You might not get a good return out of a narrow leaf ironbark or a broad leaf ironbark—whatever the case may be—every year. It might be only every three or four years. It depends on the seasonal conditions and on being there at the right time. Even if there are plantation alternatives, it does not mean that that will be the best alternative. We are going to take out some of the best honey producing areas in the state and we will have to play catch- up over the next 20 years, in order to provide some degree of certainty, allegedly, to our beekeepers. Frankly, I do not think we know how many apiary sites exist in Queensland. Trying to get a handle on the number of apiary sites in existence and where they are situated is an absolute hassle for Queensland's beekeepers. They complain about it all the time. There are differing opinions in the various departments about the number of these sites in Queensland, where they are, how they will be available and how many will be affected. We just do not know. This industry requires some certainty in the future and this legislation does not necessarily provide that certainty. The government says that there are transitional arrangements and in 20 years time everything will be hunky-dory. It will not be hunky-dory. There will be enormous problems with excluding beekeepers from hundreds of thousands of hectares of south-east Queensland's premium honey-producing forest. This needs a greater degree of consideration. Where is the commonsense and logic in excluding beekeepers from these areas if they have already been there? We need to accept the fact that they have been there. The worst thing beekeepers do is drive there in a vehicle. They usually have a cleared site. It is not as if lots of trees have been knocked down. They put it in a little cleared area along the edge of the road and that is their particular site. They come back in a month or two and take their bees away. They might rob them in between, depending upon the honey flow. We in this state and nation have to understand that we live in a nation that is in transition. The environment is not the same as it was 200 years ago. What it was 200 years ago was not the same as it was 2,000 years ago. What it was 2,000 years ago was not the same as what it was 20,000 years ago. The indigenous people changed the landscape through their fire management practices. Dingoes changed the landscape in this country through their actions against the diprotodons and the large macropods. They basically vanished the thylacine from the mainland. We live in a nation that is in transition. We have to start to accept that. We have to minimise the impacts of humanity on the landscape. The landscape changes regardless of what we do. 30,000 or 40,000 years ago the inland areas of Australia were vast open savannahs. Prior to that they were rainforests. Now they are deserts. That is what happens. To turn around and say that we make the major impact on our environment is debatable in some cases. There is no doubt that we have a significant impact on the environment and that we do change it, but things change themselves. The European honey bees have been introduced into Australia. We have to accept that they are here and that there will be wild colonies of them in our forest areas. Unless we want to go through an eradication program we will not do anything about them. To eradicate the European honey bee from those areas would not be easy. The poisoning process is not easy because it has to be repeated constantly. They will come back because honey bees swarm. They find an ideal environment to set up their hives. They go into a hollow in a tree somewhere and make a hive. Even if we wipe them out for a time through a poisoning program they will come back. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the shadow minister says, there was a swarm in the botanic gardens this morning. Let us use commonsense here. Let us look at this issue. Let us not be environmental zealots regarding this issue. Let us accept that one of the practices that least impacts upon our national parks and forestry reserves is beekeeping. It is one of the most sustainable industries that we could possibly have. The bees fly in, they gather the nectar, they go back to the hive, they turn out the honey and after 3544 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 a while the beekeeper takes it and goes on to another place. Let us have some commonsense. These forest reserve areas that we are turning into national parks have a capacity to provide some benefits to the state, and beekeeping is one of those. It should not be excluded come 2024. I will touch on other uses for national parks. We are talking about excluding hundreds of thousands of hectares of south-east Queensland from use. We debated horse riding last night. That is an important issue, too. It has been a part of the culture of these areas for years and years. People enjoy riding their horses in some of these areas. I note that the government is saying that it will find some alternative areas. We take too much of a puritanical approach to these things. We can be sensible about the environment. We can be sensible about sustainability in our national parks. We have to understand that the community needs to access them for recreational purposes. Horse riding is a recreational activity. There are other pursuits that people like to participate in in those areas. Let us seriously consider this. Let us try to have a better understanding of the issue. I understand that the minister is working through this issue. I would like to encourage the minister to listen to my comments. We have to look at where we are going in the long term. We talk about sugar being a natural part of life. Honey is a natural part of life as well. Let us not look only at the next 20 years but the next 200 years and beyond. As our population increases we need to try to manage these sorts of things. We need to manage the requirements to sustain our lifestyle and everything that goes with it. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (5.33 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The petroleum and gas industry, particularly coal seam gas, is a relatively young industry in terms of production and history in Queensland. This government recognises the value of the industry to the state's economy. The potential for the petroleum industry to rapidly expand and take advantage of both domestic and foreign markets is an example of the industry commitment to innovation, technological advances and this government's ability to develop the state's natural resources. The announcement from the proponents of the PNG gas pipeline to commence engineering and design studies is another significant win for the state. Queensland's strong economy has attracted significant overseas investment and resulted in a number of major infrastructure projects. There appears to be sufficient scope for both existing coal seam gas and natural gas suppliers to operate competitively in the marketplace. Developments of this scale can also pose significant risks to the environment and to human health and safety. The government has capitalised on this growth industry to develop the state's natural resources in a sustainable and environmentally responsible manner. The development of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 will provide the legislation to allow for the expansion of the petroleum industry. The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 ensures that the current regime for environmental regulation of petroleum is maintained and updated for new petroleum tenures. The bill will amend the Environmental Protection Act 1994 to incorporate the environmental management and regulation of the petroleum industry. The amendment is necessary to accommodate the introduction of the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 that is planned to commence on 1 January 2005. The bill will allow for the integration of various petroleum activities under one project authority. The single integrated system has significant benefits to industry as companies can operate under a single management system rather than having individual authorities for each petroleum tenure. The bill will ensure that major environmental impacts associated with petroleum exploration and production activities are appropriately managed and regulated under a system based on environmental risk. Level 2 petroleum projects that represent a low environmental risk will be regulated under a code of environmental compliance while level 1 projects, those that have significant environmental impacts, will require an environmental management plan and have site specific conditions. The environmental management plan details the project activities and the potential impacts and provides control strategies to minimise those impacts. The development of the new Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 and the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 demonstrates this government's commitment to work cooperatively with industry to provide the best environmental outcomes and economic development for the people of Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (5.37 p.m.): I intend to support the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 which is before the House. It also gives me an opportunity to speak specifically to a couple of acts which are being amended with this legislation. During my speech, if time permits, I will be focusing on a number of acts that are to be amended because they have particular significance to many of my constituents. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3545

I would like to talk about the Marine Parks Act 1982 and clauses 149 to 151. Specifically, I would like to talk about the fish enclosures in the Burnett area. There are considerable fishing closures along the Burnett Coast. I have been speaking to the QSIA, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association. Its opinion is that the fishing closures which came into force on 5 November have already caused an enormous impact on the environment and on catch numbers. In some cases fishing has been shut down completely. Families have either nowhere to fish or are being squeezed into a smaller area. What is happening is that commercial and recreational fishers are virtually fishing on top of each other. The state government still has not done anything about it. Fishermen only receive compensation through the Commonwealth government—not the state government—and fishermen are feeling as though they are stuck in the middle. It is a political football match between the federal government and the state government. I have spoken with John Olsen, the President of the QSIA. Since 5 November, the fishermen are not coping all that well. John personally knows a few fishermen who have had to pack up and shift house in some parts of the state so they can keep on fishing. John's message to the state government today is very simple: for goodness' sake, get in a room and fix it up. He says, ‘As far as we see it, it is a state responsibility to fix the situation. It is a problem that has been created by the government. We do not have the power in our industry to solve it, but if the government wishes to meet to solve it we are happy to do so.’ In John's opinion, the federal government has acted responsibly. Fishermen and fisherwomen are being piled into a little heap which John believes is dividing the relationships between professional and recreational fishers further. I have heard from Mr Olsen that Minister Desley Boyle has been invited to meet with the federal minister and that that meeting will be taking place shortly, and he is very happy that is happening. Especially in the lead-up to Christmas, we need some good news for our fishers. After 30 years of fishing, one local professional fisherman Alan Dooley has hung up his fishing rods and nets and left the industry. He said goodbye to it, and that is a common story. I met with the wife of well-known fisherman, Graham Stevenson, in the Sugarland shopping mall, Margaret. She a lovely lady—absolutely beautiful. She was there with her 12-year-old daughter Elizabeth, who was keen to talk about all of the excitement of the coming school holidays and the Christmas decorations appearing in the shops. She was excited. Margaret was holding a yellow envelope. In big thick lettering on the envelope I could see ‘QRAA'. Margaret was in the mall to post her compensation application to the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority, which is administering on behalf of the Commonwealth government compensation to fishers affected by GBRMPA's new non-fish zones. Margaret was in a rush to get home, so I really did not speak to her for that long. But she did confirm that because of GBRMPA's closures and also the additional and complementary closures brought about under the Marine Park Act her family had come upon very hard times. She said that thankfully she was expecting to get some money from the Commonwealth in compensation, and that was the envelope that she was carrying. I did not really know what to say to this lady. I tried to lift her spirits. Even though she had a smile on her face, you could see the frustration and the sorrow in her eyes. I tried changing the subject and remarked that things might cheer up and maybe at least we could expect a Christmas present from Santa. Margaret 's daughter's eyes, Elizabeth, lit up. She was in a shopping mall with all of these lovely gifts around her. However, Margaret took me aside out of earshot of her daughter and said, ‘Look, Santa will be making all the gifts this Christmas. We can't afford to buy any presents this year.' They were flat out paying the bills and keeping food on the table. One does not have to look very far to discover real hardship and misery around us. Misfortune has a habit of striking anyone, and it is sometimes unavoidable. But the misfortune facing many fishing families in Queensland and in the Burnett has been avoidable, and that is the great tragedy facing the Queensland fishing industry. Hardworking fishing families—gentle loving people—who just want to raise their kids, pay their taxes, look after the environment and nurture a sustainable fishing industry have had their incomes slashed and their livelihoods crushed by the decisions made by this government. In two years the Labor government will pay the electoral price for its insensitivity and the complete disregard for fishing families just like the Stevensons. I will not let the federal government off the hook either. I am here to speak the truth. Even though it has provided some compensation—unlike this state government—in my opinion the federal government has slavishly followed the advice of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—that is, the bureaucrat's advice and the intellectual's advice—and allowed the establishment of unnecessary no-fish zones or green zones. The Burnett Coast fishers have been crucified. GBRMPA has closed off to both professional and recreational fishers 80 per cent to 90 per cent of their traditional reef fishing areas while the rest of Queensland gets 33 per cent. The GBRMPA maps need to be redrawn, and I am not talking about decreasing the overall principle of the 33 per cent green zone. All the fishers have agreed to that. But I would like to see a more equitable distribution of green zones along the Burnett Coast. In fact, one present that really would impress me at Christmas time would be for Santa to sack GBRMPA and start again. That new body would be less arrogant and more willing to listen to the voice of the fishers. 3546 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

