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 Wednesday, 20 October 2004

PRIVILEGE ...... 3003 Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig ...... 3003 PRIVILEGE ...... 3003 Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig ...... 3003 PRIVILEGE ...... 3003 Queensland Economy; Comments on ABC Radio ...... 3003 PRIVILEGE ...... 3004 Anaesthetists; Comments by Minister for Health ...... 3004 OFFICE OF SPEAKER ...... 3004 Statement of Recurrent Expenditure ...... 3004 PETITIONS ...... 3004 PAPER ...... 3004 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3004 Toowoomba Centenary ...... 3004 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3005 Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland, Toowoomba ...... 3005 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3005 Great Barrier Marine Park ...... 3005 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3006 Social Services Spending ...... 3006 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3007 Regional Employment Outcomes ...... 3007 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3008 Research and Development ...... 3008 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3009 Exports ...... 3009 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3009 Exports, Middle East ...... 3009 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3010 Queensland Work , Skilling ...... 3010 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3011

BY AUTHORITY L.J. OSMOND, CHIEF HANSARD REPORTER—2004 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 20 October 2004

Blue Cards ...... 3011 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3011 Rosella Namok, Art Exhibition ...... 3011 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3012 Felix Apartments ...... 3012 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS ...... 3013 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3013 Marine Park; Water Quality ...... 3013 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3013 Gold Coast Indy ...... 3013 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3014 Vocational Training and Education ...... 3014 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3015 Multinail ...... 3015 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3015 Cardiac Services ...... 3015 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3016 Gulf of Carpentaria Fisheries ...... 3016 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3016 Water Storage, Bowen Basin ...... 3016 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3017 Bushfires ...... 3017 MINISTERIAL STATEMENT ...... 3018 Wik Native Title Determination ...... 3018 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3018 PERSONAL EXPLANATION ...... 3018 Comments by Minister for Health ...... 3018 NOTICE OF MOTION ...... 3019 Public Infrastructure ...... 3019 PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS ...... 3019 Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig ...... 3019 Toowoomba Centenary ...... 3019 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3020 Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig ...... 3020 Racing Industry; Mr W. Woods ...... 3021 Federalism ...... 3022 PRIVILEGE ...... 3023 Comments by Minister for Racing ...... 3023 NAMING OF MEMBER ...... 3023 SUSPENSION OF MEMBER ...... 3023 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3024 Racing Industry; Mr J. Lingard ...... 3024 PRIVILEGE ...... 3025 Comments by Minister for Racing ...... 3025 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE ...... 3025 HMAS Brisbane, Naval Week ...... 3025 Racing Industry; Mr J. Lingard ...... 3026 Linkfield Connection Road ...... 3026 Cardiac Services, Prince Charles Hospital ...... 3027 Youth Support Coordinators ...... 3027 School Bus Safety ...... 3028 School Based Policing ...... 3029 Health Services; Waiting Lists ...... 3029 Performing Arts ...... 3030 Health Services; Cardiac Services ...... 3031 TAB QUEENSLAND LIMITED PRIVATISATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3031 Second Reading ...... 3031 Consideration in Detail ...... 3033 Third Reading ...... 3033 CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3033 Second Reading ...... 3033 HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3044 First Reading ...... 3044 Second Reading ...... 3044 TOBACCO AND OTHER SMOKING PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3046 First Reading ...... 3046 Second Reading ...... 3046 CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3049 Second Reading ...... 3049 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 20 October 2004

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 3076 CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) ...... 3086 Second Reading ...... 3086 Consideration in Detail ...... 3087 Third Reading ...... 3087 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3087 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT AREAS) BILL ...... 3088 Second Reading ...... 3088 Consideration in Detail ...... 3104 Third Reading ...... 3104 ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3104 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3104 Second Reading ...... 3104 SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS ...... 3107 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ...... 3107 Second Reading ...... 3107 Consideration in Detail ...... 3116 Third Reading ...... 3116 ADJOURNMENT ...... 3116 Autism Spectrum Disorder ...... 3117 Animal Welfare League of Coombabah ...... 3117 Affordable Housing ...... 3118 Wisdom Within Art Exhibition; Department of Housing Garden Awards ...... 3118 Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme ...... 3119 Wine Industry ...... 3119 Anna Meares, Olympic and World Champion ...... 3120 Neighbourhood Watch ...... 3120 Blue Care Lockyer ...... 3121 Graffiti in Advertising ...... 3121 Table of Contents — Wednesday, 20 October 2004 20 Oct 2004 Legislative Assembly 3003 WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2004

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

PRIVILEGE

Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig Hon. R.E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—ALP) (Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing) (9.30 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. Yesterday we again saw the misuse of parliamentary privilege in this parliament when the Leader of the Opposition accused me of announcing the appointment of Mr Bill Ludwig to a position on the board of Queensland Racing. I made no such statement. I table a copy of my statement from 12 October 2004 where I stated that it was totally expected that the opposition would rubbish the selection of Mr Bill Ludwig to be appointed to the Thoroughbred Racing Board. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear this matter of privilege. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will repeat that— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, order! Mr SCHWARTEN:—where I stated that it was totally expected that the opposition would rubbish the selection of Mr Bill Ludwig to be appointed to the Thoroughbred Racing Board. The fact is that neither Mr Ludwig nor Mr Andrews have been appointed and are currently undergoing the necessary probity checks. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, my final warning to you. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will say again: the fact is that neither Mr Ludwig nor Mr Andrews have been appointed and are currently undergoing the necessary probity checks. Contrary to the Leader of the Opposition's statement yesterday, both Mr Ludwig and Mr Andrews have fully cooperated with this process. I have been advised by the director-general that all necessary requirements of the law have been adhered to and all information required has been submitted, including fingerprints.

PRIVILEGE

Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.33 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. If the minister chooses to read his own press release, it says the minister welcomes the appointment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of privilege.

PRIVILEGE

Queensland Economy; Comments on ABC Radio Hon. T.M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.33 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. This morning on ABC radio in the 7.45 bulletin it led with a statement—a claim—that I had said that all of the budget surplus would be spent in south-east Queensland. I never made any such statement. I was asked by the ABC radio about a claim made by the Leader of the Opposition that I should spend the surplus on water infrastructure on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. I answered that question by saying that next week we would release a plan for south-east Queensland and as part of that we would be working on an infrastructure plan which will be fed into next year's budget. That is what is going to happen. I never said all the surplus would be spent in south-east Queensland. 3004 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004

PRIVILEGE

Anaesthetists; Comments by Minister for Health Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (9.34 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. On 6 October in this House I asked the Minister for Health why his department was paying up to $8,000 per week for locum anaesthetists to fly in from interstate to work in Queensland public hospitals. In response the minister stated— In relation to paying interstate anaesthetists the sum of $8,000, it is simply untrue and incorrect. That is not the case. I now table a document from Queensland Health that clearly shows that a Dr Andu Borsaru, a Melbourne based anaesthetist, was paid the sum of $8,133.54 for 40 hours work at Princess Alexandra Hospital. Dr Borsaru was employed by the Director-General of Health via an individual contract under the Health Services Act. In light of this evidence, it is my assertion that the minister has clearly misled this House and I will be writing to you later in the day to ask you to refer this matter to the Members’ Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee.

OFFICE OF SPEAKER

Statement of Recurrent Expenditure Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay upon the table of the House the statement for public disclosure of recurrent expenditure for my office for the period 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004.

PETITIONS

The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Conservation Park Corridors, South-East Queensland Forest Reserves Mr Wellington from 110 petitioners requesting the House to make provision in the proposed new tenure for Forest Reserves in South East Queensland State Forests to have the already existing fire trails and tracks set aside as Conservation Park Corridors.

Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Mr Knuth from 479 petitioners requesting the House to review patient travel subsidy rebate figures and to also review the process of authorising Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Application Forms.

Amalgamation, Noosa Shire Ms Molloy from 18,747 petitioners requesting the House to reject any proposal to include Noosa Shire in any amalgamation with other Shires on the Sunshine Coast.

PAPER

The following ministerial paper was tabled by the Clerk— Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle)— • Response from the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women (Ms Boyle) to paper petitions presented by Mr Wellington from 70 and 258 petitioners regarding the loss of reasonable access by horse riders to the South East Queensland State Forests

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Toowoomba Centenary Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): The great city of Toowoomba celebrates its centenary today, Wednesday 20 October 2004. I wish Kerry Shine, the member for Toowoomba North—who I have to say has joined me in wearing Toowoomba's wonderful Carnival of Flowers tie—, the member for Toowoomba South, , the member for Cunningham, Dianne Thorley, the very lively mayor of Toowoomba, and the city civic leaders and citizens all the very best for today and the associated events. There is little doubt that the first settlers of the downs—from the Goolburri people, the Leslies, the Grooms, the Mayes and the like—would only have dreamed that a great city like Toowoomba would be born. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the great city of Toowoomba and its people. I seek leave to incorporate further details in Hansard. Leave granted. 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3005

In April 1867 when that first tiny steam train puffed into Toowoomba, having defied the mighty Range, surely those present would not have thought that one day a magnificent city with more than 90,000 people would call it home. Queensland's Garden City has been a magnificent contributor in areas like transport, commerce, education, politics, and as a collection and manufacturing centre for so many of our State's rural products. Once it was almost exclusively dependent on good weather and the Darling Downs' commodity price successes for its stability. While that remains important—it has effectively broadened its economy to be a regional giant with education, health, defence support, and general commerce assuring its continued success. Toowoomba's Carnival of Flowers, through 55 years continuous community work along with its countless sporting and cultural successes, has it admired—if anything even envied by others. Given the way it has embraced Smart State thinking through the likes of the University of Southern Queensland, Wagners, Russell Mineral Equipment and Mansell Neonatal Transport its future looks very bright indeed. Have a great birthday Toowoomba and in that celebration know that everyone has contributed to giving yourselves excellent prospects for your second century. Members would know that during the last sitting I detailed how while at Toowoomba's Carnival of Flowers opening last month I presented Toowoomba with a Smart State Hibiscus to mark this milestone. This presentation was on behalf of the people of Queensland. The actual declaration of Toowoomba as a city was marked 100 years ago today with every bell and horn sounding for half a minute to celebrate the event at 12 noon. I suggest today that the bustling city would be deaf for weeks if such a repeat were to take place.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland, Toowoomba Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.38 a.m.): While I am talking about Toowoomba, I am delighted to detail to the House that Toowoomba's Royal Agricultural Society of Queensland, the RASQ, is again doing well. Last week they outlined a trading profit of $257,000. The president, John McDonald, the RASQ manager, Damon Phillips, and the committee deserve great praise. Nearly two years ago the society approached Kerry Shine, the member for Toowoomba North, and me outlining a dire position. We listened to what they had to say and in May this year we delivered a funding package of $271,000, shoring up their future. There was $150,000 from the state government, $75,000 from the Toowoomba City Council, $10,000 from the Jondaryan Shire Council and a matching restructure from the society's bank. I want to congratulate them for a job well done. I table their annual report for 2003-04. I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my comments in Hansard. Leave granted. So courtesy of John McDonald and the RASQ's considered management, Kerry's persistence, and the co-operation of the councils and the RASQ's bank, a favourable outcome has been achieved. Two years ago this appeared very unlikely. It is a very good result and I wish them continued success for the years to come. I note with interest the thanks that John McDonald and Damon Phillips have extended to Kerry and myself—and indeed all of the government—for helping them out.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.39 a.m.): Cabinet has decided on a practical, sensible response to the federal government's new Great Barrier Reef representative areas program. From 5 November the Great Barrier Reef will have a new level of protection from a state marine park stretching more than 3,600 kilometres from Baffle Creek near Bundaberg to the tip of Cape York, by far the longest state marine park in Australia. Our changes were made necessary by the federal government's Great Barrier Reef zones which took effect on 1 July 2004. We have achieved a better balance than the federal government by working very hard on a formula that maintains fishing interests while improving reef protection. We have not taken the easy option of a holus-bolus mirror zoning because we place the interests of Queenslanders on a higher plane than the federal government does. The park will safeguard the region’s $4.3 billion tourism industry which supports more than 47,000 jobs. But most Queenslanders who fish will not even notice the difference. People who fish in rivers, creeks, channels, estuaries and mangroves will not be affected. Beach fishing will still be permitted along 85 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef coastline, and most of the beaches where fishing will be banned are remote and barely accessible. 3006 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004

Following extensive consultation, recreational fishing will be permitted in four designated areas— Sabina Point and McDonald Point in Shoalwater Bay, an area next to Charon Point Conservation Park and selected beaches on Bamborough Island. We have designated these areas as yellow zones because locals explained that blanket acceptance of the federal plan would have barred them from beach fishing. We will maintain highly productive commercial crabbing grounds such as the mangroves, tidal channels, streams and foreshore flats of Shoalwater Bay, Broadsound, the Burdekin River mouth, Hinchinbrook Channel, the Narrows, Bowling Green Bay, Cleveland Bay and Missionary Bay. This means our beloved Queensland mud crab stays on the menu for Queenslanders and tourists. The dugongs of Shoalwater Bay will remained protected—their conservation measures are not affected. Now that the Queensland government has delivered certainty about the new zoning in the intertidal waters of the Great Barrier Reef, we expect the federal government to meet its commitment to fully compensate commercial fishers disadvantaged by the federal changes. We have endeavoured to cushion the impact of the federal government’s changes on recreational and commercial fishers. The federal government has told people affected by its new zones that there is an uncapped structural adjustment package to buy out whole licences. I urge affected people to submit their tenders to the federal government before the 8 November closing date. I table a map of the Broadsound and Shoalwater Bay region, which illustrates my government’s work to get the balance right. I also table notes that explain the map. When members have a look at this map they will see what I am highlighting to the House in terms of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The examples of changes made to the zoning do not automatically adopt the Commonwealth zoning. For area A, which is the Herbert Creek, Broadsound, the Commonwealth zoning shows the entire estuary of Herbert Creek, Broadsound as green—that is, no take. We said we would not include estuaries, which are clearly state waters, in the new state marine park. We have kept it in general use which is why it is in light blue on the map. This means this highly productive inshore commercial fishing ground remains unchanged. For area B, which is the Head Creek, Shoalwater Bay, we find that the estuary section of Head Creek in Shoalwater Bay was shown as green by the Commonwealth, but it is state waters and therefore not included in the new marine park. This estuary will remain a marine park habitat protection dark blue zone. This will allow the productive commercial crab industry to continue in this area, while retaining the existing dugong protection measures which is a sound balance. Areas C, D, E and F are known as Sabina Point, MacDonald Point, Charon Point and Bamborough Island. Submissions identified these areas as not having any access to recreational beach fishing if we adopted the Commonwealth zoning. To address this, our marine park zoning will show the waters adjacent to Sabina Point, MacDonald Point and Bamborough Island as yellow zones and adjacent to Charon Point as general use, a light blue zone. This will enable recreational fishers to continue fishing from the shore in these areas. I would urge members to get hold of this map and study it. I thank those local members and local ministers on my team who raised these issues with me. We have responded to what they have raised. I believe this takes into account the issues they have raised. I would urge members to study the map and the details that I have tabled for the information of the House.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Social Services Spending Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.43 a.m.): Yesterday on behalf of the government the Treasurer outlined our strong financial position. From time to time, people ask the government what its priorities are in spending. I will spell out today where this government spends Queenslanders' money. I recently outlined for the House the government’s Smart State approach to infrastructure and our future budget focus on more hard infrastructure. I also referred to the way we have boosted spending for social services. We had a lot of catching up to do when we came to office because the conservative years were the dark years for social services in Queensland. We have used our heads as well as our hearts and funded social services in an affordable and sustainable way. Let us look at the last six years and where we are spending the money. This will be a clear indication about where we are going for the future. Since 1998-99 recurrent spending on social welfare, housing and other community services has increased by $1 billion or 67 per cent. Public order and safety is up by a massive $806 million or 51 per cent in that period. Health spending has increased by $1.56 billion or 45 per cent. The Education budget has increased by $1.8 billion or 44 per cent. That is our investment in the future of Queensland. 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3007

When we were returned to government in February this year we approached the task with renewed vitality and picked up new momentum in some areas of social service spending. The first budget of my new government fully funded implementation of the CMC report into child safety and the Forster blueprint. By 2006-07 additional funding of at least $214 million per annum will be invested in child safety. The 2004-05 budget also increased funding for disability services by $220 million over four years. This expanded on our election commitments and built on the $200 million per annum injection in the 2003-04 budget. The Disability Services Queensland 2004-05 budget is now 67 per cent higher than it was in 2000-01. This is a government with heart. We are going to deliver for Queenslanders in need. Between 2002-03 and 2007-08, state funding for Disability Services Queensland will increase by a staggering 84 per cent. Shamefully, Commonwealth funding over the period 2002-03 and 2007-08 will in comparison rise by a paltry 16 per cent. Funding for the education and training reforms for the future package, including the start of prep year from 2007, is $135 million in 2004-05, rising to more than $307 million in 2006-07. The recurrent Health budget exceeds $5 billion for the first time in 2004-05. That is growth of 11 per cent from last year’s budget to be $5.13 billion in 2004-05. I take this opportunity to thank my ministerial colleagues, the portfolio ministers, the Treasurer, Terry Mackenroth, and his predecessor, David Hamill, who have helped build this new Queensland after the cold conservative era that we inherited. As we saw yesterday, the Treasurer has made sure, on behalf of the government, that this money is being spent following my government’s priorities. While our budget focus will move to new areas, we will never forget those in need, those who need care and compassion, as well as sound economic management. If members want some indication about where Queensland is going, that is the direction of our government and that is the direction for the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Regional Employment Outcomes Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 a.m.): Let me talk a little bit about regional employment outcomes. All Queenslanders can take pride in the strong employment record over the past six years. Building the Smart State is a team effort. Every statistical division in Queensland has experienced a decline in trend unemployment over the past six years. I will highlight some of these changes for the information of the House. The statistical regions showing the biggest plunges since June 1998 have been south and east Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and south and east Moreton. These regions all recorded falls of around 4.5 percentage points and a number of regions have an unemployment rate below five per cent. Inner Brisbane now has an unemployment rate of 4.1 per cent—that is, down from 5.9 per cent in June 1998. In the south and east Brisbane region the rate is less than half what it was in June 1998—that is, 4.4 per cent as opposed to 9.1 per cent. In the outer city region we are looking at a rate of 4.8 per cent—that is, down from 7.2 per cent when we began working in government. In the north and west Brisbane region the rate has plummeted from 9.4 per cent in June 1998 to 5.6 per cent last month. Outside of Brisbane the average rate has fallen by one-third since June 1998—from nine per cent to six per cent. The Darling Downs/south-west region of the state is now at 4.7 per cent, down from 5.5 per cent in June 1998. This is despite the severe drought. I am delighted that rain is falling in some parched areas of the state. I pray it brings better agricultural conditions and more economic and job opportunities in those regions. In September the far north had a very encouraging unemployment rate of 4.4 per cent, down from 6.3 per cent in June 1998. In the northern and north-west region of the state the regional unemployment rate dropped by 3.3 percentage points since June 1998. It was 9.1 per cent when the supposed champions of the bush lost government. Now it is 5.8 per cent. It is still too high, but that 3.3 percentage point drop is larger than the three percentage point average reduction across the state over the period. At the Gold Coast, which has partial data that overlaps with other regions, unemployment dived from 9.8 per cent in June 1998 to 5.3 per cent. Every percentage point is a challenge for the government. It is there to be conquered. We are pushing ahead with job creation initiatives, sound economic policies and projects that foster new industries and exports and bring greater returns for traditional industries. The latest statewide trend figure of 5.4 per cent—lower than the national average for the first time in almost 10 years—and the declining rates across the regions confirm that we are pulling the right levers. This is what the Smart State strategy is delivering for Queensland. It is jobs, jobs, jobs. It is encouraging, but there is more work, work, work ahead for the government as we continue to erode unemployment rates across Queensland. There were many people who laughed about my bold five per cent prediction. I do not hear them laughing anymore. I seek leave to incorporate Queensland's regional unemployment rates graph in Hansard for the record. Leave granted. 3008 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004

Comparative Table of Unemployment Rates from June 1998 to September 2004

Region Jun-98 Sep-04 Brisbane - Total 7.8 4.7 Brisbane City – Inner 5.9 4.1 Brisbane Brisbane City – Outer 7.2 4.8 South & East Brisbane 9.1 4.4 North and West Brisbane 9.4 5.6 Balance of Qld – Total 9.0 6.0 Darling Downs / South West 5.5 4.7 Far North 6.3 4.4 Mackay / Fitzroy / Central West 8.3 6.3 Balance of Qld Northern / North West 9.1 5.8 North and East Moreton 9.7 5.7 South & East Moreton 9.6 5.2 Wide Bay / Burnett 14.7 11.8 Gold Coast* 9.8 5.3

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Research and Development Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.50 a.m.): We have record spending in research and development. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has confirmed Queensland's rightful status as the Smart State for research and development in new industries and technologies. Recent ABS data shows that the Queensland government invests more than any other state government on the grey matter of those people working in these exciting areas. In 2002-03 the Queensland government spent $255.3 million on research and development. That averaged out to $67.74 per capita compared to $43.42 per capita for the rest of Australia. That is 56 per cent more than the national average. New jobs are the sweetest fruit of this investment, and the latest 5.4 per cent Queensland unemployment rate—the lowest in at least 26 years—shows that our Smart State strategies are working. Since 1998 the government has spent more than $2.4 billion in key areas such as biotechnology, innovation, and research and development. We spend approximately $240 million per year on science research and development alone. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Business accounts for most research and development expenditure in Queensland (followed by the higher education sector, the State Government, the Federal Government and private non-profit organisations)—but we are below the national average for expenditure by business and private non-profit organisations. 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3009

However this situation is improving, with Queensland recording an increase in nominal business research and development expenditure of around 50% since 1998-99. Our biotech companies represent 18 percent of the national total, generate 22 percent of Australian industry turnover, and last year attracted more than a quarter of all venture capital funds invested in Australian biotech companies. Our ICT industry is now a larger employer than Queensland’s mining sector and employs half as many people as Queensland’s primary industries. In addition our manufacturing economic output in Queensland has increased from $9.3 Billion in 1997-98 to $11.2 Billion last financial year. Unfortunately the Howard Government short changes Queensland again by spending less on average here than other States.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Exports Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 a.m.): We have more job creating export strategies that are helping to deliver this record unemployment level. The latest official independent trade figures confirm that the Queensland government's trade strategies are working. Unpublished trade data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the value of Queensland's overseas merchandise exports rose by 25.7 per cent from $4.98 billion to $6.26 billion in the three months to August 2004 compared with the same period a year earlier. This means that Queensland exported an additional $1.28 billion worth of goods during this period compared to last year. It is no coincidence that unemployment has fallen as the export ledger has improved, because exports are a major job creator. Our strategies on exports are also working, and I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Total rural exports rose from $1.13 billion to $1.6 billion, or 43%, with major increases in export of cereal, textile fibre and meat over the same period last year. Crude mineral exports rose from $1.9 billion to $2.56 billion, or 33% during this period. In terms of export of manufactured goods, there was a 9% growth during the same period, from $0.96 billion to just over $1 billion. Asia remains the dominant trade destination for Queensland's exports. The nominal value of exports to North-East Asia, rose by 43.3%—from $1.1 billion to $1.58 billion. Compared to the same period last year, exports to Japan increased by 40.6% from $1.26 billion to $1.77 billion. Sales to South-East Asia were up by 28.0% from $0.42 billion to $0.54 billion. Queensland's export growth rippled through other global regions: the European Union (up 16.4%) United States (up 5.8%), New Zealand (up 3.8%) and the United Kingdom (up 2.8%). This quarterly data is a snap shot. For a more complete picture of Queensland's export performance over the last 10 years, I refer members to the first annual Queensland Export Statement that I released on 20 September 2004.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Exports, Middle East Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.52 a.m.): In relation to exports, the Middle East is emerging as a significant market for Queensland. I want to highlight to the House that in 2002-03 we exported $410 million worth of goods and services to that region. For the information of the House, I seek leave to incorporate the rest of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. Today, the Middle East region offers an increasing range of opportunities for Queensland companies. Qatar is hosting the 2006 Asian Games and is embarking on a huge infrastructure development program. Qatar's neighbour, the United Arab Emirates is the scene of a boom in the construction, health and information technology sectors. Saudi Arabia, the largest economy in the Gulf region, presents significant opportunities in the education, tourism and health sectors. To take advantage of opportunities in this region I created the Middle East Unit within the Department of Premier and Cabinet in November 1999. In March this year we established a presence in Doha. The representative, Mr Michael Otago, arrived in Doha in July and has been very busy. The Doha Office is assisting with negotiations for a $400,000 agribusiness contract for a Queensland company and is pursuing possible contracts for products ranging from rubber sheeting to portable buildings. 3010 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004

It is also pursuing opportunities for Queensland companies arising from massive infrastructure development in Qatar, including the New International Airport, the Asian Games and large-scale urban redevelopment. The office has already made inroads in establishing and nurturing relationships with major companies, government and business networks. In late August, Mr Otago returned to Queensland and gave a presentation on the export opportunities in Qatar to approximately 70 business people. This fuelled more interest in Qatar—and at least two firms that attended have now visited the market while others are planning to do so in coming months. More recently, Mr Otago held a very successful meeting with Bechtel's Doha office. Bechtel was awarded the Master Contract for the new Doha International Airport—a project that will cost US$2.5 billion in stage one alone. Bechtel will shortly release 14 design and construction contracts and a number of these, for example the contract for landscaping and irrigation, will give Queensland companies opportunities to supply a range of products and services. The office is also working closely with a $2.5 billion Education City project in Doha to identify opportunities for Queensland's education, R&D and professional consultancy sectors. Next month, the Honourable Mike Ahern, our Special Representative for the Middle East, will lead a delegation of 16 Queensland companies to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates focusing on the construction, infrastructure and amenity horticulture sectors. The Government correctly identified some time ago that Qatar was a promising Middle East market deserving focused attention. Other states are now coming to the same conclusion. With the enormous opportunities in the Middle East region, I am confident that having a Queensland Government Representative in Doha will reap rewards for Queensland and continue to deliver on my Government's priority to create jobs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Queensland Work Force, Skilling Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.53 a.m.): There are some challenges, and one relates to the area of skilling the work force. In the recent federal election campaign the coalition finally made some commitments about vocational education and training, which for far too long has been the Cinderella of the national education and training system. Many of Mr Howard's promises are modelled on strategies that are succeeding in Queensland, because we are delivering where the federal coalition is talking. While industry is experiencing skill shortages across the country, Queensland currently has record numbers of apprentices and trainees—around 70,500. We are willing to work with the federal government to add value to its training promises. The Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations, Tom Barton, will be happy to meet with his Commonwealth counterpart. He will be available to explain how the federal government can save taxpayers time and money by abandoning illogical plans to duplicate programs already working in Queensland. I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. This year's Queensland Budget included a swag of new initiatives under the innovative SmartVET strategy. SmartVET invests over $1 billion in training over the next three years. It makes Queensland the national leader in developing Industry Training Centres of Excellence. Aviation Australia has been a hugely successful test of this concept. It was crucial to attracting companies such as Qantas Heavy Maintenance, Virgin Blue and Boeing Australia to place their headquarters—and create jobs—in the Smart State. The Queensland Government is now accelerating plans for Industry Training Centres of Excellence to address skills shortages in Mining, Manufacturing, and Building and Construction. The Federal Coalition plays catch-up by promising to establish an Institute for Trade Skill Excellence. Similarly, its plan to duplicate Queensland's work in the technical trades area would be a shameful waste of taxpayers' money. The Federal Coalition wants to establish 24 Australian Technical Colleges for years 11 and 12—but only four will be in Queensland. The approach ignores systems already working in Queensland and also short-changes us. Through Education and Training Reforms for the Future, we give all senior secondary students access to the full range of quality accredited vocational education and training services. Queensland has 6,900 school-based apprentices and trainees—and had almost half the nation's school-based apprentice and trainee commencements in the March quarter. Federal funding proposed for the four Technical colleges should be boosted to match demand in this State, and the money should be pumped into our existing system. Other Federal Coalition promises copying Queensland include: • Giving all secondary students individual Transition Plans. This is modelled on our initiative to introduce Senior Education and Training Plans for all Queensland students in Year 10; and • A Network of Industry Careers Advisers. This is based on a Queensland SmartVET strategy. We are developing and trialling Skilling Queensland—a revolutionary new career, training and employment service for all Queenslanders. Our pilot will begin in early 2005. 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3011

We welcome the Federal Coalition's belated concern for the national skills shortage. It's a shame it has taken them so long for them to wake up to the value of Smart State ideas.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Blue Cards Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.53 a.m.): We are moving amendments to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act to ensure better protection for our young Queenslanders. The Queensland government has a blue card scheme which will be amended, and I seek leave to incorporate my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The Queensland Government's blue card scheme which is designed to stop convicted perverts from working with children has been an overwhelming success. More is being done. Amendments to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act will allow the Commissioner to take into account not just a person's criminal record but a broader range of information when deciding whether or not to issue someone with a blue card. In this way the Commissioner will have an increased ability to identify people whose history indicates that they in any way may be disposed to harming children, and ensure they are not issued with a blue card—to ensure they can't work in regular contact with children. Specifically, in certain circumstances the Commissioner will be able to consider investigative information obtained by the Queensland Police Service even if that information did not result in a charge or conviction. To ensure that only appropriate information is passed on by police, there are a number of criteria limiting the circumstances in which information may be provided by the Police Service, including that the investigation must have related to an alleged sexual offence against a child, the matter was fully investigated, and the only reason it did not result in a charge was because the complainant was unwilling to proceed. The changes will also allow the Commissioner to take into account certain information from a number of professional registration bodies, such as the Queensland Nursing Council, about an individual being professionally deregistered in relation to an allegation of harm against a child. Under the amendments, the Commissioner will be able to take into account information from Health Practitioner Registration Boards in relation to the following registered health practitioners with their own individual registration boards: • Chiropractors; • Dental Practitioners; • Dental Technicians and Dental Prosthetists; • Medical Practitioners; • Medical Radiation Technologists; • Occupational Therapists; • Optometrists; •Osteopaths; • Pharmacists; • Physiotherapists; • Podiatrists; • Psychologists; and • Speech Pathologists. It is also intended that the Commissioner can take into account disciplinary information from the Department of Child Safety in relation to foster-carers and the Department of Communities in relation to child care workers. Employees and volunteers of several new categories of child-related employment will also be required to hold blue cards, namely: employees of hostels for rural children; home stay providers; providers of recreational activities for children; and clergy and non- teaching school staff employed before 1 May 2001, when the blue card was introduced. The serious offences list used by the Commissioner in assessing applications will also be revised to ensure that only offences relevant to child protection are designated as serious offences. In addition to these changes, a range of technical amendments will be made to tighten the Working with Children Check, to ensure that people intended to be captured by the legislation do not escape checking because of technicalities. These changes are due to be considered by Cabinet and to come to Parliament before the end of the year.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Rosella Namok, Art Exhibition Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.54 a.m.): I wish to pay tribute to one of our great indigenous artists, Rosella Namok, who is becoming internationally and 3012 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004 nationally renowned. I table a catalogue from her recent exhibition, ’nother side, which gives some insight into the beauty of her work and a copy of an article about Rosella which appeared in the Sunday Times magazine on 17 October. I seek leave to incorporate my ministerial statement in Hansard. Leave granted. It is always a pleasure to update the house on the success of artists associated with the Government's Queensland Indigenous Art Marketing and Export Agency. Rosella Namok of the Lockhart River Art Gang is a beacon of success. At just 25 years of age she is acclaimed in Queensland and nationally. Now she has gained international recognition and joined the growing ranks of accomplished Queensland exporters. Over the past two years Rosella has been part of three overseas group exhibitions arranged by the Indigenous Art Marketing and Export Agency. Her presence in Berlin was a great asset when I opened the agency's first international show there in October 2002. Last month Rosella made her overseas solo debut with 'nother side, at the October Gallery in Bloomsbury, London. Two-thirds of the works were snapped up before the official opening of 'nother side—which has $3000 assistance from the Indigenous Art Marketing and Export Agency. The exhibition pieces are priced at between UK£2,400 ($6083) and UK£10,500 ($2600). So, Britain's astute art buyers have become enamoured with Queensland Indigenous art. 'nother side does not close until this Saturday, October 2,3 but the October Gallery has already invited Rosella to return in 2005. It is also interested in exhibiting other members of the Lockhart River Art Gang, and artists from Aurukun. Brisbane dealer Andrew Baker helped take 'nother side to London, and the show is also supported by ABIE, the Britain-Australia Society and Rio Tinto. Meteoric young artists like Rosella are projecting Queensland Indigenous art on to the world stage. We have witnessed an unprecedented explosion of creative talent among Queensland Indigenous artists in recent years. Along with the rise of the Lockhart River Gang, the new master carvers of Aurukun continue to gather international exposure with their stunning sculptures cast in metal. The Government is intent on fostering Indigenous art because it is a dynamo for job creation, economic development and cultural vitality. For example, we are investing in talent at Mossman Gorge Art Centre. Prominent senior artist Karen Gibson is producing highly sought after work that is often sold within 24 hours of hanging. Fine art printing is now the bread and butter of Mossman Gorge sales and demand is extremely strong. The Government—through the Department of State Development and Innovation, Arts Queensland, and a partnership with Federal agencies—has provided $45 687 in grants, plus a coordinator, to the Mossman Gorge Art Centre in the past 13 months. With our support, business plans are also in the pipeline for art centres for the West Cape artists of Mapoon and Napranum, as well as Aurukun and Kowanyama. The trajectory of success of our more established Indigenous artists gives me great optimism about the future for art from these remote West Cape communities.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Felix Apartments Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.54 a.m.): We are seeing not just a new Queensland but a new Brisbane. At midday today I will have the pleasure of opening the Felix Apartment building at the corner of Felix and Mary Streets. This sort of development is not only creating jobs but giving Brisbane the international reputation we deserve, and I seek leave to have the remainder of my ministerial statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. This $95 million, 40-storey building has added a further 253 apartments to the Brisbane central business district. The fact that 240 of the 253 units were sold within 16 weeks of the new building project being announced in 2001 clearly indicates a new direction in lifestyles. Twenty years ago, people worked in the central business district then hopped into their cars and drove home to the suburbs. Today, more and more people are choosing to live in the CBD, within walking distance of their jobs, restaurants and a range of entertainment venues. My government has played a key role in meeting the needs associated with this lifestyle change. We have recognised the need for additional green open spaces and took the lead in the Roma Street Parkland project. We also saw the need for the Goodwill Bridge and met that need. These have enhanced the appeal of city living. To mark the opening today, I will be unveiling a sculpture by Brisbane artist Terry Summers. The sculpture was cast in aluminium by Urban Art Projects, a local company that lists public art as one of its specialties. I want to commend the Felix Apartment building developer Citimark for including a piece of public art in this project. 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3013