I have received a couple of letters from a lass by the name of Diane Wills who is the office manager for Fishmac Pty Ltd. It is a rather large company in the seafood industry in Bundaberg. In her first letter, which she wrote a couple of months ago, she said— I would like the government to compensate me for a loss of future income. I work for a seafood processing company in Bundaberg, and right before GBRMPA decided to move into fisheries management the company I worked for was viable. Now I'm looking at the end of a career that I love because the reef apparently is more profitable as an aquarium than anything else. So at the age of 22 I could have had at least, let's say, 40 years of working life, holidays, maternity leave, sickies, bonuses and promotions to look forward to. Because, let's face it, after GBRMPA is done, I won't have a hope in hell of working in the industry again. Sure, I'll be employable somewhere else because I'm young, but why should I when the job I had was secure because the business was viable. It has only been a few months since the letter was written, and I just received her latest letter today. It reads— I can assure the member for Burnett that things have considerably worsened. I simply cannot understand the logic behind GBRMPA's changes and, worse yet, the mirroring effect by the state government. The simple answer must be there is no logic. From where I stand, the scientific research— and she doubts very much that there is any— supporting the changes just so happen to conveniently impact on the most profitable fishing grounds along the coast. The consultation process, as you may be aware, appears to be extensive—extensively disappointing that is. It never happens until after the changes. I will not pretend to know how to manage a fishery. However, I would have assumed that the Queensland Fisheries Department was responsible for that task, not GBRMPA. Sir, if it sounds like I'm angry, then you're right. The stress that has been placed on the people in the industry has been severely underestimated and is so great that not only relationships but livelihoods have been lost. In my position as office manager for Fishmac here in Bundaberg, I do get to hear all the sides of the issue. I can assure you that the impact on businesses and individual people within the industry is devastating. But what does the current government care? How disappointing it is that I, a young member of this community, have lost faith in today's government—perhaps because government departments and their staff levels continue to expand and prosper when their performance is nothing short of incompetent. Should any of the private sector organisations be so incompetent, then they would surely perish. That of course is from Diane Wills, the office manager at Fishmac Pty Ltd. I also want to speak to two other acts that are affected by this legislation—the Environmental Protection Act 1994 with regard to clauses 28 to 140 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997 with regard to clauses 141 and 142. Specifically, an issue that has affected my constituents in the Burnett is the Pine Creek dump. Last night in the adjournment debate I spoke about a problem which we have in the Burnett shire. It is a problem that only the minister sitting opposite—the Minister for Local Government, Planning and Environment—can solve. I and the Burnett council, including the former member for Burnett, Councillor Trevor Strong—whom the minister knows well, being a fellow Labor Party member— and of course the whole of the Burnett electorate would like the minister to exercise and use her special ministerial call-in powers, which are detailed in the Integrated Planning Act on page 145 at 3.6.5, ‘When a development application may be called in'. I would like the minister to stop the Bundaberg City Council from developing a landfill dump at the Pine Creek dump site. Page 156 of the act states— The Minister may, under this division, call in an application— (a) only if the development involves a State interest. I believe that this development involves a state interest. The act states further— ... if an appeal was made before the application was called in—the appeal is of no further effect. Basically, from what I can glean from the act, if a minister makes a decision to stop the Pine Creek super dump, then that is it. That is the end of the ball game. The project virtually stops dead in the water. The Bundaberg City Council does not have any legal right of appeal. I know that the minister is very aware of the act. She has used it several times recently. If this dump development proceeds, it will cause significant environmental damage. I addressed the Burnett Shire Council. There was 110 per cent agreement with what I am saying. This dump will cause damage to the local wildlife, damage to the soil, damage to the water and damage to the air. The minister will be aware of the history of the dump. It is an ex-cane farm, sited beside the Childers Highway, approximately 20 kilometres outside Bundaberg. It is a lovely piece of country. I do not know whether the minister has been there. I have taken a senior member of the opposition past it. We had to drive up an escarpment. It sits on a hill approximately 1.5 kilometres from the Burnett River. I have said facetiously in this parliament before that on a clear night, if you stand on the western escarpment of this site, you can hear the sound of 300-million-year-old lungfish taking a breath. It is a very beautiful part of the country. The local council had to apply for a material change of use to convert viable agricultural land to this proposed dump site. It has been through a legal process. There has been an appeal in the Planning and Environment Court. But I note—and I would like the minister to note—that the judge in that appeal was given very narrow terms of legal reference. There were 31 other sites identified in the process that were possibly suitable for a dump. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3547

The first that people in the Burnett heard about this application was after the land was bought and the Bundaberg City Council announced that it was going to put a dump there. There was quite a lot of toing-and-froing between local government bodies, but in the end the matter ended up in court. It was disappointing. We all would have liked to have seen the matter negotiated. The basic facts, though, still remain. The council is going to use landfill technology. It wants to dig a hole in a hill that sits 100 feet above the river. I have seen with my own eyes freshwater springs coming out around the base of that hill. One of the freshwater springs actually leads into a property below the dump site where a Ms Cora Zyp resides. She farms alpacas and she is very concerned about the leachate. We can get all sorts of guarantees from local government saying, ‘We are going to build a dump that will not leak,' but the fact of the matter remains that this dump site is in an earthquake zone. There is a recognised fault line that goes along that area. So digging a hole in it and putting a clay liner in there is not a guarantee that that toxic leachate that will be generated by that dump will not leak, firstly, into the watercourse and then find its way into the Burnett River, which is only one and a half kilometres away. That point is approximately 15 kilometres upstream from where Bundaberg City Council takes its water. So the logic of putting a dump there is absolutely beyond everyone except the members of the Bundaberg City Council. I have had negotiations with the mayor of the Bundaberg City Council and she is adamant that the dump will go ahead—just as adamant as the residents of the Burnett shire are that it will not. The minister is the last hope that the Burnett shire has to stop this dump. I raise with the minister the issue of biosolids. I have had reported to me by a very credible source that biosolids are being disposed of by the Bundaberg City Council, possibly illegally. I have some photos here of possible biosolids. Biosolids are the by-product of this sewerage process. Effluent water is taken away and what is left is a sludge—a mass—that consists of heavy metal, phosphorous and nitrogen. There is a fear that, if this dump proceeds, those biosolids will be dumped into it, thereby increasing the risk of a greater toxic presence at the dump and, if that leachate escapes from the dump, running into the water. There are many other problems associated with the dump. As I said before, the dump will be located beside the main highway. The eastern edge of the dump will be about only 40 metres from the highway. So as people drive from Childers to Bundaberg, 15 kilometres out of town they will see a dump. The council is going to use very ancient technology. It will be a three-storey high landfill dump. Associated with that are all of the problems of transporting rubbish from Bundaberg out to this site. There is going to be increased road traffic. There is the problem of all the scavenger birds that will come to this area. There is the problem of the smell that will be generated by the dump. A lot of school buses travel along this route. There is the increased risk of those school buses having accidents because of turning dumpsters. I plead with the minister to examine this proposition long and hard. The people of the Burnett are waiting for her decision to stop this dump. I table photos of what I suspect to be biosolids. I leave this matter in the hands of the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women and I commend the bill to the House. Ms MALE (Glass House—ALP) (5.56 p.m.): I rise this afternoon to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 and to add my support for it. The bill includes a number of important amendments to legislation administered by the Environmental Protection Agency which will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of Queensland's environmental legislation, provide important linkages with interrelated legislation and streamline the transition of forest reserve lands to protected areas. I wish particularly to support the amendments that will allow the continuation of beekeeping until 31 December 2024 on lands as part of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and the Wet Tropics forest transfer process after their dedication to national park or national park recovery tenure. This amendment to the Nature Conservation Act 1992 will ensure that there is minimal disruption to the beekeeping industry. The government is committed to protecting areas of high conservation value in south-east Queensland’s bioregion and within the World Heritage listed Wet Tropics by transferring the majority of lands to national park. This bill ensures that all current and future beekeepers can be issued with an authority to operate an apiary site on national park or national park recovery for lands included in the SEQFA or Wet Tropics forest transfer process. This bill allows beekeepers to continue to access the same number of sites currently permitted under the Forestry Act 1959. To complement the bill and in recognition of the importance of beekeeping in Queensland, the Department of State Development and Innovation has commenced a feasibility study to investigate alternative honey resources off national parks to meet the needs of beekeepers after 2024. The South- East Queensland Forest Agreement lands currently support a substantial component of Queensland's beekeeping industry. Beekeeping is widely dispersed across most of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement lands with over 3,000 separate sites. Not all sites are used frequently, but access to a range of sites is important to the industry to allow for natural fluctuations in nectar production. 3548 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

The SEQFA is an example of the government and the community working together to resolve complex issues. This bill will ensure a strong future for the beekeeping industry in south-east Queensland. At the same time, the government has been able to take key steps towards the protection of the high conservation values of lands by transferring these lands to the protected area estate. Extensive consultation has been undertaken with beekeepers in south-east Queensland from the Blackdown Tablelands in the north to the Border Ranges in the south and within the Wet Tropics World Heritage area. This bill recognises the important contribution that the beekeeping industry makes to the Queensland economy by providing the industry with the necessary time to identify alternative areas for access. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.59 p.m.): I rise in support of the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. As we know, this bill is designed to protect Queensland's environment and enhance our nature conservation measures. Most members would realise that I do value our resources and I do commend this bill. The only difference between us is that, being from different parts of the state, we differ on how things should be done. Often I look at the bills that are put forward and see contradictions between the legislative goals and the reality. The extremism of some of the government's legislation often leaves me a bit astounded. When the government took away the stock grazing permits, it actually took away a huge tool that it could have used to keep forests clear. I was in the forests very recently, just prior to a fire. It was full of lantana, bell-vine and plenty of other weeds. The mountainous regions and other forests that have been left to their own devices are full of these weeds. I know that the intent is to get forests back to their original condition but, with the extent of the weeds that are within those forests, I doubt very much whether that will happen. I hope that it will, but all of the people I have spoken to who have lived in the area for years and who have expertise in the area believe that it may not be possible. With regard to horse riders, the government is excluding people who have controlled animals, who have nothing but the protection of the areas at heart and who are often, as we stated last night, the eyes and the ears of the managers of those parks. Mr Wellington: The protectors. Mrs PRATT: They are the protectors of the park. Mr Wellington: The guardians. Mrs PRATT: They are indeed. Members will be surprised at just how many people have been in contact with me since the debate last night. In relation to the Premier's answer to the question asked yesterday by the member for Nicklin, Steve Barlow states— His own Minister's statement ... has mentioned nothing of four year safety net and re-visit for alternative trails within SE Queensland within her press release. (I wonder whether he consulted with her). Let me tell you the facts, that over the past 7 years that I have been involved in this process as a member of the Forest Recreation Reference Group (FRRG), Queensland Outdoor Recreation Federation (QORF), Forest Consultation Group member and SEQ Regional trails forum participant. The issue of alternate land and the identification of existing iconic trails were explored ... and nothing other than the existing trails within the now Forest reserves were identified. QP&WS prior and during the Consultation process also investigated whether there were alternate area's for Recreationalist and Horse riders to pursue their chosen activity and found that the public land did not exist and that landowners did not want to know anything about it, because of liability and privacy issues. That has been borne out through other communications I have received. A letter from Margaret Scadding states— We live at Elimbah and for his rides and training my husband accesses more of the state pine forest than bushland but the same principle applies. When he goes out—if he sees a fire and he quite often has he will come back and we will report it to forestry. We now have their no. permanently beside our phone. I am sure others riding in bushland would be doing the same thing. These people are the guardians of our forests, more so than the government has proven to be. She goes on— Have they— meaning the government— forgotten the national emergency caused by poor management of forestry around the national capital of Canberra 2 years ago. I do not need to remind people in the House of the tragedy of the fires that occurred at that time and the heartbreak they caused. The government is actually trying to exclude these protectors of the forest. Let us look at exactly what is in our forests. There are feral cats, pigs, camels— Mr Wellington: Feral dogs. Mrs PRATT: Feral dogs, deer— Mr Wellington: Rats. Mrs PRATT: That is right. There are a lot of animals. I thank the member for Nicklin for his help. I forgot about the rats, but they are pretty nasty little creatures. They are all in there and they are devastating the parks. The logic evades me just a little bit. Mr O’Brien: Your logic is to make it worse. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3549

Mrs PRATT: These wild animals do need to be eradicated, but if the government walks away— the lack of staff demonstrates that it is walking away—the animals will breed and the weeds will get worse. If the stock grazing permits were maintained the weeds would be eliminated and there would not be enough shelter for feral animals to inhabit. Bingo: the problem is just about solved. So when government members talk about people compounding the problem, they should look to their own benches and not start accusing people on this side of the House. My cousin lives not far away from me. He has stock on his property and his cows have been calving. It is devastating for him when dingoes are out of control, as they are in the Nanango area, and killing his calves. Recently he had 50 per cent stock losses. That is a dramatic loss for anybody on the land. Government members should not tell us that we do not know what is out there. We do, because we experience it every day. The member for Charters Towers mentioned the removal of crocodiles. That is fair enough, because they endanger people. But the government does not do anything about the bats. Anyone in this House who says that they would not want 100 to 5,000 flying foxes prevented from living over their houses has never been affected by the problem. I note that members made light of the issue, but it is a major health consideration for the communities subjected to this kind of abuse by animals. It is abuse of humans by animals. It is too easy to minimise problems when we are not affected. The ‘I'm all right, Jack' attitude pervades this government. That, to me, is not governing for all Queenslanders. I refer to a problem that was very much closer to Brisbane and in fact very much closer to this parliament. Ibis were everywhere in the Botanical Gardens. Understandably, the people who visited the park or King George Square were not particularly happy about paddling in poo—or should I say ‘guano'—so something had to be done. The issue was resolved when the council brought in Soren, the wedge-tailed eagle. It was a great way to solve an environmental problem here in the city, but there are other issues out there, flying foxes being one of them. We have not found a solution yet, but an ecological way of solving the problem has to be found. The ibis moved on from the city and people were very happy. People out west who are experiencing problems of their own with feral animals are asking that they be given exactly what the city was entitled to. Nobody can fault them for that. This bill primarily refers to beekeepers and bees not being allowed into forests, national parks and so on from 2024. I was a bit curious as to why that was. The member for Nicklin informed me that he had been informed that European bees actually kill native bees. I will not contest that because I do not know if that is true or not, but I can speak from experience. When I lived at Wandoan I had a native beehive in a broken branch hanging under our tank stand. I also had a European beehive at the other end of the garden. I lived in that house for 10 and a half years and during that whole time the native bees were quite happy and the European bees were quite happy. They did not attack. Mr Springborg: They say they do not even go to the same flora in many cases. Mrs PRATT: That is exactly right. They do not pollinate the same flora. I think Aila Keto herself actually admitted that the native bee actually pollinates different kinds of vegetation from the European honey bee. The truth is—and I cannot remember which honourable member said this—that people with hives will tend to utilise the forest. I have seen them out west particularly. They take whole hives of bees out on semitrailers, they park the trailer for an extended period of time and they come in and move it down the track. I have seen it. As that particular member facetiously said, I do not think the bees know how to read and so they will keep going into national parks. I would like that part to be explained a bit better for me. I have experienced it with native bees. Although we do not have hives at Kingaroy in our garden, we do still get visited by native bees and we do still get visited by European bees at the same time. So that, to me, has not been proven very well at all. With those few points, I will conclude my comments. I commend any effort to protect our environment, but I cannot commend the extremism of some of the legislation which passes through this House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.10 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The member for Nanango touched on comments by the member for Charters Towers. I want to add to those comments and mention the very real problem that conflict between bat habitats and human habitats creates. We have two particular areas in my electorate where there has been a pronounced conflict. One is on Boyne Island and the other is in Gladstone at Palm Drive. I have to concur with the member for Nanango in that the majority of people who say that the two can survive and enjoy life together have not had to enjoy the privilege. The Boyne Island community joined with a National Parks and Wildlife Service ranger and devised a plan of relocation. It takes a great deal of dedication on the part of the community members in getting up early in the morning and rattling cans and doing other things. They did successfully relocate a group of bats, but they had to do it for two years. There was an appropriate habitat across the river and the bats relocated there. The process to get that plan approved was long, arduous and frustrating. I think the only reason things did not boil over more than they did, and this is at Boyne Island, is that the committee which was established consisted predominantly of retired people who had the time to 3550 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 pull together all of the required detail and the other paraphernalia required to get a relocation plan approved. That is not a criticism of the officer. In fact, he was a particularly helpful and cooperative person to have meetings with. He had an understanding of the circumstances in which those residents found themselves. The community at Palm Drive has not been quite so fortunate. It was a previous minister for the environment in a previous Labor government where the most correspondence was entered into in relation to the Palm Drive colony. That was never successfully finalised. At the time, Minister Edmond was the Minister for Health, and I made a number of approaches to her in relation to community concerns about lyssavirus and other bat-borne infections to the point where there was a significant contradiction in the position of the Minister for Health and that of the Environment Minister. At one stage the residents were told not to touch the bats. If they did not touch them or handle them, they should be right. But the reality was that on at least three occasions it was documented that scout bats entered homes. One landed on the pillow beside a young child and another landed on the pillow beside an adult male. It was because they may have been ill and perhaps their radar had been affected, but that does not remove the reality that they entered homes and they created and presented a significant threat to the residents. They were also worried about sick animals dropping into yards and pets perhaps taking to them, as dogs will. People who live in proximity to these colonies have to tolerate—and find it very difficult to tolerate—noise, odour, waste and potential infection. For those members who made light of the member for Charters Towers's comments, and perhaps in some ways ridiculed him, I say to them: if they had a community in their electorate which had problems with bat colonies, I think it would take the laugh out of them fairly quickly. Mr Springborg interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: It is a worry, and they do present a problem to people's quality of life. I am not for one minute saying that we have not contributed to that; we have. We have reduced their habitat, we have allowed housing subdivisions to occur either adjacent to or within their habitat, and I am not resiling from that. But, once that has been legally approved, there is also an obligation on the government—whether local or state—to play a part in relocating that colony to reduce bat conflict. This legislation also deals with dredge management plans and some of the transitional issues occurring between IDAS and IPA. I know that the legislation is intending to clarify and simplify some of those transitional issues. We have a similar issue in my electorate at the moment with an area of land that was owned by Queensland Rail. It was used as a depot of sorts for QR, and it is in the middle of the Calliope township. It is currently a matter under consideration by the Calliope Shire Council. It is telling residents who are lobbying against the approval of this land—it is a change of use application to light industry—that its hands are tied because of IDAS. The community is frustrated—and I understand the community’s frustration—because the proposed change of use to light industry in the centre of a growing community is inappropriate. Light industry is more appropriately situated on the fringe of communities where traffic movements and potentially low-level noise will not impact on quality of life. The proposal is that the re- use—it was a rezoning—once approved be used by a bus company for a bus depot. There will be noise issues, because at 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the morning they do not need to hear bus reversing beepers. They are required to be kept on under workplace health and safety, but they are fairly intrusive. There will be traffic movement conflicts because a lot of students not only catch buses to school but also walk to school. So there will be conflicts there. There are emerging subdivisions on one roadside of this proposed light industry area. So this transition from IDAS and IPA is providing a deal of frustration for the community. A delegation went to the council to present its point of view and object to the change of use. The council has said that there is little it can do because of the obligations under IDAS and the transfer into IPA. The legislation also deals with ‘the government's continuing commitment to cutting red tape', which are the words used in the minister's second reading speech. One environmental authority will be issued for the life of each petroleum development. A relevant environmental authority is required to be issued prior to the granting of specified tenures under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. This will enable environmental requirements to be known when native title issues are addressed in conjunction with the granting of tenure under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. There will be two types of environmental authorities: a code compliant authority, which will be able to be issued automatically if the applicant certifies that they can comply with the standard environmental conditions of a relevant code of environmental compliance; and a non-code compliant authority, which will be issued if the applicant requires conditions other than the standard conditions. I would like to seek some clarification from the minister on this matter. One very well-known project in my electorate is the Southern Pacific Petroleum development, which has subsequently been purchased by Queensland Energy Resources Ltd, QERL, and is at the moment being mothballed. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3551