Since my Government introduced our Art Built-In policy in 1999 to provide public art and support Queensland artists, we have seen the completion of 68 projects worth $6 million. There are currently a further 77 projects under way, worth $11.8 million. Art Built-in projects span the State from Coolangatta in the south, to Mt Isa in the west and Thursday Island in the north. They range from specially designed carpets at the Queensland Academy of Sport, to a mural painted at the Magnetic Island Ferry Terminal to Indigenous artworks laminated into armour-plated glass windows at the Mount Isa Watchhouse to a video display at the Logan Entertainment Centre.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Mr SPEAKER: Order! I welcome to the public gallery a delegation from Piedimonte in Sicily led by the Mayor of Piedimonte, Giuseppe Cavallaro. Welcome.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; Water Quality Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (9.55 a.m.): Today the Queensland government is announcing two important initiatives to protect Queensland's priceless water environments. We have already heard from the Premier about the creation of a 3,600-kilometre long Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park. This new marine park is the culmination of an extensive consultation process and a triumph for commonsense and balanced decision making. Make no mistake: these changes were forced on us by the federal government's new zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It has changed the rules for reef waters up to low- water mark. Queensland has had complementary zoning for nearly 30 years and our decision means that we will continue to have complementary laws. If we did not have complementary zoning, it would have been almost impossible to police with the constant movement of the and water levels. Queensland's actions mean the same rules now apply on both sides of a continually moving low-water mark, so there is certainty for everyone about the new zoning laws. In reaching this decision we have had to balance many interests. On the one hand we have had to ensure that protecting the environment was top priority, but we have also ensured the interests of all Queenslanders, including commercial and recreational fishers, were seriously considered in this process. Of the 495 kilometres of green no-take zones next to the coast, 350 kilometres are north of Port Douglas. In addition to the key changes outlined by the Premier, I want to inform the House that, where there is road access to the coast in large remote green zones, a strip of yellow has been inserted to allow for recreational fishing. Examples include Captain Billy Landing, Bolt Head and Temple Bay on Cape York, Allingham north of Townsville, Sabina Point, Charon Point, Curtis Island and Wreck Rock in the south.This action has ensured that many ordinary Queenslanders can continue to enjoy recreational fishing in our coastal waters. I also take this opportunity to inform the House of further action on the important topic of water quality. Today I am releasing an information package to provide the basis for extensive consultation on the values and objectives for water quality. This consultation process will have a particular focus on the environmental values of three of Queensland's unique water environments. Queenslanders may make written submissions or attend a series of community meetings across the state during November which give people the chance to have their say. The meetings will look specifically at waterways in three regions—Douglas shire in far-north Queensland, the Great Sandy Strait and the Mary River Basin in Wide Bay, and waterways from the Gold Coast to the Sunshine Coast in south-east Queensland. We also want feedback from the community on the draft Queensland Water Quality Guidelines 2004 which look at broader, statewide water quality targets. Queensland's waterways—our rivers, estuaries and coastal waters—are among the state's most valuable assets. I commend the many officers of the EPA who work to protect our waterways and our water quality, and I encourage all members of the House to work with the many volunteers in conservation groups in their electorates in the interests of ensuring future water quality.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Gold Coast Indy Hon. T.M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.58 a.m.): Indy week is once again upon us. It is a time when our magnificent Gold Coast puts on one of the best shows in Australia and turns on its glittering charm for audiences around the world. As I have said in this House before, Indy, which starts tomorrow, is a $50 million event for our economy, but the international exposure it produces every year for the Gold Coast and Queensland is priceless. From a motorsport perspective, it is the ultimate double-header for fans across the country—champ 3014 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004 cars and V8s. That, coupled with the carnival atmosphere enjoyed over the four days, is why people move heaven and earth to descend on the Gold Coast each year. I read with great interest an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin last weekend that the full house sign was being hoisted on the Gold Coast for the first time in three years. It states that accommodation houses are bracing for near capacity occupancy levels. One of the reasons behind the demand, of course, is Indy. The broad range of benefits that major events bring to the community could not be more clearly demonstrated than this annual motor sport phenomenon. Schoolies and the Magic Millions are two others to keep bookings full over the next few months. This year, we will see 19 champ cars driven by superstars from around the globe—nine different countries represented, including Australia. They will bring with them more than 400 champ car officials and team members. Many more family members and friends of drivers and teams will also fly in. The cars will reach speeds of over 300 kilometres an hour around the track. At that speed, a person could travel from here to Surfers Paradise in about 15 minutes. They will shift into six different gears and go around corners at nearly 100 kilometres an hour. That is precision and controlled driving requiring outstanding skill and a lot of experience behind the wheel. Amazingly, no-one has conquered the famous Surfers track twice. It is a piece of history that four former winners are eager to change this year: Paul Tracy from Canada, Jimmy Vasser from California, Ryan Hunter-Reay from Texas, and Mario Dominguez from Mexico. Of course, we also have our very own Aussie mixing it with the best for the first time in four years. Gold Coaster David Besnard will switch from a V8 to make his champ car debut, and I am sure fans will be right there cheering him home. Over in the V8s, we have home-bred heroes galore. Forget Bathurst, the Gold Coast is the place to be for V8 action. We have Marcos Ambrose—and the Premier went for a race with him just recently— Russell Ingall, Jason Bright and Mark Skaife. I went with Mark Skaife. I have to report to the parliament that I was very embarrassed because I did beat the Premier. I apologised to him quietly later, but, yes, I was in a Holden and we did win. Craig Lowndes, Glen Seton and Greg Murphy; they will all be there ready to fire up the track. The V8s are a crowd puller in their own right. The series is one of the hottest sports in Australia and New Zealand. With the addition of China as a race location next year, Gold Coast based Avesco now has real export power, and I acknowledge the Premier for getting behind this deal when he travelled to China earlier this year. I congratulate Chairman Tony Cochrane for his leadership and support for the Gold Coast Indy as well. His organisation continues to go from strength to strength. The event is truly a partnership between Avesco, Champ Car, IMG and the state government. The 2004 Champ Car world series began in Long Beach, California in April. Thirteen races later, all eyes will be on the Gold Coast. It is one of the final rounds of the season and the new owners consider it the jewel in the crown of the whole series. Our government considers the Indy the jewel in the crown of our events calendar also. The benefits are obvious and well documented and that is why we have supported Indy from day one. A remarkable amount of organisation goes into staging the event each year. We need a lot of hands on deck to ensure that it runs like clockwork, including race stewards, communications officers, emergency controllers, medical officers, timekeepers, judges, scrutineers, starters, course marshals, pit lane marshals, grid marshals, flag marshals and fire marshals. The list goes on. Of course, we have hundreds of volunteers who generously give up their time to allow us to stage this event in the first place. The end result is a four-day extravaganza, which last year set an attendance record of 306,184 people. The signs are already emerging that, if weather permits, we could give that record a real shake this weekend.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Vocational Training and Education Hon. T.A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Industrial Relations) (10.04 a.m.): I am pleased to advise honourable members that the vocational education and training initiatives launched over the past year under the government’s visionary reform strategy have received widespread support. Indeed, the success of these initiatives in seven test regions has already led to the early roll out of reform trials throughout Queensland. The reforms strategy is designed to give young Queenslanders unprecedented access to learning options supported by schools, training organisations, employers and community groups. Local communities, employers and community organisations are embracing the reforms with enthusiasm, establishing strong partnerships with training providers and schools in their regions. They recognise the unique opportunity they have been given to help shape the skills and values of their future work force. Next year, the Cooloola Sunshine Institute of TAFE will launch a locally designed learning program to equip 32 young people with important life skills and introduce them to trades that could lead 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3015 to vocational training or employment. This hands-on, 18-week program will be delivered at the Nambour campus and at the Dalby Agricultural College. It will be supported by government departments and agencies, local community organisations, employers and industry groups. In Toowoomba, from 2005 year 12 students can enrol in a diploma program at the Southern Queensland Institute of TAFE before they receive their OP score, thanks to the program’s direct-entry awards system. Entry will not be based solely on an OP score. Non-OP students can apply through criteria taking into account work experience, school recommendations and workplace references. The Gold Coast Institute of TAFE and Education Queensland will join in three 20-week courses giving 45 15- to 17-year-olds individual education programs and the chance to take part in a TAFE Skills for the Future program. In the Emerald district, a sports engagement program based on Mal Meninga’s PASS model will also deal with literacy and numeracy. These initiatives are just a small sample of what is to come. These initiatives—and the communities that support them—deserve an A-plus for their commitment to Queensland’s youth.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Multinail Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (10.06 a.m.): I want to inform the House of another company that has made the wise decision to relocate to Queensland. Multinail, which is currently located south west of Port Macquarie, is moving its headquarters and manufacturing operations to the Smart State. The company will spend more than $3 million setting up on a new site somewhere in the vicinity of the Logan area. This will mean 129 new jobs in Queensland and the bonus is that many of these jobs are highly skilled. Once again, this is proof that our policy of attracting business to Queensland is getting results. The members sitting opposite have thrown all sorts of rubbish at us, but we get results. In this instance, it is 129 new jobs and an investment of at least $3 million. Recently, I announced that Boulder Steel was set to build a $750 million steel plant in the Ipswich area, creating 750 jobs during construction and approximately 400 jobs once the plant is operational. And it was our policy of attracting investment that helped establish Queensland as an aviation hub creating 5,000 additional jobs. In New South Wales, Hastings Council was asked about losing the Multinail plant to Queensland and said— The opposition’s scored an intercept try and we just have to pick ourselves up and get back in the game. This is another successful business that Queensland has intercepted. Multinail is a specialist supplier of metal connectors, specialised truss manufacturing machinery, design software and engineering support to the prefabricated timber truss industry. There are only three companies in Australia supplying the timber truss industry and Multinail is the only one that is Australian owned. The company is seen as a leader. It invests in research and development and prides itself on its software capability. That is why many of the jobs it will bring are highly skilled jobs. Multinail’s moving here sends out the right message: Queensland is the place to be for manufacturers and high tech companies. The company’s choice of Queensland is an endorsement of the government’s manufacturing strategy, Making Queensland’s Future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Cardiac Services Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (10.09 a.m.): Cardiac services in Queensland are being delivered in a planned and methodical way and, despite the other side of the House playing politics with people’s lives, there is a commitment from this government to continue to improve cardiac services. In our $2.8 billion rebuilding program we made provision for the delivery of health services where people live. In doing so, we planned for the future growth of the state by building services at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. We also further developed heart services not only at the Prince Charles Hospital but also at the Princess Alexandra Hospital and the Gold Coast Hospital. The Prince Charles Hospital has continued to be the centre of excellence in heart and lung services. However, as technology and clinical procedures have improved and moved away from invasive surgery, these services can and should be performed in our other hospitals. For the record, we have invested $7.5 million in 2004-05 to improve cardiac services across the state—on such things as a new $2.5 million cardiac diagnostic lab at the Gold Coast Hospital, $2 million for 400 additional angiogram and stent procedures and $500,000 for additional implantable 3016 Ministerial Statement 20 Oct 2004 defibrillators. In 2003-04 there were 10,497 cardiac procedures performed across all of Queensland in our public hospitals. This is an increase of more than 440 procedures in the past two years. This is more than an argument about funding for simply the Prince Charles Hospital. This is about patients receiving services where they live and when they need them. The Courier-Mail in an article yesterday highlighted a patient who requires a cardiac procedure. This patient was placed on the waiting list for the procedure on 30 September 2004. The treating specialist is the person best qualified to determine when and where this procedure should be done, not politicians. This patient will be seen and treated according to medical need as determined by her doctors. This is how the system should work—doctors referring patients to the hospitals that have the capacity to undertake the procedure. The Prince Charles Hospital may have 46 patients to undergo a procedure, but across the river at the Princess Alexandra Hospital we have only four people. Queensland Health is working with doctors to ensure that patients are referred to the hospital with the shortest waiting time and the capacity to do the procedure. Queensland patients deserve a statewide cardiac service. This is not about location. This is about providing the best patient care across the state.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Gulf of Carpentaria Fisheries Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.12 a.m.): The Queensland government’s efforts to improve the sustainability of our fisheries are in the long-term interest of commercial fishers. I am pleased to confirm that the Gulf of Carpentaria’s line and net fisheries have been officially accredited as ecologically sustainable and therefore exempt from Commonwealth export controls. Following extensive consultation between the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and key stakeholder groups, the fisheries have all been declared wildlife trade operations under the Commonwealth government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These declarations were important environmental milestones for the two fisheries, which were worth more than $11 million gross value production last year. It also represents good news for Queensland’s fisheries. The accreditations indicate that the fisheries are being managed sustainably, which is very important for their export potential. As a requirement of the EPBC Act, all Australian export fisheries and those fisheries that have the potential to affect protected species must be assessed to ensure that fishery management and assessment practices meet essential environmental requirements. Ecological assessment is an ongoing process, with annual reporting required and the Commonwealth to reassess these fisheries every three years. With the Prime Minister in Jakarta today and talk within his government about a new security agreement with Indonesia, I want to again raise the issue of illegal foreign fishing in northern Australian waters. During the election campaign the Howard government announced the apprehension of the 100th foreign flagged fishing vessel for allegedly fishing in Australian waters. However, federal government data has shown that more than 100 vessels suspected of illegal fishing in our waters are sighted on a monthly basis. The Howard government needs to work closer and harder with Indonesia to stem the of illegal fishing in Australian waters.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Water Storage, Bowen Basin Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (10.14 a.m.): Concerns have been raised that mining operations and communities in the coal-rich northern Bowen Basin may be seriously affected in 2005-06 unless we get a significant wet season to top up Eungella Dam, west of Mackay. Current estimates are that, owing to three failed wet seasons, if the drought continues Eungella Dam will be empty by June 2005. That is why the Beattie government is taking immediate action to ensure that mining operations and towns in the basin have sufficient water to meet the challenges of the ongoing drought. I am delighted to announce today that the government has begun construction of a new 8,000 megalitre off-stream water storage to service local coalmines and communities in the northern Bowen Basin. SunWater is building the new off-stream storage adjacent to the Bowen River Weir, about 40 kilometres south of Collinsville. The 2,500 megalitre stage 1 of the project will be completed before Christmas to take advantage of the wet season, and the whole 8,000 megalitre storage will be completed by May 2005. This new storage will increase availability of water to coalmines in the region, including Goonyella Riverside, Newlands, Collinsville, Moranbah North and Hail Creek plus the Collinsville Power Station. It will also significantly increase the reliability of town water supply to 20 Oct 2004 Ministerial Statement 3017 communities such as Collinsville, Moranbah and Glenden, and it will ease demand on Eungella Dam, which is currently down to just 15 per cent of capacity. This extra eight billion litres of available water will help ensure a sustainable future for these communities and coalmining operations if the current drought continues beyond the coming wet season. The Gattonvale project demonstrates the Beattie government’s commitment to providing sustainable new water infrastructure to enhance water supply reliability. Contrast this responsible, practical approach with the ‘dam at all costs’ approach of the Opposition Leader and the National Party. Queensland is littered with National Party dams that never fill because they were not properly planned or sited in the first place. Mr Johnson: At least we build some. Mr ROBERTSON: The honourable member does not like the good news. Water infrastructure must be carefully and scientifically planned to ensure it meets Commonwealth and state requirements that it is economically viable and environmentally sustainable. That is why the water resource planning frameworks being implemented are so important. No-one benefits from an ad hoc approach to infrastructure development where the water is unaffordable and the environment suffers. The new 8,000 megalitre off-stream storage currently being built near Collinsville is a practical demonstration of the Beattie government’s commitment to ensure timely and sustainable water supplies for our growing state. Once again it demonstrates our ability and commitment to get on with the job for the people and the economy of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Bushfires Hon. C.P. CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (Minister for Emergency Services) (10.17 a.m.): The rain since the weekend has certainly eased the bushfire situation in south-east Queensland—for now. While the rain has done its bit to help, I think all members of all political persuasions would agree that our firefighters have done a mighty job during the bushfires. On behalf of the government, I put on record the thanks of all Queenslanders. We have had thousands of volunteer, auxiliary and permanent firefighters, as well as Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service staff, deployed at more than 200 bushfires around the state in the past two weeks. This includes more than two dozen auxiliary, rural and permanent firefighters who came down from Townsville and Cairns. What these remarkable men and women have achieved on the fire front is nothing short of amazing. And yes, one or two volunteer firefighters have raised some issues; however, I am pleased to say that these claims are being investigated and are being dealt with. We need to look no further than the Courier-Mail of last Thursday to find out the real story. The story is headed ‘Faulty gear claim angers brigades’ and it quotes rural firefighters as saying that the ‘resourcing of the rural fire service was the best it had ever been’. The story goes on to say— If volunteers wanted something they only had to ask and it was usually provided. I table that document. I could not have said it better myself. Our rural and urban firefighters are now better prepared and better equipped than ever before. The Beattie government has allocated a record $303.54 million budget for the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service this financial year. Of this total figure, about $150 million goes towards firefighting resources in rural and regional Queensland. The latest budget means that since 1998, under the Beattie Labor government, funding for fire services in Queensland has almost doubled. I have also heard some media commentators comparing the funding for rural fire services in Queensland with that of other states. We have a completely different set-up in Queensland in that we have our urban Queensland Fire and Rescue Service firefighters in regional centres with our rural fire brigades servicing all areas outside the regional towns and cities. In Victoria, for instance, the Metropolitan Fire Service covers only the Melbourne city area and its Country Fire Association covers all areas outside of Melbourne, even regional towns and centres. So, unfortunately, it is comparing apples with oranges. Let me use a practical example. At the fires in Kilcoy, while 97 rural firefighting volunteers responded to a massive fire, 12 auxiliary firefighters and 59 vehicles also responded. The QFRS also deployed aircraft for mapping and water-bombing activities. This is over and above the budget allocated for rural fire services. An incident control centre was also set up and staffed by the QFRS and volunteers. After all fire events the department goes through a debriefing process and we learn if any mistakes have been made. We must be extremely pleased with the fantastic effort above and beyond the call of duty by our firefighters—volunteer, part-time and full-time—and all the support staff in the past two weeks. Our thanks must also go to the Lions, Rotary, the Salvation Army and of course the SES and everyone else who pitched in and assisted firefighters in their recent efforts. 3018 Personal Explanation 20 Oct 2004

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Wik Native Title Determination Hon. E.A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.21 a.m.): Last week I, along with the member for Cook, witnessed a historic event at Aurukun. A Federal Court decision recognised native title over 1.227 million hectares of the Wik and Wik-Way people’s traditional lands in western Cape York. Together with the first native title determination in 2000, the Wik and Wik-Way people have now been recognised as the native title holders of more than 1.75 million hectares of land. This has been no simple matter. The Wik and Wik-Way people have pursued their application for the formal recognition of their native title over land in the Western Cape York area since 1994.They made history in 1996, when the High Court ruled that the grant of a pastoral lease did not necessarily extinguish native title. In October 2000, a native title determination was made over more than half a million hectares. Last week’s determination was another significant milestone for the Wik and Wik- Way people, and I was proud to represent my colleagues the Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources on this historic day. This latest native title determination marks an era of harmony between the native title holders and the pastoralists who hold leases for areas included in the determination. About 675,000 hectares of the land is covered by pastoral leases. Through the signing of three indigenous land use agreements between pastoralists and claimants, and another between the claimants and the Cook Shire Council, all parties have found a way to respect the rights and interests of each other. The Wik and Wik-Way people will be able to hold ceremonies, hunt and gather and protect the areas that are important to them. The pastoralists will lose none of the entitlements of their lease arrangements. This is a very important determination. It clearly shows it is possible to reach an accord. The genuine and heartfelt words of both pastoralists and claimants on this wonderful day showed the spirit of cooperation which made this determination possible. There was a true feeling of celebration. There was a sense of a rich history fully recognised, and there was an anticipation of a future where the traditional and more recent caretakers of the land could coexist. Aurukun’s children were part of the court proceedings which recognised this native title determination. Gladys Tybingoompa, the Wik woman whose famous dance celebrated the 1996 High Court decision, said she was proud and privileged to be part of a day which would allow her grandchildren and those of her fellow Wik and Wik-Way people the native title to this land. Gladys’s knees were no longer up to the dance, but there was no doubt her heart was in it. As Gladys said, it has been a struggle, but all parties need to be congratulated for the spirit in which this determination has been reached.

ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.24 a.m.) by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding standing and sessional orders general business notice of motion—disallowance of statutory instrument be postponed to a later day. Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Comments by Minister for Health Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (10. 25 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal explanation. In this House yesterday the Minister for Health said— The challenge I have for the honourable member for Moggill is for him to provide me with the names of those people that he alleges ... have not received proper treatment and I will investigate that. That is the challenge for the member. Whilst it is inappropriate to use names of these people in parliament—and the minister should know this would cause distress to the families—I am prepared to provide the minister with the following details pertaining to those patients who died whilst either awaiting transfer to metropolitan hospitals or on the cardiac waiting list. Patient A was at the Rockhampton hospital— Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not a personal explanation. I think you have drifted from what a personal explanation is. If you want to reply to the minister, I suggest you do it by letter with that information. 20 Oct 2004 Private Members’ Statements 3019

NOTICE OF MOTION

Public Infrastructure Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): I give notice that I will move— That this parliament recognises that, as the Beattie government has reduced infrastructure spending to the lowest share of the budget on record and as this neglect is now endangering the welfare and lifestyle of Queenslanders, an immediate additional funding allocation be made to critical areas such as water storage, electricity networks, health and educational facilities, and roads.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.27 a.m.): In parliament this morning we saw a rather weak effort on the part of the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Racing in relation to the appointment of Bill Ludwig to the board of Queensland Racing. The minister stood there and he said— Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been no appointment of Mr Ludwig to that position. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, he is a minister of the Crown and the minister's press releases form a part of the official record of the state. I refer you to his press release of 12 October 2004 entitled ‘Thoroughbred Racing Board Appointments'. He quoted this morning a select paragraph in this place. I will quote from another paragraph which he did not quote— While I had nothing to do with the appointment, I challenge anyone anywhere to call into question Mr Ludwig's racing credentials ... It is quite apparent that he was referring to it as an appointment. Also, the headline of Queensland Racing's press release of 12 October reads ‘New Thoroughbred Racing Board Members Appointed'. When it was raised yesterday with the minister during a press conference, he said that he had to get it out there because it was going to be on crikey. What have we got in Queensland— government by crikey? Mr SCHWARTEN: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not say that. I said that it had already been on crikey.com. Mr SPRINGBORG: So the appointment was known to crikey, the appointment was known to the opposition in May of this year but it was not known to the minister. I simply say this: everyone knew this was coming for five months. The probity check should have been done as a part of proper process before the selection and the appointment was announced and not after. Time expired. Toowoomba Centenary Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (10.29 a.m.): Today, 20 October 2004, is the 100th anniversary of the proclamation of Queensland's Garden City as a city. Fittingly, the Premier acknowledged this cardinal event this morning both in his ministerial statement and in his elegant choice of tie. I thank him and commend him for his thoughtfulness, his attention, and his awareness of and concern for Toowoomba. The Premier's concern for Toowoomba is a matter of renown. Toowoomba has indeed shown its capacity to excel over the last 100 years. It is Australia's second largest inland city. In most aspects of Australian endeavour Toowoomba-ites have been to the fore. Take, for example, sport, from Rugby League with the Clydesdales in the 1920s to the Olympians of today; culture, from George Essex Evans and the Austral Festival at the turn of the century to the daily cultural events at our Empire Theatre; and industry, from the Toowoomba foundry and Defiance mill to the education centres of our schools and USQ. In that 100 years Toowoomba has witnessed many changes, from industry in particular, where the railway has gone from employing thousands to nowadays being at the forefront of support for the defence industry as well as being a traditional base for primary industries. A century is a time for reflection, particularly in relation to matters in which we could have done better and, of course, it is also a time to plan for the future. What type of a society do we have? Can it be improved? What will our needs be in the future? What can be done in terms of planning? As well as innovative thinkers, hard workers and enterprising folk, do we have a just, fair and tolerant compassion for people? In the material sense, are we really doing the hard yards to ensure our future with water supply, tourism and industry? Time expired. 3020 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Queensland Racing Board; Mr W. Ludwig Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My first question without notice is to the Minister for Racing. I refer the minister to his admission yesterday that the legal requirements under the Racing Act concerning probity checks had not been carried out prior to his announcement of the appointment of Bill Ludwig as a board member of Queensland Racing. Will the minister ensure that the chief executive is provided with a full transcript of the Shepherdson inquiry into vote rigging which details how members of the AWU faction under the control of Mr Ludwig manipulated ALP ballots and electoral information for a generation? Is this an acceptable standard of behaviour for a member of the board of Queensland Racing? Mr SCHWARTEN: Let us be very clear about some of these things. An allegation was made in this parliament on 12 May this year, or whenever it was, before any appointment was even being considered. What is the process? Mr Hobbs: Everybody knew. Mr SCHWARTEN: Oh, I see. Everyone knew that an independent panel— Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Warrego, I now warn you under standing order 253. Mr SCHWARTEN: I take the interjection; everyone knew that an independent panel, overseen by a company, would come up with that name—everybody knew that. Well, I did not know it, and I do not know how those people opposite did. Let me say this. I said it yesterday in front of the media and I say it again to the members opposite: go outside the chamber and make those allegations about me and I will sue you. Go outside this chamber—outside the protection of this place—and make those claims. Let us see whether you have the courage of your convictions. You and anybody else who wants to do it—go outside and make those claims. Mr Hopper: Bullying people. Mr SCHWARTEN: No, not bullying people. That is bullying, he says, to actually get people to repeat outside of here the allegations that they make in here. There is my challenge to the member. Will he do it? Mr Springborg: So you're the only one that didn't know? Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the answer to the question and we will have order in the House. Mr SCHWARTEN: Mr Speaker, through you, my challenge to him is to go outside this place and repeat what he has said and stop hiding and cowering under the privileges of this parliament. Let us get this very, very clear. The appointment process requires probity checks to be done, and they are being done. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Nobody with any skerrick of intelligence would suggest to me that however many people apply— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr SCHWARTEN:—and I do not know how many there were; there might have been 40 or 50 people who applied—they should all go through a probity check before they even get to that stage. What lunacy! The fact of the matter is this— Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham, I warn you under standing ordering 253. Mr SCHWARTEN: The people who have been selected through an independent process go through a probity check— Mr Springborg interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition, I also warn you under standing order 253. Mr SCHWARTEN: If they do not come up to scratch, they will get scratched. It is as simple as that. None of the member's attempts to sully anybody who has been part of that process are going to wash because he does not have the courage to go outside. Why is that? Because he knows that it is not true. Mr Johnson interjected. 20 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 3021

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory, I warn you under standing order 253. Mr SCHWARTEN: I challenge the member for Gregory to go outside and repeat that allegation. He reckons he is a man of courage. Let him go outside and say it and see how he gets on. The facts will stand any scrutiny whatsoever. I did not at any stage, and nor would I— Mr SPRINGBORG: I rise to a point of order. My question was about matters relating to the Shepherdson inquiry and whether he would refer that information, and he has not answered that. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr SCHWARTEN: I do not get involved in this process at all. It is improper for me to do so. I would not do that—I never would. Anybody who wants to make that accusation can make it outside. Time expired. Racing Industry; Mr W. Woods Mr SPRINGBORG: My further question without notice is also to the Minister for Racing. As the minister is aware, two chairmen of stewards and virtually all other stewards and others charged with maintaining integrity in Queensland Racing have been sacked by Queensland Racing chairman Bob Bentley. Is the minister aware that the integrity investigator appointed by Mr Bentley, Mr Wayne Woods, is the same Wayne Woods who was subject to a Western Australian racing investigation which stated— His conduct in this major racing investigation was disgraceful in his association with criminals and not disclosing information that was vital to the investigation. Does the minister believe that this appointment by Chairman Bentley assists in addressing the integrity crisis currently surrounding Queensland Racing? Mr SCHWARTEN: Let us get it clear: there is no integrity crisis. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the Chief Steward of Victoria, Mr Gleeson, who was here on Monday and made that statement. I wish that the members opposite would have the courage to come out and say what they are really about. What they are trying to do is undermine Queensland Racing. We have seen that at every turn. Let us talk about these saluted people of great integrity, the former stewards. There was Murrihy, there was Railton and there was Reardon. There is a letter to the editor in today's Courier-Mail from Ian Black who states, amongst other things, that for 10 years prior to 1998 he was a betting steward in Queensland, and guess what? The problem that they are talking about—this supposed big rort that they are talking about—existed then and he brought it to the attention of the authorities—it was either Murrihy, Reardon or Railton—and nothing was done about it. That is what he says in this letter to the editor. Is he telling the truth? Let me tell members that the industry is awash with gossip but very few people want to put their name to it and stand up and be counted. In relation to Mr Wood, I asked the Queensland Police Service to run the ruler over him because of allegations that were made about him and what turned up? Nothing is the answer to that. I have heard gossip about journalists in Queensland taking bets on Fine Cotton. I have also heard gossip about turf journalists in Queensland being in jockeys’ rooms. All of that is the sort of gossip that runs around the mill in Queensland. What I say to anybody who has an allegation like that is this: take it to the CMC, take it to the police or send it to me and I will send it to those people. One of those recent cases was in Townsville where a person contacted my office and advised people on my staff that there was a rort going on up there involving serious drug misuse, involving trainers, stewards and just about everybody else in the racing industry in Townsville. What did I do? I wrote to the CMC, I wrote to Queensland Racing and I wrote to my colleague the Police Minister and the Police Commissioner. When they knocked on this bloke's door, guess what happened? A government member: Nothing. Mr SCHWARTEN: Nothing. Ms Spence: He wouldn't talk. Mr SCHWARTEN: He said he had no evidence. I say to any member opposite who has information that they believe would stand scrutiny: send it to me and it will be put in the right hands, whether it is the coppers, the CMC or whoever else it happens to be. Let me say this: if people want to get into allegations, then I will start naming names in this chamber just the way that those opposite have. There are some pretty horrendous stories around that do not withstand factual examination. We are not like that on this side of the House. The fact is that if I repeated every bit of gossip that I have heard in the last seven months about people and their conduct around races— Opposition members interjected. 3022 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004

Mr SCHWARTEN: It has been alleged that some of you people owe bookmakers a lot of money—a lot of money. Opposition members: Name them. Tell us who. Mr SCHWARTEN: I will name them if you like. Do you want me to name them? Honourable members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Him! Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order! Last night I made a statement in the House in relation to the deplorable behaviour of members when people are in the public gallery. I said that today I would throw the lot of you out if the misbehaviour continued—both this side of the House and the other side of the House. I also said— ...and I ask for civility and respect for the parliament and respect for the chair, and also from the government benches as well. I will not brook any more of this behaviour. Last week on Sunday I watched Bronwyn Bishop, who is a contender for the position of Speaker in the federal parliament, tell the interviewer that with her knowledge of standing orders she would be able to control the House. Can I say this: anybody can control behaviour—which I do—but I cannot change the behaviour of people in this House. What I say now to the leaders of all parties in this place and to all members is this: a change of behaviour is in your hands. I would ask leaders to go to their parties and ask members: what we are going to have here? Are we going to have a parliament that brings every single member of this place into disrepute or are we going to have a parliament that makes us respected politicians?

Federalism Mr FENLON: My question is to the Premier. Queenslanders know that we are better off living here than anywhere else in the country because we have better services, lower taxes, and the list goes on. My question is: have there been any third-party authorisations of this from interstate? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Greenslopes. The answer to his question, of course, is yes. I was intrigued to read in the Daily Telegraph of 7 October where it says— If you want health care go to Queensland. That is a Sydney paper. It says— The crisis in New South Wales rural hospitals is forcing patients to drive hundreds of kilometres for treatment in Queensland. New South Wales country hospitals are struggling to keep their doors open because of chronic staff shortages. I table that for the information of the House. There was also an article that appeared in the Gold Coast press where under the heading ‘Tweed's Compo Dropout' the report said Tweed businessmen were moving to the Gold Coast because it was cheaper to operate a business in Queensland. The story said New South Wales businessmen were required to pay up to four times more than their Queensland counterparts for workers compensation. The person quoted in this story as saying New South Wales businesses felt they would be better off in Queensland was none other than a gentleman called Chris Hartcher, who is a New South Wales Liberal Party frontbencher. What you have is the Liberal Party in New South Wales saying we are the best thing since sliced bread. I have to say for once in my life I am totally in agreement with the Liberal Party. This showed foresight, vision and a great intelligent assessment of Queensland's economy. I thank the New South Wales Liberal Party for its support and I say to Chris that if he wants to move to the centre of civilisation he should come to Queensland; we would be happy to have him. The second thing I want to refer to today does relate to federalism. This morning I spoke to Bob Carr, the New South Wales Premier, about the urgent need for major reforms to the current federalism that exists in Australia. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on his re-election and, indeed, he now has control of both houses of parliament. This gives the Prime Minister a unique opportunity to provide an enduring legacy to Australia. One of the ways that the Prime Minister can do that is to reform the current Commonwealth-state relations. The New South Wales Premier is suggesting that his state would be prepared to hand over health services in exchange for education. I would rather that we enhanced both—that is, we enhanced education and we enhanced health with the reformed support of the Commonwealth. Doctor numbers have a direct impact on the services provided in our emergency departments. Doctor numbers are controlled by the Commonwealth. When it comes to aged care, for example, bed numbers are controlled by the Commonwealth. That directly impacts on the quality of care for our senior citizens. We need to have national reform where the Commonwealth and the states work together. 20 Oct 2004 Suspension of Member 3023

I would urge the Prime Minister to call an early meeting of COAG and put reform of the health system on top of the agenda so that we can work through and get a meaningful reform that means better treatment for Queensland and Australian patients. When it comes to education and training, Mr Speaker—as you know, my government is obsessed about it; it is a key part of our Smart State strategy, but we want to work in partnership with the Commonwealth. We are not interested in a fight with the Prime Minister, but what we do want is a fair outcome. More than any other time in Australia's history, now is the time for reform of federalism. Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Minister for Racing Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.47 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege. I reflect upon the ruling that you made earlier. In concluding the Minister for Racing's answer a little while ago, the minister made a very broad and outrageous slur on members of the opposition where he implied that we—the members over here—owed money to bookmakers. That is a slur which we now all must wear. I would ask through you, Mr Speaker, that the minister name those individuals whom he alleges owe that money or he withdraw that allegation. It is a slur which has impugned the reputation of members on this side. Mr Hopper interjected. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Honourable member for Darling Downs! Member for Warrego, you will leave this chamber. I have already warned you under 253. Mr Seeney interjected. Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker, do you attend party meetings where tactics of this House are discussed? Mr SPEAKER: Order! You do not question me. I will ask you to leave the House. Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: I do not attend party meetings. I have just told you to— Mr HOBBS: Mr Speaker— Mr SPEAKER: I will name you. Mr HOBBS: The minister opposite has made an accusation— Mr SPEAKER: I will name you under 254 if you do not leave this House now. Mr HOBBS: I think it is a bit unreasonable. Mr SPEAKER: Just leave the House. I call the honourable member for Darling Downs. Mr HOBBS: What sort of a show are you running here?

NAMING OF MEMBER Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member under standing order 254. I have warned the member already. I now name the member for Warrego. I call the Leader of the House.

SUSPENSION OF MEMBER Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.49 a.m.): In accordance with standing order 254, I move— That the member for Warrego be suspended from the service of the House for seven days. Question put; and the House divided— In division— Honourable members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will warn the member for Callide also under standing order 254. I have now warned him. The House is still in operation. Question—That the member for Warrego be suspended from the service of the House for seven days—put; and the House divided— 3024 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004

AYES, 64—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Choi, E.Clark, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, E.Cunningham, English, Fenlon, Finn, Flegg, Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Langbroek, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Lee Long, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, Male, McArdle, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Miller, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Quinn, Reeves, Reilly, Reynolds, E.Roberts, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Struthers, C.Sullivan, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Nolan NOES, 13—Copeland, Hobbs, Johnson, Knuth, Lingard, Menkens, Messenger, Rickuss, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Whereupon the honourable member for Warrego withdrew from the chamber. Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. The member for Rockhampton has still not withdrawn the comment that he made. I find it personally offensive. The comment that the member for Rockhampton made is personally offensive to me. Mr SPEAKER: The member can only call for that when it happens. Mr SEENEY: I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: I order the member to resume his seat. Mr SEENEY: I ask for the comment that was made by the member for Rockhampton to be withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER: That has to be done immediately and not some time later.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed from p. 3023. Racing Industry; Mr J. Lingard Mr HOPPER: My question is to the Minister for Racing. Yesterday in this parliament I asked the minister a question regarding the termination of marketing manager and Queensland Racing calendar editor, John Lingard, from Queensland Racing. Given that the minister has had ample opportunity to discuss this matter with the chairman, Bob Bentley, yesterday, can he now confirm that Mr Lingard was paid his full entitlements and a further payment to buy his silence even though he was the subject of a number of inquiries into the sexual harassment of staff which involved the total destruction of a number of computers and his refusal to provide DNA samples to aid the investigations? Mr SCHWARTEN: I have taken the time to get to the bottom of that matter. I am advised by Queensland Racing that John Lingard resigned from his position as communications manager. He was paid his legal entitlements according to his contract in accordance with industrial law. He was paid an additional 21 days pursuant to an agreement he had with Jeremy Turner, the CEO, regarding days he worked over the weekend. The current board honoured that agreement. That is the advice that I have received on that matter. Let me turn to another matter. Mr HOPPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the member making a point of order for? Mr HOPPER: When Chief Steward Railton was sacked he walked out on Thursday afternoon and did not even get— Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. Mr SCHWARTEN: I do not understand the relevance of that. The point that I was making before I was shouted at by the opposition was that the industry is awash with rumours about all sorts of people. I no more believe that accusation about the opposition than I do any of the others. Why? Mr Johnson interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister is explaining. Mr SCHWARTEN: Because the noise was such I could not get the point across. I believe that as much as any of the other rumours. Why is that? Because there is no evidence of that. There is no evidence of that or any of the other allegations, including the allegation that was part of the initial question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. There is no evidence whatsoever. I get tired of people gossiping about people behind their backs without putting the evidence on the table. When that person told me that story I said, ‘You give me the evidence and I will do something about it.' Has any evidence turned up? No, it has not. Before those opposite jumped the gun and got hostile about it they should have listened to what I had to say in that regard. I have heard gossip about all sorts of people—things like they do not pay bookmakers, they set the prices and so on. Where is the evidence? People who have been around race tracks will be able to 20 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 3025 tell us that they hear that sort of gossip all the time. All it ever does is blacken people's names. I am sick of it. Mr Johnson: You did that this morning. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Gregory has already been warned. Mr Johnson: You said you had evidence. Mr SCHWARTEN: I did not say I had evidence at all. All I mentioned was the allegation about people on that side of the parliament not paying bookmakers. What I was about to go on to say— Opposition members interjected. Mr SCHWARTEN: Those opposite interrupted me and asked me to name those people. That is what those people do. They have made accusations about the appointment process. They have made accusations about Mr Ludwig and they conveniently left Mr Andrews out of it. It seems that the independent result was right with Mr Andrews but not right with Mr Ludwig. I do not know how that works. I do not know how they were not able to foretell that Mr Andrews was going to get on it back in May, either. The reality is that enough is enough. I say to all these people who make these accusations, ‘Make them to the proper authorities—the police, the CMC or Queensland Racing.' Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Comments by Minister for Racing Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (10.58 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilege suddenly arising. The accusation that the honourable member for Rockhampton made across the chamber in a previous answer was a blanket accusation about members of the opposition and unpaid debts to bookmakers. He said he never got to the point before. We have had a member ejected from the parliament this morning due to the heat of that accusation. I find that totally unfair. Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of privilege.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Resumed. HMAS Brisbane, Naval Week Ms MOLLOY: I have a question for the Premier. Could the Premier detail to the House whether the ex-HMAS Brisbane, which is being prepared for sinking off the Sunshine Coast next year, has a role to play in this week's Naval Week celebrations? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for Noosa for that question and the answer is yes. One of the nation's former great fighting ships, the ex-HMAS Brisbane—I have to say ‘ex' because it has been decommissioned—will be on display this weekend in what may possibly be the last chance for the public to view the ship before she becomes a premier scuba dive site next year. Mr Mackenroth: To view it above water. Mr BEATTIE: Yes, that is right; to view it above water. After this they will only be able to view it below water; the Treasurer is right. The retired guided missile destroyer will be on display as part of Naval Week from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. this Sunday, 24 October, in the Cairncross dockyard at Morningside. Visitors to the Navy open day will only be able to see the exterior of the ex-HMAS Brisbane from the dock, view video footage of the Sink the Brisbane project, speak to former HMAS Brisbane personnel and project staff as well as enjoy other activities the has planned for the day. The 131 metre ex-HMAS Brisbane will be sunk off the Sunshine Coast mid-next year, becoming one of the world's great destinations. Mr Cummins: Hear, hear! Mr BEATTIE: I note the enthusiastic support for this from the Minister for Emergency Services. A government member interjected. Mr BEATTIE: And Tourism. Everybody is enthusiastic about this. Let us get serious. Even the member for Southport was nodding. Everybody likes this idea. Government members interjected. 3026 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004

Mr BEATTIE: It is the last time he will nod. While the vessel promises to be a popular attraction for divers once she is established as a wreck site, this will be one of the last opportunities for everyone to see the war relic above water. The ex-HMAS Brisbane has a proud record of service in the and the first and is fondly remembered by many people who have served on this ship. Members of the public who have not before had a proper look at this valuable historical artefact can gain an insight into the service this vessel provided to our country. Visitors on Sunday will be able to gain more of an understanding about the ship's upcoming rebirth as part of the Queensland government's Sink the Brisbane project, presenting significant tourism, economic and industry development opportunities for the Sunshine Coast and Queensland. Naval Week runs from 17 October until 24 October. Other activities for the rest of this week include a visit from HMAS Tobruk. It is berthed at Cairncross dockyard and on Friday at 6.15 p.m. there will be a ceremonial sunset and beat retreat in King George Square. On Sunday at 10 a.m. there will be a memorial service at Bundamba. I say for members who are interested—and I know a number are— further information about Sink the Brisbane project is available at www.epa.qld.gov.au. Getting the HMAS Brisbane to be the ex-HMAS Brisbane at the bottom of the sea for diving has been a very interesting journey. It is one which my government has pursued with some vigour. I want to thank Chris Cummins, the honourable member and Minister for Emergency Services—and I know that he has had the support of the member for Noosa and others—for his support on this long journey. I am pleased to see that we have finally got agreement with the federal government. I hope Queenslanders and divers will enjoy it. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling for the next question, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Deception Bay State School in the electorate of Murrumba. Welcome. Racing Industry; Mr J. Lingard Mr SEENEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Racing. Can the minister confirm that both Bob Bentley and Jeremy Turner knew for 12 months about the accusations of sexual harassment against John Lingard, allowed him to continue in his position with Queensland Racing and allowed those sexual harassment activities to continue? Mr SCHWARTEN: No, I am not aware of that allegation. Linkfield Connection Road Ms BARRY: My question is to the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. Can the minister please update the House on the status of the new Linkfield Connection Road at Bald Hills? Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for the question. The honourable member is well known in this parliament as a fierce and veracious advocate for the interests of her electorate across a range of issues, and road issues in particular is one area where she is very much interested in the welfare of her constituents. The 2.2 kilometre Linkfield Connection Road is a new state controlled road linking South Pine Road at Brendale to the Gympie Arterial Road at Bald Hills. I am pleased to announce that the $19 million allocated under the Smart State Building Fund means the $26 million project—a major project—could be brought forward by a year. It is a very important link in relieving congestion on South Pine Road and Old Gympie Road and will improve access to the Brendale Industrial Estate. There are a lot of great jobs there; it is part of Queensland’s growth economy. The tender has been awarded to a civil contracting company, FRH Group Pty Ltd, and work starts in November, so it is great news that it will be starting very shortly. The new link will be four lanes between Gympie and Carseldine Roads, which is about 500 metres, with the remaining 1.7 kilometres as a two-lane road. In the long term, it will be four lanes. It will be a limited access road across its entire length. The great news to note is that there will be a pedestrian bikeway along its full length. The new link works will be a 200-metre long bridge involving about 90,000 cubic metres of earthworks and 7,000 tonnes of asphalt. We expect it to be open in early 2006. When it is open, there will be 12,000 vehicles per day travelling between Carseldine Road and South Pine Road and 14,000 vehicles per day between Carseldine Road and Gympie Road. This will help relieve congestion on Gympie Road, Strathpine Road and Kremzow Road and also improve safety and provide an alternative flood-free link across the South Pine River. The Brisbane City Council and the Pine Rivers shire are contributing $144,000 and $57,000 respectively, subject to agreement. We thank them for that amount of money. This is a high priority for Pine Rivers. We have already done early works, and the honourable member has taken a keen interest in them and in fact has discussed them with me on a number of occasions. These include land resumption and service relocation works, new intersections built where Linkfield Connection Road intersects with South Pine Road and Gympie Road, and earthworks and drainage between Carseldine Road and Gympie Road. I urge people to read the Courier-Mail’s excellent report on the roads . It identifies a number of our roads priorities in Queensland in the future. It also indicates, for example, that in 2001 20 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 3027

Queensland spent $830 million versus $431 million spent in Victoria on state controlled roads. We spent over twice per capita what Victoria spends on state controlled roads. We need to do more, and we will do more. That is why our budgetary allocations are significant. In fact, since December 2003 the Beattie government has provided an extra $1.06 billion over our normal road funding, including $186 million under the Smart State Building Fund over three years, an extra $301 million in Beattie government election commitments and an extra $571 million under the new arterial roads infrastructure package over four years. We are a growth state. South-east Queensland is growing. We are spending record amounts of increases in relation to our budgetary spends on our roads. We have some wonderful announcements coming up not only now but into the future. Cardiac Services, Prince Charles Hospital Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the fact that 250 cardiac patients per year, or an average of five patients per week, are referred to the Prince Charles Hospital for implantable defibrillators and the fact that the hospital's budget only allows for three procedures per week, and I ask: based on very simple mathematics, does this not mean that the waiting list for these procedures will continue to grow well beyond the current number of about 49 patients, thus putting more lives needlessly at risk? Mr NUTTALL: The figures that are being touted around, from my understanding and my advice from my department, are simply incorrect. The referrals are not to that extent. In the election campaign we made a commitment to increase funding in terms of the area of cardiology. We have 46 people on the waiting list at the Prince Charles Hospital for cardiac services, and I know that the honourable member for Moggill has continued to say that it is four for the other. But my advice from my department is that there are 46 people on the waiting list for cardiac services. There are four on the waiting list for services at the PA Hospital that are in the areas of category 1 and category 2—that is, those who are in most need of care. We have committed as a government— Dr FLEGG: I rise to a point of order. The minister is quoting figures and referring to it. There are 700 people— Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. The member can ask a further question if he wishes. It is now the minister's opportunity to answer. Mr NUTTALL: In terms of the services that we are trying to provide for the people of Queensland in terms of cardiac care, there were 52,000 admissions to Queensland public hospitals last financial year primarily related to cardiac conditions. We have spent substantial additional money to address those issues—as I said yesterday, $7.5 million in the year 2004-05 to tackle one of our biggest killers, that is, heart disease. We are doing those services at the PA Hospital, at the Gold Coast Hospital—when it comes online—at the Prince Charles Hospital, and at the Townsville Hospital. Because we are now moving away services that were provided solely at the Prince Charles Hospital, there are people who have vested interests who want all of our money to be spent there. We are saying that the services need to be provided where the people live. That is simply what we are doing. As the Health Minister, I am not going to be swayed by people who have a vested interest in continuing to have the service provided in one spot. We intend to have a plan for the whole state to ensure that all the people of Queensland receive the best possible care. Youth Support Coordinators Mr CHOI: My question without notice is to the Minister for Communities, Disability Services and Seniors. I note that the Department of Communities has called for submissions from community organisations to support new youth support coordinator positions throughout the state. I ask: can the minister explain to the House how the creation of this new position will help support young Queenslanders to continue their education or training programs? Mr PITT: I thank the honourable member for Capalaba for his question and I acknowledge the genuine interest that he has in the issue of young people at risk of disengaging prematurely from learning or training. He is also interested in ways in which we as a government can overcome this problem. The government has made a major commitment to addressing this issue. I am happy to inform the House that the Department of Communities recently placed advertisements for an additional 54 support coordinators throughout Queensland to begin work early next year. This is part of an investment of up to $18.6 million to keep Queensland youth in education and training programs. The government is calling for submissions from community organisations to auspice the coordinators. They will begin work with schools and education and training providers in their regions, and I thank the Minister for Education for her cooperation in this matter. The youth support coordinator's primary role will be to assist young people at risk of disengaging prematurely from learning or training. The 54 new positions will build on the 34 operating in seven trial 3028 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004 locations across Queensland. This is part of the Queensland government's Education and Training Reforms for the Future initiative, which recognises that young people at risk of disengaging from learning require additional personal support to complete their learning and training. The youth support coordinators will provide a key link between the schools, the training sectors and the community. They will also help build community capacity and assist young people in developing social and personal skills. Each youth support coordinator will contribute to district level achievement plans, which will be developed by district officers from the Department of Education and the Arts in consultation with representatives from the Department of Employment and Training, community organisations, non-government schools, and industry representatives. The plan will set local targets for participation, retention and entertainment for young people and identify strategies to achieve these targets. I encourage interested groups to go to the Department of Communities web site for more information and application kits. This is an exciting initiative that will make a real difference to the lives of many young Queenslanders, their families and their communities.