Community concern has been expressed over a period of time that this operation was emitting airborne pollutants and odours that were detrimental to the quality of life of the community that lived downwind. Initially the project was approved as an R&D project under the Mining Act, and it was transferred a couple of years ago to the Department of Environment as part of its jurisdiction. In relation to these amendments, I stand to be corrected because I have not been briefed on this legislation and there may be quite a different set of circumstances. I wonder about a time in the future when the project is restarted. It is stage 1 now and the operators may be looking for a stage 2 approval to increase the production of the plant and increase the outputs. Obviously, that is the product outputs as well as emissions. I wonder whether the bill will still ensure that projects like QERL—ex-SPP—will not be able to operate in a manner detrimental to the community or will not be issued with a code compliant authority when their outputs are significantly injuriously affecting the community by their airborne emissions. I think that many of the properties of people in my region have been bought out by the government and shifted. There will be instances, particularly if the plant goes to stage 2, where the wind conditions will take airborne pollutants across the city of Gladstone. Our community needs to know that a plant such as the oil shale production plant will be required to administer its activities in a way that does not affect its community. In the EIS process, such as it was, it was stated that there would be no odour or other impacts on the community. The reality, even in stage 1 of an R&D state project, was far from that. I am seeking clarification that these simplified approvals will not mean that the community will be disadvantaged because a company puts the paperwork in that says it can be a code compliant authority or that it can achieve a code compliant authority and, therefore, the community will have a reduced opportunity to seek comfort. It is stated that the current uncertainty that an existing environmental authority may be cancelled when an application for additional surface area of a mine is sought will be removed and that references to an environmental management overview strategy will be replaced by references to environmental management plans. Again I may be way off the mark, but I would seek an assurance from the minister on this. I will give an example. We have a plant at Gladstone that operates well in terms of its output at its production plant—that is, Queensland Cement Ltd. I have not heard too much in terms of complaints about odour or anything else with regard to it. However, the farms in the area from which the company retrieves its cement clinker have been dewatered and that has caused a lot of concern. It is a problem that has been around for 10 or 12 years. The farm owners around there have not had a satisfactory result to date, but this has had a detrimental impact in terms of the dewatering of their underground aquifers. They have relied on reviews of environmental management plans and EMOSs to, in some small way, require the company to review its management of the mine. It does not matter whether it is clinker plant, whether it is somebody retrieving marble—we have a little bit of that in Gladstone as well and land-holders are detrimentally affected—but I would like clarification that landowners will not be left in a position where they have no recourse where a mining operation has a detrimental impact, particularly on things such as water and the rehabilitation of a mining site. Landowners must know that they have that protection because they deserve some kind of comfort from the government. Mr Wellington: And certainty. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: And certainty—absolutely! The other issue that I wanted to raise is one that many have raised in terms of beekeeping. I would have to concur with many of the comments made by the member for Nanango and others that beekeeping has been going on in forests and national parks for many years. The material that I have read—and I have to admit that it has not been extensive—still leaves me unconvinced that European bees in our national parks and forests are detrimental, at least to such an extent that it requires them to be totally removed. These amendments give beekeepers certainty until 2024, and I commend the minister for that. It at least gives many of those whose lives have been completely involved in the beekeeping industry some certainty for the future and certainly time to acquire any other scientific information that may be able to lend weight to their arguments. However, I wish to raise in general terms in that same area of the legislation changes to the periods of time for revocation of state forests and timber reserves, declarations of dedicated protected areas and revocations of protected areas where the period of time is being reduced from 14 sitting days to 28 calendar days. It has been stated that the reason for that is concern that the previous 14 sitting day requirement resulted in periods of several months between the giving of the notice of motion and resolution. The objective of the amendment that is being proposed is to balance more efficiently the need of parliament to progress dedications of protected areas that involve revocation of state forests or timber reserves in a timely manner with the need to provide sufficient time for members of the public to make representations to members of parliament on proposed revocations. Whilst I am sure that the principle is sound, I believe that 28 calendar days will be found to be insufficient time for many people because it is not an obvious notification that we get. Usually those sorts of things are in a long list of information and it is very easy for members of parliament not to pick it 3552 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 up, and members of the public could also find it difficult to pick it up in that period of time. I believe that the 14 sitting days, while it was a protracted period of time, gave a significant cushion of comfort to those who would be affected by revocations or dedications to be able to get information of concern not only to their elected member but also to the minister of the day. I raise that concern, although I acknowledge that the government will get these changes through without any problem. Those are the major concerns that I wish to raise in relation to this legislation. I look forward to the minister's response. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (6.27 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The area of this bill that I intend to confine my comments to are where it relates to the commitments made by the government to convert forest reserves to protected areas under the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and the Wet Tropics tenure transfer process. The South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and Wet Tropics forest reserves involve certain land previously dedicated as state forest and managed under the Forestry Act 1959 to be transferred to the protected area estate. This bill will facilitate tenure transfers while allowing beekeeping to continue in national parks and national park recovery areas until 2024, and transferring commercial tour operator permits and land subject to leases under the Land Act 1994. I understand the conversion of the majority of the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and Wet Tropic forest reserve lands to national park or national park recovery without making these special provisions for continued access through statutory mechanisms, as we are debating tonight, could result in the demise of the beekeeping industry in Queensland. I have had contact with beekeeping advocates over many years. I actually have bees at home, and I must say that it is certainly an enjoyable experience not only to look after them but also to rob them and see how life goes on. During this week in parliament, many of the debates on bills have involved discussion about reviews coming back to the parliament, about the minister reporting back to parliament on how the bill is operating in three, four or five years time. Is the minister prepared to make a commitment tonight that in 10, or perhaps five, years time she will undertake a review of this bill’s impact on the beekeeping industry in Queensland? I do not want to see the demise of a very viable industry in Queensland. I do not want to see the importation of honey from overseas countries which are not prepared to maintain the high principles and high standards that we will have here as a result of this legislation. Basically, this government is taking the very high moral ground for a whole range of reasons that I do not intend to go into tonight. The government is setting high principles and high standards. I do not want, as a result of this government's high principles and standards in relation to the location of beekeeping activities in our forests, Queensland importing a lot of honey from overseas, particularly from countries which are not prepared to maintain such high standards. Queenslanders would be shocked if that was to occur; if, because of our high standards, we see the demise of a currently viable and important industry in Queensland and it is replaced with honey imported from a country which is not prepared to set such high standards and which is prepared to sacrifice the issues which we hold very dear. I look forward to the minister's reply to find out whether the minister and this government are prepared to commit to undertaking a review and reporting back to this parliament on how the legislation is impacting the beekeeping industry in Queensland in perhaps five or 10 years time. There is no doubt about this government's clear majority in this parliament. It is able to be decisive in relation to what will happen in Queensland. I would ask the minister, on the matter of national park and national park recovery areas, to clarify in her reply the status of dog walkers. Ever since the Mapleton area was first settled, locals have walked their dogs on leashes in the Mapleton forest. They have been the eyes and ears of our forests; its guardians and silent policemen. They have made many phone calls to our law enforcement agencies and local national park officers about matters that they have seen during their walks. I would be very concerned if this government does not ensure that the guardians of our Mapleton forest—the dog walkers, the responsible and environmentally minded members of the community—who are prepared to give so much as volunteers, can continue to do this work as they walk their dogs. If the minister would clarify that during her reply, it would certainly be appreciated—not just by me but also by my constituents. They are very passionate about their volunteer work and their guardianship role of our Mapleton forest. Last night members spoke about the issue of horse riding and the rally that will occur outside this parliament in just over a week and a half. During the sittings of parliament and ever since Mr Beattie has been the Premier, he has often indicated that he is prepared to listen. He has been prepared to change the government's position after it has made a decision as a result of persuasive arguments put to him. Between tonight and the day when the minister returns to this chamber and introduces a similar bill to clarify and advise where it is proposed that horse riders will be able to go in Queensland’s forest areas—be they national park recovery areas, or wherever—I hope that the minister and the people of Queensland are able to convey their views to our Premier—and I hope that he will listen as intently as he has done in the past—to our case. 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3553

I place on the public record—and it is now half past 6, almost 7 o'clock—that the Premier has now accepted the invitation to meet with the delegation at the next parliamentary sitting on Tuesday. I ask the minister to indicate our appreciation to the Premier. A strategy meeting was undertaken yesterday and another is planned for next week to ensure that we are able to succinctly put our case to the Premier. We appreciate the Premier's willingness to meet with the many representatives who will be travelling to Parliament House by bus and train and coming from everywhere to convey their message to the Premier. We hope that he is prepared to listen and we hope that he is prepared to take on board our concerns and not be pressured by the idealists who, I am aware, are lobbying the minister and this government very heavily at the moment to hold the line. We hope to put forward a persuasive argument so that the minister will reconsider the decision before we come back into this House in the new year with a new bill and will indicate the government is prepared to allow horse riders to ride in our forests. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs STUCKEY (Currumbin—Lib) (6.35 p.m.): The Liberal Party supports the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill as already stated by my colleague, Dr Bruce Flegg, the member for Moggill. This bill fulfils the commitments by the state government to convert reserves to protected areas under the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement, and the Wet Tropics forest reserves involve certain land previously dedicated as state forest and managed under the Forestry Act 1959 to be transferred to the protected area estate, amongst other things. The specific area I wish to focus my contribution on has to do with provisions contained in this bill which will have a detrimental effect on the horse riding community in the Currumbin electorate. I understand that these provisions fall broadly within the section to— Amend the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) to provide for the streamlining of tenure transfers for the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement and Wet Tropics and improvement of the operation of the act in relation to the wildlife management review. I stand here today at the request of my constituents, especially those in the Tallebudgera Valley, who are horrified by the state government's decision to turn our state forests into national parks. The consequence of this decision is that horse riding will be banned in many areas where people have ridden for decades. Complaints from constituents have shown that slowly, over the past five years, the permits issued to horse riding clubs which enable them to ride in state forests are slowly becoming fewer. Their fear is that in the not-too-distant future horse riders will not be allowed into any of our forests and will be forced to ride on the streets. One hundred horse riders took to the streets of Surfers Paradise on Sunday, 31 October 2004 to protest about their concerns. Horses are a part of Australian culture and horse riders want the state government to know that they will not sit back in their saddles and take this conversion of forest lightly. While horse riding has never been allowed in national parks, there is now a need to make exceptions because of the government's decision to convert state forests. Horse riders are an asset to our state forests and they should be allowed to continue riding in these areas after their conversion to national parks. Constituents in the Currumbin electorate have advised me of some of the benefits that they have to offer to conservation and the environment. I will share those briefly. Horse riders keep fire break trails free from weeds, fallen trees and debris; they identify areas that need maintenance; they identify noxious plants that need removal; they help to ensure that other users are not damaging an area; and they educate young riders in respect for our bush. In a recent letter to the Bulletin, the Minister for the Environment stated that the government recognises the importance of horse riding as a popular recreational sport. This is a very positive sign. According to the minister, the government will set aside $650,000 to identify new horse riding alternatives. Some 250,000 hectares of new land allocations are also mooted. An easier solution would be to simply stop reducing the number of places that horse riders can enter and to start recognising the value that they can bring to our national parks. Horse riding associations in Queensland are a vocal and active group. It would serve the government well to sit down with the members of these organisations and work out a realistic plan to ensure that future generations will not be competing with cars and bikes on our roads. The state government has also revealed this new land tenure, called national park recovery, will give nine years certainty to horse riders while alternatives are worked out. The questions that everyone is asking are: where will these national park recoveries be located and how far will the constituents in my electorate have to travel to enjoy an activity that they have been involved with for decades? The minister indicated this morning that she would make these new allocations available to members upon request. I would like to take the minister up on her offer and shall contact her staff in this regard. As I have already mentioned, over the past five years there have been fewer and fewer permits given to horse riding clubs. This legislation will make it almost impossible to partake in recreational horse riding. The environment is important and certainly needs to be maintained. But if we get to the stage where we cannot enjoy our environment then we have overstepped the boundaries of good old- fashioned commonsense. 3554 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004

An article in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 2 November stated that the real reason behind the dilapidated state of our state forests and national parks is the lack of maintenance provided by the fund- starved Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. Many horse riding clubs are personally insulted by the state government's ban. They feel it implies that they do not observe the stringent environmental guidelines that are already in place and that they are irresponsible when it comes to using state forests for riding. Horses and nature go hand and hand, as they have done for centuries. The horse riders, for the most part, are environmentally friendly and are mindful of the impact their horses have on the area in which they ride. The horse riders in my electorate ask the government to show some commonsense and compassion when it introduces amendments to legislation. Their plight is similar to the beekeepers’ plight in this bill. Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (6.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all honourable members of the House who have contributed to the debate on the Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. There have been very sensitive and sensible contributions from both sides of the House. I appreciate the recognition that has underlaid all of the presentations, all of the expressions of concern, that there is general support for this bill and for the environmental protection elements that are integral to it. I will be as quick as I am able to be, given the lateness of the hour, while at the same time addressing the concerns that members have raised so far as I am able. While the member for Lockyer supports the bill he has asked about some particular elements of it. I note his recognition and support for the transitional period that is included for beekeeping. I note too his support for the Wet Tropics area and the importance of having apiarists there as well as in southern Queensland. I endorse his remarks about the National Parks Association. I will address two of the particular concerns the member raised. The member did bring to my attention the fact that proposed section 88B(1) is unnecessarily complex. After reviewing that section, I have to say that the member's remarks are absolutely correct. I am pleased to agree with the member that section 88B might be written in an easier style. I will commit to reviewing the wording before the next round of amendments which are expected to be tabled next year. I suspect that that might have been the clause that made him drift off to sleep. He said that he kept getting bogged down on that one. We will make sure that we improve it at the first opportunity. I also note the member's concern about the commercial activities and the potential decision by a CEO and his question, therefore, about the rights of appeal. The purpose of paragraph 4 is to clarify section 34 of the Nature Conservation Act. That continues to apply. Permits cannot be granted for activities in national parks unless they are consistent with management principles. The decisions, however, can be appealed, I am pleased to reassure the member. They can be appealed to the Magistrates Court. That is called a merits review. Questions of law would go to the District Court. This appeal process already exists in the general permit provisions of the legislation. I note that the member and other members of the House enjoy, as I do too, the wonders of honey for therapeutic purposes as well as simply on our toast at breakfast. We recognise the importance of the beekeeping industry in the state of Queensland and the number of people who are employed by the major firm in Brisbane. There is some science that absolutely supports why, in our highest level of protected areas in national parks in 20 years time, there should not be the industry of beekeeping. The science may be summarised as follows. There is opinion on the extent of impact of the European honey bees on natural systems. For example, in New South Wales an independent scientific committee established under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 made a decision in 2002 to list competition from feral honey bees as a key threatening process. The scientific committee found that there is evidence that honey bees impact on native species in two ways: firstly, via competition for tree hollows, and, secondly, via competition for flowers. Breeding colonies of honey bees occupy large hollows in trees. These hollows can be completely taken over by honey bees. The hollows are not then available to native bird species that depend on tree hollows for nesting. Examples include cockatoos, parrots and tree dwelling mammals such as squirrel gliders, sugar gliders and possums. Honey bees are very efficient at taking pollen from flowers and hence deplete the food available for some of our native birds and native bees. I remind honourable members that, particularly in the south-east Queensland area, the basis of the changes to protected areas is the South-East Queensland Forest Agreement. Within that are what have been recognised as areas with the highest levels of conservation value, areas which are most important in terms of biodiversity, areas which are home to at least a third of our vulnerable and threatened species. I do not recognise those species. I suspect that many other honourable members of this House, when walking through forests, walking their dogs or riding a horse, would see great beauty around them but would not recognise the species of plants. They may not see some species because they are endangered and vulnerable. Many of these species are needed to maintain biodiversity for the long 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3555 term. That is why we have to decide on some areas of high conservation and set them aside in their natural state rather than allow the continuation of activities that involve non-native animals. Those honourable members are nonetheless right that the EPA has a tremendous imperative to ensure that there is proper maintenance, that there are proper staff levels and that there is the continuing eradication of pests and weeds if the biodiversity objectives and the recovery objectives are to be achieved as the years go on. I thank the member for Charters Towers for his support for the bill. He spoke about the continuing problem that his community has and his council has with a bat colony. I note the remarks of the member for Gladstone in this regard. She talked about a particular project with which she is familiar where a bat colony was moved after a lot of effort and many hours. I give the member for Charters Towers my commitment to double-check where that process is up to, where the permit is and whether it is, as I believe it to be, a matter presently before the council. If I can assist, then of course I will do so. I recognise the good contribution from the member for Mount Coot-tha, particularly his remarks in relation to changes to the NCA regarding threatened wildlife and offences involving endangered species. I thank the member for Moggill for his support for the bill and note his observations with regard to horse riders and his urging therefore to work hard within this four-year period to find alternatives for them. I note his support too for beekeepers and particularly for the honey industry and the medihoney industry and the importance over the next 20 years of making the transition to other areas as smooth as possible. I note his concern, too, about the possible problems in the years to come. I think he was quite wise in recognising that the tremendous influx of people to Queensland, and especially to south-east Queensland, is going to put increasing pressures on our recreation areas. Therefore, that is why we must act now to have areas that are true national parks that are high conservation areas set aside and protected from the further accidental invasion—accidental harm—that is caused by so many people walking with dogs, trail bike riding, driving, horse riding, beekeeping, grazing or other human activities that would mean were we not to set aside these areas now we may miss the opportunity. In 10 years and 20 years time as the population has further expanded, our chances of