School Bus Safety

Mr CHRIS FOLEY: My question without notice is to the Minister for Transport. I have a constituent who has a school bus run travelling from Netherby to Maryborough. It has 16 stops in the morning run; 17 in the afternoon. Around about eight of these stops, morning and afternoon, are on a very busy section of the Bruce Highway. I personally attended with him and had a look at those bus stops and I was absolutely horrified by the lack of places to pull off safely. The bus stops are not up to standard compared to departmental guidelines, and I ask: will the minister urgently address this problem? I make myself available to go with a representative from Queensland Transport to have a look at this issue. Mr LUCAS: I thank the honourable member for his question and his concern about the issue of school bus safety. Of course, our children are our most precious asset and concern about making sure that they come back from school in the same way in which they left to go to school is of concern to all of us. I remind the House that the Bruce Highway is a National Highway and, therefore, is primarily a federal government responsibility. However, we work closely with the federal government in relation to safety and other issues on our National Highway. I am delighted to indicate that my department will be more than happy to work with the honourable member in relation to an on-site inspection with both Queensland Transport and Main Roads—I think that is the best way to do it—in order for them to see that on the ground themselves. We fund six bus services within Maryborough and a further 18, which feed children into Maryborough from outlying areas. It is actually a relatively densely populated area for a rural area. So it is significant issue for us. We have a $600,000 per annum program to subsidise improvements to bus stops and other facilities in urban areas outside of south-east Queensland. In 2004-05, $40,000 was allocated to improve bus stops in the Maryborough and Hervey Bay areas. School bus stops on rural roads and highways are provided under the SafeST program of my Department of Transport. That provides for reviews of school bus routes. I understand that we have done reviews very recently of two bus routes in the Maryborough school transport area, namely the Mount Perry and Monto school areas. Certainly, we would be happy to more than favourably consider any other requests and representations that the honourable member has in relation to that. The typical sort of works that we would do would be to look at pull-off areas and, in the schools themselves, better drop-off areas—those sorts of things. The TIDS SafeST infrastructure subsidies are also for bus set- down areas at existing schools. We have allocated $2 million per annum for that program. So as I indicated, if a bus operator—or, indeed, a member of parliament—believes that there is a call for us to have a look at the route itself, then we are more than happy to do that. I should also indicate that part of the accreditation procedure not only for operators but also for drivers is in relation to the safe operation of buses. Sometimes we receive complaints about people not stopping at a bus stop—not so much school buses, but other buses. A bus driver needs to stop safely. If not, that could create a risk to other people on the road and, indeed, in the bus. So we ensure that there is appropriate training being undertaken. We are also working very closely with the Minister for Education in relation to a code of behaviour on school buses. School bus operators and drivers do not have to put up with misbehaviour when it comes to school buses. It is not only a conduct issue but also a safety issue. Again, that is a very important issue that I am sure that members of this House would support. I thank the honourable member for his question. I am delighted to indicate that my department would be more than happy to work with him in relation to the issue. 20 Oct 2004 Questions Without Notice 3029

School Based Policing Mr HAYWARD: My question is to the Minister for Police and Corrective Services. The Beattie government promised at the last election to expand the school based policing program. I ask: will the minister inform the House which schools will benefit from the first round of allocations? Ms SPENCE: I am very happy to announce the allocation of eight new school based police officers and to deliver some good news to the member for Kallangur. We went to the election with a commitment to put $5.4 million into 16 additional school based police officers. So the eight officers I am announcing today are the first round of that election promise. The eight officers will be located at state high schools at Harristown, Cleveland, Rockhampton, Dakabin, Sunnybank and Ipswich. North Rockhampton and Glenmore state high schools will share one officer. Trinity Bay and Woree state high schools will also share an officer. There is a vigorous selection process that Education Queensland and the Queensland Police Service undertake to determine these locations. Indeed, the school communities are required to express some interest in receiving a school based police officer. Now that the schools have been decided, the selection process will commence immediately. This announcement today means that 10,500 Queensland students will benefit from having an association with a school based police officer next year. I understand that the officers are performing very useful jobs in those schools of preventing and deterring crime. They work closely in pastoral care situations with individual students and make referrals to other agencies if that is necessary. They work with parents and talk about truancy issues. They also spend some time lecturing in classes about legal and police duties issues. I am informed that they are well received and respected by the schools that they serve. While I am talking about school based police officers, I thought that I might mention the terrific work that our over 800 Adopt-a-Cops do in Queensland schools. These officers, who often give up their own time to provide those kinds of services in schools, are well received by the school community. I am sure that I speak for all members of the chamber when we wish them well in their jobs. Finally, while I am talking about police issues I would like to place on the record of the parliament that last Friday the Premier and I announced the reappointment of Commissioner Bob Atkinson for another three years. A government member: A very good appointment. Ms SPENCE: It is a very good appointment. I am sure all members will agree with me that Mr Atkinson delivers very honest, accountable and effective leadership to our Queensland Police Service. During his stewardship of the Queensland Police Service for the last three years he has led important legislative and operational reforms to the service. We have seen a period in which crime has decreased in this state and in which our police have increased their professionalism and their good work. So on behalf of the government and, I am sure, all members of the House, I wish Mr Atkinson well in the next three years of his appointment. Health Services; Waiting Lists Mr COPELAND: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. During the Health estimates committee hearings this year, when questioned about waiting lists the minister stated— There is a misnomer about waiting to get on the waiting list ... I get quite surprised at that theory that there is a wait to get on the waiting list. Today's Gold Coast Bulletin again confirmed that the Gold Coast Hospital is refusing to allocate specialist appointments so that surgeons cannot add more patients to the waiting lists, which results in a waiting list to get on the waiting list. The report also again revealed the widespread downgrading of the clinical category of patients, which results in surgery being put on to the never-never list. Just how dodgy are the published elective surgery figures? Will the minister now give a cast-iron guarantee that the practices of the Gold Coast Hospital and every other Queensland public hospital have not been adopted to address the lack of funding and resources to the detriment of patients' wellbeing? Mr NUTTALL: Members do not need to take my word for the issue around waiting lists. The Productivity Commission actually produces a report on waiting lists for all states. Mr Copeland: Where is your independent auditor? Mr NUTTALL: The Productivity Commission report clearly shows that our benchmark is the best in the country in terms of our waiting lists. In response to the first part of the honourable member's question, there is no doctoring whatsoever of the waiting lists in this state. The Productivity Commission's report clearly indicates that. On the second part about the independent audit, we gave a commitment during the election campaign that an independent audit of waiting lists would be conducted. That election commitment, as I have said in this House previously, will be honoured and will be honoured at some stage during the term of this government. That was the commitment we made and that is what we will deliver on. 3030 Questions Without Notice 20 Oct 2004

In relation to the third part, let me talk a little bit about waiting to get on the waiting list. As I have said on many occasions in this House, we are the only state that has a specialist outpatient service. We are the only state in the country that has that. We rely very heavily on visiting doctors to assist us in terms of providing specialist outpatient services. To visit one of those specialists people require an appointment, as they would if they went to their own doctor. If their doctor said, ‘You need to see an ear, nose and throat specialist,' the person would ring up and make an appointment. That person may have to wait three months to see that specialist. Mr Copeland interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Cunningham. You are on a warning. Mr Schwarten: My son just waited four months for one of those appointments. Mr NUTTALL: I take that interjection from the honourable member for Rockhampton. There is no difference in the public system. We simply say to the patient, ‘You will have to arrange to make an appointment to see the specialist when he is available.' And I would be the first person to admit that it is difficult. We have a shortage of specialists. It is very difficult for me as the Minister for Health in the public health system to obtain the number of specialists to work the number of hours required in order for people to see a specialist in the outpatients area on very short notice. It is simply not achievable while we have a substantial shortage of specialists in the health system throughout this country.

Performing Arts Mr LEE: My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and the Arts. What can audiences expect from Queensland's major performing arts companies next year? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for his question and for his well-known commitment to the arts in Queensland. He, along with other members, will be pleased to know that the major performing arts companies have all released their 2005 programs, and audiences can expect a feast of the performing arts in the following 12 months. I would like to outline for members some of the treats that are in store. Opera Queensland promises to take audiences on a journey that will be punctuated by love, fear and laughter on the edge. Headlining the program are three major operas, La boheme, The Turn of the Screw and the ever popular The Marriage of Figaro. The season kicks off with a world-premiere production of La boheme, a heart-rending love story of two bohemian lovers. It is a coup for Opera Queensland, with the production travelling on to Sydney and Melbourne after its Brisbane season. The three operas will be complemented by two concert events, Strike up the Chorus! and a recital featuring Cheryl Barker, Peter Coleman-Wright and Piers Lane. Opera Queensland will continue its regional touring commitments next year, bringing The Food of Love to audiences in central and western Queensland. Mr Beattie: I am hungry already. Ms BLIGH: Indeed. We could do with a bit more love around this place. The Queensland Ballet similarly promises a great season. The ballet will be producing an exciting new work for the 2005 season titled with attitude. The Queensland Ballet creative team and guest choreographers will develop the work, which aims to build audiences for modern dance in Queensland. The 2005 season will include a new full-length ballet based on Tales From a Thousand and One Nights, The Nutcracker and the popular International Gala, the Vis-a-vis Studio Series, Soirees Classiques and Moving Stories. Some members will have seen the ads for the Queensland Theatre Company's 2005 season, which challenges the audience to ‘Be Bold'. It is a program that promises to be both entertaining and an adventurous year of theatre. The 2005 season includes The Spook, by Melissa Reeves, based on a true story of an ASIO spy—it is a whimsical comedy with a political conscience—Edward Albee's The Goat, or Who is Sylvia?, which is a witty and provocative play by the legendary author of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?; Hitchcock Blonde by Terry Johnson; and the old favourite Ebenezer Scrooge will return in A Christmas Carol for the end of next year. Not to be outdone, the Queensland Orchestra is challenging us to ‘Hear it live in 2005'. Its Maestro Series will feature great orchestral classics at the Concert Hall. Music on Sundays will present short, family-friendly orchestral favourites on Sunday mornings at the Concert Hall. Intimate Classics plus a Gold Coast series will feature three diverse concerts at the Gold Coast Arts Centre. In Studio, in the orchestra's own rehearsal space, will feature works by experienced and young Brisbane composers. There is something for everybody there. I would encourage all those who have been making comments to come along and see some quality performing arts. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Moggill, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Hercules Road State School in the electorate of Murrumba. 20 Oct 2004 TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Legislation Amendment Bill 3031

Health Services; Cardiac Services Dr FLEGG: My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the catheter lab that was built and fitted out with high-tech equipment, including cardiac cameras, at the Royal Brisbane Hospital in 1997 to reduce cardiac waiting lists but never used by this government. I ask: why is this government refusing to provide the necessary funding to enable this fully equipped catheter lab to be used to perform defibrillator implantation so as to reduce the waiting time for this lifesaving treatment, which can take up to six months at the Prince Charles Hospital? Mr NUTTALL: In relation to the question asked by the honourable member, can I say this—and I said it on the radio this morning: we have two labs at the Royal Brisbane Hospital. One is planning for the future, in terms of future growth. When we rebuilt the Royal Brisbane Hospital we needed to plan for the future. At the moment we are also building, as the honourable member would know, a new cath lab at the Gold Coast Hospital to treat people on the Gold Coast. We are increasing the services at the PA Hospital and also improving the services at the Prince Charles Hospital. Dr Flegg: You weren't in government in 1997. Mr NUTTALL: Our planning is that that will be used in the future as the population of this state grows. If we had not planned properly, we would be criticised for not doing that. That is the simple reality of the matter. Mr SPEAKER: The time for questions has expired.

TAB QUEENSLAND LIMITED PRIVATISATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 September (see p. 2392). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): The Nationals support this legislation before the parliament today. The TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Legislation Amendment Bill addresses issues arising from the failure of the proposed merger between UNiTAB Queensland and TAB Ltd New South Wales by repealing provisions inserted in 2003 which are no longer deemed necessary. This was yet another example of the way in which the market can operate effectively to achieve an outcome that investors believe is in their best interests. The takeover offer from the Victorian based TAB was assessed by the market as offering greater advantages than the merger proposed between New South Wales and Queensland. However, the deal done for the purchase of certain poker machine operation monitoring systems by UNiTAB has also led to the strengthening of that company. We now have two strong operators of totalisators in Australia which offer the betting public competition in betting prices through the use of electronic betting mechanisms such as telephones and the Internet. Given the dangers that monopolies hold and their capacities to distort markets, care must now be taken to prevent a takeover of UNiTAB by the Victorian based operator. Given the consolidation that has been taking place in all segments of the Australian gambling industry in areas such as casinos, this is an area where the Commonwealth parliament must be prepared to exercise the undoubted powers that it possesses to control trade practices and to prevent the creation of private monopolies which can operate without any community input or influence. The bill also clarifies some other uncertainty in relation to the meaning of section 44 of the principal act dealing with restraints into the constitutions of TABQ group companies. The opposition continues to strongly support the proposition that companies such as UNiTAB which enjoy government- provided monopolies should have significant influence in their direction and operations by Queensland resident directors. If UNiTAB wished to give up its monopoly to allow competition into the totaliser market in Queensland, which could produce a better outcome for the beleaguered racing industry, then no doubt these constraints could be removed. The future economic strength of UNiTAB, however, is dependent on a vibrant Queensland racing industry. The destructive actions of Chairman Bentley, of Queensland Racing, which have led to real concerns from professional racing operatives about the honesty and integrity of Queensland Racing are going to undermine UNiTAB's long-term economic strength unless urgent action is taken. Queensland Racing is paying the price for the reign of terror in stewards' ranks by Chairman Bentley. Unless this is urgently corrected, the long-term damage to UNiTAB and thus its investors will be significant. The opposition supports the bill but cautions the minister that cabinet can no longer fiddle whilst the Queensland racing industry and companies dependent on it such as UNiTAB continue to decline under the stewardship of Chairman Bentley and his cronies. 3032 TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004

We have raised in this place over the last couple of days very serious concerns about the conduct of the Queensland racing industry under Chairman Bentley and this government. We are concerned that that in itself is impacting upon the viability of UNiTAB. Ever since Queensland— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): Order! To this juncture I have been reasonably happy that you have kept to the bill. I make this ruling for all members that will follow in this debate: I am not going to allow a general debate on the racing industry. Your comments on the impact on UNiTAB are fine, but I will not allow this to become a debate on the racing industry because this is not a racing industry bill. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Deputy Speaker, we know the importance of UNiTAB to the racing industry in Queensland and we know that the conduct of racing in Queensland affects the overall viability. In deference to your ruling, of which I personally have some concerns because— Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will seek advice from the Clerk, then. The Clerk agrees with me totally: it is an amendment bill and it has to relate to the topics of the bill. Mr SPRINGBORG: In relation to Mr Bentley and his association with the privatised TAB in Queensland and Queensland Racing, I table a document which I referred to in parliament this morning relating to Mr Wayne Wood and his role as an integrity investigator in Western Australia. People can make up their own mind. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (11.35 a.m.): I rise to speak to the TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Legislation Amendment Bill. As the Leader of the Opposition clarified at the outset, the opposition will support this legislation. What needs to be remembered is the importance of getting gambling right regardless of whether it is the TAB—in this case we are talking about UNiTAB—or casinos. As has been said before, and it was half-levelled across the chamber this morning, there can be criminal elements which creep into the betting industry. I note that the minister in his second reading speech stated— ... additional matters to be incorporated in the merged and related entities' constitutions requiring a minimum number of directors and certain executive managers to ordinarily reside in Queensland and the requirement to hold annual general meetings and a limited number of board meetings and strategic board planning meetings in Queensland ... We need to pick the right men and the right women to be certain that they are there for the needs of Queensland, that we are getting the benefits for Queensland and that the outcome is a squeaky clean one. The other point I want to make here today concerns competition in betting. There are two operations now as I see it, and we do not need Victorian TAB to take over the competition here. I know competition is strong regardless of what industry we are talking about. People talk about the benefits of betting. I have been a punter over a period of time and I have never, ever won. I do not think there are too many people who have ever won. The point I am making is that there have certainly been flow-on benefits from betting. For years New South Wales has taken the upper hand with its casinos, poker machines, et cetera. With the election of the Goss Labor government in December 1989, we saw the introduction of poker machines in Queensland—something that I would never support. However, we have to move with the times. People were going over the border. Queensland dollars were going over the border, whether into poker machines, the TAB or whatever, and they were dollars going out of the state. While there are always consequences in betting, there are always advantages. I am greatly concerned that a lot of families out there have been greatly affected by the evils of punting and people who cannot afford to punt. They seem to be the ones who most times are the victims in these situations. There are benefits to some of our sporting organisations, charity organisations and child groups around the state. These moneys have been very well received in my electorate and probably in every electorate in Queensland because they are dollars that have been channelled back in as a result of another form of a secondary taxation. We need to make certain that the levels—the percentages—are kept right. The amount of money going back has to be channelled for those prime reasons, not for reasons outside of gambling. With legislation such as this, when we talk about competition we are talking about two major entities— whether it is the Queensland/New South Wales TAB, or UNiTAB, or the Victorian TAB—there is always somebody wanting to play the upper hand. We see it in banking all the time, where we see the four pillars—the four big banks. We see these smaller banks come in, and they are getting in there and getting their share of the market. I say to the Treasurer and I say to the government that it is absolutely paramount that we keep both hands on the wheel, our feet on the brake and, at the same time, our eyes on the road because there is always going to be an element which will be trying to undermine this, get in on the ground floor or get in the back door. This is something which we have to manage properly, and we have to have the proper people in place to do it. With those few words, it gives me great pleasure to support this piece of legislation. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (11.40 a.m.): I rise to support the bill. It is mainly a technical bill to address some items, as the previous speakers have said, about the consequences of UNiTAB and the 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3033

TAB New South Wales merging. They were going to have a friendly merger. The bill was set up to allow that to happen. Because of a hostile takeover by TABCorp of Victoria, the proposed merger between Queensland and New South Wales never eventuated, so it is no longer appropriate or meaningful for many provisions in the act to remain. The bill before the House amends and consolidate parts of the TAB legislation in Queensland. I will not make any comments, and I will stick truly to your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I speak only to this bill. I support the bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras): I am very impressed, member for Bulimba. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (11.41 a.m.): I am pleased to rise to support the TAB Queensland Limited Privatisation Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a bill that makes sense. The changes that are being made to the nature of the bill are ones that have come about as a matter of necessity due to the history of relations between the main TAB bodies in Australia. I found it interesting that in the Premier's second reading speech he spoke of the consultation that occurred between his department and UNiTAB. I found it interesting because it has not been clear, particularly on matters pertaining to racing, that the government is prepared to negotiate at all. In fact, in relation to the debacle that has occurred with the future of Eagle Farm and Doomben, consultation with relevant stakeholders like trainers and owners was minimal. Some of the major problems of these turf clubs relate to training and stabling facilities, yet this government found no need to discuss any possible moves with the trainers at Eagle Farm and Doomben or other members of the racing fraternity. These trainers make up a massive proportion of trainers of horses that run in Brisbane. We are talking about UNiTAB, and in doing so perhaps we should talk about the millions and millions of dollars that the state government receives from betting taxes. Whilst I was very pleased to see the government back down from its idea of moving out to Wacol, I was not entirely impressed with the proposal. Whilst $12 million, as was pledged yesterday, is a better result than we could have expected at the start of the day, it was by no means enough for the complete overhaul being mooted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member was not here at the beginning of this debate. I have said that I will not allow a general debate on racing in this amendment bill. I would like to advise the member of that. That was supported by the Clerk. Mr LANGBROEK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I talk guidance from that. I am talking about a viable UNiTAB. I will make a few more comments that are relevant, I would hope, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong. On UNiTAB, and the possibility of expanding and other opportunities, I encourage the Premier to continue to look for ways to expand UNiTAB. Although the chance to merge with our New South Wales counterparts during the last year has gone, I hope that these amendments do not signal an intention by the government to bury the idea of expanding UNiTAB. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. T.M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (11.43 a.m.), in reply: I thank members for their support for the legislation. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Bill read a third time.

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from 28 September (see p. 2402). Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.45 a.m.): The opposition supports the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill before the parliament today. From the outset the Nationals have been very strongly supportive of the need to overhaul the process for monitoring child safety in Queensland. We have felt that it has been neglected, and neglected very badly, by the government. If members go back to the Crime and Misconduct Commission last year, when it started to conduct its report into the operations of child safety legislation and its mechanisms in Queensland, they will see that it found some enormous deficiencies. Quite frankly, those deficiencies should not have been allowed to occur in a modern liberal democracy like Queensland. It has been neglected, and it had been run down for a significant period of time. 3034 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

It is interesting to note that, despite the attempts of those honourable members opposite, the Crime and Misconduct Commission found that in the last 15 years in Queensland there had been only one minister who had a hands-on approach to child safety in Queensland, and that was Kevin Lingard during the time that he was there. Government members interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Members opposite should go and read the Crime and Misconduct Commission report. They should go and read it because it actually stated that he was one who had an active involvement and an active intervention process with regard to that. Having said that, much had to be improved in this particular area and many recommendations have been made. One can only hope that that particular process will continue. Previously we have provided a degree of acknowledgment and commendation for the current minister in the way that he has set about the implementation and the establishment of this new portfolio of Child Safety in Queensland. We have said that, and we will continue to say that. We will continue to monitor that implementation process because one of the real concerns that we have with child safety in Queensland is that the themes which have led to the children being left out in Queensland may come to fruition again in this state at some future time. That may happen. The Crime and Misconduct Commission recommended the segregation of this function from the Department of Families to ensure that the culture which led to the neglect and the failure to appropriately investigate and follow through with complaints could be dismantled and a better process could be put in place. Unfortunately, all too often it happens that there is a situation where the bureaucracy and the processes of a department become an effective cover for neglect and a cover for not servicing the needs of the client base. That is what happened with the old Department of Families. Mr Reynolds: It won't be happening this time. Mr SPRINGBORG: I acknowledge what the minister has said with regard to this. Mr Reynolds: I can assure you. Mr SPRINGBORG: He has said that it will not be happening on this particular occasion. I just say—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the minister—that he is aware and I am aware of problems. I still have people coming to me and talking to me about situations in the past where they reported matters. Those matters were not investigated and something subsequently happened. The child was subsequently harmed or that child, who had a particular serious problem with behaviour, a problem of sexual violence, physical violence against somebody or antisocial behaviour and who was brought to the attention of the department in the past, was ignored and was neglected once the school or the police brought it to their attention. That child subsequently went on to offend against other people. Only the other day I had a member of the public come to me about this very matter during my constituents' appointments in Goondiwindi. There was an issue involving the stepson of the partner where there had been very, very concerning issues reported. The Department of Families had not previously acted properly. That child has now been brought to the attention of the Queensland Police Service and may come to the attention of the Children's Court in Queensland and subsequently may end up being incarcerated or held in a juvenile facility. That is not good enough, as I am sure the minister knows. The Nationals in Queensland will be watching to ensure that those failures that occurred in the past do not occur in the future. Whilst there will be political argy-bargy in this place and outside of it, one of the real checks and balances that we do offer is an assurance that we will monitor the situation and make sure that the minister and the minister's department are accountable in this area. If there are issues, what my colleagues and I do now, without any hesitation, is send them straight through to the Child Safety Department. We send them straight to the commission, if need be, and hopefully they are actioned and investigated there. That in itself is a very, very important process. As I mentioned, the department is still by and large being established. It is a relatively new department. People are still being recruited. We need to know that there will be enough people in those jobs. The effectiveness of a department cannot always be gauged by the number of people it employs. It is determined by the quality and the commitment of the people; it is the resources that they have to do their job. That can be information technology or a capacity to move out and about and respond quickly when a matter is brought to their attention. Mr Reynolds: And their own professional ability. Mr SPRINGBORG: And their professional ability, as the minister says. Whilst I think that there were some very excellent professionals in the former department, and we need to respect and acknowledge that, there were also situations where people were neglectful—there is no doubt about it— and their professional abilities had let down not only the department but also the children who were the subject of particular complaints and particular concerns. We need to know that we are going to have the best people in those jobs. We need to know that the bureaucratic processes which seemed to be in place in the old department, where there was a greater focus on the bureaucracy, centrally and regionally, do not recur in the future because that could 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3035 stymie progress. It happens. Those people in senior positions often find it very easy to create an administrative empire around them and forget the end game. That happened to an extent with regard to the old Department of Families. It concerns me and many people that I speak to that we have to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars to address this area. I know that we have to do it, but it is an indictment on our society. It is an absolutely sad indictment on our society that for us to be able to respond to probably 4,000—maybe 5,000—children we have to have budget expenditure that runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. It is the duty and the obligation of a modern government to do those sorts of things. People say to me that there is all of that expenditure to address those particular problems, yet probably 96 per cent of children in Queensland live in loving and harmonious environments. As I indicated, people say to me that there is some irony in the fact that so many efforts of the state have to go into that particular area. Again that comes back to bad parenting; it comes down to dysfunctionality. It comes back to situations where violence may be prominent in the particular relationship and a child decides to go their own way. Whilst we can sometimes blame parents—rightly so—being a parent is very, very challenging. Mr Reynolds: Even when they are 25 or 26. Mr SPRINGBORG: As the minister says, even when they are 25 and 26, but being a parent is very, very challenging because a child demands your complete attention all the time. That continues to go on. A person’s lifestyle has to change to accommodate a child. Some people do not like that. It can be very, very frustrating raising children. As we know, some people then lash out. As a result there is neglect and this dysfunctionality. We have to also consider that there are some children who do come from a loving, caring home who choose, as a result of peer group pressure, their own choices or rebellion, to go and do the things that they want to do. Their parents are terribly frustrated about that and want the help of the state to fix it. I know this is a difficult area. It is an area that I encourage the minister to do more work in; I know that the minister is aware of it. If we are going to say to people that we ultimately want parental responsibility, which we do, then parents need to have the support that is necessary to address dysfunctionality and rebellion issues amongst children as well. Parents do not have the authority to pick up a child that might be 13 years old, take them home and lock them in a room and keep them there. If the child wants to go through the window and run away, they do that. If they want to continue to rebel, they do that. If they want to put themselves in a situation of risking teenage pregnancy, they do that. If they want to go and live with somebody who is much older than them and engage in a sexual relationship, they do that. It concerns the parents enormously that they do that. If a child wants to involve themselves in the abuse of illegal substances, they do that. Parents are concerned about it. Parents often go to the authorities and the authorities say that there is no real illegality, but if they come to the attention of the police and further action needs to be taken down the track then it will be. That is often too late. Schools report this sort of activity and action is not taken. There is a fight over who has that particular responsibility; it is then too late. This is an area where those parents who are frustrated by what happens in those circumstances are becoming increasingly concerned. This is an area where particular strengths in the current mechanisms in Queensland need to be embraced. Touching on one of the key policy objectives of the legislation, coordination of agency responses to the protection and care needs of children is an area that has not worked well in the past. In my briefings with the minister, the minister has indicated the enormous number of areas of cross- responsibility and cross-jurisdiction. The Department of Child Safety has to act as a central coordinating agency in that regard. Those other agencies have got to forget about patch protection, because those things hold back a proper, coordinated response which can take a child out of an abusive situation or stop a child getting themselves into an abusive situation. If I can just use an analogy: I saw this happen when I became a member of this place some 14 or 15 years ago with regard to Queensland Education and Technical and Further Education in Queensland. Those two organisations could not cooperate. They did not want to cooperate because somebody would lose their particular patch; their fiefdom would be challenged if there was a coordination of training from education across to TAFE. TAFE was concerned that it would lose something to the Department of Education. We now do it and everyone thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread, but it has taken years to get to that stage. Mr Reynolds: This legislation enhances that ability legally to do it. Mr SPRINGBORG: I understand that it enhances that. There is that greater legal capacity to ensure that, but sometimes people in senior positions can undermine that process by their own stymying, delaying techniques or not wanting to cooperate in a practical way. There is an interrelationship here between Education, Health, Police, the Attorney-General and also, of course, the Department of Communities. That does need to be properly followed through by way of legislation and ensuring that it does happen in practice. In the past we have had some pretty good child protection legislation in Queensland, but the six-monthly reviews were not being conducted. I use that as an example of how good legislation does not necessarily always deliver the outcomes that are wanted. 3036 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

Case planning processes for children subject to ongoing intervention under the Child Protection Act are extremely important. I have previously raised that with the minister; the minister shares my concern about some of those issues. Case planning processes were a deficiency that was acknowledged and identified by the Crime and Misconduct Commission in its report. We have had some adhocery in the case planning area. We have had some inconsistency with the people who have been case planning and case managing. The values, objectives and mission statement of the Department of Families did not necessarily accord with what the individual case management officers were ensuring with regard to the children. I have had some pretty sad and disturbing feedback from foster families in my electorate about the values that the old Department of Families sought to impose on them as foster-carers. The values that those foster-carers were seeking to ensure for the children in their care are ones that the minister and I would broadly accord with. They were not political values. They were values concerning appropriate conduct, how to interact and engage with other young people and even exploring their own sexuality. I found that to be very concerning. There is differentiation. That was not the case for everyone. People cannot take a two-year or three-year university degree and apply an idealistic notion of case management and case planning to children. Sometimes the best people to handle those matters are the people who have been involved, have children of their own and have seen it and are wise to what goes on. I encourage the minister to ensure that we have consistency in case planning and a mission statement that has values that accord with broad community views. Regardless of our political views in this place and maybe even our views on some other moral issues, there is consistency in terms of responsibility and what is reasonable behaviour and conduct. The minister has prime responsibility to ensure that. If we start to do that then we will have a better citizenry in the future. Those children will conduct themselves better and foster-carers will have a much clearer picture of the state's expectations in terms of obligations. The legislation also requires reporting of suspected harm to children by mandating doctors and nurses to notify the Department of Child Safety. That is an area of deficiency that we have previously mentioned and must be addressed. This legislation once again lays down the legislative framework for that to happen. Again, it will be a matter of educating people about their obligations and ensuring that we have oversight mechanisms to guarantee that those people follow those obligations. In the past the reporting of suspected harm of children was an area of neglect. Failure to report such harm has led to the harm and possible death of children. Not only that, we have neglected to respond once it has been reported to the appropriate authority. The bill seeks to extend the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian to other agencies. That is a very important power which must be carried through. I have the view that, notwithstanding the best intentions or motivations of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian over the last couple of years, it did not necessarily respond expeditiously in the way that it could have. It did have very strong monitoring powers and authority under legislation in Queensland and it did not necessarily carry that through in all cases. Whether it was confused about its jurisdiction or whether it made particular judgments in certain cases that it did not need to become involved, I believe that it failed in terms of some of its previously existing obligations. I am sure that with all the attention and pressure on the child safety sector in Queensland—whether government or non-government agencies—those areas of deficiency will be identified. There are processes to be put in place. There will be far more appropriate responses in the future in the areas of deficiency. They know that we know and they know that we will be watching. In conclusion, I say that we will be watching. This is an important piece of legislation which continues the child safety reform process in this state. There will be more to come in the future but we will continue to bring to the minister's attention matters of concern as is our right and obligation in this place. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (12.04 p.m.): It is my great pleasure to stand in support of the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004 which is before the House today. By way of background, on 22 March this year cabinet endorsed the blueprint developed by the Consultancy Bureau for implementing the recommendations of the January 2004 Crime and Misconduct report titled Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. The blueprint outlined a three-stage process for the introduction of necessary legislative amendments for the implementation of the child protection reforms. Stage 1 of the reforms, the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Act 2004, was passed by the parliament on 16 June this year. The provisions of the stage 1 act dealing with antenatal notifications, annual reporting and community visitors commenced on 1 September. All other provisions commenced on 1 August. The key elements of the proposed bill are as follows. Firstly, case planning involves the development of a case plan for the care of all children on child protection orders or in the custody of the director-general. The second element is the provision of information to carers and children which is necessary for the carer to provide appropriate care for the child and to ensure the safety of the child, the 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3037 carer and members of the carers’ household. The third element is information sharing between agencies and service coordination, including the legislative amendment of the SCAN system—that is, the suspected child abuse and neglect system. The fourth element is the mandatory report by registered nurses and doctors of child harm. The fifth element is the extension of the Child Guardian monitoring powers to other government departments and agencies and to non-government agencies funded or licensed by government agencies. The experiences of foster-care children and their carers as revealed by the CMC hearings and the groundbreaking report by the CMC have been of great concern to all Queenslanders, particularly the Beattie Labor government. The CMC is to be commended for this excellent report. I am delighted that the government is committed to implementing the recommendations of the report to make a vital and lasting difference in the lives of young children in foster care and beyond within this state. I heartily support this bill. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (12.07 p.m.): I say from the outset that this is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that the Queensland parliament will ever debate. I say that with great sincerity. This is an area that is sacred to all of us. We are talking here about the less than two per cent of the state's children who are subjected to sexual abuse or blatant abuse by those who really do not care. This issue came to light last year through a series of inquires such as the Forde inquiry, the churches' own inquiries and inquiries of various other people. I do not want to mention names because, at the end of the day, we can offend people by mentioning names. When it comes to our kids they are not negotiable; they are sacred. They are the most important possession we can have. The minister will have my support all the way in driving this agenda to make certain that we protect our kids and we give them the quality of life that he and I have enjoyed, our kids have enjoyed, the kids of members in this place enjoy and many other kids throughout the length and breadth of Queensland enjoy. The real issue here is honesty in the delivery of the program. The implementation program is in its infancy. It is absolutely paramount that we get it right from the word go. There are three stages in the implementation of the child safety legislation by the Department of the Child Safety. This is not an easy task. When I say that it is not an easy task, I mean that it is not just the responsibility of government. It is the responsibility of the opposition and the responsibility of every one of the 89 members of this parliament to ensure that Queenslanders get the outcomes that they so wish for. This is an area of shame in our society in 2004. I cannot say enough how disgusted I am to think that those evil elements are out there preying on our kids. It is very important that the minister and the government have seen fit to implement the 110 recommendations set down by the CMC with the assistance of Peter Forster's report tabled in March. As I said, it is very important for those recommendations to be implemented. The important thing about this legislation—and I think the minister would agree—is that it is a living, working document. That is, from day to day we will find better ways to do things, better procedures, better ideals and better technology to address this very unfortunate situation. I see child abuse cases in my own electorate, and there would not be one member of this House who does not witness the abuse of kids, or the abuse of anyone for that matter. People in the former department of family services and the new Department of Child Safety work and will continue to work under great difficulty, great stress and great trauma. People are victimised because they do not think the same way as someone else. They are victimised because they might have a different sexual preference. They are victimised because they might have different coloured skin. They are victimised because they might have different religious beliefs. This is a situation that cannot be tolerated and will not be tolerated in Queensland and Australian society in 2004. It is our responsibility to ensure that our society is a tolerant society, and we can only do that by ensuring that the most precious and the most important natural resource we have—our children—are nurtured, protected and loved from the day they are conceived. An area that is very close to my heart and close to the hearts of many other people is Aboriginal children. I was talking to medical staff in my own electorate last week about this issue—that is, fathers attending the birth of their children. Witnessing that gives one a different perspective. I was present at the birth of my son, and that gave me a relationship with my son that is different to that with my daughters. Even though I have a very good relationship with my daughters, witnessing the birth of a child makes one realise the importance and role of the mother and the importance of protecting that woman and that child. If every father saw the trauma and the hardship a mother goes through at childbirth, there is no way in the world that they would abuse that mother or that child, because they are very important people and are sacred to all of us. People are talking about getting rid of violence from Aboriginal communities. People might think that witnessing a birth is a sissy thing or something that we blokes do not do, but I have to say that blokes do do it. I have done it. Many other blokes have done it. I have to say that I am proud that I have done it. I am a very fortunate bloke in that I have four grand-daughters, and I have to say just how great those little girls are. I call them little miracles. They are the flesh and blood of my own children. I get a bit emotional when talking about this issue. Regardless of whether those kids are my grandchildren or your 3038 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 children or your grandchildren, they are our responsibility. It is our responsibility to ensure that they live in a protected society. That is the role and the right of all of us. It is absolutely paramount that the 318 new staff that the minister will employ in this department are people with impeccable backgrounds and are of a professional character—that is, that those people are professionally trained to administer and implement the policy that the government is endeavouring to introduce through this legislation. The real issue as I see it is that I feel for some of the people in the former department of family services in that they did not have the core training or the basic training skills required to deliver the services of that department. We all know what an ugly subject it deals with. Everybody says that nobody wants to work in the department of family services. Nobody wants to be the minister for family services. It is the hot potato in government most times, but we feel for the ministers and the people who work in the departments. It is our God-given right to ensure that we employ the right people who will carry out and execute the policy of government in the best interests of the kids of this state. People in the department of family services and those working in the area of child safety are under great stress. We think we have as members of parliament. We have no pressures at all compared to the pressures these people work under. I do not know how they sleep at night with some of the horrific things that they witness and have to endure during a day's work. I do not know the job life expectancy of people in these positions, but I would not think that it would be too long. These are people who have a job life expectancy of, say, 12 months or two years. I do not know how much money they get paid, but it is not enough. However, they do a grand job and I want to salute them for it. Society has to look at the ills of its ways. We can be critical of governments. The Beattie Labor government has created this new area of Child Safety which will cost in the vicinity of $500 million to set up—that is, to employ people, to get programs going and to train foster families and those who work in the organisation. This is an impediment on our society—that is, it is taking money away from areas such as health, education and law and order because of those people who are creating this environment that we live in. Therefore, it comes back to education. That is why it is so important that people in our state, regardless of where they live or who they are, get a good education. One just does not go to school to be educated; with the knocks of life we are educated every day. Earlier today the Deputy Premier was in charge of a piece of legislation that passed through the House relating to the TAB. I made reference during debate on that legislation to gambling. Gambling is one of the evils of our society if it is not managed properly. Many people can have fun with gambling. They go out and enjoy themselves and play the pokies or have a game of Keno or go to the races. They might win a few bob. They lose a few, too. Most times, like me, they lose a few. Anyway, that is the joy of the game. That is a part of life. However, there are people out there who put their last solitary cent through the TAB or in the poker machines. And who are the ones who suffer? The kids. Every time it is the kids. It is not mum or dad at home. It is the kids. They go without tucker in their tummy. They go without a shirt on their back. Something else goes wanting in the home or the car is broken down and they cannot get to work and school. However, it is the kids who suffer. We take it out on the kids because they are defenceless, and this is a situation that cannot be tolerated. The other aspect that I want to talk about today is the abuse of alcohol. There is no doubt that alcohol is one of the major contributors to child abuse. It is also one of the major contributors to domestic violence. Again, I believe that those issues are not the responsibility of churches, social groups or anybody else. It is our responsibility as the legislators of this state of Queensland to put in place measures that are going to create an environment in which we can eliminate those elements from our society. Again, eliminating those elements involves education. We have to educate ourselves to understand the needs of others, especially those from a low socioeconomic background. We just cannot criticise those people and put them down. We have to listen to them to understand their needs. We have to look at, analyse and evaluate why they are in that predicament from the word go. I believe that, if we get it right from the word go, we can correct a lot of these anomalies. So the issue comes back again to people being educated in the classroom, to leaving school, to getting employment that is going to give them purpose in life or a quality of life, and then going on from there. Members might think that some of the things that I am saying are not real, but they are real. They are the truth, and the truth has to be faced. As I said earlier, we must shoulder this responsibility together. The other area that I want to touch on is the responsibility of the people who see first-hand even the slightest evidence of child abuse. I am talking about the medical profession—the doctors, the nurses and the other people who see first-hand some of these terrible things that happen to the little ones in our society today. It is very important that, if those people suspect that there is a problem, they report that to the appropriate authorities, whether that be the police or the people in the Department of Child Safety, so that we can rescue that child from that environment and place them in a loving environment where they can lead the kind of life that they will enjoy. I want to refer to the agencies themselves. I believe that some of this money that is being injected into this Department of Child Safety should be directed towards providing more training for some of 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3039 these people who work in the department. I know that this is a very fragile area. These people are going to need a lot of patience, a lot of care and a lot of support as they implement the programs that the minister and the government are putting in place. If we do not give them the tools, the technology and the opportunities to be able to execute the changes that we are seeking through this bill to make certain that we provide a safe environment for these unfortunate children we are talking about, then we may as well not even debate the legislation any further. We may as well shut it down now and throw it out, because it is not going to work. These are the people in the engine room who will make it happen. We have to make certain that we give them the moral support as well as the personal support to make the changes happen. Every time we turn on the TV, all we seem to see is violence. We do not even have to watch what is going on in Iraq to see violence. We have it here in Queensland and in Australia. Every day we see terrible things happen. On the last day of the most recent sittings of parliament I was watching the Channel 10 news and I saw that a pornography ring which had not been properly smashed by Interpol had been opened up. The types of people who were arrested not only around Australia but also around the world were people whom other members and I would usually look up to and respect in our society. It is very difficult to think that doctors, police officers, members of the clergy and all of those types of people whom we all look up to and respect as pillars of our society are harbouring and encouraging these kids to go into this filthy, ugly world of pornography and, ultimately, child abuse. I know the Attorney-General is not here this week, but I say to the Attorney-General, to the minister and to the Minister for Police that it is very, very important that we put in place penalties to put these people away forever and a day. I remember the former Minister for Police and Corrective Services, Tony McGrady, saying to me one day, ‘A lot of these people in jail for the sexual abuse of children or pornography think that it is their God-given right. They think that they have done nothing wrong.' Done nothing wrong! They have done something wrong, all right. They have taken away the innocence of that child. That is one of the greatest crimes that can possibly be committed. I say to the members of the government that they have my total support. I know that they have the total support of the opposition, because we heard what the Leader of the Opposition said here today. I believe that, together, we can get it right. If any member or any of their friends knows of families where a child is not being protected, or is not being nurtured and given the love, the care and the attention that that child needs, then I think it is our God-given duty to intervene to ensure that the people who have the responsibility to deliver care and protection can do something about that. With that, I congratulate the minister. I wish him well in the implementation of this legislation and the program in question, because it is sacred and important to the kids of Queensland. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Croft): Order! Before calling the next speaker I wish to welcome to the public gallery students and teachers from Hercules Road State School in the electorate of Murrumba. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (12.26 p.m.): I am pleased to rise to speak to this very important piece of legislation that is before the House today. I did not intend to dwell on the past, but unfortunately when I heard the Leader of the Opposition laud Kev Lingard for his work during his term as Minister for Families, I felt that I needed to set the record straight. The most amazing thing that I can remember Mr Lingard doing is saying at one stage that he did not believe that there were any cases of abuse that were not followed up by his department. I remember in an article that I wrote for the Courier- Mail I said that it was a bit like a vision of Russell Hinze walking through the Valley with a seeing-eye dog or a cane saying ‘There is no prostitution in the Valley.' I note my total respect and regard for what Anna Bligh did as Minister for Families. Anna was the first minister to take seriously this very difficult issue of child protection. Not only did she institute the Forde inquiry, which put the issue of abuse in institutions on the agenda; she also finally upgraded the 1965 child protection legislation. That is something that Mr Lingard was not able to do. This bill implements stage 2 of the legislative reforms recommended by the CMC in its report. It does that in a number of ways, such as by providing for case planning and by enabling mandatory reporting not only for doctors but also for nurses. In the 1980s when I was opposition spokesperson for families, I remember saying then that nurses should be included in the legislation. I also underlined the fact that child protection is really a whole-of-community responsibility. The idea of mandatory reporting gives special protection to children, but it is definitely a whole-of-community responsibility. Importantly, the bill removes barriers to information sharing. It also encourages coordinated service provision by agencies. Ultimately, that is the thing that has been missing from child protection in Queensland. The legislation also increases the accountability and responsibility of agencies. I really think it is great that, through this legislation, we are extending the scope of the monitoring functions and powers of the Commissioner for Children and the Child Guardian. If we are to put this bill into perspective, I think the highlight of it is that it improves whole-of-government responsibility and accountability. That is so fundamentally important. The legislation does that in a number of ways. It provides a legislative basis for the SCAN system. I know that SCAN teams have been around since the 1980s. I remember being in contact with one at the Mater Hospital, which was located across the road 3040 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 from my office. I know what a great job those SCAN teams have done over the years. This is a really, really big plus. Through SCAN I think we can have a forum by which a number of government agencies in different departments can contribute to assessments of children's needs and the responses that the community can make to ensure the protection of children. Another fundamental aspect of this bill is that it provides for the Department of Child Safety to undertake case planning for children. When developing or reviewing a case plan, the department must provide agencies, such as those participating in SCAN and any other relevant community agency, with an opportunity to input into the case planning process. I think that is important. Just as important, of course, is removing the barrier that prevented the sharing of child protection related information between agencies such as Queensland Health, Education, the Police Service and Child Safety. By sharing information we share responsibility. Consequently there is a shared, whole-of-government responsibility for child protection by diverse government agencies. Another highlight from my perspective in relation to the whole-of-government approach of this bill is that this bill gives the Department of Child Safety power to request particular relevant information from certain prescribed entities such as those responsible for education, community services, public health, non-state schools and housing. That just reinforces what I said at the beginning of my speech, that is, child protection is a concern across government. It is a whole-of-government concern. I note that the SCAN model is currently being piloted. There are some simple principles in the SCAN model. One is that the safety of a child is paramount. I was excited to debate the Child Protection Bill in 1998. It underlined that the child's interests are paramount. It really insists that legal obligations be adhered to. It is now in black and white so that people are aware of their legal obligations. In relation to child protection cases we can then develop responses benefiting from a very broad range of expertise on the part of senior practitioners in a number of agencies. That is important. The new SCAN model will also contribute to improved management and coordination of cases and will also provide for local agency participation in response to child protection needs. The legislation passed in 1998 was good legislation. At the time I said that the system requires resourcing, that it is no good having state-of-the-art legislation without adequate resources. A significant injection of funds will be committed by this government. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that this is the first government that has taken the bull by the horns with regard to resourcing. The government has allocated an extra $24.4 million over the next three years for the SCAN system. $6.5 million of this was allocated in the budget for the 2004-05 financial year. This funding can be positively directed to helping SCAN teams coordinate their task and avail themselves of administrative expertise and IT support. In today's world, a proper IT management system is fundamentally important. I note that the SCAN blueprint is a two-tier model. This has now been piloted in two areas—Logan and Townsville. I think it is important that the pilot is a prelude to a new and improved SCAN process. The first tier of the new SCAN model is a child protection assessment and management team. There are 20 of these teams. The second tier of the SCAN system is a community implementation team. This team will be convened where recommendations made by the assessment and management team need a local, multiagency forum in order to be implemented. Numerous agencies are involved in SCAN. For example, an additional 20 detective senior sergeants from the Queensland Police Service are being put into the system. Education Queensland is looking at providing more senior guidance officers. I refer to the inquiry into homeless children, which I was involved in. We said then that the best place to identify young people with the potential to run away from home is in the schoolyard, because they may be depressed, be sleepy, have bruising or exhibit any of a number of problems. They may be under the stresses of sexual abuse. The other day I went to the AGM of the Brisbane Youth Service. I was not shocked, but I was surprised to learn that the number of young women on the streets in Brisbane is now greater than the number of young men because of the problem of sexual abuse. They are running away from very difficult situations. Once someone has been out there on the street—once they get into chroming, substance abuse or prostitution—it is very difficult to deal with. Guidance officers in schools could deal with the problem so much better than if the person ended up on the street. I am involved with a homeless service at Alderley in my electorate. I can speak specifically about a young man who had, because of family dysfunction, ended up in a refuge at Windsor. We now have him in supported accommodation and he is doing brilliantly at school. He is going to be a great citizen. Early intervention through the school system can help. The government is taking steps to deliver better quality services to at-risk children and their families. In an article I wrote to the Courier-Mail I said that we need to have better training and professional development for child protection workers. There is funding of some $3 million over the next three years to make that happen. What I find impressive about the funding which seeks to deliver better quality services to at-risk children and their families is the $13.2 million in 2004-05 to provide an alternative care system that delivers a range of care options for children and young people. Submissions have been sought for funding to develop models for additional placements of children and young people with complex to extreme needs who are unable to be supported in family based care. The 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3041 supported housing service I referred to earlier could not deal with some of these people. We need a diverse range of services. We also need to make sure that there is funding out there to enable the government to monitor service delivery. That is very important. As I said earlier, extending the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian is so fundamentally important. The bill provides for case planning for children who are in need of protection, which the government recognises as vital to delivering quality child protection services to children and families. We must recognise the need for the Department of Child Safety to work in partnership with families to address the protection and care needs of children. As I said before, we need to take a whole-of- government approach and the department needs to work with agencies across government to address the needs of children and families. I think every member of parliament could tell of phone calls they have received from grandmothers and mothers who have expressed serious concerns about the treatment they have received in the past in these very difficult cases of child protection. The relationships get very soured and that is not the way to go. This is an important aspect that we need to look at. I think the family group meetings which the department will convene to develop a case plan is fundamental to this. These family group meetings provide a way of bringing together those people who are connected with the child and the family for the purpose of achieving the best possible plans for the child. The minister in his second reading speech assured us that the process will be a respectful one that empowers families and engages families and professionals in a constructive partnership. Again, it is a whole-of-government approach. Throughout the case planning process, children, their families and others within a child's system of support will be given an opportunity to participate and input into planning and decision making. This legislation will effect a significant shift in core work practices within the Department of Child Safety and will significantly improve relationships between the department and children and families. Importantly, family group meetings will provide real opportunities for children and young people to actively participate in decision making that concerns them. The process is facilitated in a way that is empowering for children and means that resulting case plans are relevant and informed by children's views. I think that is very important. The bill also allows for agencies such as those involved in a SCAN or a community agency such as a domestic violence service to input into the case plan. These agencies may input into the plan, for example, by attending a family group meeting for the purpose of discussing with the family any assessment about a child's needs that it may have undertaken and to provide information to the family group about services and resources that it could contribute as part of a child's case plan. The framework for case planning and the responsibilities of the department are very well based in this legislation. There is a requirement for the department to develop and review case plans for children who are considered in need of protection and who require ongoing assistance under the Child Protection Act 1999. Such assistance may involve provision of intensive family support, the placement of a child with another person or an application for a child protection order. I know, for example, in Scandinavian countries something like 80 per cent of placements are made within the family. It is obviously a cultural thing where family members put their hands up in these situations. We saw during the election campaign the case of a grandmother talking to Mr Latham about the need for grandmothers to be supported so they are able to do their bit. This requirement of the department to develop a case plan includes the convening of a family group meeting. If those attending family group meetings are to participate in an informed way, it is important that the department makes them aware of what is involved prior to the meeting. It is a very complex process and we do not want people turning up like stunned mullets and expecting them to contribute fully in that situation. As I said before, we must regularly review case plans in a way that provides a reasonable opportunity for a child or young person, relevant family members and others within the child's support system to participate. It is a requirement that, before making a final child protection order, the Children’s Court must be satisfied that a case plan has been developed for the child in accordance with the legislated process. People cannot simply go there without making the case for this. I would like to conclude by talking about ways to reduce the risks of children drifting into care. I was involved with an agency called Children from Care, which picked up children who were the responsibility of the state but who were just sent out onto the streets with a suitcase at the age of 14. We should be looking after a child's long-term stability and continuity. That is fundamentally important. The focus should not just be on securing the child's immediate return to the family but also on identifying and putting in place what is needed to ensure that the child can return and remain in the family on a long- term sustainable basis. This is very important. There is an obligation on the department to develop an alternative plan to address the child's needs for long-term stable care that can be implemented when and if a decision is made that the child cannot safely return to the care of a parent. Of course, the rights of a child are paramount and we need to underline that. As I said before, relatives taking on the long-term care of a child are important. 3042 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