setting aside these important areas would become less and less. I note his remark also about the importance of the mapping of the areas of important biodiversity that are set aside for high conservation and will regard that as my continuing task. I inform him that, however, some concession for horse riders has been made in the Brisbane Forest Park where a balance has been found in that the most sensitive areas are able to be made national park while at the same time a north-south and east- west transverse has been maintained for horse riding. These areas have been identified as being less sensitive and therefore can be listed as a conservation park. I thank the member for Springwood for her remarks and her recognition of the importance of our children and their values in the environment. She understandably boasted about the children at Chatswood Hills State School. I do thank her for the invite and may well take her up on that invitation to meet these children and their teachers undertaking that fine program. I thank the member for Gregory for his support for the bill. He took the opportunity to give me some continuing work in other aspects of the Environment portfolio as well as in the Local Government portfolio. I inform him that I heard what he said about an integrated interagency approach to the wild dog problem in western Queensland, to coordinated action with regard to citrus canker and to the importance of the industry where kangaroos are culled. I also endorse his admiration for Frank Manthey and his wonderful efforts in saving the bilby. He is, if not already, fast becoming a Queensland icon. I note his remarks about the investigation of staff in the Charleville office. While that is of course an operational matter, I will ensure that it is properly conducted and that natural justice applies. Nonetheless, my information is that the matters that are under investigation are not trivial. They are serious, and we have an obligation in the public sector to ensure that proper work practices are indeed in place. I thank the member for Redlands for his contribution. He spoke, as he does so often, about the importance of Moreton Bay, the foreshore and the intertidal zone. I note his support for the Redland Shire Council in terms of ways that we can further assist with streamlining approvals and permits processes. I thank the member for Tablelands for her vigorous contribution and for her general support but at the same time her cautionary remarks with regard to beekeeping and changes that may affect horse riders, particularly in the Wet Tropics area. I do caution her, however, against overstating the situation. She did quote some of the people who were concerned in the far north as saying that they have had no useful input. That is not in fact a true statement. I know that they have had useful input because I have met with them myself and found their input useful. I also know that they have met with the regional director of the EPA, because I arranged that meeting. I also know that they have made submissions to the consultation process, and I know that that consultation process is a serious and a genuine one. Therefore, their input has indeed been useful. Nonetheless, I understand their uncertainty. Until a decision is made as to what will be in what tenures and where horse riding will continue, I understand they will be on edge and therefore give them my commitment to, if at all possible, come to a decision before Christmas. I take on board her remarks about pests and the continuing work that is necessary, but I take issue with her about a remark I believe she made—if I heard correctly—and that is that there is a decline 3556 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 11 Nov 2004 in rangers. This is just not true. She and other members are welcome to have figures from the EPA on the numbers of rangers and the increase in recent years and the increased budget that bears that out. Nonetheless, our rangers, increased numbers as they are across the state of Queensland, have more work to do and I recognise that we need even more as the years go on. I thank the member for Capalaba for his recognition and explanation of the transitional arrangements with regard to the currency period. That is a matter of importance particularly to developers on the Sunshine Coast at this time and to all developers around Queensland. I thank the member for Southern Downs. He has clearly been considering and meeting with those concerned about the beekeeping industry. While he accepts that 20 years is a substantial period, I note his particular request to me to make a commitment about the process for finding alternatives and the importance of there being not only hard work but effective work if indeed the industry is to survive. I inform him that part of the difficulty with bees is that bees do have an impact on the environment. Through swarms they lead to unmanaged feral European bees. There is competition for hollows. They do displace native birds and tree-dwelling mammals. There is competition for pollen and they do displace native honey seeding birds. Nonetheless, his point is well made that the industry is an important industry which I, too, support. The genuine efforts to keep the industry viable—in fact more than viable—and continuing in its profitability are really important. I thank the member for Greenslopes for his contribution, particularly with regard to his explanations with the petroleum and gas industry synergies and the importance of the elements of this bill in their critical linkages with the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. I thank the member for Burnett for his support for the bill and I note his strong comments with regard to complementary zoning and his concern for fishers in that area. I remind him, however, that this was not a state decision on our own; our complementary zoning was a response to the Commonwealth's Representative Areas Program that changed so much of the areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in terms of green zones and recreation zones. I remind him that our complementary zoning affected 0.5 per cent of the area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park whereas the Commonwealth's Representative Areas Program affected 99.5 per cent. That is clearly why compensation is a matter for the Commonwealth. I note his remarks with regard to the Pine Creek dump. I will inform him in some detail and more formally that I am not able to call in the matter of the dump. The call-in powers under IPA apply only to the end of the appeal period following a council decision, and that period has long since passed. Further, the matter was taken to the Planning and Environment Court by the Burnett Shire Council's objection and the matters were ruled on by a judge of the Planning and Environment Court and I have no further ability to call in or change that decision. What I am able to reassure him about is that I will indeed ensure that, so far as biosolids or any other environmental matters are concerned, should this dump proceed as expected the provisions and the standards are in place and enforced. I thank the member for Glass House for her contribution and her clarification of the provisions in the bill in relation to beekeeping. Again, she spoke in a sensible and factual fashion, as she did last night in relation to horse riders in the Sunshine Coast hinterland. Her good sense as well as her strong representation on behalf of her constituents is well known in this House. I thank the member for Nanango for her presentation and her support generally for the bill, although I understand her expressions of concern as to whether there really is a need for us to restrict these human activities in national parks that so many people enjoy. I hope that she has taken into consideration some of my earlier remarks about biodiversity, about vulnerable and endangered species and about having some parts of the environment protected for all time and against many of these recreational activities. However, this is not in any way an excuse for my own department and others not to proceed as quickly as we can to assist the horse riders in particular to relocate to other areas. I accept the member's remarks that private landowners are not likely to be helpful in terms of providing alternative trails. I also accept the member's remarks that the uncertainty of the situation is very difficult for those who have invested much pleasure, much time and, to a degree, much money in horse riding and who clearly wish to continue. I note the member's remarks in terms of the continuing work that is required if indeed these are to be high conservation areas that are well protected in regard to pests and weeds. I thank the member for Gladstone who also gave me a lot of work tonight. I think that there should be a limit on the member’s allocation of duties in these speeches to maybe only three jobs at a time. I think that she gave me about five. Nonetheless, I thank her for the information about the relocation in regard to the colony of bats and her sensible remarks about that as well as her concerns about lyssavirus. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not read out all the information that I have available about lyssavirus and the post-exposure vaccination that is now easily available, but I would be pleased to bring her up to date if she is not at all sure that she has the latest information. The member for Nanango raised the issue of cancelling stock permits. We recognise the stewardship and significant efforts of land-holders in managing weeds. However, land management for the purpose of production, which is what grazing is about, is quite a different kind of land management from the land management that is for protection. They do not mix. My department has a comprehensive 11 Nov 2004 Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3557 land management system incorporating fire and the need to reduce the grazing pressures that have spread weeds in the first place. The member for Gladstone also raised the need as to whether or not there will be a need for QERL to apply for a level 1 mining project environmental authority and, in regard to that, whether the environmental impact statement will need to be prepared. Although the member recognised that simplification may be good in practice, it is essential that the simplification does not lead to a drop in standards. In fact, in terms of protecting against pollution or against impacts on people living within reach of serious industrial operations, the member is quite right: the companies should be increasingly on notice that while we might make the process simple for them, that will not make the standards lower. QERL operators will not be affected by changes to EMOS. The EMOS changes are to change the name of this planning document to an environmental management plan. I thank, too, the member for Nicklin for his vigorous contribution. He has recognised, as have others, the importance of the beekeeping industry. He requested a commitment in regard to reviewing the progress of seeking alternative areas for beekeeping. The government is undertaking a feasibility study into alternative honey resources. Once that review is complete, regular reviews will be undertaken to ensure the feasibility of achieving the target date of 2024. Provision for transitional arrangements to allow horse riding to continue in national parks recovery will be tabled in parliament next year. I note, too, the member's questions in regard to dog walkers. Of course, they are not mentioned in the bill and are not directly affected by the bill. Nonetheless, the situation is that dog walkers are not permitted in national parks and in national park recovery areas. That is because dogs are not native animals. As we know, dogs have caused damage to birdlife and to the fauna. Of course, there are exceptions for guide- dogs. Concerns for dog walkers are not very great because there are so very many areas where dog walking is permitted and pleasurable and will remain available for years to come. I thank the member for Currumbin for her support for the bill. She, too, reiterated the importance of sorting out alternative trails for horse riders. Her remarks were similar to those expressed so passionately last night by Di Reilly, who has taken a strong issue on behalf of horse riders in south-east Queensland, particularly on the Gold Coast hinterland. However, the member for Currumbin said that it would be an easier solution if we did not change anything—if we did not have national parks and if we did not have national park recovery zones and if we did not even have conservation parks. She is right. It would be much easier. We could have all saved time this afternoon and many people in the Environmental Protection Agency could have done other jobs instead. It would be easier today, but it would not be easier tomorrow. Our precious Queensland environment would be the less without these zones. We are doing what is right and proper for future generations in terms of ensuring the integrity of the environment of Queensland, which is presently already so prized not only by those of us who live here but also by those who come to visit. The Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 will protect Queensland's environment and enhance our nature conservation measures while improving our administrative efficiency. I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 34, as read, agreed to. Clause 35— Ms BOYLE (7.07 p.m.): I move the following amendments— 1 Clause 35— At page 90, lines 7 and 8, ‘to be a code compliant authority’— omit. 2 Clause 35— At page 90, lines 18 and 19, ‘to be a code compliant authority’— omit. Amendments agreed to. Clause 35, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 36 to 155, as read, agreed to. Clause 156— Ms BOYLE (7.07 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 3 Clause 156— At page 154, line 3, ‘Section 252(1) (b)’— omit, insert— ‘Section 252A(1) (b)’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 156, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 157 to 193, as read agreed to. 3558 Adjournment 11 Nov 2004

Third Reading Bill, as amended, read a third time.

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (7.09 p.m.): I move— That the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 November 2004. Motion agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (7.09 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn. Lake Lawyers; Mr M. Wakeling Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (7.09 p.m.): I rise to raise a matter on behalf of a constituent who has recently been involved in court matters. The person came to see me on behalf of her partner, who had been facing criminal charges and engaged Lake Lawyers, whose principal is Alan Bennett, to act on their behalf. They set about providing a defence. They were informed by Mr Bennett that they needed $15,000 for a barrister plus an extra $5,000 potentially for extras. During a meeting at Lake Lawyers they were introduced to a Mr Mark Wakeling as a person who used previously to own Lake Lawyers and who could arrange a loan to finance the trial. Wakeling operates a business, Future Finance, to provide finance to consumers and businesses. Forms were provided and signed at the meeting, but no copies were given. No details of any interest rate were supplied. At a subsequent meeting it was suggested that a further $10,000 could be needed in the event of an appeal following conviction. They were also required to initial some further documents in relation to this matter. The person in question was subsequently found not guilty. Mr Bennett indicated that he would prepare an invoice for approximately $6,000. Subsequently, correspondence received from Future Finance, which has the same fax numbers as Lake Lawyers, indicated that Future Finance had advanced a total of $28,411.90 in relation to this litigation and that the interest rate charged was 20 per cent per month. Monthly payments were to be $1,229.80. Given the interest rate charged, and even with monthly payments being made, it was claimed that by 1 June 2004 the total amount outstanding, after just five months, was $57,804.02. This is nothing more than blatant usury, both by the loan provider and by the lawyer, whose actions facilitated the arrangement of the loan to fund this defence. Wakeling was suspended as a solicitor for two years in August 2003 for professional misconduct in relation to an application for probate. This really begs the question: what action is the new Legal Services Commissioner taking to preserve ordinary citizens from the activities of disgraced solicitor Wakeling and what action is the Law Society taking to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable clients by practising lawyers such as Bennett and to prevent practising lawyers from associating with suspended and disbarred lawyers? It is my intention to raise this matter with both the Law Society and the Legal Services Commissioner. It is absolutely outrageous that we have these sorts of arrangements, where you have a solicitor acting with a struck-off solicitor to come up with this form of bridging finance for litigation matters. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fraser): Order! Before calling the member for Redlands, I remind members to conduct conversations in the chamber in a quiet manner. Queensland Police Service; Lord Mayor of Brisbane; Death of Ms J. Oliphant Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (7.12 p.m.): Last week we saw a serious incident occur in Brisbane city. We saw a number of youths, some high on petrol, disrupt inner Brisbane by throwing rocks and other items around the streets. The police responded to this serious and high-risk incident. The police response was to contain the scene and negotiate. Lord Mayor Campbell Newman has subsequently come out and criticised the conduct of the police. Campbell Newman was not required to risk his life to resolve this matter; the police were. I am aware of the resources and risks involved in resolving incidents such as this. I acknowledge the courage and skill of all police involved in resolving this incident. When was the last time Campbell Newman risked his life? What right does this jumped up, ego-driven politician have to comment on operational 11 Nov 2004 Adjournment 3559 matters? To use a phrase made famous by the Hon. Robert Schwarten, I do not think Campbell Newman could lead a choko vine over a fence. Campbell Newman is very brave with other people's lives. Campbell Newman is very keen to see police race in and needlessly risk their lives. I am sure that the operational command balanced the competing interests of public safety and safety for their staff. I am pleased that police commanders have more concern for the safety of police than Campbell Newman does. If the Lord Mayor wants to take control of police incidents then I encourage him to resign, go through the Oxley Police Academy and work at the coalface for many years. Then, and only then, will I have faith in his ability to control and comment on the operations of the Queensland Police Service. The people of Queensland should also be alarmed that the Lord Mayor wants to roll Brisbane back to the bad old pre-Fitzgerald corrupt days, when police were at the whim of politicians. This memorandum of understanding that Campbell Newman is asking for is the thin end of the wedge in allowing politicians to interfere in policing matters. I urge Campbell Newman to research the issue of separation of powers. Back in the National Party days, politicians would regularly phone up police and direct them what to do. Those days are gone. This government is significantly increasing police numbers, by 300 per year. Where these staff are placed is a decision for the Commissioner of Police, Mr Bob Atkinson, not a decision for any politician—state, federal or local. I must admit that I feel these decisions could be in no safer hands. I acknowledge the Lord Mayor's right to comment on safety issues; however, his denigration of police tactics and operational procedures is wrong. The Police Commissioner, other police and I understand the value of police officers' lives. We should not risk them needlessly. At this time I would also like to acknowledge Queensland Newspapers, the Queensland Police Service and the wider community for their support of the family of Sergeant Joe Cranitch and his three lovely children following the tragic death of Jo-anne Oliphant. Jo-anne was loved for many things, especially her care and compassion for other people. Jo-anne was a lovely person and she will be sorely missed. Patient Transit Scheme; Kingaroy Hospital Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (7.15 p.m.): I have been reluctant to bring the following issues into the House, preferring to work behind the scenes with the hospital involved and the minister to resolve them. Unfortunately, no resolution appears to be forthcoming. At the outset I acknowledge that it is probably not an easy issue to resolve. In saying that, too many people are suffering, both health wise and financially. The reputation of the hospital involved is not exactly shining, either. Patient travel assistance and hospital attitudes represent the majority of issues brought to my attention. Time prevents me outlining the issues in full, but the patient transport service finds any and every excuse to not fork out the miserly few cents per kilometre travelled or to refuse accommodation for an escort. People who are suicidal cannot get escort approval. People on S8 drugs—people taking these drugs should not drive—cannot get escort or accommodation cost approval. The very elderly— people in their eighties—cannot get escorts but are forced to drive long distances home because they cannot afford to stay overnight somewhere. They are forced to drive after an anxious trip to Brisbane or an anxious time in surgery or undergoing treatment. It is not fair to them. I have spoken with the Minister for Health about this issue. I must confess that I had hoped that some resolution to the problem would have been found to the point that I could support the actions of government, but I still receive concerns. The latest two I received last night. They relate unpleasant experiences. The contradictions patients endure are horrendous. A patient referred by his GP to Toowoomba had postoperative complications and required a return trip to see his surgeon—incidentally, the surgery he underwent is not done in Kingaroy—but because the visiting surgeon arrived at the Kingaroy Hospital any subsidy was forfeited, even though the patient was totally unaware of the surgeon's presence at the hospital. Further complications set in and an antibiotic drip was recommended. So the patient did what he believed to be right and went to the Kingaroy Hospital but was reportedly turned away and told to go back to Toowoomba. The writer states— In view of our experience I am beginning to think the PTS is little more than a farce. She ends by stating— I do not wish to take action locally as in a small country town that could jeopardise any future contact with the Kingaroy Hospital. Patients are forced to go to Toowoomba or further afield for treatment—two or more hours away—and are refused escort accommodation. When patients are afraid to talk for fear of future retribution, when patients state that they would rather go anywhere but the Kingaroy Hospital, we have a major issue which must be addressed. I implore the minister to step in and sort it out. The patient travel scheme is, at its best, penny-pinching to the extreme. I must say, old Scrooge would be very proud of the government's actions on this issue. 3560 Adjournment 11 Nov 2004

Time expired. Awards in Science Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (7.18 p.m.): I recently had the pleasure to again attend Keebra Park State High School to present awards won by students in the area of scientific study and projects. Under the inspirational leadership of principal Fran Jones and science guru Robyn Zipf, this school has excelled for many years in science. The Australian Museum Eureka prizes consist of 21 prizes worth $210,000. These prizes are designed to promote science in the Australian community by rewarding outstanding achievements in the industrial, tertiary and secondary field. As part of the Eureka prizes there are two categories specifically designed to reward outstanding relevant scientific study by secondary school students. These awards are the Macquarie University Eureka schools prize for earth, environment and planetary sciences and the University of Sydney Eureka schools prize for biological science. In both these categories students are to engage in authentic, original research that investigates and reports on an issue relevant to our modern community. The BHP Billiton Science Awards reward young people who have undertaken practical research projects which demonstrate innovative approaches and thorough scientific procedure. Each winner of four categories can win $1,000 and a plaque for the school. The CSIRO Crest Awards provide secondary and tertiary students with a nationally accredited award for completing experimental projects which they have individually designed. Gold, silver and bronze Crest Awards are offered and depend on the amount of time and complexity of the project. I seek leave to have the details of the winners of those awards incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted.

GRADE 11/12 ANNA ZIPF—‘The Possible Uses of Allelopathic Chemicals Extracted from Tallow-wood Trees’ 1st Place—Australian Eureka Schools Award BHP-Billiton Australian Schools Science Competition—Finalist (i.e. in top 4) in Chemistry division CSIRO Gold Crest Award 1st Place—Gold Coast Science Competition—Investigative Research. Senior Division ANNA ZIPF—‘The Inflammability of Native Plants’ 3rd Place—Australian Eureka Schools Award BROOKE GREGAN—‘A Comparison of Rigor Mortis and Cramping—Focusing on PH Difference’. 2nd Place—Gold Coast Science Competition CSIRO Silver Crest Award SAM WHITE—‘Bixaceae annatto—The Alternative Natural Hair Lightening Agent’ 3rd Place—Gold Coast Science Competition CSIRO Bronze Crest Award

GRADE 9/10 RYAN BOSE—‘The Use of a Sterling Engine to Generate Household Power’ 4th Place—Australian Museum Eureka Schools Award CSIRO Silver Crest Award 1st Place—Gold Coast Science Competition RHIANNA BULL AND THOMAS WILLIAMS—‘Greenhouse Effects on the Gender Ratio in Mosquito Populations’. 2nd Place—Gold Coast Science Competition CSIRO Silver Crest Award JOHLLIN LAMMERSDORF—‘Depression—Why Does It Happen?’ CSIRO Silver Crest Award

GRADE 8 JOHN SCHMIDT, GEOFF MUNRO, KRIS BOVEINIS—‘Weed Collection from Keebra Park’s Blackbutt Ecosystem’. 3rd Place—Gold Coast Science Competition TYLER BAIN, BEN NICOLOFF, NIKOLA GRULOVIC—‘An Investigation of Keebra Park’s Blackbutt Ecosystem’ 3rd Place—Gold Coast Science Competition Bronze Crest Award: Nicholas Adams, Omer Ahmatovic, Andrew Angland, Catherine Bacon, Jasmin Botonjic, Zack Bryers, Alen Celahmetovic, Kyle Certeza, Ben Coles, Daniel Corboda, Chelsea Crothers, Keenan Dale, Rebecca Han, Louise Higenbotham, Zoe King, Goran Klipic, Katie Land, Liam Lawlor, Tyler Meredith, Aaron Outram, Michael Russo, Aaron Saarikko, Jordan Yandall, Steven Wang, Samantha White and James Zhu. 11 Nov 2004 Adjournment 3561