Adoptions and guardians can give long-term security to a child. We need to ensure that children's needs for permanency are prioritised and properly addressed throughout the case planning process. That is fundamentally important and is addressed extremely well in this legislation. It is sad that the longer a child remains in care the more likely it is that child may experience placement changes with adverse effects on the child in terms of disruption to relationships, schooling and loss of self-esteem, confidence and sense of security. That is sadly a fact of life. That is why we ought to be looking at long-term stability for children— Time expired. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (12.46 p.m.): The opposition will be supporting the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), which represents the implementation of stage 2 of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. At the outset, I note that the former Minister for Families, the Hon. Kevin Lingard, was recognised by the CMC report and that comments made by the previous speaker bear no relevance. The main provisions of this bill are the coordination of agency responses to the protection and care needs of children, case planning processes for children subject to ongoing intervention, mandating that nurses and doctors have to report suspected harm to children to the Department of Child Safety, and extending the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and the Child Guardian. One of the major criticisms of the protecting children report inquiry conducted by the Crime and Misconduct Commission related to the issue of case planning. I refer to page 97 of the report. In the ‘Baby Kate' report the Ombudsman noted that the delay in transferring casework and managerial responsibility between area offices might be symptomatic of widespread problems. Also in the Zellow investigation different area offices had responsibility for the children at different times. At times there appeared to be few officers with an adequate or corporate picture of information about family ‘X’, and this in turn affected how notifications were handled. I would particularly like to pick up the reference to section 88 of the Child Protection Act because it was this matter that was frequently raised in the House by the opposition and it was specifically brought to the CMC's attention in the opposition submission to the inquiry. This legislation repeals section 88 but inserts a case review regime in division 5 of the new part 3A. This section provides for a periodic review of case plans which in the proposed 51V(3) must happen at least every six months. My concern to the minister relates to accountability to this House. As I have said in the past, it was the refusal of ministers to inform this House about the failure of the department to meet the previous legal requirement for review that permitted the disgraceful situation that was revealed by the protecting children report to continue. I know that there are reporting provisions in relation to the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Child Guardian provided in section 31 of the legislation that governs that position. However, I point out that there is no reporting obligation as such but, rather, a reporting opportunity. My reason for saying that is that the provision refers to the following: ‘The commissioner may prepare a report.' What the opposition would prefer is a reporting requirement so that the commissioner was obliged to prepare a report on any failure of any agency to abide by their legal responsibilities under this legislation. Further, if the commissioner chooses to prepare a report under section 60 of the children commissioner legislation, the commissioner may request that the minister submit the report to parliament. Again, the opposition's concern is that there is no obligation for a report prepared by the commissioner to be tabled, and it is left to the discretion of the commissioner. I fully appreciate that the commissioner may not want all reports to the minister to be tabled, but I simply repeat my concern that fundamental failings—like the authorities neglecting their legal obligations, as in the past—simply must be provided to this parliament as an essential accountability. I note that some five of the actual recommendations of the CMC report that impact directly upon the issue of case planning are recommendations 7.35, 7.39, 7.40, 7.43 and 8.9. The opposition supports the case planning provisions proposed in this amending legislation, but once again I remind the minister that, as we now know, it is not just the procedures that are put in place but the real test is whether the procedures are actually followed. One of the major issues uncovered in the protecting children report was the issue of case loads. Unfortunately, the Hansard records of this House will show that the former minister consistently refused to provide this House with key data on the workload issue. This was not just an issue with the opposition, but I would remind those on the other side of the House that it was also a major issue with the public sector union. The inquiry again made very relevant recommendations in this regard, and I refer in particular to recommendation 5.3— That the DCS adopt an empirically rigorous means of calculating workloads and projecting future staffing numbers. 5.4 That frontline child-protection service staff numbers be increased annually in line with workload increases. Mr Reynolds: That's been done. Both of those have been done. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3043

Mrs MENKENS: Thank you. I acknowledge that the government has provided additional resources to overcome the problems of the past, but the point I want to make is that we must ensure that similar problems do not occur again. I know the minister shares that view. It is because of that shared concern that I again raise the matter of accountability, and I ask the minister if he would specifically address this issue in his reply. During the Estimates Committee B hearings the minister indicated that he was working to reduce the case loads from 32 to 15. To give this House a progress report on the success of the implementation of the reforms, I would appreciate the minister giving an update on the reduction of the case loads by giving details of what the average case load is at present. Given that this legislation includes provisions which are likely to significantly increase workloads for the Department of Child Safety and related agencies, an appropriate reporting mechanism is essential. It will not be sufficient to simply say that the department will be producing an annual report to be tabled in this House because the previous department did that and look what happened. That is not to say that the annual report cannot be a useful accountability mechanism, but that will depend upon the information that it contains. As I raised in the debate on the first tranche of this legislation, it will be incumbent upon the department to provide meaningful information, including benchmarking, against similar agencies interstate. That will give the minister and this House a real idea of just how the department is tracking. Mr Reynolds interjected. Mrs MENKENS: Thank you, Minister. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also call on the minister to confirm that the department has identified and is using an empirically rigorous method of calculating workloads and to establish staff numbers. Mr Reynolds: I did that a little while ago. I have said that in the House before; that that is actually in place. Mrs MENKENS: Thank you. I would also like the minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to inform this House, in terms of recommendation 5.4, of when the annual increase in staff is due. I ask him to tell Queenslanders what the department has established in relation to the application of the staff needs analysis and what this will mean in terms of additional staff. There were to be 318 additional staff to be employed this year and a further 200 staff were to be employed over the next two years. Will the minister please tell the House if the full 318 people have been employed and that the plans to employ the additional 200 staff over the next two years will accord with the projected workloads. From the evidence of many of the parents who contact my office, it still seems that staff are working with enormous case loads. This makes it almost impossible to effectively achieve the desired outcomes. Caseworkers from non-government providers as well as the department tell me of their current workloads, which are still probably humanly impossible to achieve. I noticed with interest the push for tougher truancy laws as espoused by the Minister for Education in the Courier-Mail on Tuesday of this week. These ideas certainly have merit, but I ask the minister to please consider a case which was brought to my office last week. A family who lives an hour and a half drive from Townsville have a child in foster care in Townsville. They have weekend access to this child and departmental officers bring the child back and forth to them. However, she is brought down to them every Friday morning and returned to Townsville every Monday afternoon or sometimes Tuesday morning. I am sure the timing would have to fit with the case officer's workload. The parents' very genuine concern is that this young girl is now regularly getting only three days or two and a half days schooling a week. This is an already disrupted and dislocated child who is in a new school and who has this added impost on her life. I ask the minister: what chance does she have? Is it in the best interests of the child? More importantly, in a case such as this, who would be responsible for this child's absence from school? Would more case officers improve this child's chances of becoming an emotionally and educationally stable person? Further to the matter of case planning, the opposition welcomes the expansion of the case planning processes. I welcome the commitment to the encouragement and facilitation of children and their parents in the case planning process. I would particularly like to refer to proposed section 51D(2), which requires— The chief executive must give participants in case planning the information they reasonably need to participate in the process effectively. Again I acknowledge the additional resources being provided for the establishment of the new department. I also acknowledge the training that is being provided. Further, I know that the transformation that we are all seeking will take time. Nonetheless I must, on behalf of the many people who have made representations to all members, express my ongoing concern for the culture that continues to pervade the department. This is a culture that fails to adequately communicate with parents in particular and fails to respond to their concerns. I also share with the minister the situation of an agonised stepfather who is in regular contact with my office. He has a Family Court order to show that it is in the best interests of the child to be living with him. However, since February this year this child has been living in very dubious circumstances with his 3044 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 mother. I am aware of reports from a schoolteacher and a police officer who, in their words, ‘fear for his life'. He has been at school with an untreated burnt hand which has been held on a stove plate as a punishment. He has lived in a house where I am told there has been a suspicious death. He has witnessed much violence in the family. He has been carted around to many different locations. He was once a good student but he has not attended schools for months. He has slept only on floors. According to his extremely worried stepfather, he is involved in glue sniffing and various other unsavoury activities. I am told the case has been investigated by departmental officers but, due to family intimidation, nothing has been done. I have to say that this case haunts my staff and it haunts me. Do not get me wrong, I know how complex some of the matters which are dealt with by the department are, and I know that there are at least two sides to every story. As the minister knows, I have referred a number of matters to him which highlights these concerns. I simply warn the minister not to pretend that everything is now working well because we obviously still have a way to go. To suggest otherwise causes pain to a lot of people who are still struggling with the department. Also included in the case planning strategy is a specific provision for indigenous children and the continued involvement of Aboriginal and Islander child care agencies or the AICCAs. As members will be aware, the issue of the indigenous child care placement principle was central to a number of the tragic matters examined by the protecting children inquiry. I would also like to refer to the concern raised during the inquiry regarding the recent defunding of a number of the AICCAs. The CMC established that in the two years preceding the inquiry six AICCAs, as well as the state secretariat, had been defunded. At the time of the inquiry there were only nine AICCAs operating in Queensland. In March the minister announced that an indigenous support unit was to be established within the department to provide AICCAs with the necessary support and services. His first priority was to establish 23 new or expanded AICCAs. The minister will be aware that despite this priority there is still considerable concern in the community that these agencies are adequately resourced and managed. The minister has previously indicated that the funding for these agencies for 2005-06 is to double to $9.4 million. In view of the recommendations by the CMC and as a consequence of the responsibilities being allocated by this legislation, I would appreciate the minister providing an update on the formation of the 23 AICCAs to which he has referred and confirming to the parliament that the commitment to double funding to these agencies next year stands. Sitting suspended from 1.00 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. Debate, on motion of Mr Nuttall, adjourned.

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.00 p.m.): I present a bill for an act to amend acts administered by the Minister for Health and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.00 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to bring this bill to the House. The bill principally amends four Health portfolio acts. The main amendments will clarify the duty of confidentiality that applies to Queensland Health staff and introduce measures to protect the community from unqualified providers of professional nursing and midwifery services. The bill will also make changes to pharmacy ownership restrictions and make minor operational changes to the mental health legislation. I will deal first with amendments to the confidentiality provisions of the Health Services Act. The bill implements the outcomes of a significant review of the duty of confidentiality in section 63 of the Health Services Act that applies to Queensland Health staff. Section 63 is complex and confusing. Accordingly, the bill replaces the section with a new part 7. This new part more clearly defines who is bound by the duty of confidentiality and clarifies the exceptions to the duty. Three new exceptions are included to better facilitate the provision of health services. Under the new part, a designated person must not disclose the information that may identify a person who has received or is receiving a public sector health service. A designated person is defined to 20 Oct 2004 Health Legislation Amendment Bill 3045 capture anyone who, because of their employment with Queensland Health, may have access to confidential patient information. The definition includes public servants, health service employees, administrative staff, volunteers and health professionals such as doctors, dentists and nurses. Health professionals who work for other departments are not bound by this act. For example, a registered nurse employed by Education Queensland to provide health care to children in a special needs class would not be a designated person. Where necessary, the existing exceptions have been updated to reflect contemporary health care practices. For example, the existing exception permitting disclosure with the consent of a patient has been refined. It will enable a child who is of sufficient age and emotional and mental maturity to consent to the disclosure of his or her own information. A parent or guardian may consent on behalf of a child who is not of sufficient maturity. The bill provides health professionals with the discretion to act in the child's best interests. For example, a doctor may decide it is in the best interests of a teenage patient to inform the teenager's parents that the teenager has stopped taking medication to treat a chronic condition. The doctor could make this disclosure even without the teenager's consent. The amendments recognise that the people with the most involvement with the patient may not necessarily be their next of kin. Changes to the exceptions will permit a health professional to disclose information to a person with sufficient personal interests in the health and welfare of the patient. This may, for example, be a de facto spouse, a close personal friend, a grandparent or a guardian. Three new exceptions to the duty of confidentiality are included in this bill. The first enables disclosure of information where the chief executive believes it is necessary to avert a serious risk to the life, health or safety of a person or to public safety. The second new exception will enable disclosure to an inspector for the purpose of investigating a breach of the duty. The third new exception will permit disclosure where it is necessary or incidental to another exception. This means, for example, that information may be given to administrative staff who are making appointments for a patient or managing payment for services. There are currently no powers in the Health Services Act for investigation of breaches of the duty of confidentiality. Consequently, the bill inserts a new part 7A to enable appointment of inspectors and provide powers for investigating breaches of the duty. The bill amends the Nursing Act to implement the outcomes of a national competition policy review of nursing and midwifery practice restrictions. The bill restricts the use of the titles 'registered nurse', 'enrolled nurse', 'midwife', to nurses and midwives. The use of related titles and symbols is restricted as well. The bill also prohibits persons from falsely holding themselves or others out to be a nurse or midwife. The amendments clarify restrictions on who can practice nursing and who can care for a woman in childbirth. They also provide exceptions to the restrictions. The exceptions recognise the legitimate role volunteers play in providing care: for example, a mother nursing a sick child at home or a man assisting his partner during labour. In order to ensure a person is not denied access to appropriate health care, the exceptions also allow other health professionals to provide care within the normal practice of their profession. For example, an obstetrician will be able to provide obstetric care to a woman in childbirth without breaching the midwifery practice restriction. Also a physiotherapist will be able to tend to a sporting injury without breaching the nursing practice restriction. I emphasise that the exceptions to the midwifery practice restriction will not automatically authorise registered or enrolled nurses to practice midwifery. A registered nurse will be able to provide nursing care to a woman in childbirth, for example, by recording the woman's blood pressure. However, unless authorised by the Queensland Nursing Council to practice midwifery, the nurse would not be permitted to provide specialist midwifery care. With these provisions the community can be confident that persons providing professional nursing and midwifery services are appropriately qualified and registered, enrolled or authorised. The bill will also amend the Nursing Act to replace provisions in the nursing by-law which will expire on 1 September 2005. These provisions primarily ensure that the Queensland Nursing Council will continue to accredit nursing and midwifery courses in order to maintain high educational standards. I also take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge the assistance of the Queensland Nursing Council and the Queensland Nurses Union in developing the nursing and midwifery aspects of this bill. I now turn to the amendments to the Pharmacists Registration Act 2001. The Pharmacists Registration Act currently allows only registered pharmacists or friendly societies to own or have a pecuniary interest in a pharmacy practice. Pharmacists are not permitted to own more than four pharmacy practices. These arrangements applied under the repealed Pharmacy Act 1976 and were retained in the current act pending the outcome of a national review of pharmacy undertaken under the national competition policy. The review recommended retaining the restriction that only pharmacists and friendly societies may own a pharmacy business but that corporate ownership be allowed if all shareholders and directors 3046 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 are pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and specified relatives. The bill implements these recommendations. Restricting ownership of pharmacy businesses to pharmacists with limited exceptions recognises that pharmacist owners have a professional as well as a commercial interest in the safe and competent provision of pharmacy services. The restriction ensures that pharmacists as business owners are directly accountable to the Pharmacists Board of Queensland for the provision of these services. The review also recommended removal of the cap on the number of pharmacies that a pharmacist may own. However, the bill retains a cap but relaxes the current cap by increasing from four to five the number of pharmacy businesses that a pharmacist may own. It also introduces a cap of six for pharmacy businesses that a friendly society may own. This position was reached following concerns expressed by key industry stakeholders about the possible removal of the ownership cap. The Prime Minister has informed the Premier that Queensland will not be financially penalised under national competition policy for retaining a cap as provided for in the bill. New South Wales has recently amended its legislation to impose the same cap as in this bill. Other significant changes under the bill clarify that the ownership restrictions apply to community pharmacies and not hospital pharmacies and define ownership by reference to holding a proprietary interest in a pharmacy business. The amendments require that friendly societies that own a pharmacy business and demutualise, for example, by converting into a for-profit company must dispose of their interests in the pharmacy business within six months after demutualisation. The Mater Private Hospital will continue to be permitted to own its pharmacy but will be subject to the same ownership cap as friendly societies. In addition to pharmacy ownership provisions, the bill removes the restriction on practising pharmacy in accordance with a national competition review of core practice restrictions for health professions. In relation to pharmacy, the review found that the existing controls on the dispensing of scheduled medicines under the Health (Drugs and Poisons) Regulation provide an adequate level of protection for consumers. Therefore, the bill removes the restriction on the practice of pharmacy. The last substantive amendments made by this bill are to the Mental Health Act to fix a number of operational problems identified with the act since its commencement in 2002. In particular, the amendments aim to improve the operations of the Mental Health Court and the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This is to be achieved by increasing the time within which reasons must be provided to parties to any proceedings from seven days to 21 days. To ensure parties are not disadvantaged by this increase, the time in which an appeal may be lodged by a party is also to be increased from 28 days to 60 days. Amendments will also be made to provisions concerning our interstate patients who have absconded and are subsequently taken into custody in Queensland are dealt with. The bill also repeals the Drug Standard Adopting Act. The Commonwealth is making a new act to give effect to a treaty with New Zealand. The new act will establish a joint regulatory scheme between the two countries for drugs and therapeutic goods. The Queensland act will become redundant once the Commonwealth act is made. Finally, the acts listed in the bill's schedule are to be amended to update cross-references and make consequential amendments to reflect those contained in the bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Copeland, adjourned.

TOBACCO AND OTHER SMOKING PRODUCTS AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.13 p.m.): I present a bill for an act to amend the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 and for other purposes. I present the explanatory notes, and I move— That the bill be now read a first time. Motion agreed to. Second Reading Hon. G.R. NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (Minister for Health) (2.14 p.m.): I move— That the bill be now read a second time. The Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004 makes important amendments to the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998. The Bill proposes public health reforms to reduce the incidence of smoking and improve the health of Queenslanders. The reforms will result in the toughest restrictions in Australia on smoking in specified outdoor areas, significant restrictions on the advertising and display of smoking products and the phasing out of smoking indoor in licensed 20 Oct 2004 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 3047 premises. Section 52 of the act requires a review of the act and a report of the review outcomes to be tabled by May 2005. I now table the report of the outcome of that review on which this bill is based. The public health reforms in this bill have wide community support and set the standard for a reduction in smoking and passive smoking. Over 1,300 submissions were made in response to a discussion paper released in May this year. There was overwhelming public support for a ban on smoking inside hotels and clubs. There is also considerable public support for restricting the display of smoking products at retail outlets and banning smoking in some outdoor areas. I will now turn to the key reforms in this bill. Subject to some limited exceptions, smoking has been banned in enclosed places since 2001. One of the exceptions has allowed smoking in those parts of licensed premises that are not dining areas, bingo areas or gaming table areas. This bill provides for the phasing out of smoking in indoor areas of licensed premises by 1 July 2006. The bill recognises the role of industry in the implementation of these public health reforms. Licensees have a critical role in the implementation of the phasing out smoking in licensed premises. A regulation will be prepared shortly after debate of this bill to specify the detail of the phase in. Licensees will be expected to set aside one-third of indoor areas as nonsmoking by 1 January 2005. By 30 September 2005, licensees will be expected to set aside two-thirds of indoor areas as nonsmoking, and the total ban on smoking indoors at licensed premises will come into effect on 1 July 2006. I now turn to the provisions of the bill which will prohibit smoking in specified outdoor areas. Outdoor eating or drinking areas in cafes, restaurants, hotels, clubs and other food or drink businesses will also be nonsmoking from 1 July 2006. However, smoking will be permitted in designated outdoor smoking areas in hotels and clubs. An outdoor eating or drinking place is an outdoor area provided by a business for the consumption of food or drink from the business. The area where smoking will be prohibited may have table service or food or drink may be purchased at a counter or bar and taken by a customer to the outdoor area. The ban will apply, for example, to a courtyard at the rear of a cafe or an outdoor restaurant at a resort. It will also include kerb side dining, where the outdoor area is separate from the business premises, but is an area provided by the food or drink business for the purpose of consuming food or drink. The offence will not apply, for example, to smoking while drinking or eating in a park, as it is not a place provided by a food or drink business. The ban on smoking will apply while the food or drink business is providing food or drink, or while food or drink is being consumed in the area. Consequently, the pavement tables provided by a cafe will be nonsmoking during the hours the cafe is providing food or drink and, once the kitchen is closed, until customers finish their food or drink. As well as prohibiting smoking at an outdoor eating or drinking place, the bill makes it an offence for a person to continue to smoke if asked by an authorised person or the business operator to stop. It is also an offence for a business operator to supply food or drink to a person if they do not stop smoking when asked. Despite the ban on smoking at outdoor eating or drinking places, hotels and licensed clubs can make a business decision to set aside a designated outdoor smoking area. Licensees of hotels and clubs will also have an important role in the responsible management of smoking, either by deciding to make the entire outdoor areas of the licensed premises nonsmoking areas, or, if they allow smoking in a designated outdoor smoking area, by responsible management of smoking through a smoking management plan. A designated outdoor smoking area must be no more than 50 per cent of the outdoor licensed area of the hotel or club. The licensee must include buffers at the perimeter of each designated outdoor smoking area that is adjacent to outdoor areas ordinarily accessed by patrons. The buffers are intended to reduce the impact of smoking on people in nonsmoking areas. Buffers will be required, for example, between a designated outdoor smoking area and the nonsmoking part of a beer garden, and between the designated outdoor smoking area and outdoor areas where food is provided. No food or drink may be purchased or served in the designated outdoor smoking area and no food may be consumed there. No entertainment, including gambling, may be offered in a designated outdoor smoking area. However, a customer could take a drink which has been purchased in another part of the hotel or club into the designated outdoor smoking area for consumption. A licensee who decides to designate an outdoor smoking area will be required to develop and maintain a smoking management plan. The plan must be available for inspection by patrons and authorised officers. A smoking management plan must identify the designated outdoor smoking area, the buffer zones, the outdoor areas where food is provided, and state how smoking is managed at the premises with the aim of reducing smoking. Through the development of a smoking management plan, licensees will be able to adopt measures to manage and minimise smoking in a way that suits their particular business. I expect that licensees will work in a constructive way with staff and unions in developing their plan to minimise staff exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the designated outdoor smoking area. A smoking management plan would address staff training, signage and measures to manage smoking at the 3048 Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 licensed premises. If a licensee chooses to have a designated outdoor smoking area, it will be an offence not to a have a plan. This requirement is proposed to commence on 1 July 2006 simultaneously with a complete ban on smoking indoors at licensed premises and a ban in outdoor eating and drinking places apart from the designated space for outdoor smoking. Patrolled beaches, prescribed artificial beaches, areas near children's playground equipment and near non-residential building entrances will be nonsmoking from 1 January 2005. The bill enables local governments to work in partnership with Queensland Health and the community to monitor and enforce compliance with these outdoor smoking bans. While local governments are not obliged to enforce these bans, I look forward to a high level of participation in ensuring that beaches, building entrances and children's playgrounds are nonsmoking. Any fines resulting from a proceeding by local government for an offence will be paid to the local government. The bill prohibits smoking within four metres of the entrance to non-residential buildings which are open for access. The ban on smoking near a building entrance will not apply to entrances to residential buildings including multi-unit residential accommodation such as motels, flats or boarding houses. The smoking ban near building entrances will not apply to the entrances to hotels and cubs and building entrances that are part of an outdoor pedestrian mall. The ban will apply for different periods of time depending on the hours a building is open. For example, smoking will be banned near the entrance to a retail shop from 9 a.m. 5.30 p.m. on most days but will be banned for an extended period during late- night shopping. The ban will not apply if a person is merely passing a building entrance while smoking. In order to ensure that the offence is enforced appropriately, Queensland Health will develop guidelines about enforcement. Enforcement will focus on people who smoke while loitering near building entrances that are open for access. The guidelines will discourage enforcement of the ban in circumstances such as a smoker walking along the footpath who stops briefly within four metres of a building entrance to greet someone, to put money in a parking meter or other legitimate activities. Also from 1 January 2005 it will be an offence to smoke at a patrolled beach area during the time it is patrolled or at artificial beaches between sunrise and sunset. The bill defines a patrolled beach area as the area between the flags which mark a safe swimming area extending 50 metres into the water and to the landward boundary of the beach. Smoking will be banned in this area while the flags are present. The smoking ban will apply to artificial beaches or outdoor swimming areas such as South Bank beach and Airlie Beach lagoon, which will be prescribed in the regulation I referred to earlier. The ban will apply to the whole of the artificial beach during daylight hours. A ban on smoking will also apply within 10 metres of children's playground equipment from 1 January 2005. However, it will not be an offence to smoke in a car or on residential land that is close to playground equipment. The bill also provides for a ban on smoking at major venues managed by the Major Sports Facilities Authority from 1 January 2005. Smoking will therefore be banned at the Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, the Brisbane Entertainment Centre, the Queensland Sport and Athletics Centre— formerly the QEII Sports Centre—the Sleeman Centre and Dairy Farmers Stadium in Townsville. The ban will apply in areas which are normally accessed by paying an entry fee. In those parts of the venues occupied by food or drink businesses, the bans on smoking in outdoor eating or drinking places will also apply. I want to record my appreciation for the constructive approach taken by the Major Sports Facilities Authority in supporting these proposed smoking bans. Since restrictions on advertising and display of smoking products were included in the act in 2001, the government has recognised that substantially stronger restrictions are necessary to reduce exposure to tobacco promotion, particularly for young people. This bill will limit a retailer to only one smoking product display at a retail outlet. Tobacconists may have a display of smoking products of up to three square metres, while other retailers will be limited to a maximum display area of one square metre. If a retailer has a cigar humidifier, it may be placed separately to another display of smoking products, but the surface area through which the humidifier contents can be seen is taken to be part of the permitted area of display of smoking products. It is not necessary for the display area to be a display unit. The smoking product display could use existing shelving or an existing stack dispenser. A retailer with a two square metre display could, for example, cover part of the display to comply with the new requirements. The bill defines ‘tobacconist' as a retail business where 80 per cent or more of turnover is from the sale of smoking products and the business is conducted separately from and not within the premises of another business. The intention of this definition is to prevent other retailers such as supermarkets from purporting to be a tobacconist that is permitted to have a smoking product display of up to three square metres. Further restrictions on display include prohibiting retailers from displaying images which promote the use of a smoking product, prohibiting displays of cigarette cartons and further restricting price boards, price tickets and discount signs. Access to vending machines will be further restricted by requiring them to be readily observed by employees. The act already prohibits the supply of objects or entitlements associated with the sale or consumption of a smoking product, but shopper loyalty schemes currently have a defence. The bill limits the application of the defence to prevent a retailer or retail chain providing points or discounts as a direct 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3049 result of the sale of smoking products. Retailers will have until 31 December 2005 to implement changes so that discounts or benefits are not provided as a result of purchases of smoking products. Loyalty schemes based simply on credit card usage will not be affected by this bill in recognition that the credit provider does not have access to information about what products are purchased while using a credit card. A new offence and increased penalties for existing offences are included in the bill to prevent the sale of smoking products to children. It will be an offence for a minor to falsely represent themselves to be 18 years or over for the purpose of purchasing cigarettes, tobacco or smoking blend. Young people alleged to have falsely represented their age will be referred by Queensland Health staff to the Queensland Police Service, which has the capacity to caution minors. Penalties for the existing offences of selling smoking products to minors are significantly increased in the bill. As a further deterrent of sale to minors, retailers who are convicted of selling cigarettes or tobacco to minors risk being prohibited from supplying smoking products. The bill gives the court a broader discretion to impose an order that prohibits supply of smoking products by a person convicted of supply to minors. Supply of smoking products could be prohibited for up to six months for a first offence, up to one year for a second offence and up to three years for a third or later offence. Manufacturers and wholesalers of smoking products will be required to provide retailers' contact details on the request of the chief executive of the department. The information provided is to be used to compile a list of suppliers to enable information and advice about the act and its requirements to be distributed and to facilitate monitoring and enforcement of the act. Implementation of these reforms will be a responsibility shared between Queensland Health; those local governments that decide to enforce smoking bans on beaches, near children’s playgrounds and building entrances; food and drink businesses; and licensees of hotels and clubs. Given the broad support for measures to reduce smoking, the community will also have an important role in reminding smokers of the limits on where smoking is permitted. Queensland Health will appoint additional environmental health officers to monitor and enforce compliance with the proposed restrictions. Importantly, as part of comprehensive reforms such as these, Queensland Health will implement a major public education campaign about these public health reforms, and will work with industry to support their implementation. I commend the bill to the House. Debate, on motion of Mr Copeland, adjourned.