Mr LAWLOR: Again, I congratulate the award winners, the teachers from Keebra Park High School and the parents of the students who have given their children such strong and consistent support. Trucking Industry Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (7.20 p.m.): Tonight I want to talk about the Beattie government's attack on the trucking industry. I have had reports that industrial relations officers have been forcing on the transport industry driver hourly rates which are impossible to meet. The Beattie government is doing a union push on trucking operators. It is threatening to make them pay backpay at time and a half and double rates going back several years when the industry does not, has not and cannot use rates based on that structure. How does the government expect a livestock transport industry to pay time and a half and double time after eight hours or on Saturdays or Sundays? It is such an unregulated industry. Livestock have to be moved; they have to go. Cattle sales in particular are a good example. They occur early in the week, and Sundays are really busy days. Anyone travelling on any of the western roads will find that road trains are on the move on Sundays getting livestock to sales and meatworks. They have to be ready for Monday morning. The meatworks have to have cattle, unless you want to close down meatworks on Mondays and let them start trading on Tuesdays—but that would be ridiculous. Drivers generally operate on workplace agreements, being paid a guaranteed wage whether they work or not. They all get meal allowances. Many get a percentage of what the truck earns. If there are days of wet weather, they still get paid even though they are not working. Many load in daylight and they are finished by lunchtime. Then they are home all day with their families or whatever the case may be. They might have a busy week one week and the next week a quiet one. That is the way the industry is. You cannot enforce penalties for Sundays because that is not the way that the industry works. I have noticed that the government is starting on smaller operators first—good family businesses—which is disappointing and strange. It is avoiding the big operators at this stage. I understand that the government intends to audit all operators but, interestingly, it is starting on the small fellows first. Transport demand will increase in the future and infrastructure spending is decreasing. This is a good example of why smaller operators should be a member of the LTAQ or the ATA. Membership only costs the price of a spare tyre. What we need to know is why the government is targeting this industry. We have the green police, from today we have the smoke police, we have the transport police and now we have the IR police. The cost of fuel has already increased. This year we have seen a 30 to 40 per cent increase in the transport industry. The industry already has to bear those burdens. We do not need this union-oriented Beattie government pushing the union movement on the transport industry. Burpengary Creek, Replacement of Bridge Hon. K.W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (7.23 p.m.): Tonight I wish to take the opportunity to speak about the progress on the replacement of the bridge across Burpengary Creek on Morayfield Road in my electorate. Replacement of this 62-year-old bridge has commenced and it is proposed to be completed by February 2005. Before work commenced there was extensive consultation about the project. Firstly, I refer to the construction option. This option was selected to demolish the existing timber bridge and build a new one in the existing location. This option seems obvious but, as with a lot of things many of us in this parliament are involved in, nothing is simple. Morayfield Road is a major thoroughfare. A substantial manufactured home park is located in the vicinity of the bridge linking that community to the local shopping precinct. Other residents live in the location and use the bridge to commute south towards Brisbane. People had to change their driving habits, and the Bruce Highway is now used as a detour around the area. This detour eliminates the need for a temporary side track across the creek, which would have increased—should it have occurred—the negative environmental impact on Burpengary Creek. During the consultation phase I made the comment that through traffic should detour around the site rather than use a temporary side track because not to do so would increase the construction time and associated delays with the disruption caused by traffic. I am pleased to see that my point was taken into account. In order to ensure that pedestrian traffic can still get across the creek, a pedestrian bikeway crossing has been constructed. Importantly, this decision was part of the consultation process with representatives of the Burpengary Pines Home Park. Importantly, that consultation has continued between the park representatives, the Main Roads representative and me, and further changes have occurred or are foreshadowed as a result of that consultation process. Matters such as more lighting and less gradient on the path are being considered. In fact, more lighting has occurred. That consultation is ongoing as I meet with the park representative on a regular basis. I now look forward to the completion of the project. Traffic flows will be improved as the bridge is reopened before commencement of the next stage of six-laning the Bruce Highway in 2005. That was a 3562 Adjournment 11 Nov 2004 commitment made at the last federal election—to upgrade the Bruce Highway to six lanes. The federal member, Mal Brough, made that an election promise, and I look forward to that commitment being honoured. I expect that the local community will be very pleased with the bridge when it is finished. Public Servants, Psychiatric Testing; Dr C. Wong Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (7.26 p.m.): I rise to speak about two matters relating to mental health. The first is the compulsory psych testing of public servants. The Queensland Public Sector Union has complained that this technique is being used with increasing frequency and is being used as a punishment for employees who have made complaints about their working conditions. This particular technique has no place in the public sector. If there are issues concerning somebody's work, that is an issue of management. It should not be shoved off to psychiatric testing, and I call on the government to ban this practice. Employers have no right having that sort of information about people's psychiatric condition in any case. If they have a psychiatric problem, this practice will aggravate it. If they do not have a psychiatric problem, it is simply bullying. The other matter is that of Dr Christina Wong. Dr Wong in 2001 was a regulated psychiatric patient in the Toowong Private Hospital. She was doped up on five different psychiatric drugs— antidepressants, antipsychotics and sedatives. In that condition she was sent out to work in a Queensland Health medical centre at Inala. She was under the care of people at the Toowong Private Hospital who should have known that she was in no fit state to drive an automobile, let alone to be out seeing patients. It is also clear that as a regulated patient—that is, a patient who is taken there against her will by police force if necessary and locked up if necessary—she was in no condition to make her own judgments and should not have been held accountable for the things that happened thereafter. The Medical Board was aware that Christina was a regulated patient, yet it failed dismally in its supervision and its duty of care to her. When she was unable to cope in that setting, there were two possibilities. They could treat her as a sick patient or they could treat her as a bad doctor. They chose to discipline her rather than treat her as someone who was sick. I table the Ombudsman's report, which says that the Medical Board knew of her condition and that it failed in her supervision. I also table two letters from Wendy Edmond as the then health minister and from Gordon Nuttall where Dr Wong has been duckshoved with false claims—firstly, that the Medical Board did not know about her condition when the Ombudsman clearly found that it did and, secondly, where Health Minister Nuttall claims that the Ombudsman found no reason to change the present practices of the Medical Board when in fact he found there was reason to change those practices. People who suffer from mental illness should be treated with respect. Where there is a duty of care to them— Time expired. Youth Homelessness Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (7.29 p.m.): Reports of homeless young people disregarding the law and endangering the safety of others are understandably upsetting many people. It is also a matter of concern that many children—some as young as eight—are living on inner-city streets. Children should be at school and living in a safe and nurturing environment. Of particular concern is the plight of girls and young women, who are regularly sexually assaulted and raped. Between 1986 and 1989 I was a senior consultant to the National Inquiry into Homeless Children conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I vividly remember interviewing a 14-year-old who was living in a squat. She ran away from home to escape her father's constant sexual abuse. She said that she was scared to go to sleep at night because she would awaken to find somebody on top of her. She described a truly miserable existence on the streets. She concluded by saying that in retrospect she may have been better off staying home and ‘copping it'. Some parents gave evidence to the inquiry citing rejection of family values, desire to live with a boyfriend or to take drugs and alcohol as the reasons that many children decided to leave home. A very small proportion may leave home for these kinds of reasons. However, the evidence given to the inquiry overwhelmingly established far more serious and complex reasons for young people leaving home. It is unfortunate that some mothers are often in denial of the sexual abuse of their sons and daughters. The inquiry undertook extensive interviews with 100 homeless children and young people. It clearly found that leaving home was not the result of a whim but the result of ongoing and deep-seated difficulties, the levels of dysfunction within the family being far too great for the child to bear. It is interesting to note that homeless children perceive their parents as being more controlling, more punitive and less supportive than the parents of young people still living at home. Experienced workers know that young people are not on the streets because that is where they want to be. It is a truly squalid and miserable existence. For a young woman it is truly terrifying because she has to cope with sexual assault, rape and the threat of retribution if she were to make a complaint to the police. 11 Nov 2004 Adjournment 3563

Most homeless kids have been traumatised by early childhood abuse, neglect and exposure to violence. They exhibit long-term psychological effects such as depression, suicidal tendencies, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorders, self-harm, sexual dysfunction and dissociation to avoid painful experiences. These young people need access to non-judgmental adult support to lessen their stress and to build their resilience. They need relationships that are nurturing and provide alternative models for dealing with anger, stress and problem solving. They need help to face up to and cope with their experiences of violence. It is most unfortunate that the false aggressive bravado shown by long-term street kids is used by some to demonise them and by others to ignore their serious plight. The other day a young girl turned up at an agency that I work with, North West Youth Housing— Time expired.

Solar Energy Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (7.32 p.m.): The Beattie government is not supporting the use of solar technology in its own institutions, which I find perplexing as Energex is a market leader in the solar hot water sales arena. The state government offers a rebate to encourage property owners to utilise this technology which, when correctly installed and maintained, has amazing positive gearing capabilities. In July this year locally owned and operated solar hot water specialists Solar Guys approached Q-Build to apply for a solar maintenance contract and assess the possibility of solar installations in public housing. With regard to the maintenance matter, the company was informed that no solar systems are installed in public housing and, further, that solar systems installed on established dwellings acquired for public housing are disconnected and replaced by gas and electric units. As to new solar installations, representatives of the Department of Housing advised Solar Guys that solar energy was not a viable option because Energex is a government owned corporation and it would lose revenue if public housing tenants were not paying for electricity supplied by Energex. All members would agree that solar hot water utilised to full capacity would go a long way towards solving Energex's current supply problems as solar systems reduce energy consumption in a home by up to 80 per cent and electric hot water systems are major contributors to peak load energy times. World wide governments collectively have invested approximately $620 million in research and development on solar technology, but where is the Smart State on this significant issue? Obviously the Beattie government's view is to make money out of fossil fuels, and energy bills far outweigh the need to think of the future. How smart is that? I call on the Beattie government, through the Minister for Public Works and Housing, Mr Robert Schwarten, to re-examine its inadequate approach to the utilisation of solar energy in public housing and public facilities.

Death of Ms H. Bonner Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (7.34 p.m.): Heather Bonner, who passed away in Ipswich on 21 October, was a woman who lived her life completely in her power. Famous as an activist for Aboriginal rights and wife of Australia's first Aboriginal Senator, Neville Bonner, Heather lived her life with power and with grace. Heather was born into a political family in Ipswich in 1923, her grandfather having been the federal member for Moreton before her birth. She attended Silkstone State School and, like me, Ipswich Girls Grammar. As a corporal in the AWAS in the Second World War, she worked as confidential secretary to an Australian military general. During the war she married an American soldier and moved to the US as a war bride. When her first child was young Heather's husband died and, after some years, she remarried, having two more children with her second American husband. The second marriage became extremely turbulent and Heather, a beautiful woman of tremendous strength and style, ran away back to Ipswich with her three young children. Heather was a woman of strong Christian faith and a passionate advocate for what she believed to be right. She sometimes said that she did not care what someone's politics or religion were as long as they had some. She became an organiser and speaker in the campaign against communism and later— we do not really know what prompted her—she became actively involved in the One People of Australia League, an organisation which brought white and Aboriginal Australians together in the fight for Aboriginal justice. OPAL was central in the campaign to grant Aboriginal people the right to vote, a campaign which was won in 1967. Through OPAL Heather met and married Neville Bonner and her political skills were instrumental in his rise through the Liberal Party to the point where he was elected a Senator from 1971 to 1983. But Heather Bonner was by no means just standing by her man. She is a woman remembered for her brains, her strength, her style and her power. The Bonner household was a place of successful political activism, but it was also a place which brought people together and from which friends and extended family—both black and white—would come and go seeking warmth and inspiration. 3564 Adjournment 11 Nov 2004

Heather and Neville Bonner represented all that was right about the international fight for civil rights from the 1950s to the 1990s. Heather's funeral was attended by white people and Aboriginal people of all generations who were touched by her spirit and her strength. Her passing is a great loss to Ipswich, but Heather Bonner remains an inspiration to people who believe passionate individuals can change the world for the better. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.37 p.m.

GOVERNMENT PRINTER, QUEENSLAND—2004