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3044. Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (2.30 p.m.), continuing: I will now discuss the proposals in this legislation that deal with the provision of information to carers and children and to other agencies involved. As the minister well knows, the matter of what information is provided to whom has been an ongoing problem in the administration of this legislation. I will pull no punches by stating that in the past I believe that the privacy provisions relating to children in care have been used as a defence against accountability. The minister is well aware that the pro forma response by the department to correspondence raising concerns about children in care was to basically tell people that the matter could not even be discussed. I know that in this respect the minister has made changes—and we appreciate that—but I fear that the same culture pertains. It is a balancing act, and I acknowledge that, but people raising concerns about the safety of children in particular need to be assured that matters are being examined and that their concerns are being taken seriously. I remind members that this concern is not just one of the opposition's concerns; it was a matter discussed in some depth in the protecting children report. One of the most significant aspects of this legislation is the formal establishment of the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect—or SCAN—system. The proposed system establishes core members of the SCAN teams, including the departments of Child Safety, Queensland Health, Police, Education and, where necessary, the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agency for the child. The key responsibilities of these teams are to share information and agree on recommendations to the chief executive about the protection needs of children. Perhaps the most fundamental issue identified by the CMC inquiry is the quite strident criticism of the failure of basic records systems. The success of the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry and, for that matter, the establishment of the Department of Child Safety, hinges upon the development of an adequate case management recording system and associated information exchange. I am aware that the department is developing an integrated client management system and, in view of the criticality of the system to the measures included in this legislation, I ask the minister to provide an update regarding the implementation of the ICMS. In July, the minister advised that the system would be developed over three years at an overall cost of $44 million. Is that program still on 3050 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 track? Is that cost estimate still accurate? I ask that, because I know of the propensity for IT projects of that size to blow out considerably when the real complexities of the business rules become evident. This is critical from two perspectives: firstly, if the project is delayed, then the increased reporting arrangements will not work without putting additional strain on staff and families; and, secondly, if the cost blows out, the temptation would be for the money to be diverted. The opposition welcomes the mandatory reporting by registered nurses. I would like to remind the minister that this was an issue that the opposition referred to the CMC in its submission to the inquiry. I note the amendments to the Child Care Act, which recognise the total impracticality of the original provisions by simply recognising that suitability notices take some time to issue, particularly if the proper inquiries are to be made. These are commonsense arrangements and address reservations that the opposition made at the time to the original legislation. Part 5 of this bill seeks to amend the Commission for Children and Young People and Guardian Act 2000. In his second reading speech, the minister explained that this provision extends the commissioner's powers from the Child Safety Department and licensed care services to other government departments and non-government agencies. Firstly, I note the exemptions in relation to these powers and particularly the exemptions that relate to internal review or investigations. My concern that I refer to the minister is that if the commissioner is not able to investigate something that is the subject of an internal review, then does that not permit an agency to prevent this external monitoring by instigating an internal review? I would like the minister to explain what safeguards would prevent this from occurring. I also note the minister's comments that the emphasis of these investigations is on high-level monitoring and not upon decisions made in individual cases. Although I appreciate that there is not scope for the commissioner to interfere in the legal processes outlined in the minister's second reading speech, I would like the minister to clarify the role of the complaints and investigation functions of the commission. In particular, I would like the minister to explain to the House what appeal process is open to a parent of a child who disagrees with the decision of the department or an agency. The minister knows just how emotional some of these issues can be. Despite the best intent of the department, people will disagree with the department's findings and the processes. Unfortunately, as the protecting children report has found, in some cases these frustrations with the department have sometimes been justified. Whilst the legislation that we are considering refers specifically to the monitoring role, I refer the minister to the complaints and investigations sections of the commissioner's web site, which professes a role much more expansive than those proposed in this legislation. For example, under the heading ‘How will the Commission help?' clients are advised— We can advocate for you and give you advice. This means that we can take up your concerns and try to negotiate a better outcome with the service provider ... If you have concerns about the services or support you are receiving from a service provider we also have the power to investigate your concerns or complaint. The site also goes on to state— If the Commission can't help, we will find someone else who can. I ask the minister if this information is in accord with what he and the legislation are saying about the monitoring powers being restricted to systemic issues and not to individual cases, because that is certainly not what people are being told. I also ask the minister to confirm that the child protection complaints team is still the appropriate body to which to refer members of the public who have complaints regarding departmental actions and decisions. If it is, I ask the minister to confirm that this team, including its 1800 phone number, is adequately resourced. In relation to the specific provisos of this bill, I also note that the minister gave an assurance in his second reading speech that the monitoring plans developed by the commissioner are to be submitted to cabinet for information and notation. I fail to see what benefit that provides other than effectively ensuring that they will remain a cabinet secret for 30 years. Accordingly, the opposition calls on the minister to also table these monitoring plans in parliament. After all, these plans will already have been negotiated with the relevant agency. So I would like the minister to advise why these plans should not be provided to the parliament. In conclusion, as opposition members have previously indicated, the opposition is continuing its assurance of bipartisan support for the implementation of the recommendations of the protecting children report. In addition to providing that support, the opposition will continue to endeavour to ensure that these recommendations are implemented effectively and that the end result is the improved safety of children who come to the notice of the many government agencies that share an obligation to ensure those children's safety. Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (2.37 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill. This important bill will implement the second stage of legislative reforms resulting from the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report Protecting children: an inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. That report found that the child protection system in Queensland was 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3051 ineffective for many children. The report highlighted partial and, in some instances, complete system failures over many years. One hundred and ten recommendations for improvement to child protection legislation policy and practices were outlined. A number of acts are amended by this legislation to ensure a more child-focused approach to child protection. This legislation will strengthen safeguards for children and young people in the child protection system by establishing a legislative framework for case planning for children who are in need of protection and require ongoing assistance under the Child Protection Act 1999. The amendments will also strengthen the coordination of agency responses to the protection and needs of children, ensure case planning processes for children subject to ongoing intervention under the Child Protection Act 1999 is undertaken, ensure reporting of suspected harm to children by mandating doctors and nurses to notify the Department of Child Safety, and enhance the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian by extending those powers to other agencies. Better communication between providers, the public, government agencies and authorities and with the child are key principles of this amendment bill. It will mean that relevant information about the proposed carer is given to the child, and that the child's views will be taken into consideration when deciding what information to actually give a carer. The bill removes any legal or legislative barriers to service providers sharing information relevant to the protection and care of children. The timely sharing of relevant information by agencies regarding a child's protection or care needs is essential to guaranteeing the safety of that child and providing a coordinated and responsive delivery of services that meets the needs of the child and his or her family. The bill requires prescribed entities to give relevant information to the Department of Child Safety if requested by the chief executive. Prescribed entities include the Queensland Police Service and the departments of Communities, Health, Education, Disability Services, Housing and Corrective Services. Care services licensed under the Child Protection Act 1999, non-state schools and hostels funded by the Department of Education for the accommodation of students are also included. The bill will amend the Health Act 1937 to impose a mandatory notification obligation on all registered nurses and doctors operating in Queensland who become aware of or reasonably suspect that a child has been harmed or is at risk of harm. Service providers and prescribed entities that give relevant information will be protected from liability and cannot be held to have breached any law or act. Another important aspect of this bill is that the child is kept informed of matters affecting him or her in order to consider the views of the child and to ensure the child has the opportunity to participate in making decisions affecting his or her life. This government has committed additional funding in excess of $200 million per annum by 2006- 07 to improve the delivery of child protection services in Queensland. There is no bigger priority for this government than to protect the lives of our most vulnerable, to keep our children safe. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.41 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2), the second stage of the child safety legislative reforms. I put on the record my appreciation to the minister and his officers for the briefing. I think they would have to be the most proactive in terms of ensuring that we are across the new provisions of their legislation, and I appreciate that very much. I also put on the record my appreciation to the family support officers and administrative staff at the Department of Child Safety in Gladstone. One of the most difficult jobs in government is to constantly see children and some adults at perhaps the lowest point in their lives and to have to intervene at times in family circumstances where there is a great deal of emotion, some negativity and the possibility of things becoming more physically violent. They do not have an easy job, and I place on the record my appreciation to them for the work that they do. Police in our electorates also play an important role in the child protection area, and I place on the record my appreciation to them. Many speakers have talked about the importance of our children. I think every single one of us would echo those statements. Children are entrusted to us to raise, to train and to develop into independent, mature adults. It is not an easy job. It is probably the main job that parents have and the one that there is the least possible training for. Parenting is an investment of our time and our energies, love and affection. As these kids grow and mature into adults, they repay that commitment on the parents' part. There is a growing number of children in our society whose faith and trust is betrayed not only by parents but perhaps by close relatives. We teach our kids stranger danger as soon as they are old enough to understand it. Unfortunately, we also have to start to teach them ‘known person danger’. The majority of harm done to children is done to them by people they know. This is also applicable in terms of the personal safety of children in their home environment. It is usually by somebody entrusted with their care. 3052 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

There are a number of elements of the bill, including case planning; the provision of information to carers and children; information sharing between agencies and service coordination; the legislative establishment of the SCAN system; mandatory reporting by registered nurses and doctors; and the extension of the Child Guardian monitoring powers to other agencies. I will touch on a couple of those matters. The new requirement, after the CMC report, for case planning represents a very good direction to take. It means an enormous amount of work and a great deal of commitment on the part of not just the case managers within the Department of Child Safety but also every agency that has contact with that child. It is important, too, that in this legislation the child, the child's family and others who support the child are to be included in the case planning. It will be required that those plans be reviewed at least every six months. I think it has to be recognised that that will demand a huge commitment of resources in terms of both human time and the electronic storage and conveyance of that information. The minister has spoken on a number of occasions about the extra resources that are to be committed to this new structure. They will very much be needed and called on. While I think that six-monthly review will mean a very close eye is kept on the way a child in care or a child at risk is being supported by the department and other relevant departments, it will require a significant investment of resources. I have had concerned families approach me with an issue. It appears to relate to a particular age group of children who fall into a grey area. It does not seem to be problematic to get families of young children involved in case management or at least in discussing options, but I have had a lot of families express frustration—not just in terms of the Department of Child Safety but also in health care areas— about the process involving teenagers of 14, 15 or 16 years. They are still minors, but in a lot of decision-making areas government agencies see them as independent adults. Parents become very concerned that decisions are being made and conversations about their children are being held with them being excluded. I seek clarification from the minister as to whether case plans, with the participation of the child and the child's family, will include teenagers. As I said, it is almost a natural thing that a small child will have a carer present, but a problem arises in relation to teenagers, who are still the responsibility of parents. The parents who care want to be involved in the case management but at times have alleged that they have been excluded. I seek some clarification in relation to the 13 to 16 age range. Mr Reynolds: Anyone under 18 years of age, whether a child or a young person, should be included in case planning. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: That is reassuring. As I said, the families that have been to me expressing concern have been ones whose children are in those teenage years, where they are establishing themselves as individuals but in these instances obviously still need a deal of support. The provision of information to carers and to children is an important element of this bill. It will require the provision of information to the carer. The information that is imparted will be necessary for the carer to make an informed decision about whether or not to accept the placement of a child. I am sure that all of us have had instances in which a parent has alleged that they were ‘tricked' into relinquishing the child. My view is that there is always another side to the story, that there is a departmental motivation that has to be identified and talked through. Certainly, where the department is faced with a parent who it is thought is an abuser then the department needs a discretion in terms of what information is imparted to the carer. A number of years ago there was a situation where information was not well conveyed, and a foster-carer in my electorate was given a child to care for in the short term but was not advised that the child, who was a minor, had an abusive habit. The foster-carer had children of their own who were at risk. It is before the minister's time and it has been dealt with, but this legislation ensures that that sort of incident does not recur. A foster-carer would be advised of any incidents in that young person's background that might make them an inappropriate placement. I think that is a very strong element in this legislation. In the minister's briefing he talked about departments acting as silos—acting in isolation from each other—although the combined effects of the efforts of those departments aggregate in a result for the child. This legislation brings in some obligations for departmental cooperation. Again, I believe that will have to be a learnt culture. Everybody is busy. People in the Health Department are busy. People in the Department of Child Safety are busy, and it will be easy to continue to work in that isolation. I am encouraged by the minister's outline during the briefing that the structures will be put in place where that coordinated meeting will occur as a matter of course. The departments that have been suggested are Health, Education, Communities, Disability Services, Housing, adult corrective services, the Queensland Police Service—and that would include the JAB particularly—licensed care services, non-government schools and student hostels. So there would be an ability for the Department of Child Safety to elicit information from those various areas— quite diverse in some instances in terms of their interest in the child, in the child's activities and the child's development. However, the information if put together can significantly identify patterns in a 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3053 child's behaviour or patterns in a child's vulnerability. I believe that in great measure will strengthen the position of the Department of Child Safety in making informed and appropriate decisions. The legislation also requires the mandatory reporting by registered nurses and doctors. I believe a lot of folk in the community think that obligation currently exists. I am not convinced that many in our community do not realise that for many agencies there is not a mandatory reporting process. I ask the minister what obligations he could see being developed in the future for other areas which have regular contact with children—for example, child care staff or non-medical staff who regularly see children. I would hope most adults, if they were concerned or had suspicions that a child was being abused, be that physically, psychologically or sexually, would inform somebody who could elicit an examination of the information. That does not always happen, and unfortunately mandatory reporting requirements are a big stick to ensure that information that could be used to intervene in a child's mistreatment or identify a child at risk have to be put in place. The extension of the Child Guardian's monitoring powers to some of the extended departments is also welcome. The bill gives the Commission for Children and Young People monitoring powers over government departments mainly responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy, administration of justice, adult corrective services, community services, disability services, education, housing services, public health, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Legal Aid Queensland, the Public Trust Office and the Police Service. That is extensive. Again, whilst it is a huge commitment of resources, it can result only in a better outcome for children who are either being abused or who are at risk of abuse. There are, however, a number of exemptions and there is one on which I wish to seek clarification from the minister. The obligation to provide information is placed, as I said, on a diverse group of people. However, the obligation will be waived if the information provided could reasonably expect to prejudice the effectiveness of a lawful method or procedure for preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with a contravention or possible contravention of the law. There are a few other situations where the information does not have to be provided. My question is this: does that particular exemption mean that a child suspected of being at harm could be left in that situation if the investigators—and I will use the police as an example—believe the Department of Child Safety's intervention could interrupt the police case? That is the best example I can give. It reads as if that is the case. For example, if there were an investigation on foot by the police, by JAB or by some other entity, and the Department of Child Safety goes to that entity and asks for information about the child, can it withhold that information? My concern is that would leave the child in a situation of either abuse or risk. So I seek a clarification from the minister on that issue. A comment was made by the member for Burdekin in regard to our interaction as elected members with the Department of Families in terms of either advocating for constituents or our endeavours to get balancing information when allegations have been made by constituents. I think in many instances it depends on the level of trust that has developed between the department and the member's office. I think in many cases there is a good working relationship, but I would seek clarification from the minister if he can give it in relation to that working relationship and how it would be developed. Most members do not want to and do not need to know the details of an individual's case, but we all know how diverse the situations are which we find ourselves in in our electorate offices. I would say that overwhelmingly—100 per cent—members are in this work because we want to help people; we want to get the best result for people. Again—100 per cent—none of us would support any situation where a child was at risk or being harmed. It is not our role to advocate for people who are doing the harm, but we need that working relationship with the Department of Child Safety rather than a constant call ‘privacy provisions do not allow us to discuss the concerns of the elected member.’ I commend the minister for the amendments to section 172 to enable a magistrate to issue a warrant for the apprehension of a child where a child has been lawfully removed but has been kept by a person longer than the time allowed for the removal. This happens a lot when there is an estrangement in a marriage or there has been a divorce and the Family Court, in particular, has made a direction or when there has been a mutual agreement reached where a child will be visiting the non-custodial parent, and the non-custodial parent can at times take it upon themselves not to return the child on time. Again, it is the child who is the victim in the situation. It is usually done to highlight the level of angst between the two adults. I believe that power will answer the concerns of a number of custodial parents who feel helpless at the time that the child is not returned because the process for that child's return is lengthy and convoluted at the moment. These amendments will change that and they will give a great deal of peace of mind to those parents who have undertaken the full-time care of a child when a marriage has broken down. I commend the minister again for the work that has been done, and I commend all of his departmental staff who have been involved in our briefings and, more importantly, those who have been involved in considerable consultation and the drawing up of this legislation. The children of Queensland can only benefit from added protection and the measures that this legislation provides. I will be supporting the legislation. 3054 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN (Pumicestone—ALP) (3.00 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. As members of this House might recall, I spoke earlier this year about my enthusiastic acceptance of an offer to join the new ministerial child protection committee ably headed by the minister, Mike Reynolds. I stated then that he was committed to the Peter Forster reforms and that I was looking forward to working with him to achieve those outcomes. In March this year the minister's department released a blueprint for implementing the 110 recommendations of the January 2004 Crime and Misconduct Commission—or CMC—report titled Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. This bill implements stage 2 of those recommended legislative reforms. In the minister's words, the past six months have not only been busy and intense but have also been very challenging. The child safety reform agenda being led by the new Child Safety Department has to date fully completed 18 of the CMC's recommendations and is on track to implement the rest by 2006. This bill today strengthens the protection of the most vulnerable children and young people in our community. It includes provisions to enhance the child safety system by providing the case planning for children and young people, enabling mandatory reporting of suspected harm to children by relevant doctors and registered nurses, removing barriers to information sharing between relevant agencies, encouraging coordinated service provision by agencies to children, their families and others involved in the care of children, and increasing the accountability and responsibility of a broad range of agencies in relation to policies, systems and practices that impact on children in the child safety system by extending the scope of the monitoring functions and powers of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. While all these increased protections are important, I wish to concentrate the remaining time I have on a couple of specific areas that will be of particular benefit to the children in the area I represent. Firstly, on the improvements of the suspected child abuse and neglect process, or SCAN—which is a forum through which key government agencies contribute to assessment of and responses to children's protection needs—members would recall that in its report the CMC made several recommendations relating to the enhancement of the SCAN process. I am pleased to see that this bill implements them. This will ensure better outcomes for children at risk of abuse or harm. This is the first time the SCAN process will be backed by legislation, and I am proud to be part of the government that introduced it. The core agencies involved in the SCAN system are the Department of Child Safety, the Queensland Police Service, Queensland Health and the Department of Education and the Arts. A recognised indigenous agency will also be a core member in relation to an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child, and there is flexibility for other entities to be invited to participate where deemed necessary and/or appropriate. Having all these relevant agencies involved in the decision-making processes will ensure that all available information is considered when making decisions about a child, which hopefully will lead to better outcomes for him or her. As other members have previously mentioned, this Beattie government is backing the reforms with funding. It has allocated an extra $24.4 million over the next three years to the SCAN system. Some $6.5 million of this was allocated in the 2004-05 state budget. This has meant that resources have been able to be directed towards SCAN matters, particularly in relation to the coordination of SCAN teams and the provision of administrative and IT support. The second area that I want to specifically talk about is the provision of individual case planning for children where the bill provides for children who are in need of protection and which the government recognises as vital to deliver quality child protection services to children and families. The bill recognises the need for the Department of Child Safety to work in partnership with families and agencies to address child protection issues. While it will undertake case planning for children, when it is developing or reviewing a case plan under this bill the department must provide those agencies an opportunity to have input into the planning process. I know from working with families in the Pumicestone electorate that it is often issues such as lack of housing, lack of affordable health care or education matters which contribute to the stress on families. This can be a factor which leads to negative outcomes for children. This holistic approach to a child's needs is very important and should significantly improve relations between government departments, agencies and families. The process will work as follows. The Department of Child Safety will be required to convene a family group meeting to develop the case plan. The meeting could involve the child, where appropriate, the parents, extended family members—for example, grandparents and aunts—and perhaps a foster- carer. These partners will also participate in the review of the case plan. Case plans are to be reviewed regularly as a child's needs change over time. We have to get this right and ensure that the system that we are putting in place to care for our most vulnerable children is responsive to those changing needs. Before finishing I would like to thank the minister, the Hon. Mike Reynolds, and his department for the recent major funding boost towards providing alternative care places for children whose needs are extreme and who do not fit in with the traditional foster families. These are our at-risk children who will now be provided with non-family based placements by two groups—the Mercy Family and Life Without Barriers—to cater for their complex needs. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3055

Ms Male: I attended that recent launch, and they are two fantastic services. Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: I take that interjection from the member for Glass House, and I acknowledge the fact that she and I did attend that launch. That decision was most welcome. I know that the member for Glass House would agree with me when I say that we are very proud to be part of a government which is prepared to work in collaboration with other funded services to deliver more and better choices for these young people. This new alternative care funding package is the first of several initiatives occurring within the Department of Child Safety which, in conjunction with the rest of the community sector partners, will help build the best child protection system in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (3.06 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of this bill. I think it is a wonderful thing. There is nothing quite as sacred and precious in Queensland as children. Anyone who knows me knows that that is a passionate belief of mine. In fact, I am reminded of the following words of a song by Phil Keaggy— Who will speak up for the little ones Helpless and half-abandoned, They've got the right to choose life they don't want to lose. I've got to speak up. Won't you? A government member interjected. Mr CHRIS FOLEY: Yes, I should have sung it. Today I am very proud to be part of a parliament that is taking decisive action on legislation dealing with children. I came across an interesting quote that said— Children are like wet cement: anything you do leaves an impression. Certainly many impressionable kids in Queensland have been cruelly crushed emotionally by the breakdown in the traditional family unit. There have been many kids who have struggled in Queensland. This issue of child safety is a very complex one. I want to put on the record of the House that I thank the minister for the extra resources that he has given to Maryborough, which has been a hot spot of trouble in the past but we are working through those issues and achieving some good outcomes. In terms of looking in a little more detail at the bill, I also commend the minister on the establishment of the family group meetings which involve the child, the child's extended family and other people and entities who comprise the child's system of support as central to the case planning process. This recognises the fact that children do have opinions. Sometimes children may not gel with a certain person. That is certainly a step in the right direction. I also note that the chief executive of the Department of Child Safety and licensed care services is to provide a prospective carer for a child with the information the carer reasonably needs to decide whether to accept the placement of the child. On balance that is a good decision, even though it can be somewhat of a two-edged sword in that when given that advice there might be some foster-carers or would-be carers who may not want to accept that child. In my own circle of friends there is a couple who do not have any children of their own who provide foster care on a very regular basis. When they took in another emergency child, there was all sorts of havoc and pandemonium. Also, the chief executive is to provide information to the child about the prospective carer to enable the child to participate in decision making about the proposed placement. Whilst that is a very noble idea, sometimes I wonder whether a child would actually be mature enough to recognise what those right decisions would be. However, I recognise the intent of that provision. The chief executive is also to provide the child and carer with an opportunity to meet prior to the placement, if possible. That is a marvellous idea in that it enables people to see whether there is a rapport between the child and the prospective carer. That can only be a good thing. The bill also amends the Child Protection Act 1999 to remove any legal or legislative barriers to service providers sharing information relevant to the protection and care of children and the timely sharing of relevant information by agencies. At the end of the day it is all about good communication between those stakeholder groups. I am a little concerned that adequate safeguards are in place to make sure that that information is not misused or handled inappropriately. I note that the prescribed entities are the Queensland Police Service, the departments of communities, health, education, disability services, housing and corrective services, care services licensed under the Child Protection Act 1999, non-state schools and hostels funded by the Department of Education for the accommodation of students. Obviously that is a very, very broad brush group, and it is a group that it is logical to share that intelligent information with, but I would ask the minister to clarify what the safeguards are likely to be in that situation to provide for the non-misuse of that information as it is shared. One of the other aspects of the bill that I wanted to speak on was the mandating of registered nurses to report suspected harm to a child and requiring doctors and nurses to report suspected harm directly to the Department of Child Safety. I note in the explanatory notes that that provision is kept for registered nurses and not enrolled nurses. I have some degree of concern about that, but on balance I 3056 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 would say that it is a good idea; I am not arguing that at all. The only thing that concerns me is what if a child is climbing a tree, falls out and ends up with a black eye. The child is grounded by their parent and is cranky and wants to get back at the parent and says, ‘Dad was giving me a hiding.’ There are a number of circumstances which will require a great degree of wisdom from the people who need to make a decision of notification to be absolutely sure that it is not just a schoolyard punch-up or a childish accident. The provision enabling nurses, doctors and other persons making that notification to be protected from liability is a noble cause. My only concern is the possibility of vexatious referrals by health carers who were involved in a situation they might be cranky about. On balance I think it is a wonderful piece of legislation. It provides for further safeguarding of children. That has to be the utmost priority of the House. Even if embarrassment was caused in some situations—for instance, a nurse or a doctor referred someone and they were looked into and it was found the family was completely innocent—the safety of the children is paramount and must be put ahead of everything else. I commend the bill to the House and I thank the minister for taking this strong action. Mr ENGLISH (Redlands—ALP) (3.14 p.m.): This is an historic bill in many, many ways. First I am actually going to agree with the member for Gregory that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House will pass in this term. It is important that we do not get into the blame game; that we do not try and play politics with this issue. We can look backwards and try to play politics about who did what to whom and when and why, or we can look forward together, in the spirit of bipartisanship, and try to solve the problem of members of our community abusing children. I would like to congratulate every member of the House who has spoken so far. Every member of this House has taken the attitude that we do wish to look forward. We are about solving this problem; we are not about blame or recrimination. This bill seeks to provide the best possible mechanisms for detection, investigation and, if appropriate, prosecution for people involved in child abuse. Some of the key elements are legislating for good case planning. I guess it is possible to say it is unfortunate that it had to come to legislating for that; however, we are where we are. The case planning mechanisms and regime for children that come to the notification of the Department of Child Safety is to be applauded. The ability to now provide information to our foster families proves that this government does trust that these are brave volunteers who volunteer to look after the most damaged children in our society. I believe it is foolish to ask a family to look after a child who has been damaged, who does have baggage, and to say, 'Please look after this child. Please provide a caring and nurturing environment. But no, we cannot tell you what baggage and what issues this child brings with them.' This bill proves that this government does have faith in its foster-carers to act responsibly and to give them the information that they need to provide that nurturing environment to that damaged child. For too long the silo mentality that has built up in many government instrumentalities, whilst it may have developed over time for good reason, has had the practical effect in many cases of inhibiting effective investigation and effective care of these children. The breaking down of these barriers, the breaking down of these walls to allow agencies to share information, will lead to the better care of our children. I also hope it leads to better prosecution of the offenders who commit these vile acts against our children. The SCAN system has been in operation for many, many years. I have actually sat on SCAN teams. These multidisciplinary teams are a great adjunct to child abuse investigation. It allows many agencies to come together and consider what is in the best interests of the child—not just what the police want or what the department of family services want. It allows medical input; it allows cultural input. Together around a table a decision can be made in relation to what is in the best interests of the child. Whilst SCAN teams have been in existence for many years it is great that they have now been formalised in a legislative regime. It is important, however, to note that if we are serious about child-focused case planning then we have to understand that not every abuse case will result in a prosecution. If the process of putting an offender through a prosecution process is assessed as being more damaging to the child than the abuse that they have suffered, then the decision must quite rightly be taken to not prosecute that offender. Does that mean we condone the behaviour? No. Decisions made in the best interests of the child will not always result in a prosecution. From my personal experience I can think of at least three cases where any reasonable person would agree that it was not in the child's best interests for the offender to be prosecuted. I do not give a damn about the offender, but the care and wellbeing of that victim is paramount. We do not wish to abuse the victim any further. This government has made great strides in making it easier for child victims and for other fragile victims to get their evidence before court with increasing use of closed-circuit television and other mechanisms. We try to make it easier, but we should not kid ourselves that it is—no matter how gentle we try to make it—a bundle of fun going through the court process. The experts who sit around the SCAN table will make decisions about that child with the child's best interests at heart; that may not always be a prosecution. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3057

The member for Maryborough made some comments about registered nurses being required to report suspected harm. I have some difficulty with where he is coming from. He asked the minister to guarantee that vexatious claims will never be made. That is impossible. I know I should not speak on behalf of the minister. From my perspective, one can never ensure or guarantee that a vexatious complaint will never be made. The issue is: will the investigation lead to the finding that it is a vexatious complaint and will the appropriate action be taken? When working in the police department I did a number of investigations that were uncomfortable for the family being investigated. I tried to convince them that they should be happy that someone out their in the community actually took the time and effort and cared enough about their child to pick up the phone and report their concerns. It turned out that there were some innocent explanations for the injuries and the screams or cries that were heard. I am not saying that it was not stressful for the family involved but someone in the community cared enough about that child to pick up the phone. For too long too many people in our society have stuck their heads in the sand and ignored this issue. By putting the harsh light of reality on this problem we know that there will be vexatious complaints and innocent people will be investigated. For that I am sorry. It is unfortunate. However, our primary focus must be the protection of children. I thank the minister and the departmental staff at all levels who day in and day out work to protect our state's most precious resource, our children. I commend this bill to the House. Mr MESSENGER (Burnett—NPA) (3.21 p.m.): I, like most Queenslanders and all members of this House, would prefer that we did not have to live in a world where it is necessary to legislate to protect our children from abuse and that we could live in a society where it was through the goodness of people's hearts and their sense of decency that all people wanted to love, care for and protect our children. The depressing and inescapable reality of life in our modern era is that laws guaranteeing the welfare and best interests of Queensland children have to be drawn up, reviewed in this House and acted on. Today, I wholeheartedly support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. The passing of this statute will make Queensland children safer. I commend the minister and his government for producing this legislation. Before I make comment on the specifics of the bill, I make the general comment that all Queensland children would be safer if every one of the 654 people convicted of indecent treatment of children under 16 from the years 1998 to 2003 served a jail sentence. Because 217 of those 654 people convicted of indecent treatment of children did not serve time in jail, all of Queensland's children are less safe. The case for mandatory sentencing for child sexual offenders still stands, will always stand and would complement the initiatives of the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. The genesis for stage 1 of legislative reform is found in the CMC's investigation into the abuse of foster-children in July 2003. The reason the original CMC investigation was implemented was political pressure placed on the Labor government by the opposition and the media. It was a letter from the member for Mirani which detailed abuse of foster-children in his electorate that started the process that eventually brought to light the gross mismanagement and systematic failure of our government, through the former Department of Families, to look after our kids and to keep them safe. This legislation, which all members acknowledge will make our kids safer, would never have come into being nor would the shake-up of the Families Department occurred and the creation of the new Child Safety Department become a reality if it was not for the honesty and tenacity of the opposition. The Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004 makes significant changes and improvements to the Child Protection Act 1999 which impacts on foster-carers. A private psychologist working in Bundaberg told my staff that there is a real problem in terms of the shortage of foster-carers and the quality of carers in our area. I am specifically talking about the Bundaberg-Burnett area. This professional apparently used to work for a foster-care organisation. He said the last he heard there were about 23 carers working in the Bundaberg-Burnett area between 2001 and 2003 while there were something like 28 children needing homes. The latest figures supplied to my staff this morning by the Bundaberg branch of the Child Safety Department suggest that there are about 68 foster-carers in the Bundaberg-Burnett region now. One of the disturbing things about the phone call that my staff member made was that the person who supplied this information said that they were not sure of the exact number because record keeping was less than ideal. Less than ideal is the way I have decided to paraphrase what the child safety worker said to my staff member this morning. The child safety worker put it in stronger terms. That person also indicated that there are a lack of resources in Bundaberg. This concerns me. I assume that it concerns the minister, too. Sloppy record keeping was one of the reasons the old Department of Families breached its to our foster-children and made them less safe. I know that that has been identified. I also know that the minister has given the member for Burdekin an undertaking to look at this vital administrative function. I would ask the minister whether he can make sure the Bundaberg-Burnett region has an efficient, effective and accountable client record keeping system. Secondly, I would like the minister to 3058 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 give a guarantee that sufficient staff and resources are allocated to the Bundaberg-Burnett area. It seems from the very basic and preliminary figures that that need is increasing in my area. I understand it is increasing around the state. Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr MESSENGER: I take the interjection from the minister. I understand that the record keeping program is in its infancy. Hopefully, the Bundaberg-Burnett area is one of the first areas to receive that foster-care directory. The private psychologist told my staff this morning that he was aware of a number of children who were abused while in foster homes. I have not had time to follow-up on that claim and call that person back. He may have been referring to cases that have already been dealt with by law enforcement or child safety officers. I will certainly be following that up. Mr Reynolds: I am very keen to hear of any case where someone feels that abuse has occurred in a foster-care or a family situation. Let’s hear about it and I can give you a strong commitment that we will follow up with the police. Mr MESSENGER: I thank the minister. I will give this person's name to the minister. He also believed that there is a lack of available support and resources in the Burnett. He says that the mental health services deal with some cases of domestic violence but because they are only funded specifically for the target groups of mental illness many cases of just domestic violence are not taken on by them. This mental health professional said that, because of the lack of funding and the lack of services available, he takes on children's cases and gives them a discount on the normal rate because they cannot afford the service normally. The mental health professional also says that he charges these domestic violence victims about $50 a session, and he is quite happy to do that. Apparently 10 per cent of his clientele get this discount. He is really concerned that our area is once again missing out on services for children affected by domestic violence. They have nowhere else to turn to. He says that there are guidance counsellors at school, but he said that these officers are reluctant to report such incidents and tend to keep out of domestic violence cases unless it is affecting the child's school work. Maybe there is a case there once again for retraining guidance counsellors within the Education Department. Other private counselling specialists are unaffordable for many. He said that the regular clients he sees who are charged the full rate are mostly from an upper socioeconomic category and families who can afford it. He said that these families seem to be okay on the outside to everyone, but on the inside they need help because domestic violence is of course occurring everywhere. Mr Reynolds interjected. Mr MESSENGER: I take the minister's interjection. Katrina Holtz is a social worker at the Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service. Katrina counsels children as young as three who have witnessed domestic violence—and I do not think that that will come as any surprise to members of the House—and who are affected by it. Children who witness domestic violence suffer similar symptoms to those who have been physically harmed from domestic violence. In Bundaberg, Lifeline has had so many domestic violence cases that it has had to establish a domestic violence unit entirely devoted to domestic violence. This consists of one full-time domestic violence worker and two part-time family domestic violence workers. The Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service is an invaluable service to the Bundaberg and Burnett community. I have spoken about this service previously, and I will continue to speak about it because of the sterling service that it does offer. It offers a comprehensive integrated service which provides a safe, supportive program for children and young people who have been sexually and/or physically abused and support for non-offending family members and carers. It also has an innovative prevention program which I will highlight shortly. It also provides a child centred and family focused program for children and young people who have sexually abusive behaviours and support for non- offending family members and carers. It provides a comprehensive primary, secondary and tertiary sexual violence prevention program along with other programs designed for sexually abused adult victims. In particular, the Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service offers a program known as Future Directions. It is a therapeutic preschool program which is a day therapy program for children between the ages of three and six years who have experienced harm or suspected harm and who are displaying harmful behaviour. The preschool program provides assessment and therapy for sexually abused children. Its group work clients in the therapeutic preschool course recently went up to nine clients. The total number of individual clients is about 196 at the moment. The step group has seven children and eight adults; the protective behaviour group has seven children; the foster-care group has a family of four; the adult group has 13 people—that is, basically women who were sexually abused in childhood; and the Keeping It Safe, Feeling Safe group has 12 adults with an intellectual disability. The total number of clients on its waiting list is around 43. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3059

According to Cathy Prentice, the service coordinator, its service is the only comprehensive service in the whole of Australia. She is very proud of the work that it does in Bundaberg, and rightfully so, too. It produces great results. It is a very proactive service. It is providing a support service for adults who have been sexually abusive. This service has worked with adult males for a number of years in this capacity and is called Stop It Now. I understand that the Child Safety Minister is aware of Cathy's Stop It Now program. Cathy has written to the minister about it. Her experience in this field includes being one of the directors of the Gracewell clinic in the UK which, following research undertaken by the British Home Office and according to Cathy, has demonstrated to be one of the most effective available programs in the UK at that time. I note that the Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service current funding as an NGO is provided by the Department of Child Safety and Queensland Health. I want to strongly advocate for continuing funding. The proactive measures in Bundaberg's Stop It Now program seem to agree with a course of action recommended by a CMC research paper written by Dr Jennifer Sanderson, who says— The recognition that child sexual abuse is a significant problem has led to an increase in prevention initiatives. These initiatives need to involve comprehensive interventions that target individuals and families as well as the sociocultural factors that underlie this form of abuse. Child-focused sexual abuse prevention programs are an important component of these efforts to decrease child sexual abuse. Before I commend this bill to the House, I want to compliment the minister and the staff of the Department of Child Safety. As we all know, they do a heck of a job. I do not know how some of them actually escape the realities of work life. They must have very supportive partners and families. It would be a very stressful position to be in. I also want to compliment the staff of the Bundaberg Area Sexual Assault Service—Cathy Prentice, Michelle Baker who is a group leader, Sheila Robbins who is a social worker, Katrina Holtz who is also a social worker, Paulina Van Elteren who is a child support worker, and Natalie Thompson who is an indigenous family support worker. I commend the bill to the House. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (3.37 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) before the House as it sets out to implement the recommendations of the Crime and Misconduct Commission's inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. All members who have spoken on this bill so far have recognised that this is an important piece of legislation as it strengthens the government's ability to protect Queensland children. In fact, it is hard to think of anything that could be more important than the safety of children. I bring a slightly different perspective to this debate as my wife is an officer within the Department of Child Safety as a child safety officer, and a number of members have spoken about the work that those officers do. It is a very difficult job, and she often comes home stressed out at some of the predicaments that families and children find themselves in. Sometimes when we drive home from work together at night she uses me as a sounding board and unloads some of the frustration she encounters as she deals with foster families, young people and departmental processes, because while this bill seeks to improve and open up government processes we have to acknowledge that people's circumstances are hard to control and regulate. We can only try to find the most perfect system without ever being able to solve every problem. This is made especially true when families break down or relationships break down and children are left in the middle, and the member for Gladstone said that often children get caught in the emotionally charged environment and are left neglected as parents sort out and get on with their own lives. Sometimes a young person does not get on with the foster family that they are with, and finding alternatives can be difficult. Sometimes in reaction to these circumstances the young people behave antisocially or begin self-harm practices. They may be reluctant to cooperate with the demands of officers from the department. Certainly youth homelessness is a concerning and tragic phenomenon in our modern world. Legislation before the House gives officers from the Department of Child Safety such as my wife greater capacity to deal with children at risk. It encourages the use of teamwork and coordination among different agencies so that, hopefully, services are delivered more efficiently to the families and young people. This coordination is about quickly recognising young people who are at risk and taking the appropriate action just as quickly. With more officers in different departments now looking out for abuse and sharing information about young people, the theory is that more young people will be brought into the safety net faster and will be provided with the best possible services. Currently, as a child safety officer my wife has 34 cases on her desk. She works four days a week to help meet our own family commitments, although she will soon go back to working five days a week. Certainly my wife, as somebody working at the coalface of this business, has welcomed the new arrangements. She believes that they will make her job easier. Her concerns are about resources in a growing and changing work environment. There is no doubt that the size of what the government is trying to build in child protection policy in Queensland will cause logistical difficulties as the new system rolls out. This can be frustrating for officers who are trying to get on with their job of protecting children and working with families while organisational changes are implemented. These organisational changes involve things such as training, relocation, getting a desk set up with a computer, team meetings and so on. 3060 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

Regularly reviewing cases is a matter of practice, but it is good that the bill before the House formalises that as part of the department's processes. It also takes time to get the message through to foster families and young people. Like child safety officers, police officers, nurses, housing officers and teachers need time to get used to the new arrangements. Certainly, the fairer remuneration and better support services for foster-carers and increased placement options for young people will assist the transition. Again, through my wife, I have met many people working in the department. My observation is that these people are professional people who have a genuine concern for the welfare of others. I have every confidence in their professionalism and determination to protect children. I acknowledge that just about every other member has acknowledged the difficult task that child safety officers face. So today I think of my wife and the 34 cases—or 34 families—that she has on her desk. No doubt I will hear about one or two of them. Of course, she would never give me their names. Some of the stories of the people she helps, some of the situations young people find themselves in and, most frustrating of all, some of the lengths people will go to not to help themselves would perhaps amaze and scare honourable members. The legislation before the House and the broader changes being introduced by the government, including increased resources, will make the job easier for my wife. But, more importantly, it will assist the welfare of Queensland children caught up in circumstances beyond their control. So we had the report, we developed a blueprint and now we go about implementing the necessary changes required for better child protection in Queensland. We must be ever vigilant, but there could be no doubt that the changes that we will pass today are an important step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (3.43 p.m.): I rise to advise that my party will be supporting this bill, as it supported the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. Both bills, and the third yet to be presented to parliament, follow the recommendations of the report of the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Protecting children: an inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. As a legal practitioner and, in particular, having worked in the Family Court jurisdiction, on many occasions I dealt with cases involving children who had been sexually abused, physically abused and emotionally abused. When I would issue subpoenas to the various government departments, such as the departments of Families, Police and Education, and gather reports from psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and the like, one of the matters that always struck me was the diverse range of information that was available. But it was only when it came to a legal decision that the threads of a child's life were drawn together. I cannot say what would have happened if the department had been able to liaise and exchange information in relation to children whom it believed were at risk or suffering from abuse. I would like to think that if even one child had been saved or protected, then that would have been worth all the effort. There is nothing sadder than seeing young children being dragged through a legal process and being used as footballs by parents when all they really want is a secure home environment and the love that they deserve as children plus the security of knowing that their parents will always be there for them. In researching this bill, I went to the Kids Help Line web site, which had been updated to September this year and which showed that in the 2003-04 financial year Kids Help Line counsellors responded to 5,154 contacts Australia-wide from children and young people with concerns about child abuse. This figure is up 10 per cent from the figure the previous year of 4,698. It is important to understand that the Kids Help Line defines physical abuse as the following— Caller identifies behaviour of family member or care giver that has caused harm. Includes a range of behaviours from slapping to actions that cause bruising or other injury. The info sheet on the web site also adds these words of caution— It is not possible to make complete assessments of abuse by telephone or online. However, Kids Help Line counsellors seek to identify situations of risk that require further assessment and referral to appropriate services. It goes on to state that of all contacts made, 16 per cent were received via web and email counselling, which is an increase of 60 per cent over the prior 12 months. Of the 5,154 contacts received last year, five per cent of these children and young people reported experiencing multiple forms of abuse. This figure translates to 250 children Australia-wide being abused in multiple ways. We should also bear in mind that these figures are derived from contacts by children themselves, not from other reports of abuse by doctors, police, nurses and the public. Of those who made contact with the help line, a staggering 80 per cent were female and 20 per cent were male. In a 12-month period, the help line received 1,677 contacts from young children and young people concerning sexual abuse and an additional 399 contacts where sexual abuse was a significant secondary problem. The help line defines sexual abuse as the following— Exploitation of child by family member for sexual gratification or stimulation. Characterised by secrecy and distortion of adult/child relationship. Includes a range of behaviours from touching, voyeurism, penetration, et cetera. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3061

Young people who had suffered sexual abuse were mainly contacting the Kids Help Line seeking ongoing support due to the effect of this abuse on their mental health, which included self-harm, nightmares, depression, anxiety, flashbacks of the abuse, suicidal thoughts or attempts, attacks, bulimia, anorexia, fatigue, loss of sleep and drug or alcohol abuse. The web site details a number of situations of young people and how they are suffering as a consequence of sexual abuse. One such situation is detailed as the following— Female (16) has been sexually abused by her father for as long as she can remember. She has been kicked out of home by her mother after disclosing the abuse. This problem of abuse continues and, sadly, it appears to be growing. Almost daily the newspapers and the TV reports contain incidents of abuse involving very young children who have endured the vilest of treatment and, in some cases, have died as a consequence of the abuse that they have suffered. The second stage of reform within the Department of Child Safety focuses on improving assessment and planning for children in need of protection. Following the CMC's recommendation, this bill attempts to enable children and their families to join in planning and decision making for the development of the child and, equally importantly in my opinion, the family dynamics in which the child resides. Firstly, it requires the Department of Child Safety to involve children, parents, extended family and agencies in the development and review of case plans; secondly, case plans must be developed and reviewed at least on a six-monthly basis; and, thirdly, priority must be given in the case planning process to children's needs for long-term stable care and the continuity of relationships. The minister stated the following in his second reading speech— Numerous reports both in Australia and overseas have identified the failure of agencies working with children and families to share relevant information with other agencies in a timely way and the lack of coordinated and integrated service delivery as a major contributing factor to the death of children who have been abused or neglected. We have realised this for a long time, as has the public. One of the major reports on this issue was in 1999 by former Governor Leneen Forde, who lifted the lid on child abuse in Queensland. The Forde report stated— The inquiry found little evidence that the Department of Families, Youth and Community Care actively works in a systematic way to reduce the risk of abuse of children in care in residential facilities. Five years and a CMC report later, the Beattie government is finally admitting that coordination between agencies has been sadly lacking and that it is an essential ingredient if we are to correct the mistakes of the past. One worrying concern is the length of time that this amount of consultation and discussion and the complex process involved in bringing a child under the protection of the department may take. Clause 18 inserts a new section 83A into the Child Protection Act 1999, which states that information must be given to carers about the child so that they can make an informed decision on whether they will accept this position of responsibility of the child and also, where possible, give the child the chance to meet their carer. In practical terms, this situation would be of overall benefit to the child. However, it poses the potential problem of slowing down the process of removing the child from a harmful situation and finding them suitable placement. I assume that the department will retain its right to act, in urgent cases, to move straight to legal proceedings. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.50 p.m.): The Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is the culmination of a huge undertaking by the minister and his staff, and I would really like to commend them for putting in train these measures. However, it is very much a new beginning, with a new department and a new way of working in a more collaborative way. I wish the department well. The protection and safety of our children must be the highest priority. While I believe that the vast majority of parents do the best they can for their children, unfortunately there are times when state authorities simply must intervene. We live in a world of fractured relationships and a high level of drug dependence, and often it is a combination of these factors that pulls parents down and affects their ability to care for their children. As this second child safety bill passes through this House, we can look forward to a greater degree of vigilance, more sharing of information, which is critical, detailed case planning and an overriding monitoring of the whole system. May I firstly commend the departmental workers who have struggled at times with huge workloads and challenging cases, often working within their own department without the vast resources and support of other departments and agencies which this new bill will grant them. We also need to recognise the contribution of those many foster families who have opened their homes and their hearts to children and young people, sometimes for a short stay while parents get through a rough patch but, it has to be recognised, sometimes for the long term. These vulnerable children often come with huge issues, bruised emotions and possibly physical and mental damage. I welcome the news that more families are offering to undertake this role as we seek to decrease the number of children in individual placements. Spearheading the new child safety initiatives is a greatly enhanced role for the SCAN teams, the suspected child abuse and neglect teams. One of the most significant advances is the ability to share information between departments and agencies—pivotal to the protection of children and our efforts for 3062 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 a successful outcome. The barriers of privacy have been set aside in specific instances where reporting and information are important when formulating case plans for children. Departments who sit around the table of the SCAN teams include Child Safety, Police, Education and Health. However, when a case involves an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child relevant people in that community will be intimately involved in the case plan. When carrying out investigations and formulating case plans, the Department of Child Safety will have the ability to consult other departments, such as Education, including non- government schools, Health, Police, Communities and Housing, and other relevant agencies. I welcome the mandatory reporting requirement of doctors and nurses, who are in a unique position to observe children who may be suffering abuse. Put simply, this bill enables information sharing which to this time has been impossible under present privacy legislation so that we might enhance the ability to detect child abuse and to protect our vulnerable children. As a government we are serious about protecting children, and this is clearly indicated by the allocation of an additional $24.4 million to support the SCAN system. These funds will ensure departments are adequately resourced with staff and training to fulfil their important role in child protection. I also note that a two-tiered SCAN system is being trialled in two areas, notably Townsville and my own area of Logan. The secondary level enables a special team to be convened to work at a more local level with relevant agencies in assessment and management of cases and is termed a community implementation team. In all aspects of this legislation the protection of children is of the highest importance. Special consideration has been given to Aboriginal and Islander services. This legislation also heralds a new day for foster-carers. As members of parliament I am sure we have all heard instances of our foster-carers undertaking their important role often with little information about the children and insufficient funds and facing the daily challenge often with very little support. An additional $40 per fortnight will be paid to foster families, and I am sure they will also welcome the opportunity for greater involvement in case management. There is one section of young people who may have very challenging behaviour and simply do not fit into the foster caring network. I am very pleased to see steps being taken to provide alternative care for these youngsters, for we recognise that every young person has value but there are some who need a different model. It was my pleasure to recently announce, on behalf of the minister, funding for almost $1 million shared between Anglicare and the Church of Christ in Logan City to provide alternative care. These organisations already have runs on the board and will make a valuable contribution. I believe that the case planning meetings, where families, children and all relevant agencies, including extended family members and foster-carers if applicable, come together to discuss plans which will be in the best interests of the child, have the ability to foster better relationships and understanding. I do hope so. If positive partnerships are able to be formed, we will see far better outcomes. Of course there is provision, where a child's welfare and safety are at risk, where urgent action must be taken, for the Department of Child Safety to take out a child protection order. The department needs to demonstrate to the court its inability to convene a family planning meeting. All cases with the department will require review at least every six months, and the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian has an overseeing role. Openness and sharing of information with parents and those with an interest in the child should improve relationships. I believe that the intent of this bill is to protect and to use all the powers available to us to ensure children are given the opportunities to grow up in a loving home and to realise their full potential and become full participants in our communities. In closing, I would like to mention the case of Stephen, a very fine young man who is now at Griffith University. He almost died at birth, had severe illness, developed hearing difficulties, lost his father at the age of five and was placed into foster care. After 12 difficult placings in foster homes, Stephen was taken under the wing of a worker for several months of intensive therapy. A dedicated foster family gave him the love and trust he needed and my Mabel Park High nurtured his talents. He has now won countless awards for sport, citizenship and volunteering. He has been involved in the national youth parliament and he is a mentor to young people in foster care. He also speaks to groups of parents whose children are in care about the need to keep positive and to always let the children know they are loved. Stephen is a fine example of how a young life can be turned around. This has been as a result of those near to him supporting, loving, caring for and nurturing him, and this is my wish for all of those children who desperately need the stability and care of a loving home. I welcome this bill and hope that all of those working within the framework it sets up will have the wellbeing of children at heart in all they do and will see many positive results. Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (3.58 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. The bill represents the second stage of legislative reforms that were recommendations from the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. The Beattie government committed to reforms leading into 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3063 the 2004 state election—a decision that the community accepted as one of leadership capability and determination. The Beattie government committed to implementing all 110 CMC recommendations that were outlined for implementation in a blueprint developed by Peter Forster and handed to the government in 2004. The recommendations are aimed at ensuring a more child focused approach to child protection and strengthening safeguards for children and young people in the child protection system. The bill seeks to strengthen the coordination of agency responses to the protection and care needs of children. To achieve this, the bill amends the Child Protection Act 1999 to remove any legal or legislative barriers to service providers that are referred to in this bill as prescribed entities such as Queensland Health, the Queensland Police Service, the Department of Communities, Housing, Corrective Services, et cetera— sharing information that is relevant to the protection and care of children. It is important that information is shared efficiently, as timing is often found to be critical in ensuring that the child is safe and that a coordinated and responsive service meets the needs of the child and the family. To strengthen case planning processes for children subject to ongoing intervention under the Child Protection Act 1999, this bill establishes a legislative framework for case planning that includes a duty on the chief executive of the Department of Child Safety to ensure that case plans are developed and continually revised, and the establishment of family group meetings that involve the child, the child's extended family and other people and other related entities that form part of the support network of the child. The legislative framework for case planning also ensures that case plans are regularly reviewed at least once every six months. I was pleased to read that, in order to develop this bill, the Create Foundation, an organisation that advocates for children and young people in care in Queensland, was provided with an opportunity to consult children and young people about how information regarding their lives should be shared. This bill incorporates a number of recommendations from this report which, if implemented, require further amendments to be made to the Child Protection Act 1999. The amendments ensure that information about a child and the carer can be shared so the carer is given information he or she would reasonably need to decide to accept a placement. As well, the child is given information about the carer to enable the child to participate in the decision process. These amendments ensure that the focus of any decision is about the child—by keeping the child informed, considering the child's views and giving the child an opportunity to participate in decisions being made about his or her life. This bill will amend the Health Act 1937 to strengthen the reporting of suspected harm to children by mandating doctors and nurses to notify the Department of Child Safety. Amendments to the Health Act 1947 will also ensure that such health professionals are protected from liability if they have acted honestly when giving information about a child who is at risk or who has been harmed. Some $1.5 million has been allocated for the training of doctors and nurses about the mandatory training. As part of the bill, amendments will be made to the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 to strengthen the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian by extending those powers to other agencies. I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Minister for Child Safety on the work that he has done to date. I know that all the provisions in this act have commenced and that department staff right around the state are preparing for the changes. I understand that an additional 318 professionals and paraprofessional positions within the department have been promised for 2004-05, that foster care allowances have increased and that the minister has announced funds of $12.8 million to an allocated 134 new and enhanced alternative care places for children and young people with complex needs. This government, the minister and the staff of the departments involved in child safety are working hard to implement the change that is needed. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (4.03 p.m.): It is with real pleasure that I rise to speak to the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). As others have indicated in the House this afternoon, it is a historic piece of legislation and I am very pleased that the opposition is supporting it. I would like to congratulate all those who have worked on preparing the legislation. In the real world we can pass as much legislation and make as many great speeches in this House as we want, but at the end of the day it comes down to the people who are at the front line who provide the services to our foster kids and those people who are in charge of looking after all the areas into which children and young people can fall into traps when living their lives. It is incumbent on all of us not just to make great speeches in this House but also to be aware of our community. Hopefully at the end of our time in parliament we may have made a difference by the legislation we have passed and by what we have done in our own communities. Quite frankly, I think this is a cornerstone piece of legislation. I realise it is a huge responsibility on the minister and it will be a heavy workload. As others have indicated, the minister has our total support if there is any legislation that needs to be pushed through at short notice to enable flow-on effects to not only our foster kids but also children in need. More importantly, it may be needed to support the key workers in our community who sometimes come under some abuse. I am aware of that. There are huge pressures placed on our care providers, whether they are foster parents, department employees or volunteers. We should not 3064 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 forget our volunteers. In our community we have many and varied numbers of volunteers who help out in any number of ways. They are the glue that makes our community work. There is no doubt there is a real cost in providing these services, but money alone cannot cure the system or make it better. It needs a genuine willingness to do what has to be done and a genuineness and a flexibility within the department to manage the very difficult cases that come before it from time to time. Child protection is a very difficult area. It encompasses a whole range of issues including privacy, marriage break-ups where there is an in-built animosity between parents and an attitude to use the children to get back at the other parent, and the list goes on. We are all aware of those cases. It is incumbent on all of us, as I said, to ensure that we are able in some way to do something to make it better or try to overcome the problems. The legislation is good legislation, I believe, and, as I said, we are supporting it. We need to build in the flexibility to ensure this is not just rhetoric. We need to ensure that the programs we have put in place are working. As has been indicated by other members, we need benchmarking to ensure young people do not fall through the cracks. That has been an issue for a long period of time. It is incumbent on me to raise the issue that prompted the CMC inquiry. On 21 January 1999 I received a letter from Mrs Margaret Buckby at Andergrove in my electorate. She indicated that she was having trouble gaining access to her children. There were six children in foster care at that time. I will not go too deeply into the issue, but it was well reported at that time and certainly later on when the inquiry took place. It turned out that two of the children aged 13 and six had contracted a sexually transmitted disease. I guess she was the cornerstone of all of it. The reason she came to me was that somehow or other the department was not allowing her to contact her children. She was in fear that her children were being abused. That was the case, as was later highlighted. I wrote to the minister on 28 January 1999 in respect of that matter and she replied on 29 March 1999. They were some of the issues that were raised during the inquiry. As members of parliament, we all receive those sorts of letters from time to time. As indicated in a previous speech, it is important to make the authorities aware of those issues. It is fairly difficult and time consuming for a member of parliament to try to run those things to ground. As all members in this House would have found out, there are always two sides to a story. We have to be aware of that. I am pleased that the outcome has been such that we had an inquiry and that we have legislation in the House today. Hopefully we will not get those letters again, but I am sure that we will. It is human nature. We have our own children and they are all brought up in a loving family unit. Unfortunately, in our community there are a lot of children who are not in such a family relationship, and they are at risk. We feel for them, as other members have said during the debate. The reality is that we have to do something to help them. We are never going to change human nature, but we have to be aware that there are issues which need to be canvassed and brought to the fore. I would like to congratulate all the care workers in the community, whether they are volunteers or paid staff. They do some heroic work under very, very difficult circumstances. There is obviously a need for greater numbers to support the department. There is a real need for experienced people in that field. It came to my notice fairly early in the piece that in some cases quite a lot of the care workers were not a lot older than some of the people they were trying to care for. We need maturity in the care workers. We need people who have experience in life, who are able to give advice and who are able to see through all the issues that are happening with those young people in need. I congratulate all those involved in putting the legislation together. It is a very complex piece of legislation. I hope that the legislation works. I hope that we are able to put help on the ground where the cutting edge is between people in need and those supplying the need. I hope we are able to make a difference for all the young people in Queensland who are in the situation where they do need extra support from our community and from service providers throughout our community. I support the legislation. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (4.12 p.m.): It is a great privilege to rise and support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2). It was a very humbling experience to sit through the very insightful and experienced views of such people as the member for Woodridge and the member for Redlands. I thank them for giving me the opportunity to listen to their position on this bill. I would also particularly like to thank the minister for his assistance to me in particular when dealing with the matters that relate to registered nurses in this bill. I support the implementation of the second stage of the legislative reforms that resulted from the CMC's report Protecting children: An inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. As a number of other members have said, the amendments seek to strengthen the coordination of agency responses to the protection and care of the needs of children, case planning for children, the reporting of suspected harm to children by mandating doctors and nurses to notify the Department of Child Safety, and improving the monitoring powers of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian by extending those powers to other agencies. The bill achieves those objectives by establishing a legislative framework for case planning. The key components of that case planning are that case plans must be developed and revised. They are fundamentally achieved through having family 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3065 group meetings with the child and their significant others. That is the central way of case planning. Of course, the most important case planning is reviewing those plans. The other way the bill achieves its objectives is by requiring information about each other to be given between the child and the carers. Quite clearly, it is absolutely essential for a child to be informed of matters affecting him or her and that those people who are caring for them are also informed. The bill enables provisions for the sharing of information between service providers about the child's protection and care needs. That kind of continuity is absolutely essential. The bill amends the Child Protection Act to provide a legislative basis for the SCAN system. Those members' responsibilities are set out very, very clearly. It also expands the coverage of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian monitoring powers to other agencies. As I said before, the one I am particularly interested in is the mandating of registered nurses to report suspected harm to a child, and requiring doctors and nurses to report suspected harm directly to the Department of Child Safety. The bill amends the Health Act 1937. It imposes a mandatory notification obligation on all registered nurses and doctors operating in Queensland who become aware of or reasonably suspect that a child has been harmed or is at risk of harm. It requires that notification must be made to the Department of Child Safety. The bill also amends the Health Act to ensure that registered nurses, doctors and persons who provide such information to health professionals are provided the same level of protection as is provided to those persons who provide information under the Child Protection Act. In relation to the amendment of the Health Act, the statutory obligation that is now going to be upon registered nurses and doctors is to provide the chief executive of Child Safety with specific information if, during the course of their practice, that nurse or doctor becomes aware, or reasonably suspects, that a child has been or is likely to be harmed. As a consequence of determining whether there is a reasonable suspicion about that harm, or likely harm, to a child, it allows doctors and nurses to seek the advice of other colleagues, and to talk to and receive information from a series of people involved in the child's care. It means that it is an offence for a registered nurse or doctor to fail to comply with the requirements of the sections under 76KC and 76KD. I stress that a nurse or a doctor must comply with the request for further information unless he or she has a reasonable excuse. The nurse or the doctor cannot be prosecuted for a breach of this section unless the chief executive officer of Child Safety, when making the request, warns the nurse or the doctor that it is an offence if they fail to comply with a request for further information. I want to say that this mandatory reporting does bring about a heightened responsibility in particular for registered nurses because doctors always had a level of reportability that was a statutory obligation. It will affect over 22,000 registered nurses within Queensland and possibly even more. I am pleased to see that an allocation of $1.5 million has been provided for the training of nurses in order to give them the skills and the critical knowledge that they will need to make those decisions. It is difficult to be given a mandatory reporting responsibility when someone is a registered nurse. This legislation also removes any doubt with respect to a nurse's responsibility. It is very, very clear that they have no choice but to make those determinations and make those reports. It is difficult for a person, when they are a nurse, and they are dealing with a child and their parents to not be sympathetic at times to the pleas and the plights of parents involved and, in particular, for children who have a parent who does care about them but is involved in a relationship with another adult who inflicts harm upon a child. That is the case when a person is a health worker; they are nearly always dealing with difficult ethical issues. There can be no doubt in any nurse’s mind from now on that the absolute priority under this legislation is that they will report because children absolutely and utterly must have no harm come to them. Whilst this legislation does impose a mandatory responsibility upon registered nurses, it gives nurses a very clear direction about the manner in which they must do that. I would like to conclude by saying that the Beattie government was elected in this term to govern with a commitment to child safety. There have been absolutely no distractions in this matter. It is a priority for this government. I commend the minister for progressing this agenda. I thank him and his department for their assistance, and I commend the bill to the House. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (4.19 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. This is the second stage of this government's major revamp of legislation governing the care and protection of children as outlined in the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report Protecting Children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. This bill addresses particular areas, including coordinated agency responses, case planning processes, reporting of suspected harm, and monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and the Child Guardian. I recognise the massive increase in resources and staff which this government has directed to this area and the creation of the new Department of Child Safety. More than once I have criticised this government for introducing legislation which may be well intended but does not provide anything like sufficient resources to produce results. In this instance the cold cash and staff are being made available. However, while recognising that commitment I believe it is essentially 3066 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 reactive—that is, it is directed towards dealing with children already in trouble. I would be very keen indeed to see a similar serious effort being put into addressing the underlying causes. We are continually hearing about how each year more and more children are coming to departmental notice; how foster-carers are often asked to cope with more and more of our young and so on. The family unit is the natural traditional structure in which children are raised. It has been so since the year dot. The question has to be asked: are we becoming more neglectful as a society? As parents, are we treating our children so much worse than families in previous times? Why are so many children in need of protection? Why are so many families in need of help? I am not arguing against providing protection for children in need and I am certainly not trying to take anything away from the dedicated, caring Queenslanders who serve as foster-carers; they are doing a champion job. But I am arguing that, for all the resources devoted to dealing with the problems once they arise, should we not be looking equally hard at, and devoting similar resources to, addressing the causes and avoiding the problems before they arise? I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that with the best of intentions all around things can still go badly wrong. One family in my electorate had a child in their care seized by the department because a police investigation was under way. That investigation resulted in no charges being laid, the matter being dismissed and the magistrate issuing an order which meant that it could not be brought up again. Yet the department refused for a number of months to allow the child to be returned to her carers, and I might say the child begged to be returned to where she had been treated so well. Time and again we hear how important the court process is and how the department does not make decisions about the fate of children but that courts make that determination. Yet when a court says that not only is a person innocent but they are so innocent that the matter can never be raised again, the department appears sometimes to suddenly lose its great respect for the courts and simply decides to keep a child for its own reasons. It is one of the enigmas of child care in Queensland that the department, either in its previous guise or under the new regime, must go to court to get relevant orders to keep a child but can ignore a court when it finds a person is innocent. It is in light of circumstances such as this that I do have an ongoing concern—that is, the department's ability to rely on reasonable suspicion to seize children. I understand the reasoning and I understand the desire to protect children from harm, but I am concerned at the way this can result in innocent families sometimes being torn apart and then, even worse, forced to jump through all sorts of hoops before the department will return their children. If we were to see significant efforts put into helping families avoid the circumstances where children may become at risk, my concerns would be addressed. More importantly, I do not think anyone can argue that prevention is always the best course. We should be doing much more to support Queensland families so we do not face the type and scope of problems that this legislation is intended to address. Nevertheless, the intention of this bill is to protect children at risk. As the member for Maryborough said earlier, those people put into positions of decision making have huge responsibilities—that is, to make right decisions—on their shoulders and it is those decisions that can have an effect on a child for life. In that light I support the intent of this bill. Mrs REILLY (Mudgeeraba—ALP) (4.24 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004 which represents the vital second stage of implementation of the recommendations of the CMC's report of the inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. The amendments contained in this bill will strengthen interagency coordination when responding to the protection and care needs of children, it will improve case planning for children involved with the Department of Child Safety, it will mandate the reporting of suspected abuse by specified health professionals and it will strengthen the monitoring powers of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. As previous speakers have stated, there can be no more important agenda than that set out in this framework of legislative reform, and that is the care and protection of our most valuable citizens— children. The CMC's report, Protecting Children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care found that the child protection system in Queensland had failed many children. There were many systemic failures over many years and, in fact it can be argued, over many decades. The report contained 110 recommendations for improvements to legislation, policy and practice. The Beattie government accepted this crucial challenge and is tackling it head on by instigating the inquiry and by implementing all 110 recommendations. These legislative reforms are aimed at enshrining a more child focused approach to child protection and strengthening safeguards for children and young people in the system. On the face of it, it seems obvious, almost simple—focus on the needs of the child; focus on what is best for the child. But the reality of day-to-day work in the enormously high pressure environment of child protection means that it has not, of course, always been simple; it is far from it. The cases which come before the child protection officers of the Office of Child Safety, formerly the Department of Families, are by their nature 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3067 fraught with complexities and difficulties because they often involve humans at their worst and are emotional because they involve children. The member for Cook has already spoken about the stresses and pressures on staff working in this field, as have other members. From my own experience in the area some 10 years ago I can tell you that there is no simple answer. I did not work in the field, thankfully. I did not work directly with children and families. I worked in policy and communication in the relative calm of head office, but even there the challenges being faced by these officers were obvious. I was well aware of the distress of many officers, particularly those faced with the very difficult decisions that some had to make daily regarding children with notifications, the investigations that ensued and the possibility that fell on their shoulders that those children would have to be removed from their parents or family home for their own protection. There was the knowledge that if that was not the eventual outcome then there was always the potential for some harm to come to those children if they remained in the family home. That is why legislative reform is required to improve systems and responses. I am particularly pleased to see in the bill the amendments that will mandate a case planning and management approach. That is the only way to manage these situations; they have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Every child, every family and every situation is different and fluid. All the theory and rhetoric in the world can be considered, but ultimately the only way to get the best result for each individual child is to consider their unique circumstances and how they may change and to review this regularly. We can draw on best practice models of care and knowledge from around the world. These all point to the need for case planning and case management, for family group meetings, for greater involvement of family and the community in decisions, and for interagency cooperation. This is especially the case when considering children with complex and severe disabilities or behavioural problems who come to the notice of the department or who are relinquished into the care of the department. Communication and cooperation between government departments and agencies is absolutely crucial in these cases where child safety officers do not and could not be expected to know or understand the nature of or implications of disabilities such as autism and other intellectual and physical disabilities. When a parent or a family has made the heart wrenching decision to hand over their child to the care of the state because they are just not able to cope anymore, then that state is faced with many complex responsibilities. First and foremost is the care and appropriate placement of that child. In the existing framework that is inevitably into foster care. But the second responsibility is to the relinquishing family who must be consulted and involved in the child's care, counselled adequately through the process and assured that any remaining children's special needs are also met lest they too be at risk of being given up for lack of support. That is what prevention and early intervention is all about. Case planning and management and interagency communication is the only way to meet these responsibilities. There must be open and regular communication between the departments of disability services and child safety as well as others such as health, housing and education. There will be teachers, carers, health professionals, therapists and people who know the family and the child and their situation and can offer support and continuity of care, not just at that crucial time but throughout the life of the child. That is why regular review of cases is also needed. The bill will require case reviews to occur every six months and it will also ensure that the planning process meets the child's need for stable care and continuity of relationships. Many members have spoken about the implications of the bill on areas relating to children who have suffered neglect or abuse. In that regard I feel there is little I can add or offer that has not been reflected upon already. I do, however, want to mention the role of non-government organisations in supporting child victims of abuse and their families. For numerous years I, along with the member for Burleigh, Christine Smith, have advocated and supported the Abused Child Trust, which has a part-time service on the Gold Coast and has services in Townsville and Brisbane. This trust offers a unique and important service for child victims of abuse and their families. This is where the benefits of early intervention and prevention are most obvious. The more support that can be given to a child who has suffered some form of abuse or neglect the more chance there is that that child will grow into a centred, stable and healed person who is less likely to become a perpetrator of abuse or neglect themselves. That, therefore, puts less burden on the system in the future. There needs to be careful and considered planning and support to achieve those long-term good outcomes. Members on the Gold Coast, particularly Christine Smith and I, have regular discussions with the relevant ministers regarding our desire to see an enhanced service for the Gold Coast's Abused Child Trust. There is a lot of growth on the Gold Coast. That growth brings with it a lot of transient people and families in need and in trouble. This results in an increasing demand for those types of services. We will continue to seek to have those areas improved. I thank the minister for his support and understanding of that issue. It has been issues concerning children with disabilities and severe and complex needs that I have been dealing with in the electorate for the past three years and that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House. This issue does not attract much publicity. I do not know whether the media pays much 3068 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 attention or has much awareness of the stresses that families with children with severe disabilities and highly complex needs face. I know that other members around the state have grappled with this, too. I have spoken at length with the minister and his staff and the Minister for Disability Services about particular cases and problems in general. I am confident that the processes, policies and practices will be greatly improved as a result of this bill. Change takes time. We cannot expect to see better outcomes overnight. From my dealings on behalf of my constituents with both departments over the years, I can report that the signs are good. Things are improving already. There is a lot more case planning, albeit in a non- formal way and very much at the local level. This is certainly the case in terms of communication with families and carers and between departments. I look forward to it being improved and enhanced over the years. Crucial to achieving better outcomes is funding. Under the Beattie government we have seen record funding for the area of child protection and also disability services. These are our priorities. Along with the legislative reform, this will make a difference for Queensland children. The minister is to be commended for his focus and dedication in seeing these reforms come before the House. His staff are also to be congratulated, as are those front-line staff who are out there every day doing what, I think, is possibly one of the hardest jobs in the world and not something that any of us would ever want to take on ourselves. We understand that there has been a lot of movement in those departments. They are not places where people can stay for very long. We have seen this in the past. With additional support and a good legislative framework I think we will be able to encourage people who have enormous heart and fortitude to stay in the system and to continue their good work. I commend the bill to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (4.33 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2004. It takes courage for a minister to acknowledge that there is a problem in their department. It takes a lot of very hard work to find a better system and improve the system for the good of children. That is what we are talking about in this debate. Speaker after speaker from both sides of the House has acknowledged that this bill is a genuine attempt to try to improve the protection of children. It is a genuine attempt to do better. I echo my support for the minister, his department, the people who have been working with him on this bill and the parliamentary draftsmen who have put a lot of effort into preparing this bill. We are certainly expecting a lot of great results from this legislation. A lot of hard work is still to be done. I note in the minister's second reading speech he talks about the last six months being extremely busy and challenging. He said that the new child focused Department of Child Safety formally commenced operation on 20 September 2004. A number of speakers have said that during this transition we need to ensure that children do not fall through the cracks and that while we are doing the reorganisation and the new training we need to make sure that we still maintain our focus on protecting children in Queensland. I digress for a few moments to thank the minister for his willingness to be prepared to ask some hard questions about what has been occurring in the department and to look into concerns that were raised with me about the department's handling of one matter in particular. I certainly do not intend to go into those particulars. On behalf of my constituents who raised their concerns about this matter, I use this opportunity to thank the minister for his actions. I thank the minister for his intervention and willingness to ask those hard questions. When I was first approached to raise the matter with the minister I thought about when this minister was the Minister for Emergency Services and there was a move by the department to remove a fire truck from the Kenilworth service. The people involved said, ‘Peter can you raise it with the minister?' The minister may recall that I raised the issue with him and he intervened and Kenilworth kept its fire truck. I put on the Hansard record my appreciation for the minister's willingness to ask those hard questions and to take an interest in these matters when sometimes it is easier to say, ‘Yes, I will look into it.' A number of speakers have mentioned the challenges that foster parents in Queensland face. I take my hat off to our foster parents. They have a very difficult job. They are full of compassion and are giving, giving, giving for young Queensland children who are so stressed and in need of guidance and support. I echo my support for foster parents. I also echo my support for our staff. My experience in dealings with the staff in my earlier life as a policeman or my other life as a solicitor was that I do not know how they managed the stress that they were always under. My parliamentary colleague from Cook spoke about his wife's experience and the challenges and stresses that she is under. I think our staff certainly need a big medal on their chests for their commitment and the challenges they must face and the workloads they are under. I know it is very difficult but our role as politicians and the role of the government especially is to ensure that we provide the best assistance possible not just for the protection of children but also for the 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3069 support of our staff. They do not have to be in the department working in this very traumatic and stressful environment. I note that in the bill we are debating now there will be case reviews every six months. I think this is an excellent proposal. So often in the Police Service when the officer in charge was going on long service leave or going on holidays and a relieving officer took over that role ways were identified for improving the delivery of police services. When senior departmental staff go on holidays or something and someone comes in to relieve again, new ideas bring forward new avenues for solving problems. I think it is imperative that we maintain a focus on case reviewing every six months. Sometimes our staff can be so bogged down with the work and so focused on handling the stress and crisis that they are under that they lose sight of some of the issues right under their noses. I take my hat off to whoever made the suggestion about the six-monthly case reviews. I think it is very important. I finally say, without reiterating many of the other matters that members have raised, that it is great to see when we are debating such an important bill in this House that there is bipartisan support. I hope that we continue to hear updates from the minister as things progress and hear how the new system will operate in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (4.38 p.m.): I rise to support the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) which is before the House. The measure of a civilised society, of a good community, is how we treat those who are most vulnerable within our ranks. Protecting children, particularly children who are at risk of abuse, is one of the key measures of how we are progressing as a community. I commend the minister, this government and those working in his department and the range of other government departments who have brought this legislation to this stage. I think it is also a measure of the strength of this bill that it has received support from both sides of the chamber. Every person has a moral obligation to help protect children. In our modern post-industrial society, we can tend to be locked in our own home behind tall fences and live very much an isolated life. An interesting thing that is asked at Neighbourhood Watch meetings on occasions is this: could a person name their neighbours five either side and five across the road? Most people cannot do it. The old saying that it takes a whole village to raise a child, which I think is from an African saying, indicates that children need support from a range of people and parents need support from a range of other people. Because of the structure of our society, we provide support through legislation. The legislation that is before the House is appropriate, timely and will deal with most of the issues that we want to see dealt with. One of the difficulties in dealing with child abuse is that it occurs largely in the privacy of homes and generally out of the public view. Unlike most of the reportings in newspapers, most child abuse does not occur in institutional circumstances or in specialised marginalised groups. The majority of child abuse occurs in what are apparently normal homes in what are apparently normal heterosexual relationships. While there is abuse by minority groups and in institutions—and this abuse must be addressed, and must be addressed by the institutions and by the authorities—the vast majority of children who are suffering are suffering in suburban homes. The television news and reportings in the last couple of days about a case of a young child—a twin—who was murdered by her abusing father and the other child also being seriously abused is typical, unfortunately, of the circumstances of child abuse. How we as a society can try to break down the isolation within our large metropolitan areas so that a neighbour will say, ‘I believe there is a problem in that home,' and then be able to notify the relevant authorities to take steps is the problem and the challenge that faces us. This legislation goes a good way to addressing that circumstance. In past years with the increasing isolation of individuals, with families being scattered to wide parts of the continent and without the immediate support of close family members, there has been a difficulty in providing immediate support and immediate supervision of children. What this legislation does, apart from instituting certain legislative regimes, is to implement a change of heart. It says to us as a society, ‘Everyone has a responsibility to deal with child abuse. Everyone has a responsibility to take some part in notifications.' While there are specific legislative requirements for people, we all have to take on board that we have an obligation. Matched with that is an unfortunate side of reporting, and that is the vindictive or vexatious reporting where someone is trying to pay another person back, often as a result of a marital breakdown, and makes claims against another member of the family. Vexatious claims are difficult to defend, just as legitimate claims can sometimes be difficult to prove. I am certain that as this bill is implemented over the coming years procedures will be strengthened to try to assist the minister's staff in dealing with those types of situations. I congratulate a number of ministers, but particularly the Minister for Communities and the Minister for Child Safety. Their two departments are going to have to work extremely closely together. I know from the briefings Minister Reynolds has given his committee and from the briefings of Minister Pitt that they have worked closely together. I encourage them to continue that, because the preventative work of the old Families Department must continue. It would be great if the Child Safety Minister's workload decreased significantly. In the short term, he is going to have a massive task, because the notifications will increase dramatically and his staff are going to be inundated. A good thing will occur 3070 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 when the workload of his staff decreases and the preventative measures that are put into place by other government agencies come into effect. I also congratulate the minister for taking steps in terms of sharing information. That is a very important step. I have spoken previously about the issues that have arisen when various agencies in some cases have deliberately hidden behind privacy laws so they have not had to face certain issues. Others have just been professional in the circumstances and believed that they were not able to share information. What this legislation does is to say that the best interests of the child is the key focus and we have to look at that as the main criterion for sharing information. One issue that has arisen is where members of parliament stand when cases are brought to our notice and we notify the authorities. I can understand that there has to be some reservation about what information is shared with us. I wish to share with the minister something that I have found helpful. When I have phoned medical people or police or Family Services and they have said to me, ‘We can't talk about that patient or client,' I have said, ‘I don't want you to talk about your client. I'd like you to listen while I mention something about a constituent.' Often I am able to convey to that worker certain bits of information. That person does not have to reveal anything from their files. What will be needed is a willingness for those involved in this new legislation to be able to say to members of parliament, to other professionals or to householders, ‘I am listening if you want to say something to me,' so that they will not breach any notion of confidentiality yet the information about that child or the circumstance can be addressed. One of the frustrations in both police and Family Services activities in the past has been that those who make the notifications get absolutely no feedback as to what is happening. I would encourage a structure to be set up in the departmental training process whereby feedback is given to those who report without breaching the confidentiality requirements. On behalf of the government and on behalf of this whole parliament, I wish to say that the minister has one of the most difficult tasks in balancing the civil liberties of those who are innocent before being proved guilty against protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society—in this case, children who are being abused. The majority of those cases are in suburban homes, in apparently normal family arrangements, and that is what makes it so difficult. I feel privileged, on a day when we have had some turmoil within this House, to see that there is great cooperation on this important issue. I wish the minister well, and I support the legislation. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.47 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the consideration of the Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) before the House this afternoon. I have listened with some interest to the debate on the legislation that the House is now considering. I want to refer members to what is listed as the policy objectives of the legislation in the explanatory notes. The explanatory notes point out that the objective of the bill is to implement the second stage of legislative reforms resulting from the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report which was titled Protecting children: an inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. To some extent there has been an attempt to rewrite history in the House this afternoon. Some of the pious contributions we have heard from government backbenchers completely ignore where this legislation has come from and why we are here. As the objectives of the bill point out, this legislation is because the Crime and Misconduct Commission carried out an inquiry into the government's complete failure to protect children in foster care in Queensland. It is that direct failure that brought about the need for this second piece of legislation that this House has considered in response to the CMC's inquiry. The failure to protect foster-children and the failure of the then Families Department generally perhaps will be remembered as this government's greatest failure. Mrs Reilly interjected. Mr SEENEY: Indeed, it was this government's greatest failure until we had the Energex debacle. I would not suggest that the Energex debacle is a greater failure, simply because the failure to protect children in care and the failure of the government to adequately resource and adequately administer the then Family Services Department had such an horrific impact on the state's most vulnerable citizens that I think that it will always be remembered as the Beattie government's greatest failure. No member opposite acknowledged that. Members such as the member for Mudgeeraba, who likes to shout and shriek from the back of the chamber, stood up in this place and completely ignored the history. She tried to rewrite the history. She tried to somehow self-congratulate the government for bringing this legislation into the House. Of course the government needed to respond to the report of the Crime and Misconduct Commission. It had no other choice. Such were the revelations that were made apparent in that inquiry that the government had no other choice but to respond to that crisis situation. This legislation before the House is the second part of that response. It is worth noting and it is worth putting on record and it is worth never forgetting that this legislation is in response to that failure. The ministers who presided over that failure are still within the Beattie cabinet today. Two ministers presided over the failure of the then Family Services Department. Firstly, we had Minister Spence, who was the minister for a number of 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3071 years, and following her was Minister Bligh, both of whom, time has proven, failed to administer that department and then failed the people of Queensland. I well remember that period when we asked a series of questions in the House about this issue, which illustrated clearly that both of those ministers had failed to administer the act. They had failed to carry out that basic responsibility of every minister of the Crown in a government: to administer the act. We had two failures of ministers, and I certainly hope that the minister who currently has the responsibility—and I certainly give him the benefit of the doubt—will be a whole lot more successful than his predecessors. The Beattie government has a history of protecting failed ministers. We have the two failed ministers from the old Department of Families. We also have four failed Energy ministers, who still sit within the Beattie cabinet. It is good to see opposite in the House this afternoon failure No. 5, the current Energy Minister. I say to the minister who is currently responsible for the administration of this portfolio and the implementation of this Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill—and I believe that I speak for almost everyone in Queensland—that everyone hopes that he is more successful in administering this area of public administration than his predecessors were. This is an area that goes right to the heart of what we are as a community. It goes right to the heart of what is dear to all of us. We all want to see the most vulnerable people in our community protected, and the most vulnerable people are always the children in those distressing situations that unfortunately are all too common. One of the most distressing things that I and certainly every other member of parliament has to deal with is those very personal situations where constituents come in with problems that are almost insurmountable. There are no easy solutions. There are sometimes no solutions at all. They can be very distressing problems. So I think that we as members of parliament can empathise with those people who work in this area on a day-to-day basis and who manage these problems on a case-by-case basis. To those people who work in this area and who carry that burden on behalf of all of us in the community, I hope that the legislation that we consider today will provide them with the administrative framework that they need to carry out their job because they, too, were ignored by the previous ministers and they, too, were victims of the failings of the previous ministers. Those people who worked within the then Department of Families were certainly victims of the maladministration that was the legacy of Minister Spence and Minister Bligh. They were asked to carry an intolerable burden on behalf of the department, on behalf of the government, and thereby on behalf of all of us as a community. That simply is inexcusable. This legislation seeks to put in place a number of provisions that should strengthen the act. It seeks to bring about the coordination of agency responses for the protection, care and needs of children. I think that is particularly needed. In my role as a local member, in my contact in this area, that lack of coordination of agencies is a real problem. It is a problem that is probably more readily seen in the regional areas that I represent where agencies are not located in every community. There has to be a close coordination, because officers from the various agencies visit most of the communities that I represent rather than being located in those communities. They operate on a timetable. So the issue of coordination between those officers is even more important. It is critical that there is that close coordination between those officers to try to identify these unfortunate issues and deal with them in a way that will bring about a more appropriate resolution. Unfortunately, in the past there have been situations that I am aware of in my local area where it was a case of always being somebody else's job. It was always somebody's else's job, because the particular officer was overloaded, was too busy, or had to move on to something else. In that respect, the issue was not dealt with and the problem grew bigger and bigger. I particularly commend the minister for this provision in the legislation that will bring about a coordination of those agency responses, because I think that is critically important in those regional communities that I represent. The second dot point in the explanatory notes of the bill refers to case planning processes for children subject to ongoing intervention under the Child Protection Act. When I read the legislation, one of the things that I noticed was this issue of case planning. The whole concept of case planning is great, because no two cases are the same. There is such a wide range of individual situations which are always present and which always have to be dealt with. It is obvious that these issues have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. So I fully support this whole concept of case planning. One of the things that I noticed when I read the bill when the minister introduced it was the components of the case management plan. The bill lists a whole range of things that may be part of a case management plan, but there was nothing mandatory. There was nothing that had to be part of a case management plan. It seemed to be a whole lot of things—‘this may be part of' or ‘that may be part of' or ‘that may be part of'—but there was no actual mandatory framework that set out what a case management plan was and what it had to be. It raised the issue in my mind as to whether or not there needed to be some sort of a minimum framework for a case management plan rather than leaving it so open-ended that everything was on a ‘may be included' type of basis. 3072 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004

The minister may like to comment on that when he replies to this second reading debate, but it was an issue that I noticed when I read the bill. I will await the minister's response to that. I might raise it again in the consideration in detail. I refer to an issue raised by the member for Stafford and possibly other members during the debate regarding the reporting provisions that this bill puts in place and the dangers of vexatious reporting. I do not often agree with comments of the member for Stafford, but in this case I think his comments are worth reinforcing in that there is a fine line between guarding against vexatious reporting and ensuring the reporting of genuine situations to the proper authorities and the responsible officers. Unfortunately, I have had some experience of constituents who have been trying to exact revenge, in their own minds, for other issues and have engaged in this sort of vexatious reporting. I know that it is very difficult, because of the emotiveness and the deeply personal types of situations we are dealing with, to separate a vexatious complaint from a genuine problem. Once again, if that is an issue that I as a local member have experience of at the local level, it must be an enormous problem for the professional officers who work in this area on a full-time basis. I am sure that they understand the difficulties, and I am sure that the minister understands the difficulties, of making that separation and ensuring that vexatious complaints are differentiated from genuine ones and that they are dealt with in a way that does not prevent the reporting of the genuine problems that we all want to see solved and dealt with appropriately. As the shadow minister has indicated, the opposition will be supporting the passage of this legislation, as we supported the passage of the first piece of legislation that was introduced in response to the Crime and Misconduct Commission's report, but I believe it behoves each and every one of us to remember why these two pieces of legislation had to be introduced into this House and why we have a new minister administering this area of public administration and to never forget the failure that brought about the need for this legislation. If we forget those failures and try to rewrite history, as a number of speakers have tried to do in this House this afternoon, we leave the way open for those mistakes to be repeated. I do not believe that any of us wants to see those mistakes repeated—even those members on the other side of the House who so vigorously defend the government's position, no matter how great the failure of that position is. Even those people, as one-eyed and single-minded as they are, would suggest that we should never do anything to allow those mistakes to be repeated. If we rewrite history and we ignore the failure of ministers such as Minister Spence and Minister Bligh, then we are opening the way for those mistakes to be repeated and for those disasters to happen again. I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this debate. I hope that the legislation before the House will help to ensure that the current minister responsible for this area of public administration enjoys a lot more success in appropriately administering that area than his predecessors did. Hon. M.F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (5.05 p.m.), in reply: This bill implements key recommendations of the CMC report on its inquiry into the abuse of children in foster care. I think it unfortunate that what has been a very bipartisan debate today has been marred by what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said. His is a very potted recollection of the history of this particular matter. I have said in this House before that governments of all political colours over the last 20 to 30 years should collectively hang their heads in shame, because all of those governments, irrespective of whether it was the Bjelke-Petersen government or any other government up to the Beattie government, did not do the right thing in the child protection area. Trying to confine this to a period in history is not in any way, shape or form recollecting what the CMC said in its report. When the Courier-Mail and television stations in and around Queensland started to investigate, in an extraordinarily rigorous way, child protection matters that were before the public at that point in time, the Premier, Peter Beattie, acted by placing all of those matters before the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Let us be very clear on this. The Premier acted proactively in putting that before the Crime and Misconduct Commission. Let us go back to a myth that was actually created today by another couple of members of the opposition. Let us go back to what was said about the ‘fabulous' minister for families Kevin Lingard. We can all remember that time when Kevin and his loyal DG, the Reverend Alan Male, administered the Department of Families. What a time that was! He was minister for eight months, yet I am still hearing from clients and staff about the ridiculous administration of the department at that particular time, especially by the director-general, who was hand-picked by the then families minister. There has been a shortage of memory here today. Let us remember the Children's Commissioner Norm Alford. Let us remember the history of this particular time and the ‘best practice' that has been talked about by the opposition today. Let us get our memory straight in this regard. What happened to Kevin Lingard as minister for families? He was sacked within that period of government. No other minister in my time in the Beattie government has been sacked as minister for families, and I give due credit to my predecessors Anna Bligh and Judy Spence with regard to the work they did. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3073

Kevin Lingard was fumbling along as families minister until he took Charlie Doyle out for dinner. Charlie Doyle went out for dinner with Kevin and the ministerial expense could not be accounted for later. This is the best practice that is being put up. Ms Nelson-Carr interjected. Mr REYNOLDS: Last time I heard about Charlie Doyle he was having dinner at a cafe in Monto. You might have found Charlie Doyle in Monto, but I have not found him at all. Let us be aware that after that Naomi Wilson was appointed as minister for families. What about some great acclaim for their other minister, Naomi Wilson? She is no longer in this House. Mr Seeney: How long have you been in parliament? Mr REYNOLDS: As long as you have been. Twenty to 30 years of government in this state neglected this child safety area. Today at last we have bipartisan support. I respectfully suggest to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that we keep it that way and get on positively with doing what we need to do. I table for the information of the House supplementary explanatory notes for an amendment to the bill that I will move during consideration in detail. This bill represents the second stage of the government's legislative reform agenda as set out in the blueprint delivered by Peter Forster on 22 March this year. This second stage of child safety legislation incorporates some significant legislative milestones, notably the removal of impediments to constructive information sharing between and amongst government agencies and service providers and the establishment of a legislative mandate for coordinated child protection related service provision to children and families. Let me talk about just a few of those. I will be answering some of the questions that have been asked but I will be answering further specific questions later as well. First of all, coordinated service delivery to children, families and carers will be achieved not only through the SCAN system but also through the provisions in the bill allowing a wide range of agencies to share child protection related information and requiring them to provide information to the Department of Child Safety when requested. The bill provides that my department can request services for its clients from certain entities such as Queensland Health and, for example, the Department of Communities. This is pivotal to my department being able to lead a coordinated response to children's protection and care needs. It will also provide a way of ensuring that children and families in the child safety system can access services that now fall within the domain of the Department of Communities—for example, domestic violence services, youth services and family support services—which should assist in addressing children's protection needs. Case planning: for the first time the important role, the historic role, of case planning for children will be recognised and supported by legislation. Case planning, again, is pivotal to an effective child protection response. It is crucial in case planning that agencies and professionals work in partnership with families to achieve the best possible plans for and responses to children's protection and care needs. The bill provides this type of partnership response by requiring the Department of Child Safety to engage with children, parents, family members such as grandparents, aunts and uncles and others within the system of child support such as a foster-carer in the development and review of case plans. The bill's provision for a family group meeting to be held will be the means by which this participation is achieved and case plans developed. The partnership between the Department of Child Safety and family groups that is envisaged and that will be put in place by the bill will change the face of child protection work as we know it and as reported on by the CMC. Whereas the CMC highlighted that family groups and children were often left out the of planning and decision-making processes and were not kept informed, this bill's planning provisions support the empowerment of children and their families and provide a case planning process that taps into and builds on the resources and strengths within family systems to address children's protection and care needs. Research and evaluations in other jurisdictions that similarly centre children, their families and others with whom a child may be connected in the child planning process show real, positive outcomes for children and families. These outcomes include: increased child safety; lower reabuse rates; more kin care placement options; high-quality and more enduring case plans; more permanency and stability for children; increased connectedness for children with their family members when children are placed in out-of-home care; improved relationships between families and statutory agencies; a reduction in contested child protection matters in the court; and the diversion of increased numbers of children for more formal and intensive interventions in the child protection system. Let us move to transparency and accountability case planning. The CMC recommended that child safety processes in decision making be more transparent and more accountable. This bill in its case planning provisions makes the department accountable to those to whom it should be most accountable—the children, families and others who are involved in the care of children and with whom the department works so closely. The bill sets in place a process that ensures that these people are kept informed and engaged through the planning process. For example, the department has obligations to 3074 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 prepare them for family group meetings and provide children, parents and others who will be affected by a case plan with a copy of any plan including the revised plan as well. The bill also provides for external scrutiny of the department's case planning obligations by requiring the Children's Court to be satisfied that a suitable case plan has been developed for a child before making a child protection order for that child. The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian will also play an important role in monitoring the department's performance of its case planning obligations. I want to talk about improving long-term planning for children. The phenomenon of children drifting in care is one that the Beattie government has been concerned about for some time. Children drift in care and often remain in care for prolonged periods because of insufficient or inadequate planning. The bill's case planning provisions will make positive differences in this respect—firstly, because the planning process is one of ensuring that things are moving for a child and the responses to children's protective and care needs are relevant and based on full and up-to-date information; and, secondly, because the bill requires that priority is given in the case planning process to safeguarding and promoting continuity of relationships for children. It will mean that children are more actively involved in placement decision making and that a carer is able to make a decision knowing about the child's particular needs. In the end, for children who have to be in out-of-home care it should mean more stability and therefore less exposure to the adverse effects of changing placements. In terms of monitoring other agencies, we know that in stage 1 we went the first way with increasing the external accountability of the Department of Child Safety. The bill now makes other service providers accountable by extending the Child Guardian monitoring scheme within the commission to other government agencies. Child protection is of course a whole-of-government concern and a range of agencies across areas such as Housing, Communities, Education, et cetera will be involved in this child safety system. It is right and timely, therefore, that this bill will provide for these agencies to be monitored by the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian and for the ultimate purpose of improving cross-government responses to children in need of protection. I have every confidence in the ability of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian to use these new monitoring powers to contribute to the improved protection of children in the state. In terms of mandatory reporting, the CMC recommended that legislation provide for the mandatory reporting of suspected child harm by doctors and nurses. The bill provides for this and will address gaps that can otherwise arise because professionals think they cannot report harm because of ethical obligations or in the belief that it is another agency's responsibility. Of course, people do not need to have the legislation spell out that they should report harm in order to make such a report to the Department of Child Safety. In reality, many people report suspected harm to a child when there is no legislative obligation to do so, and I would hope that would remain the case right the way across the community and the professions as well. These people are protected from liability and, as this bill clearly provides, will not be liable civilly, criminally or under an administrative process for reporting suspicions of harm. This bill builds on and reflects consultation that was undertaken as part of the CMC and blueprint processes. Most importantly, it reflects the views of young people in care concerning their privacy and how they want their personal information treated. These views were gathered by the Create Foundation in a consultation strategy for the stage 2 reforms. Tonight, as Minister for Child Safety, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank government and non-government members for their ongoing support of the work that I am doing as Child Safety Minister. I sincerely say tonight that that support is much appreciated. I would now like to take the opportunity to respond to some issues raised by the opposition and other non-government members. At the outset, I would like to thank the Opposition Leader for his continued commitment to the CMC recommendations and the blueprint, and for his support for a bipartisan approach to ensuring that this state's most vulnerable children are protected. The Opposition Leader raised a number of issues such as common clients of both the Department of Child Safety and the juvenile justice system. I can assure the Opposition Leader that all agencies involved in child protection are working and will be working in a cohesive and coordinated manner. The Department of Corrective Services has become the latest of 10 agencies to receive funding for a child safety director and to make an appointment. Nine other child safety directors have been appointed across a range of departments to create a cross-agency network responsible for managing and implementing child safety services in Queensland. Those child safety directors have met a number of times during the formation of the network in recent months and had their first meeting with all directors present on Tuesday, 5 October. I thank the member for Gregory for his comments, which I agree with, that child protection is a whole-of-community responsibility that we all must play a role in. The member spoke passionately about children being our most precious natural resource. That is why the Beattie government has dedicated an entire new department to deal with child protection. 20 Oct 2004 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 3075

I would also like to acknowledge the member for Gregory's support of the staff of the Department of Child Safety. I also want to acknowledge all the other members tonight, including the member for Mirani, who supported the staff because we have not supported the staff enough in the past. That goes back over decades, too. I want to be a Minister for Child Safety who can proudly stand up in parliament and say that I believe our staff are doing a magnificent job. Let us support them through supervision, through peer support, through counselling and the very work that they require in that regard. The member for Burdekin, my shadow minister, asked how the Department of Child Safety will be held accountable for conducting reviews at least once every six months. The department will be accountable by way of a number of mechanisms. This will be an area that falls within the ambit of the monitoring functions of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. Another accountability mechanism is that the legislation provides for a court to not make a final child protection order unless it is satisfied that a case plan has been prepared for a child. Where, and if, a case plan has been developed within six months and the department makes an application to the Children’s Court for a child protection order or for a variation or extension of an existing order, the department will be required to provide that court with a copy of a revised case plan that has been developed in the most recent six-monthly review along with a report on the review. The member for Burdekin also asked about the accountability of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. The commissioner is required to provide an annual report regarding the performance of the Child Guardian functions, including the monitoring functions. That report by the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian must be tabled in parliament by the Premier within 14 days of receiving that report from the commissioner. Additionally, the commissioner may report to the Premier about specific matters of concern arising from the performance of the monitoring functions and require that this report be tabled in parliament. I share the confidence of the Leader of the Opposition that with the glare of attention which has been brought to these processes the commissioner will exercise the reporting powers appropriately. The member for Burdekin also raised the issue of agency monitoring plans being tabled in parliament which would be additional to the current situation where cabinet reviews the plans. In the ongoing work that we are doing in that regard, the plans will first of all be considered by cabinet in detail and then implemented appropriately. Members have highlighted the need for legislation to be properly implemented. I assure the House that this is occurring, and a plan for implementing the legislation involving areas such as recruitment and training of qualified staff and policy and process changes is in progress and is being rolled out. The department continues to work toward the benchmarks set out in the blueprint. I am determined that my department will implement them as soon as humanly possible. A number of members have raised the overrepresentation of indigenous children and young people in the child protection system. This is a major focus of our reforms, and I know that it is an area of interest for the entire House. The case planning provisions in this bill, in particular the requirement for family group meetings to be held, will significantly increase the participation of indigenous families and children in a way that will be culturally respectful. We have established an indigenous support unit in Cairns. I am happy to say that we have recently appointed an acting executive director to lead this facility. In August, $380,000 was provided by my department to the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Forum—QAIHF—to establish and support the ongoing operation of the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child protection partnership over the next 12 months. I believe that QAIHF has the runs on the board to do that very, very important planning and strategy work, which it had already been doing with the existing AICCAs and the AICCAs that will come on board as well. That has been very central in our planning. This will enable indigenous organisations across the state to work collaboratively with the Department of Child Safety to implement the recommendations from the Crime and Misconduct Commission of inquiry. Given the Commonwealth government's major funding role and service delivery role with AICCAs, I will shortly be meeting with the Commonwealth government to progress plans for AICCAs at an intergovernment level as well. I hope that the strategic planning that is required by ministers at different levels will be part of this meeting as well. I go on to recruitment which has also been asked about. Earlier this year the department initiated the first stage of a major recruitment campaign to employ an additional 318 new staff. We are currently going through the process of finalising and placing these employees. More than 10,000 inquiries and 1,600 applications were received. As a result, more than 200 new staff have begun, or are about to begin, with the department. A compulsory eight-week professional development and induction course for all new child safety officers is a mandatory requirement for these new staff. Training is an essential part of the reforms to the child protection system. We realise that there is a need for ongoing professional development, peer support and supervision for staff. That is why we have determined that every one of the 46 child safety service centres will have a senior practitioner. One of the most important enhancements to the former system will be a much greater level of supervision provided to new staff. Caseworkers use their professional judgment to make very critical 3076 Public Infrastructure 20 Oct 2004 decisions about a child's safety, and they need the support and experience of senior practitioners to mentor and assist them. Very early in my time as minister I was critical of the universities in terms of the degrees that are on offer, and I am still critical of them. To enhance a caseworker’s ability to make a professional judgment we are investing $500,000 on a structured decision-making tool. A number of universities have also responded to the challenge. Both the University of Queensland and JCU will be offering a graduate diploma in child protection. The staff at the Department of Child Safety will be accessing those courses. In other words, we are doing all we can to assist the caseworker to make a decision with the interests of the child being absolutely paramount. Let me take up the issues which have been raised about case loads. I want to take up the point raised by the opposition shadow spokesperson regarding case loads. At the outset, I want to assure the member that we are working around the clock to drive down case loads and have strategies in place at each zonal and child safety centre office to manage the individual case loads of staff. These strategies include the rapid deployment of the record increases in new staff that are coming on line this year, as well as specialised dedicated teams working with officers to address areas of concern. I can also inform the member that data about workloads is currently being collected in the child safety service centres. The workload analyser developed for the blueprint process will analyse the data. This process will be finalised by the end of this year, giving us a very clear indication of the current case loads. This tool will then be run every six months and will allow us to target resources effectively to each child safety service centre. I also want to caution members about the danger of relying on numbers of cases alone. I know from my detailed discussions with our front-line staff that some staff can easily carry a case load above 15 when they are dealing with less complex cases while other staff, when dealing with extremely complex cases, need to carry a case load lower than 15. It is unfair to both the kids and our workers to simply look at them as statistics. However, it is essential that we get the correct workload balance. It is through our new structured decision-making support tools, increased and enhanced professional training, and better oversight and support that our workers will be able to make the best quality decisions that will deliver real outcomes for Queensland children. This is rightly my and my department's clear focus. We will continue to work with our staff to implement every single CMC recommendation, including those relating to workloads. I would be pleased to continue to brief the shadow spokesperson regularly on our progress in implementing the CMC recommendations. The member for Burdekin raised concerns about preventing an agency from setting up an internal review to avoid oversight by the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian. On page 41 of the explanatory notes, the member will note the reports by the commissioner about non- compliance will be reported to the Minister for Child Safety and those responsible for the agency concerned. The member also quoted the commission's web site. I remind the member that the commission has not only high level, systemic monitoring powers but also powers to investigate complaints and broader advocacy powers. Parents can appeal decisions about placement and contact to the Children's Services Tribunal. Debate, on motion of Mr Reynolds, adjourned.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.29 p.m.): I move— That this parliament recognises that, as the Beattie government has reduced infrastructure spending to the lowest share of the budget on record and as this neglect is now endangering the welfare and lifestyle of Queenslanders, an immediate additional funding allocation be made to critical areas such as water storage, electricity networks, health and educational facilities, and roads. It is quite apparent that there has been a deliberate and systemic process of neglect of essential infrastructure, in particular, under the Beattie government. A recent analysis of the Beattie government's spending on capital works by the Australian Financial Review from the ABS data found that Queensland's expenditure on vital infrastructure had in fact dropped over four years by over $1 billion. Over four years, expenditure on vital capital works infrastructure in Queensland had dropped by over $1 billion. In the last year alone of the Borbidge-Sheldon government, 27.8 per cent of the state budget was spent on capital works, a proportion that has steadily been eroded under successive Labor budgets. In fact, despite record levels of spending, the proportion of money allocated to capital works by the Beattie government in its 2004-05 budget dropped to just 20.4 per cent of the overall budget. For Health, in 2004-05 the Beattie government will spend 6 per cent less on capital works, as a proportion of the overall budget for Health, than the Borbidge government spent in its last budget. For Main Roads, in 2004-05 the Beattie government will spend 43 per cent less on capital works, as a proportion of the overall budget for Main Roads, than the Borbidge government spent in its last budget. 20 Oct 2004 Public Infrastructure 3077

For Transport, in 2004-05 the Beattie government will spend 12 per cent less on capital works, as a proportion of the overall budget for Transport, than the Borbidge government spent in its last budget. For the Department of Natural Resources, in 2004-05 the Beattie government will spend 12 per cent less on capital works, as a proportion of the overall budget for DNR, than the Borbidge government spent in its last budget. Under Labor in Queensland, the fastest growing state in the entire nation has somehow managed to reduce the level of spending needed to preserve Queenslanders' future quality of life. According to the most recent ABS data, from July 1998 to June 2003, 343,000 additional people moved to Queensland, taking the population to almost 3.8 million—an average of almost 70,000 people moving to this state each year. A recent study undertaken by Monash University revealed that 1,321 people move into the south- east corner of Queensland alone each and every week in order to settle down and raise their families. At the same time, Queensland remains the most decentralised state in the entire nation. These twin factors place an obligation on the state government to get the planning of essential infrastructure right. That planning should put into place both the services and the infrastructure needed to preserve and enhance our entire quality of life into the future. This government had undertaken a process of neglect of essential infrastructure in this state. It has complacently sat back and been lulled into a sense of security and inaction by the fact that Queensland's population is growing. As I indicated, Queensland's population is growing each and every week by the 1,300 people who are choosing to move to south- east Queensland. It is not good enough to expect that the infrastructure and services needed to maintain and preserve people's quality of life into the future will happen by osmosis. Nothing like that happens by osmosis! The Premier stood in this House yesterday and used the Joh crane order. He stood here and said that there are 54 cranes or 44 cranes across the skyline of Brisbane, and that there are cranes on the Gold Coast and cranes in Cairns—and cranes everywhere else. Those cranes are to be welcomed, but this Premier is no Sir Joh. When Sir Joh was running this state and we had cranes on top of the buildings, 40 per cent of the state budget was being spent on capital works infrastructure—and that is what maintains people's quality of life. By and large, the roads network in and around Brisbane and south-east Queensland—and much of the rest of the state—is still exactly the same as 15 or 16 years ago. There have been some road improvements but the only major road improvement in the last 15 years was the highway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. That was put in place. It started under the Borbidge-Sheldon government and was virtually finished during the time we were in government. The present government came to power virtually at its completion. Major infrastructure has been neglected by this government. The Gateway Bridge is congested and there is no real sign of action from this government to ensure that the bridge will be duplicated. If we get a commitment for duplication of the bridge, it may still be 10 years down the track. It is still 10 years down the track! What is happening with regard to that? The Treasurer stood in this House yesterday and said that he has an additional $966 million over and above that which he predicted to be the case in this year's state budget. I ask the Treasurer and the members opposite: what are they going to do with that? Some time ago this government said that Mr Howard and Mr Anderson should put some of their budget surplus into infrastructure. As I understand it, some $200-odd million will be spent in areas such as Tully on the flood works, and other moneys will be made available through AusLink. What is the Queensland government doing to match and meet the lifestyle requirements of the people of Queensland? We cannot have this sort of population growth and development in Queensland without ensuring that we have the infrastructure to move people around. The government's own studies through the department of transport indicate that the average Brisbane commuter is now sitting in traffic for 26 per cent longer than they were two years ago. That is what is happening, yet there is no real effort by the government to address it—just complacency. It sits back and waits for the money to come rolling in. What are the other areas of neglect? I have mentioned roads. There is also public transport infrastructure. Water is vitally important. It is a very sad indictment on any government that it is unable to meet the emerging water requirements of its citizenry. We know that studies by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines indicate that the Gold Coast will exhaust its existing water supply somewhere between 2007 and 2010. What is the government doing? Nothing! The mayor of the Gold Coast is talking about desalination. When the Goss government came to power, it knocked the Wolffdene dam on the head. That was its policy decision. There has been no practical solution put in place. In fact, when the Beattie government came to power, it knocked on the head the $1 billion water infrastructure program which was being put in place by the Borbidge-Sheldon government and which was already starting to see some of the smaller schemes get up and going. That was happening in a period of two years and four months in government in Queensland. 3078 Public Infrastructure 20 Oct 2004

There are water problems emerging on the Gold Coast; water problems are emerging for Toowoomba and the Darling Downs; and water problems are emerging for the cities just north of Brisbane on the Sunshine Coast. A re-evaluation of Wivenhoe's capacity has revealed that it is much less than people thought it may be. I understand it may be 100,000 megalitres less a year than the volume projected. These are the sorts of endemic neglect and chronic infrastructure problems that are emerging. We have immediate water problems in south-east Queensland, but we have water issues in agricultural and urban areas right around the rest of the state—yet this government is doing nothing whatsoever to solve them. In the meantime, it is rolling in additional stamp duty revenues—half a billion dollars more in this year's state budget than it budgeted for—payroll tax, land tax and a GST mountain so high it cannot even jump over it. This government is riding on the tail coats of good economic management by the Howard-Anderson government and that has lowered interest rates. That, in turn, has increased property values in an investment based market where people are paying higher prices and has resulted in a stamp duty influx for the government. Now, this government undertakes studies and it talks about doing things, but it never really does anything. Also, it is ripping money out of GOCs at a time when it says it has a budget surplus. We know that the electricity GOC has $4.6 billion of debt. In the last four, five or six years this government has taken almost two and a half billion dollars out of the electricity sector. It is loading up the GOCs with debt and syphoning off money, but it is not putting it into the infrastructure which is essential to preserve the lifestyle of Queenslanders. Time expired. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (5.40 p.m.): I rise to second the motion that has been moved by the member for Southern Downs and Leader of the Opposition. Queenslanders find themselves in an almost enviable position, in spite of the financial management of the Beattie Labor government and not because of it. As the member for Southern Downs pointed out, the legacy that Queensland has inherited from the financial management skills of the federal government means that a considerable amount of money can be spent on guaranteeing Queensland's future and a considerable amount of money can be invested in the future of every Queenslander. We need to look at the state budget and the figures to appreciate the extent of the opportunity that Queensland has if the financial management here can come close to equalling the financial management in Canberra that has produced these figures. This financial year alone the Beattie Labor government will receive an additional $797 million more in GST revenue than it thought it would receive when it first signed the GST agreement. By 2007- 08, this revenue windfall from the GST, which was so strenuously opposed by the Labor government here in Queensland, will have grown to $1.4 billion. In fact, Queensland will receive a total windfall gain of almost $4 billion in GST revenue in the first six years of the GST revenue sharing agreement. That is an incredible amount of money being made available to the State Treasury. We also need to look at where the rest of the windfall comes from. Some $200 million comes out of the pockets of Queensland taxpayers through increased land tax and payroll tax. Also, through a stroke of good fortune rather than good management, the state's property prices boom has contributed to a massive increase in stamp duty revenues and land tax, all of which has flown into the state coffers. It also presents a great opportunity for investment in infrastructure for the future of Queensland and Queenslanders in the future. That opportunity is being wasted by the current Labor government, the Treasurer and the Premier. No greater example of their failure to invest in infrastructure can possibly be seen than the Energex debacle. That debacle is facing Queensland's electricity consumers this summer and in the summers to come simply because of the government's failure to invest in the infrastructure that is needed to meet the growth that is happening in south-east Queensland. Let us look at the legacy that Queenslanders have inherited from a government that is not only reluctant to invest in that infrastructure but is also prepared to rip money out of that electricity sector in the form of dividends. The Somerville report said that at least $1 billion was needed to make up for underspending over the past 10 years. That is the legacy the Labor government has left for Queensland. It is a legacy that both Ergon and Energex have pointed out will take years to catch up on. In 2001-02 in Queensland public investment in infrastructure in real terms per capita fell to its lowest level in 20 years. Required public investment in infrastructure per capita is directly related to the rate of population growth. With Queensland growing at almost twice the national average, net public capital outlays per capita should be almost twice the Australian average to maintain a similar standard and quality of infrastructure as exists in the rest of Australia. Queensland needs to increase its gross public fixed capital outlays by more than $1.35 billion annually over current levels simply to halt the deterioration in Queensland's position relative to the rest of the states. Queensland state government capital outlays have actually fallen in real terms per capita from the highs of the early 1980s. In 1983-84 gross state expenditure on new fixed assets was just over $1,400 20 Oct 2004 Public Infrastructure 3079 per capita. In 2001-02 gross outlays were just under $1,000 per capita. In fact, in 2001-02 state capital outlays in real terms fell to their lowest point in 20 years. The state government often argues that its capital outlays on a per capita basis are high, but the required investment per capita to ensure the appropriate infrastructure is in fact related to the rate of growth in population. There is not enough spending occurring in Queensland to take account of the population growth. We have a great opportunity to ensure not only that those people who are moving to Queensland can enjoy the lifestyle that they move here for but also that the Queenslanders who live here can be assured that that infrastructure serves their needs. Time expired. Hon. P.D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.44 p.m.): I move— That all words after ‘recognises’ are omitted and the following words inserted— ‘that the Beattie government has increased infrastructure spending to a record high of more than $6 billion which means it is spending more in real terms per capita on capital works than any other state government and more than the National Party government in the 1980s; and has also improved the welfare and lifestyle of Queenslanders by rectifying the shameful level of spending by National and Liberal Party Queensland governments on health, education, people with disabilities, children and families.’ Before I make my contribution today, I point out—and I do this very gently—to the Leader of the Opposition that in his contribution he made an incorrect comparison. In terms of capital outlays he was comparing pre with post-accrual accounting. Those comparisons simply are not valid. It is comparing chalk with cheese. I am sorry, Lawrence— Mr Springborg: That is not right. Mr BEATTIE:—you are just not right. One cannot compare, in capital outlays, pre with post- accrual accounting. It cannot be done. The Leader of the Opposition has it wrong. I seriously suggest that he do a crash course in accounting. The 2004-05 state capital program will exceed $6 billion for the first time in the history of Queensland. This year our Capital Works Program is about $1 billion higher than the 2003-04 capital works outcome. In real per capita terms, our 2004 Capital Works Program is higher than any year in the 1980s. On a per capita basis, in the 2004-05 year our general government sector capital program is the largest in the country, being 21 per cent higher than the next state. Queensland, with 19 per cent of Australia's population, will account for 27 per cent of all state and territory capital works in 2004-05. The Leader of the Opposition believes that we should emulate his government and refuse to increase spending on social services, but that is not what we are going to do. This government will continue to deliver on all fronts— • a budget with a record capital works program; • a budget with a strong surplus; and • a budget which supports record funding to social services. We are building the capital infrastructure and the social infrastructure for Queenslanders today and tomorrow. Major projects announced in this year’s budget include some $1.9 billion on transport infrastructure over the next four years— • a $571 million arterial roads infrastructure package; • a further $500 million for QR’s Citytrain network MetTrip upgrades, building on the initial $400 million MetTrip investment in the Smart State Building Fund; • $200 million on busways improvements including the Queen Street to Roma Street bus tunnel; and • the $167 million expansion of the RG Tanna wharf at the port of Gladstone. The budget also included a boost to electricity distribution assets in anticipation of the Somerville review. Energex will spend on average $504 million over the next two years—a 76 per cent increase over the average spend of the last three years. Ergon will spend on average $500 million a year over the next two years on capital works, which is an increase of 62 per cent over the average spend of the last three years. The Burnett dam and associated infrastructure is being constructed at a cost of $255 million. Queensland Health is budgeted to spend $406 million on capital works, including capital grants for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. A major highlight is the $200 million to be committed over the next three years through the Smart State Building Fund, including projects at Browns Plains, North Lakes, Cairns, Gladstone, Rockhampton and the Sunshine Coast. Redevelopment of emergency departments will occur at Gympie, Logan, Redcliffe, Redland, Robina and Weipa Hospitals. The Prince Charles emergency department will also be redeveloped. Major hospital redevelopments will take place at Gympie, Redcliffe, Redland, Robina, Logan, Atherton and Hervey Bay. The Government has also made a commitment to the redevelopment of the Mater Public Hospital. 3080 Public Infrastructure 20 Oct 2004

The 2005-06 budget will see the planning and delivery of new infrastructure for this state, including projects arising from the south-east Queensland regional plan and the state infrastructure plan. Providing appropriate economic and social public infrastructure forms a key element of my government’s economic strategy for further increasing the state’s productive capacity, enhancing economic growth and raising the living standard of all Queenslanders. I had a meeting with the Lord Mayor this afternoon because next week he and I will launch the urban management strategy for south-east Queensland. In that strategy we will guarantee the quality of life for south-east Queensland, because that is important. There are over 1,100 people moving here every week and through natural birth we are getting another 300. That is a lot of people. Therefore, that urban management strategy, which I will launch next week with the Lord Mayor, is a key to protecting our quality of life. As I have discussed with the Treasurer—and this will go to CBRC and will be approved by government—there will be a major infrastructure plan that will include transport and various other needs to complement that urban management plan. They are the infrastructure needs that we are planning for in the future. Hon. A.M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education and the Arts) (5.49 p.m.): I rise to second the amendment moved by the Premier. If one really wants to understand some of the fundamental differences between the Beattie Labor government and the Queensland National Party, one does not have to look much further than the infrastructure record on schools in the last 50 years in this state. The Beattie government is the biggest spender on education infrastructure in this state's history. In this term of government, we estimate that we will spend more than $1.13 billion, including a record $336.7 million in this financial year. That includes more than $145 million for nine new schools for Queensland. We have already delivered 17 new schools and eight relocated schools since 1999. Successive Labor governments in Queensland have also invested heavily in major renewal and upgrade programs. One might ask why we have had to invest in renewal programs. One might ask why we have had to go and invest large amounts of money into programs to renew existing schools. The schools that were inherited by the Goss Labor government in 1989 were nothing short of a disgrace. Many of them had been slapped up on the cheap and left to deteriorate, unless of course they were in certain electorates. If they were in National Party electorates, they may well have stood the test of time. But there were schools in Labor electorates that had not seen a lick of paint from the day they had been built as part of a deliberate policy. Mr Robertson: Who could forget the school near The Ten Mile! Ms BLIGH: Yes, who could forget the school near The Ten Mile! Those days are gone. We no longer decide where schools should be built and how they should be looked after on the basis of how people vote in those school communities. Schools are now looked after on the basis of need. It was a Labor government that developed the Building Better Schools program—a five-year program of a quarter of a billion dollars to give primary schools the first chance in literally decades to upgrade. It was a Labor government that introduced the Secondary Schools Renewal program. Over the three years from 2000 to 2003, more than $150 million was invested to upgrade our oldest high schools, and many members will have seen what that has meant in our schools. In this term of government we have the Smart State Building Fund of $350 million—all new funds on top of the existing capital works program. In this year we will see more than $17 million for Cooler Schools, $36 million for prep year facilities in state and non-state schools and $16 million dedicated to new and refurbished toilets. Let me talk about toilets for a minute. It is easy when we talk about infrastructure to think of large rail corridors, bridges and tall buildings. But every member in this House knows that when they go to a school community those schools want to make sure that their children have safe and clean toilets, and some of the toilets that we are renovating are the ones that have been left as a legacy of the government that those opposite were a part of. This is the first dedicated toilet upgrade program in the history of Education Queensland, and as members can see I am very proud of it. Mr Lucas: Smart toilets! Ms BLIGH: Smart toilets; that is right. We will see nearly $50 million for extra stages of existing schools, $27 million for continued school renewal and upgrades to libraries and school administration blocks, increases in capital grants to non-government schools, more than $20 million dedicated to new and upgraded facilities for students with special needs, and $11 million for electrical upgrades that are underpinning our push into the technological era. The electrical upgrades program is making sure that our schools are able to cope with the injection of new technology and computers that we have supported through other grants. In addition to this record capital expenditure, there is record expenditure on maintenance of state schools in this term of government—more than $220 million in this term. So we are building new schools in high-growth areas. We are building new buildings in our existing schools, whether they are classrooms, toilets, performing arts blocks or technology centres. Importantly, we are maintaining and looking after our schools, which is more than can be said for the record of the Queensland National Party. As I said earlier, nowhere in my view is the contrast in infrastructure and the policies and actions of the Queensland National Party and the Queensland Labor 20 Oct 2004 Public Infrastructure 3081 government any more stark than it is in the Education portfolio. It is nothing short of hypocrisy—nothing short of hypocrisy—for the Leader of the Opposition to have come in here tonight with a motion condemning this government for its spending on schools. I would suggest that he does a history lesson. I would suggest that he goes and looks at the spending on schools in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. It was disgraceful! Hon. K.R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (5.56 p.m.): Once again we have seen a motion that criticises the government and says that it has reduced infrastructure spending to the lowest share of the budget able to be amended by removing all words after the third or the fourth word and saying that this government is spending more money that the National Party in the 1980s. That is a ridiculous amendment, and the public would have to be disgusted about what is going on in this parliament when the government is allowed to amend motions as it has done. It obviously shows that it is hard to be humble but easy to be arrogant, and that is clearly what this government is doing. There has been a massive philosophical change by this government as compared to previous governments, especially in the area of water infrastructure. There is no doubt that the attitude of the present Queensland government is much different than attitudes held by governments in the 1980s. Previous governments regarded water as one of the basic commodities necessary for the community. Water was considered a very necessary utility. Water was regarded the same as electricity and the same as transport. As governments provided funds from consolidated revenue—as they provided money from taxes—it was quite obvious that they would provide money for things like bus transport, electricity and fuel to supplement the costs that the people were experiencing. But that is not the case with the present government in terms of water. It has turned around philosophically and changed the whole concept of what happens with dams and water storage. Previous governments have been prepared to provide consolidated funds for the capital cost of building dams. Future maintenance costs on those dams were paid for by those who used the water. So dams such as Maroon and Moogerah were able to be built from consolidated revenue funds and were built partly for agricultural viability. Farmers did not have to contribute the whole cost of the capital infrastructure. Upkeep and maintenance could be covered by water costs imposed on the farmer. But of course now there is a different attitude by this state government. Now it is saying that it will not build a dam unless the farmers contribute and pay for the whole capital cost of the dam. It is saying that the user has to pay for the whole capital cost. How can farmers under the present viability pay for the whole capital cost of building a dam? This is a complete philosophical change from previous governments. Maroon was built from consolidated revenue. Moogerah was built from consolidated revenue. Dams which provide water for urban users are approached differently, because the initial capital construction costs can be done by an organisation such as the Brisbane Area Water Board that has the ability, with the backing of this state government, to raise the funds to pay for the initial capital infrastructure of the dams. These costs of course can be retrieved by the urban people paying their rates and paying it off, but that is completely different from what this government is doing to the rural sectors of this state. Admittedly, the costs of the urban user and industries are higher than those in the agricultural sector, but it does not overcome the initial problem that with this system there will be no dams built in rural areas for use by the agricultural sector because the agricultural sector cannot pay the initial capital costs. Those opposite came to power and cancelled the Wolffdene dam simply for political reasons. It said it would build a dam at Glendower. It said that it would resume all of the land and build it at Glendower. Now it has come up with statements that the dam at Glendower is not viable. Clearly the Wolffdene has gone. Clearly the Glendower has gone. As is typical with an ALP government, what does it want? It wants a pipeline from the Wivenhoe through Logan down to the Gold Coast. What does today’s Australian editorial discuss? It says that the ALP government in New South Wales is doing exactly the same thing—that is, it wants more pipelines for Sydney. There are no dams and no infrastructure as far as dams are concerned. There would be no-one sitting in this room who would be able to claim that dams in the areas around Beaudesert where we can retrieve the water are not needed in the future. Nine-three per cent of the water that flows down the Logan River goes into the ocean. Only seven per cent of that water is used. So if 93 per cent of the water in the Logan River goes into the ocean, what about the water in the Brisbane River? What about all of these rivers? The government is wasting 93 per cent of the water. All the government has to do is come up with dam infrastructures to retrieve that water. But no, the government is going to talk about desalination programs. Time expired. Hon. P.T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Main Roads) (6.00 p.m.): It is a pleasure to be in Queensland, Australia's fastest-growing state. In south-east Queensland we have a record population growth: 1,400 per week in net migration. Recently, the Premier indicated that 40 per cent of the jobs created in Australia are created in Queensland, the economic powerhouse. 3082 Public Infrastructure 20 Oct 2004

The Beattie government is responding to the challenge. For example, we are responding to the challenge in our roads. We spend more than twice per capita on our roads compared to what Victoria spends on its roads. Mr Johnson: So we should. Mr LUCAS: We spend $228.90 a head compared to the $89.20 per head that is spent in Victoria. As the honourable member indicates, so we should. The good news is that in our current state budget, $4 billion is allocated to the Transport and Main Roads operating budget: $1.7 million for Queensland Transport and $2.3 billion for Main Roads, including $1.3 billion for regional roadworks and operations and corporate and technical services. That $1.7 billion is a significant 14 per cent increase on the previous Transport and Main Roads budget. Importantly, that budget provides a further commitment to improving Queensland's transport system, with an additional $1.14 billion commitment in new money over the next four years. That is in addition to the $951 million that has been provided since December 2003, for example, an extra $650 million under the Smart State Building Fund. I refer to the two areas north and south of Brisbane. On the Sunshine Coast, we are spending $635 million over the next five years on roads. That is a 129 per cent increase—an extra $358 million. What did the Sunshine Coast Daily say about that? I will table this article. It states— Wow! We've scored big time. That is what the media on the Sunshine Coast said about that funding. On the Gold Coast, we are spending $543 million on roads over the next five years, and $183 million on public transport infrastructure over four years. What did the Gold Coast Bulletin say? Terry grants three wishes: build, build, build. One would hardly say that either of those newspapers are apologists for the Beattie government, but they stated very clearly their analysis of what we are doing when it comes to transport infrastructure. There is an allocation of $19 million over two years to complete the Linkfield Connection Road. We talked about that this morning. There is $120 million for the Centenary Highway extension to Ripley Road over the next four years and more than $14.7 million to complete the $20 million project to duplicate the Sunshine Motorway to four lanes between Mooloolaba and Maroochydore. We have the $360 million Tugun bypass that we cut through the red tape to make sure we can deliver, with the EIS to come out before the end of Christmas. The connection to the Tugun bypass, the Stewart Road interchange, is to be finished by Christmas. There is the allocation of $5.2 million on a series of projects to improve the New England Highway north of Toowoomba. Also, money has been allocated to the Carnarvon Highway, the Maryborough- Hervey Bay Road and the Gladstone-Benaraby Road. An amount of $26 million has been committed to the Yeppoon western bypass and the Yeppoon-Tanby Road. I turn to our rail infrastructure. An amount of $342 million as been allocated for rail infrastructure starting in 2005-06 for rail lines and station upgrades, track duplication and security enhancements. The Inner Northern Busway is a great initiative of the Beattie Labor government. It is a key link in the proposed regional busway network. We have built stages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. An amount of $135 million was allocated for those earlier stages. Now the money has been allocated for the other stages. No other capital city in the world will have northern and southern dedicated busways under the main streets of the capital city. That is what we have done in relation to public transport. Since 1998, the government has invested $3.7 billion in rail infrastructure and rolling stock and, since July 1999, $270 million on Citytrain. I refer now to some of the projects. We have the tripling of the track between Salisbury and Kuraby, we have the duplication of the track between Helensvale and Robina, we have the duplication of the track from Mitchelton to Keperra on the Ferny Grove line, we have $156.4 million for 14 more three-car train sets and $9.3 million for station upgrades. You ain't seen nothing yet! I know that we are going to make some more announcements in the very near future about our rail network that I am very, very proud about. I refer to other areas. In the coalmines, there has been an allocation of $272.5 million for coal infrastructure projects such as the Rolleston mine spur and $109.6 million for the construction and electrification of the Hail Creek mine spur. We have the south-east Queensland intermodal freight terminal study. We are recognising the value and importance of intermodal freight. We have the expansion of the R. G. Tanna coal terminal—the central Queensland port. In 2003, we opened an $80 million expansion of R. G. Tanna. This year, we approved a further $167.5 million to take the capacity of R. G. Tanna from 40 million tonnes per annum to 54 million tonnes per annum. At Fisherman Islands we have the 4.6 kilometre, $90 million extension to the wharf. Two hundred and thirty hectares are going to be reclaimed. Time expired. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (6.05 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. This evening, the Premier came into this House and made comments about the opposition having the figures wrong. I have to say that 20 Oct 2004 Public Infrastructure 3083 the Premier is the one who has the figures wrong. The Premier said that the opposition has it wrong in capital spending because we do not understand accrual accounting. I have to say to the Premier that it is about the actual cash that is spent on capital works programs. The Premier is not taking into account accrual accounting. At the end of the program—that is right, the program—the assets are worth more, but the government has to have the dollars to spend on the program in the first place. That is where this government is hoodwinking or conning the general public, and the general public of Queensland have been conned enough. We have just heard the Minister for Transport stand up in this place and reel off a heap of capital works programs that are going to be very advantageous to south-east Queensland. I support that, but at the end of the day we have to remember what the Premier said in this House a couple of months ago. Before I refer to what the Premier said, on top of that we have the admission by the Minister for Local Government that people need to live in centres outside of south-east Queensland. Local authorities are struggling to supply that domestic infrastructure now. They need to upgrade their ageing sewage and water plants so that they can sustain the population that they have. I suggest to the Minister for Local Government that she do a tour of regional and rural Queensland and see first-hand the deplorable state of some of this infrastructure in question. Back in September, the Premier said that there are 1,580 people a week coming to live in Queensland. That is very good, but what the Premier has not addressed is that these people have to be sustained by water, by power and by accommodation. We have the Health Minister and the Education Minister saying how well we are doing in education. Yes, but these people who come to Queensland have kids. All of these issues have to be addressed because of this explosion in our population. I am saying that we are building one new Toowoomba every year in Queensland without supplying the associated infrastructure to cater for the needs of that extra population. While talking about Toowoomba, I want to refer to the second range crossing. All the previous Minister for Transport did was tip buckets on the federal government. We have heard about the extra $700 million for Queensland in GST payments. Where has that money gone? It has gone into a lot of social programs because of mismanagement by this government. The point that I make is that we have Toowoomba grinding to a halt and we have south-east Queensland grinding to a halt while the government pays lip- service to the rest of Queensland, where the wealth generation of this state is situated. We heard the Minister for Transport rattle on about an extra $1 billion over five years in funding for infrastructure in rural and regional Queensland. That is all very good, but local governments are struggling to upgrade and maintain the road network that they have now. This is where the dollars are coming from. A while ago we heard the Minister for Transport rattle on about the increase in coal out of those central Queensland coalmines. This is very good, but some of those coalmines are going to grind to a halt if we do not put in place infrastructure for water that is needed to produce that coal. There is only so much water. Without that infrastructure, the Central Highlands will grind to a halt. We have seen what is happening on the Central Highlands now with the citrus canker outbreak. We have had one farm of 250,000 trees totally destroyed. We have another farmer looking at bulldozing 312,000 trees to protect the industry in Queensland. We talk about jobs. This is jobs going out the back door. I say to this government that it had better start paying some attention to where the real wealth generation is located in this state, and that is rural and regional Queensland. I know that the federal government has to play a part in this, but those opposite cannot sit over there all day every day tipping buckets on the federal government. It has a good management program in place. We have low interest rates. It has delivered. Why do those opposite not go to the negotiating table and say, ‘This is how it is,' instead of slandering and bucketing all the time? That is not how people conduct proper negotiations in a businesslike way. I say to the Premier: show some leadership and correct the problem— Time expired. Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Mines) (6.10 p.m.): Having listened to the contributions of both the member for Beaudesert and the member for Gregory in relation to water infrastructure, I think it is fair to say that what we have witnessed are contributions of unmitigated nonsense, dishonesty and absolute absence of fact—on the very day that I stood in this place and announced a new $20 million-plus off-stream water storage for the northern Bowen Basin to ensure that those mines continue to operate during the drought. That is over $20 million worth of infrastructure in new water storages. The member for Beaudesert and the member for Gregory got to their feet to say that nothing is happening, that we are selling the mining industry short, on the very day that I announced that new infrastructure worth $20 million. If one reflects on the contribution of the member for Beaudesert, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that the National Party has yet again demonstrated how it is living in the past—not just in the 1980s but in the 1950s. If the member for Beaudesert had one ounce of honesty, he would know that right throughout Australia, driven largely by the federal government, there has been a significant reform agenda put in place relating to how water is managed and stored in this country, and not before time. 3084 Public Infrastructure 20 Oct 2004

When we look across the landscape we see the legacy of poor National Party planning and blatant political pork-barrelling. What about the subsidy scheme up on the Darling Downs to provide money for farmers to build storages on their properties on the Darling Downs? They have never been filled. Why? Because those opposite were more interested in political advantage than good, sustainable outcomes. The member for Darling Downs knows that that is the case, that there are any number of ring tanks in his electorate that have never filled, despite the investment of taxpayers' dollars in those structures. He knows, because he has witnessed how we have struggled with ensuring environmental protection of valuable river systems in this state and how we struggled to put 10 per cent of extractions back for the environment in the Lower Balonne, now part of the Murray-Darling Basin, to ensure environmental sustainability. Not one mention of the environment was made by the member for Beaudesert—not one. He lauded the dams like Moogerah and Maroon, but let us look at them now. They are virtually empty. Why? Because of inappropriate planning. They are more interested in political advantage than in good, sustainable outcomes. The member had the gall to say that no dams are being built. What is happening up at Bundaberg? Has the member gone up there lately? There is $200 million worth of new dam being put in place outside Bundaberg. Who are the beneficiaries of that new infrastructure? The canefarmers, the vegetable farmers, industry and the community of Bundaberg. Yet the member stands up in this place and says that nothing is happening. That is clearly not the case. We are committed to long-term sustainable outcomes. We are about investing in infrastructure that delivers long-term, secure supplies of water—not quick political fixes, as has been the legacy we inherited from 32 years of National Party rule plus the two years in which it pork-barrelled again up on the Darling Downs with ring tanks that have not filled since the day they were constructed. That is the legacy we inherited. We are committed to long-term planning for our water supplies, particularly here in south-east Queensland. The member mentioned Glendower dam. Glendower dam is not off the agenda. What we do know through proper planning is that original assumptions about the yield of dams such as that are not what we thought. So what do we do? Go down the path and still build it knowing that we may not get the yield that we once had planned for? That would be an inappropriate and complete waste of taxpayers' money. But through proper planning, through good science, through a long-term vision for sustainable water supplies in this state, that is what we committed to. We have just seen the release of the south-east Queensland water supply strategy. That provides south-east Queensland with a 15-year vision. We have now embarked on the second stage of a 50-year vision for south-east Queensland—the first time any government has sat down and done the long-term planning— Time expired. Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (6.15 p.m.): Tonight I rise in favour of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition and very much against the amendment moved by the Premier. This subject is one of the most important matters that will have a significant impact on the state's economic development and future prosperity. As well, it is important that this parliament recognises that the Beattie government has reduced infrastructure spending to the lowest share of the budget on record. The reduction in infrastructure funding is now endangering the welfare and lifestyle of Queenslanders, and an immediate injection of funding is essential to build up those critical areas such as water storage, electricity networks, road networks and health and education facilities. If it does not rain, we are going to run out of water. It is as simple as that. The Beattie government lacks the ability to undertake critical infrastructure development. While the government's web site displays an infrastructure plan, that plan is yet to be implemented. This is in stark contrast to the conservative government. Let us look at the records of previous Queensland conservative governments. I sat and listened to the drivel from the previous speaker. Members opposite berate the Bjelke-Petersen government, unless of course certain members want to exploit the former Premier for a photographic opportunity, which we so often see. How often does the Premier go along and get a photo with Sir Joh? Why does he? Because of what Sir Joh did for the infrastructure of Queensland. Queensland today is a virile, fast-developing state with a tremendous future. Its resources and prospects are known the world over. The transformation was brought about by the strong and visionary leadership of the Nationals, which saw massive infrastructure construction which included ports, rail electrification, the South East Freeway, a network of decentralised highways, bridges, water storages, power stations, transmission networks, hospitals, schools and universities. What have we seen from this government? A footbridge and a football stadium! That is what we have seen—two things. Time does not permit me to elaborate in great detail, but it is fair to say that history describes the Bjelke-Petersen government's achievements positively and recognises the progressive economic benefits which we should still be building upon. After a period of infrastructure stagnation under the Goss Labor government, the Borbidge government brought a reprieve to infrastructure developers and the construction industry alike. I think it is important to outline for the parliament once again some of the Borbidge government's remarkable 20 Oct 2004 Public Infrastructure 3085 achievements. We heard the minister talk about those couple of years. Yes, they were remarkable achievements, particularly when one looks at what was accomplished in a little over two years of government. Let me talk about what was accomplished. Mr Lucas interjected. Mr HOPPER: The minister should just listen. He might learn something. The Borbidge government delivered a $4.8 billion road program which included the Pacific Motorway—eight lanes to the Gold Coast. Where would we be today without that having been built? Where would we be without that highway that the Borbidge government put in place? In relation to the South East Transit Project, the Borbidge government decided to incorporate the two-way, two-lane busway between the Brisbane CBD and the Gateway Arterial into its plans for the eight laning of the Pacific Highway on the South East Freeway. There was a major restructure of rail operations, coupled with a $2 billion investment program. There was a water infrastructure plan, which was part of the Borbidge government's strategic economic plan, which identified major projects to be developed aimed at massively boosting the state's productive sector. $8 billion worth of water related projects were identified by the Water Infrastructure Task Force. A blueprint was developed for the state's electricity industry, and agreement was reached to pipe gas to the far north-west, which was an economic milestone for the state. That agreement helped facilitate investment of up to $4 billion and export income of up to $2 billion a year. We saw the construction of a $52 million north-west Queensland water pipeline project from Lake Julius to the Ernest Henry mine; the completion of a $1.65 billion power station at Stanwell; and a $2.7 billion hospital rebuilding program for which the Beattie government claims credit. Not only are there photos with Sir Joh; Beattie is claiming credit for what Borbidge put in place. What a wonderful way to go—just win government and live off the backs of the previous government! That is exactly what this Beattie government has done. It is living off the fat of the backs of what we put in place in infrastructure in Queensland. Under the Goss government and, in particular, successive Labor health ministers—namely, McElligott, Hayward, Elder and Beattie—there was much talk but very little action. It took a Nationals-led government to get the ball rolling and construction started. Desley Boyle said the other day in the paper, ‘Go north, go west, but don't settle in the south-east; we can't handle the infrastructure.' With 1,500 people a week we have a local government minister— Time expired. Hon. R.J. MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (Minister for Energy) (6.20 p.m.): I am glad the five minutes is up; I thought he was going to do himself some damage. Have you ever heard anything like it? There he was extolling the virtues of the Borbidge government, and yet how did he get into this place? By being an Independent, running away from the National Party. That is the only way he worked out he could get into the place—by running away from the Borbidge legacy! The other piece of absolute intelligentsia was this— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will address the chair. Mr MICKEL: Of course, Mr Speaker. The other piece of intelligentsia was, ‘If it doesn't rain, we won't get any water.' Where do you jokers get off? Mr HOPPER: I rise to a point of order. Mr Speaker, we saw in this place earlier today our members reprimanded for not speaking to the bill before the House, and the minister is not doing that at this moment. Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. Mr MICKEL: The poor old thing is so embarrassed with what was a dismal performance— Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have had a few words this morning already and last night. The House will come to order and the minister will debate the motion before the House. Mr MICKEL: Of course, Mr Speaker. They were so bereft of anything they had to put up a joker who had ratted on the National Party to try to extol its virtues. I am pleased to speak about this issue tonight because in the electricity industry Queensland is leading the rest of the country in investment. Since the inception of the national electricity market in 1998, $6.3 billion has been invested in the market. Queensland alone has been responsible for the bulk of that spending, accounting for $4.7 billion—4.7 billion in real dollars into that market. What does that equate to? Some 7,500 megawatts of generation capacity. What does that mean in real terms? We heard all the nonsense about it all going into south-east Queensland. Let us put the lie to that. What it says is this: the government has built or approved Callide C, Tarong North, Swanbank E, Townsville's new gas-fired power plant, Kogan Creek and Millmerran—all base load generators. Queensland is in the enviable position of having excess generating capacity. Since 1998 Queensland has had the greatest level of investment in transmission infrastructure, equal to approximately $1.3 billion or one-third of the total invested. What does that mean for this summer? It means our generating capacity will be 10,000 megawatts. Demand peaked in February this 3086 Child Safety Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 20 Oct 2004 year at 7,934 megawatts. In fact, on a number of occasions this year Queensland provided nine per cent of New South Wales's peak demand via the Queensland-New South Wales interconnector. The good news is that Queensland will have 20 per cent excess power generated over the coming summer. Even at the height of the summer we expect to be in a position to export power interstate. What did the National Party government do under the Borbidge government—so lauded by the member for Darling Downs? They turned off the lights. We had four days of power cuts. There were no storms but we had four days of power cuts. What did they do with the electricity industry? They wasted $200 million on a name change, changing it from Eastlink to Westlink. Boy, wouldn't we have loved that $200 million lately? The National Party just went for a quick fix, turned off the lights, and Queensland had power cuts for four days. We are facing up to the challenges. This year Energex is increasing its capital spending by $113.7 million to $421 million. Twenty-three major power transformers, 17 cooling fans, 14 capacitator banks, upgrades to 33- and 11-kilovolt feeders and upgrades to distribution transformers. In 1996 when the Borbidge government was in, Energex's predecessor invested $130 million, and they took $850 million directly out of the electricity industry. That is the legacy they have left us. Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 46—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, E.Clark, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, E.Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Struthers, C.Sullivan, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 19—Copeland, Flegg, Foley, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, E.Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Question—That the motion, as amended, be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 46—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, E.Clark, L.Clark, Croft, Cummins, E.Cunningham, Fenlon, Finn, Fouras, Fraser, Hayward, Hoolihan, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Livingstone, Lucas, Male, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Nelson- Carr, Nuttall, O’Brien, Pearce, Pitt, Purcell, Reilly, Reynolds, Robertson, Schwarten, Scott, Struthers, C.Sullivan, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T.Sullivan, Reeves NOES, 19—Copeland, Flegg, Foley, Johnson, Knuth, Langbroek, Lee Long, Lingard, McArdle, Menkens, Messenger, Quinn, Rickuss, E.Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Springborg. Tellers: Hopper, Malone Resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 6.36 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

CHILD SAFETY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2)

Second Reading Resumed from p. 3076. Hon. M.F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (7.30 p.m.), continuing in reply: As I was saying before the break, the work that we are all doing in regard to the amendments which are being put forward in relation to child safety is very important. They are very important amendments. Again, I would like to thank all the speakers today for the support that they have been able to give to the legislation. One of the other issues that was raised, particularly by the member for Gladstone, was the issue of politicians having access to information. This is a topic that a number of people on my legislation committee have asked me about, as have members across the parliament generally. The legislation safeguards children's information because it is important that these children have the same rights of privacy as any other child. I think that privilege is sacrosanct. It is very much something which a child deserves. The legislation does protect confidential information very much in the best interests of the child, very much in terms of the paramountcy that we give to the interests of the child. That interest of the child will always be our first consideration. If there are concerns about how the department is dealing with a case, there are specific agencies which have powers to obtain information about a child for the purpose of following up on concerns and ensuring that the best interests of a child are met. In other words, not just the department but a number of different watchdogs—if I can put it in that way—are able to work towards keeping the processes and systems of the Department of Child Safety open, transparent and accountable. That underpins this child safety reform legislation. Anyone who has concerns about departmental decision making or the actions of departmental officers has a variety of options—I stress, a variety of options—available to them involving either internal or independent external review mechanisms. Major case decisions of the department are subject to 20 Oct 2004 Order of Business 3087 internal review by experienced, professional staff. Externally, organisations including the office of the Commissioner for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, the Children’s Services Tribunal, the Children’s Court, the Ombudsman and the Crime and Misconduct Commission as well as the general judicial review systems can be involved in reviewing public decisions. As I have indicated, I cannot think of one other state government department in Queensland that would be externally monitored in the manner of the Department of Child Safety, but that should be the case. We need to be open, we need to be transparent and accountable, and we need to be externally monitored; we have witnessed tragedy in the past when that was not the case. The shadow spokesperson, the member for Burdekin, also raised the issue of the complaints unit and the appropriateness of referring people to that unit. I advise the member for Burdekin and other members that the complaints unit was set up as a result of the CMC inquiry. It was a very, very important recommendation that came out of the CMC inquiry, and it is entirely appropriate to refer people to the 1800 number. The complaints unit has a target of providing an initial response within three days, and, by referring people directly to that unit in the first instance, if people are unhappy with their local child safety service centre or zonal office, it ensures that their concerns are addressed in a timely and considered manner. The member also raised a particular case in the House today. While I cannot specifically discuss the details and while not wanting to be overly critical, can I say that this case was not referred on by the member for Burdekin until 17 days after the shadow minister was contacted by a family member—17 days! Had the member for Burdekin referred the client directly to the complaints unit, this matter may have been able to be addressed in a much more timely manner. I would encourage all members of this House to support the mechanisms that have resulted from the CMC inquiry, including the complaints unit and the work it does. The member for Gladstone asked about section 159N and raised fears that the Department of Child Safety will not be able to find out if a child has been harmed. The matter is provided for in the new section 159N that will be inserted into the Child Protection Act. The department will already be aware that there is some risk to a child and will be able to act in that regard. Can I conclude by once again thanking all members for the excellent contributions that they have made in this debate. I look forward to working constructively with all members on this important reform work. Much has been done and there is much more to be done. As Minister for Child Safety, I commend the bill to the House. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 65, as read, agreed to. Clause 66— Mr REYNOLDS (7.36 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Clause 66— Page 66, line 16— omit, insert— ‘professional means a doctor or registered nurse.’. Amendment agreed to. Clause 66, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 67 to 72, as read, agreed to.

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

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Hon. M.F. REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) (Minister for Child Safety) (7.37 p.m.): I move— That government business orders of the day Nos. 3 and 4 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting. Motion agreed to. 3088 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (COMMUNITY GOVERNMENT AREAS) BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 September (see p. 2409). Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (7.37 p.m.): It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak on the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 2004. At the outset I indicate that the opposition is in favour of this bill and will be supporting its passage through the House. I would like to go through a few of the issues in relation to the bill. The Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 2004 replaces the outdated Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 with a model which institutes best practice local governance. This means that the 15 Aboriginal councils in Queensland will adopt the rigorous standards of governance that currently apply to other local governments in Queensland under the Local Government Act 1993. This will allow them to be referred to as local government areas or shires under the act. While the bill applies these tougher standards under the Local Government Act 1993 to the Aboriginal councils, it also contains the flexibility to accommodate some of the unique needs and circumstances of these communities, including providing community governments with the ability to establish local service committees, to levy or charge residents in lieu of charging rates and to create electoral divisions based on indigenous social groups. That is a fairly important part of the bill. It recognises the uniqueness of the Aboriginal communities and contains provisions to do that. As most members would be aware, in these communities the land is owned in DOGIT within the local government area. Therefore, there is virtually no private land. The payment of rates then becomes a problem. A levy on residents in lieu of charging rates is an ideal way to overcome that problem. Indeed, I understand that in some cases the housing rental will be charged in conjunction with the rates. There will be only one charge per resident to cover both the cost of running the community and the leasing of the house or land which accommodates the people. The provision which allows for the establishment of local service communities is also relevant. Some of these communities have external functions that are not normally part and parcel of mainstream local government, such as running canteens and providing other services, so that the communities can operate in isolated regions. The bill accommodates the unique brand of communities in that region. I turn to the background of the bill. This bill is one aspect of the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices strategy, which is the government's response to the Cape York Justice Study report that was handed down by Justice Tony Fitzgerald in November 2001. The report found that existing Aboriginal councils under the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 continued to suffer from lack of capacity, poor governance practices and an apparent inability to provide improvements in the quality of life for Aboriginal communities. More recently, the Auditor-General's Report No. 7 for 2003-04—Results of audits performed for 2002-03 on Aboriginal councils—found a number of failings of Aboriginal councils. It stated that the Cherbourg and Palm Island councils were most probably insolvent and were unable to meet their debts as and when they fall due. The report stated that the Cherbourg, Hope Vale, Lockhart River and Woorabinda councils showed poor financial performance management practices by using their grant funding for purposes other than those that were approved. That reflects poorly on the Beattie government and highlights its failure to ensure improvements in accountability and financial management in those communities. So, these reforms are more than overdue and they represent a significant opportunity for a better future for Aboriginal communities and the councils that will lead them. As the minister has indicated, the application of the same minimum standards of governance here as in other local governments will be a transitional process for a period of four years. The introduction of additional requirements on Aboriginal councils will be supported by the state government’s commitment to provide an additional—and I stress additional—$16.6 million over four years. Provision of the $16.6 million in continuing grant money will be staggered over that four-year period. The government will work in partnership with those councils to address priority issues, including the negotiation of a tailored service development plan with each council. That is fairly significant. We have to recognise that there are huge differences between the 15 councils in the area. To recognise the unique differences, there has to be a negotiated outcome, and I believe that working in partnership with the councils is the only way to achieve that. These plans are to set out agreed performance targets for the councils to be achieved over the four years, along with obligations on the government to provide support and capacity building effort. As most members would be aware, there are obviously some real challenges for those 15 councils and certainly the support of government, in an understanding way, is the only way that we can progress the outcomes for those communities. The performance targets will be an important measure of how the 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3089 councils are working, and the government has a responsibility to ensure that the resources are in place to monitor those targets over the four-year process—not just implementing policy but taking responsibility to make the legislation work for the betterment of the Aboriginal communities. This legislation should not be treated as a single, magic answer for improving the lives of people in our Aboriginal communities. The changes in this bill will need to be accompanied by improved state government resources towards police, health services, education, housing and a reduction in youth suicide in those communities. The bill will go a long way towards improving the lives of the Aboriginal people in the 15 communities. One issue I am rather concerned about and which needs to be addressed in a sensible way is the way in which the alcohol management plans are implemented, the way the government resources this policy, and the way the AMPs are applied. This is not being developed in conjunction with the communities themselves. I think we need to dwell on that for a little while, and I will come back to it. In reality, we are providing a governance for those 15 local communities but there will be an outside influence or an outside law being applied in the way in which the alcohol management plans are implemented. This has been mentioned time after time not only by the Nationals in opposition, but I understand that the member for Cook has also made comments in relation to it. I guess one does not have to go very far in reading comment from the areas up there to understand that there are some real difficulties recruiting public servants into the areas of health, police and education, particularly since the alcohol management policy was put in place. I understand also that public servants are resigning and moving away and it is becoming more and more difficult to replace them. Indeed, I have heard that forced relocation of police into that area is becoming the norm rather than the exception. That is sad, in some ways. In reality, this bill provides an opportunity to make some real changes to those communities. They certainly will need help in terms of real management, in terms of health, police and education. If we cannot get experienced people to move into that area to support the Aboriginal communities, we will certainly have some trouble. As I said, that would be a real change. In the area of accountability, there will be a real need to recruit professionals in the community areas to support the Aboriginal local councils to get up to speed with all the new regulations, requirements and policies. The one real issue in terms of the local government authorities is that all of the communities are currently operating on a cash basis. With the implementation of the local government area, they will need to transfer to an accrual accounting process. All members would recollect that over the past few years when our mainstream local government authorities moved into accrual accounting there were some real issues in terms of their being able to meet the accounting standard that was required. The problems that mainstream local government people had will be minimised 100 per cent compared to the problems in the Aboriginal communities. There will be a real need for real support and to have people come in from the outside to help out. I know there are some really good people in the Aboriginal communities to do that, but they will need an exceptional amount of support to overcome those difficulties, particularly with accrual accounting. That has been a huge issue in mainstream local government circles. Indeed, some local governments are still trying to get their heads around it. I say that in jest. Mostly, they have got through it and are heading out the other side quite well. It is not only in the accounting field that expertise will be required in operating local governments. They are quite complex, particularly in areas where extra services need to be supplied such as with the work that is being done in the canteens and issues involving community health. In some cases, very significant projects are being undertaken. For example, within the last 12 months I had the opportunity to stay in the resort at Bamaga. I was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of the units and the catering. I take my hat off to them. However, that is an added complication over and above what mainstream local government organisations do in Queensland. Therefore, there are some real challenges for the 15 communities. As I said, we totally support the legislation. However, it should contain a rider that it will be revisited on a reasonably regular basis to ensure that it caters to the needs of the communities. As I said, there is a very complex mix of communities which cover more extremes than we deal with in mainstream local government areas. They have to deal with some very unique circumstances. I would hate to think that because we were not regularly ensuring that legislative upgrades were being applied to the legislation we were in some way neglecting or not catering to the needs of those communities. The legislation has to be framed in such a way that it caters for all the diverse needs of those 15 communities. I have some real concerns about alcohol management. I totally support the intent of alcohol management, but as I see it we could have real problems in recruiting highly qualified and professional people to support the local governments in getting over the hump in terms of determining their own futures. I do not have answers for that. It is something that has to be sensitively dealt with. Obviously it will mean a fairly substantial change for a lot of the communities and it could actually be a catalyst for them to take control of their own destinies. Perhaps by shifting to a fully blown local government 3090 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 authority, they may be able to take control of and manage their own alcohol management plans rather than having them imposed from outside. In that way they may be able to accommodate professionals from outside the communities. As I said, I do not have the answers for it. It is a very complex issue. I support the legislation. The Nationals and the opposition support the legislation. It is a good move to bring real governance to the indigenous communities on the cape. It will give them an opportunity to take part in mainstream Queensland and be part of a very exciting future in local government. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. E.A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (7.53 p.m.): I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in support of this landmark piece of legislation. This bill is one of the cornerstones of the Beattie government's agenda for change for indigenous Queenslanders. We believe that, together with the community governance improvement strategy, it will bring major improvements in the governance of our Aboriginal communities. Good governance brings, in turn, better service, economic growth and jobs. It is an essential platform for a better quality of life. This bill will give indigenous councils the tools they need to deliver effective and accountable governance to their communities. It balances best practice laws for local government with the need for flexibility to accommodate the specific cultures, histories and economic circumstances of remote Aboriginal communities. In speaking in support of this bill tonight, I want to do four things. Firstly, I want to provide a bit of background and broader context for the bill. Secondly, I want to explain the very comprehensive and inclusive consultation process that the government has undertaken in preparing the bill. Thirdly, I want to highlight key aspects of the bill that directly respond to the issues raised by Aboriginal communities in our consultations. Finally, I want to briefly highlight the changes that this bill makes to the legislation that remains within my portfolio. This bill brings to fruition the efforts of many people who have worked towards reform of the laws for Aboriginal councils for a number of years. Aboriginal community governance is a very complex area and there have been a number of reviews and reform efforts over the two decades since the community services legislation was introduced. Recommendations for change to this legislation were made in the following reports: the Legislation Review Committee in 1991, chaired by Uncle Eric Deeral from the Hope Vale community; the Parliamentary Committee for Public Accounts in 1991 and 1993, which some of the members of this House were involved in; the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence report in 1999; the Aboriginal Coordinating Council review of the Community Services Act in 2001; and Justice Tony Fitzgerald's Cape York Justice Study report in 2001. Over the years numerous initiatives and reforms have been introduced in response to those recommendations. However, the underlying problems with the current laws have never been satisfactorily resolved. By the time of the Cape York Justice Study, it became clear that a more comprehensive approach was needed. The impetus for this approach was the Beattie government's response to the Cape York Justice Study, the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices strategy. When the government consulted indigenous communities about the Cape York Justice Study recommendations in late 2001 and early 2002, the feedback was unambiguous. Firstly, alcohol and violence were critical issues that needed to be addressed but, secondly, and almost as important in many people's minds, the council system needed to be fixed if there was to be any sustainable improvement in remote indigenous communities. In Meeting Challenges, Making Choices, the government responded to this. Of course, the government's alcohol reforms are well known and are already making a positive difference. As part of our MCMC response in 2002, the government also committed to a community governance improvement strategy and a comprehensive review of the laws for Aboriginal councils. These commitments were essential as a part of the infrastructure for the broad agenda of reform being set in place under MCMC. We recognise that the problems of alcohol, violence and social breakdown could not be overcome without strong and effective leadership from the key players which, of course, includes the councils. Working in partnership with indigenous communities and across government, we are delivering on our commitments in Meeting Challenges, Making Choices and the bill before the House tonight is another step in this process. I believe the process we have followed has been exemplary. This is important because good process leads to good and lasting outcomes. In recent years governments of all persuasions have been talking about the need for genuine partnerships and effective community engagement when dealing with indigenous peoples. In developing this bill, we have put this philosophy into practice. At every stage we have kept the community informed and, in turn, we have listened. As I will show in a moment, we have not only listened, but we have responded. In this day and age, the community expects that public policy will not only be the result of inclusive consultation but also be evidence based. In developing this bill, we have also conducted research into best practice in indigenous governance both from Australia and overseas. The first step in 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3091 our consultation process was the release of a green paper, ‘Making choices about community governance’, in March 2003. The green paper set out a wide range of options for discussion based on our research and based on previous reports and consultations. We circulated almost 2,000 copies of the green paper to indigenous communities and other stakeholders. The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy conducted 35 presentations to Aboriginal councils and residents of Aboriginal communities. Approximately 250 people attended those presentations, including 86 Aboriginal councillors and council staff. We received 71 written responses to the green paper. On the basis of our green paper consultations, in October 2003 the government released a white paper setting out our proposed new laws for Aboriginal community governance. Again, the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, this time in conjunction with the Department of Local Government and Planning, visited all Aboriginal councils to explain the proposals and gain their comments. In May this year a consultation draft of the bill was released. The Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and the Department of Local Government and Planning again visited all Aboriginal communities to seek feedback on the detailed provisions. We also gave the community a plain English summary and fact sheet so that people could clearly understand the issues and give informed feedback. Following each of our consultation stages, we have carefully analysed the feedback and published a report summarising the results. This ensures that people know how their feedback fits into the bigger picture. This process did not rely on consultation with a few peak bodies or mailing out papers and expecting detailed written comments. This process involved getting out to Aboriginal communities and directly engaging the people who are most affected by these laws—the people who are expected to use them on a day-to-day basis. If we are serious about developing good laws for Aboriginal communities, there is no substitute for rolling up our sleeves and meeting the Aboriginal councillors and their constituents on their own turf face to face as genuine partners. This is what our new way of doing business with indigenous Queenslanders is all about—genuine partnership and negotiation through direct community engagement. The negotiation tables that we are conducting with indigenous communities will continue to put these principles into practice. Consulting widely and listening to the community concerns is of no value if we do not act on this feedback. For the benefit of honourable members, I want to draw attention to key aspects of the bill that respond to the needs and concerns expressed during our consultations. Firstly, the central thrust of the bill is to ensure that councils in Aboriginal communities meet the benchmarks for accountability and corporate governance in the Local Government Act. During our consultations on the green paper, Aboriginal communities were unequivocal that they expected the same standards of governance as other local governments in Queensland. Communities did raise concern about the current level of capacity of Aboriginal councils to meet these high standards. We are responding to these concerns through our community governance improvement strategy. A particularly difficult policy issue for the bill has been the electoral model for councils. A number of reports over the years have said that the current model is unsuitable for indigenous communities. One of the more common concerns has been that councils are unrepresentative because they are dominated by larger families and because important social groups such as women and traditional owners are not sufficiently represented. Through the green paper, we proposed a number of options for communities to consider. The overwhelming feedback was that there was no one model that will suit all communities and that the law must contain flexibility. The result has been that the standard electoral model in the Local Government Act will continue to be the benchmark, but communities will have the opportunity to seek variations to this model according to their own needs. For example, communities can guarantee the representation of traditional owners or change the way the mayor is elected or introduce a model to elect councillors based on clan groupings. In other words, we have tailored the system to be more responsive to community needs, acknowledging that there are important differences between communities. This approach is supported by previous reports and by international research on indigenous governance. In the Cape York Justice Study Justice Fitzgerald stated that governance arrangements that are more consistent with customary law and traditional authority structures should lead to more ordered self-managed and self-regulated communities. Our approach is also supported by the world renowned Harvard project on American Indian economic development. Through two decades of research in the US and Canada, the Harvard project has demonstrated that sustainable improvements for indigenous communities will only occur where governing structures are designed by those communities themselves. In particular, the Harvard project has found that there must be a cultural fit between the way a community government is structured and the cultural values of the local community. The electoral model in this bill not only responds to the community's desire for flexibility; it also reflects best practice in indigenous governance. While I am on the topic of flexible local governance arrangements, I want to draw honourable members' attention to one of the most innovative aspects of the bill. As a direct result of our consultations on the green paper, we have introduced the concept of local services committees. The bill 3092 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 permits an Aboriginal council to fully delegate some of its decision-making powers to a local services committee which may include members of the community. This goes further than the Local Government Act. The new laws respond to the realities of Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal councils are expected to administer a much wider array of responsibilities than other local governments. In our consultations, Aboriginal women's groups told us that they would like to be formally delegated the responsibility for managing functions such as the child care program and women's shelter. The way these communities are structured and the way they operate can be set out in a local law. Again, this maximises the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to tailor their governance arrangements to their local circumstances and cultural values. The issue which Aboriginal communities were most vocal about in our consultations on the draft bill was the title of the councils. This is a matter of great symbolic importance for many Aboriginal communities. Some Aboriginal councils told us that, although they are willing to make the transition to shire council status, they want to be able to retain their cultural identity in their title by referring to themselves as Aboriginal shire councils. This was also seen as important to indicate to the world that these are councils that exercise jurisdiction over Aboriginal trust land. The government acknowledges Aboriginal communities' rights to assert their cultural identity. The bill does not force these councils to identify as Aboriginal but instead provides the option of adopting the title ‘shire council' or ‘Aboriginal shire council'. Before concluding, I want to briefly mention the changes that this bill makes to the laws that remain in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy portfolio. While the bill removes the outdated laws for Aboriginal councils from the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984, the residual parts of that act will remain in my portfolio. They cover a range of issues for Aboriginal communities such as the operation of Aboriginal police, community justice groups, possession and consumption of alcohol, entry to trust areas, and the Aborigines Welfare Fund. The Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 will be renamed the Aboriginal Communities (Justice and Land Matters) Act 1984. This bill delivers a historic break from the past and ushers in a new era of opportunity for Aboriginal communities. It will vanquish the legacy of paternalistic and oppressive policies and it will create a foundation for genuine self-government by Aboriginal communities. To achieve these objectives, the way we undertake the journey is as important as the destination. The first step towards undoing the legacy of the past is to engage in genuine partnership with indigenous Queenslanders in building a better future. I believe this bill demonstrates how that can be done. We have been entirely open in our approach and responsive to the wishes of our communities and councils. We have worked in partnership with Aboriginal peoples, together exploring all of the options and coming up with a broadly agreed result—a practical solution to a difficult set of problems. In keeping with our policy on indigenous issues, we have lifted the bar. We have set new standards for Aboriginal community governance in line with best practice for both indigenous peoples and local government generally. We have done so, however, in a way that is flexible, recognising the realities of life in Aboriginal communities and being respectful of their distinctive cultural identity. In Meeting Challenges, Making Choices we identified community governance as one of the key mechanisms for change in our drive to achieve a better future for indigenous people, a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Queenslanders have the same prospects for health, prosperity and quality of life as all other Queenslanders. This legislation is an important step in that direction, and I commend the bill to the House. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (8.09 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak to the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill. From the outset, can I say that this legislation is very complex for all of these councils. During the implementation process, I trust that all people in Queensland will lend a shoulder of support to these councils to see them through the implementation period rather than give them the tongue of criticism. I believe that, for this to work, that is paramount. With the dismantling of the Aboriginal Coordinating Council, there was a lot of disarray in the Aboriginal communities in north Queensland. Over a long period a lot of criticism has been levelled at these people—probably ever since white settlement. We continue to see this criticism levelled at Aboriginals. Like many other people in this House, I represent a large western electorate. I grew up with Aboriginal people. They have been a very important and very integral part of my life. Through my understanding of these people, I believe that it is paramount that we see the implementation of this program in question. People talk about reconciliation. I do not believe that reconciliation is going out there and saying sorry for what happened in the past. The past is the past. This is about now and pressing on into the future. I believe that this bill is about the future. It is about taking Aboriginal people with us. This bill is about making them feel included in Queensland society and in Australia where they live, and are entitled to live. Ms Nelson-Carr: It's still good to say sorry, don't you reckon? Mr JOHNSON: No, I do not believe that. We are not the ones who did the wrong thing. I believe that we are the ones who are trying to correct them. 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3093

Ms Nelson-Carr: No, not us; now. Mr JOHNSON: I take that interjection from the honourable member for Mundingburra. The point that I am making is that we are not the ones who committed the wrongs. I believe that we are the ones who are trying to correct the wrongs. I believe that we are trying to take these people with us. That is exactly where I am coming from. As the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy said in this House this evening, this bill represents a major element of the government's Meeting Challenges, Making Choices document. I believe that over a period there has been a lot of input into that document. Like anything in template form, I believe that that document has to be flexible. There are going to be flaws in this bill, too. As the shadow minister said in the House tonight, probably over the next couple of years the minister may have to introduce legislation to correct some of these flaws. But I believe that we are a long way towards making certain that we are getting this program on an equal footing from the word go. The minister said in her second reading speech— This bill, in delivering full shire status for Aboriginal councils, replaces the outdated laws which are currently in the Community Services (Aborigines) Act. We have to bear in mind that the Aboriginal communities, such as the Deed of Grant in Trust land tenures, are different from other Queensland communities. Again, this issue comes back to recognising the importance of Aboriginal culture. A lot of people do not understand Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal people are different from European people. They have different sets of standards and practise different codes of responsibility and respect for each other. That is why I said at the start of my speech that this bill is going to be very complex for some of these communities. Therefore, we need to make certain that we are there to help them through the implementation stage of this bill. Aboriginal councils are at a stage of their evolution that is different from that of other local governments in Queensland. As the minister said, Aboriginal councils have been around for only 20 years. Although many gains have been made, I have to say that we have to help Aboriginal councils put in place their corporate plans, their business plans and their management plans. Tonight I heard the shadow minister, the member for Mirani, say that time after time, year after year, we see in this House the Auditor-General's report into Aboriginal councils. Every year there are anomalies in the programs in which Aboriginal councils have been a bit slow in submitting reports; there is overexpenditure—all of these types of things. I think that some of us have to be held responsible for that. I believe that we have to make certain that we have people—whether they are from local government, from the minister's own department, or from the department of the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy—who will help Aboriginal councils structure and implement local government programs. I honestly believe that this bill will provide an opportunity for Aboriginal councils to able to select the right people to be the mayors and councillors of those communities. I notice that many Aboriginal people have a different selection process from us in that their elders are a very integral and very important part of their communities. I hope that that will continue and that we are not going to lose that part of their culture. I am sure that we will not. I note the minister said in her second reading speech— For example, most Aboriginal councils still use a cash system of accounting rather than the more onerous accrual system required for other local governments. In this respect they are not equipped to meet all the standards in the Local Government Act. That is fair comment. As I say, Aboriginal councils need the assistance of people who are fully conversant with the structure of local government to guide them through this transition period. Much criticism has been levelled at Aboriginal people and their management of funds. In that regard, I believe that this bill will make a difference. I see that the minister has $16.6 million earmarked for training and implementation of the program. It is absolutely paramount that we get the best value for our dollars. As the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy said in the House a while ago, this bill goes a long way towards embracing Aboriginal people's ideals, making Aboriginal people feel important, and giving them the urge to want to make a difference. We talk about education, we talk about health—we talk about all of these things. We are trying to eliminate domestic violence from these communities. Today in this House we passed legislation relating to child safety. I believe that the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill will be a template for correcting some of these anomalies, because we are giving Aboriginal people a sense of autonomy, a sense of identification and purpose to stand alone and be treated as important people in their own communities, not as downtrodden people in a Third World part of Australia. That is what this bill is all about and I am pretty pleased about it. It means that Aboriginal people can go to local government conferences and present themselves and voice their opinion on various issues. I know most of these people in these communities. They are damned good people. Most of the time, they are genuine in their representation. But, as the minister said, the issue—and the National Party opposition will certainly be supporting the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy on this issue—is trying to get that alcohol management plan right. I know that this legislation is not about the alcohol management plan, but it goes together with it. At the end of the day, we have to line up these anomalies and eradicate them. As has been said here, we have already lost a generation. We do not want to lose another one. 3094 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004

This bill is a significant step for Aboriginal people and impediments must be eliminated to expedite the process of change. I notice that the minister has said that officers will work with the Aboriginal councils at a community level negotiating performance development plans annually for each Aboriginal and Islander council. I know that last year the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy had to put in place an administrator at Palm Island. These sorts of unfortunate circumstances do not create a good environment. The wider community, which does not understand what is going on, then levels criticism at the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Unfortunately, a lot of the time the naive, the ignorant and the ill-informed do not know what is really going on. They do not know what these people are going through and do not know what these people are doing to achieve higher goals. It would be good if everybody could go up there and see first-hand some of the changes that have been made in recent years—improvements in infrastructure, education and health. Only together can we do this, but criticising from afar will not fix the problem. I believe that this legislation will go a long way towards correcting the problem. I am very pleased to see in this legislation that the government will be delivering a four-year training program for councillors and senior staff on corporate governance and leadership. This is a very important aspect of this legislation. It is applicable not only to the people in the Aboriginal councils; it is applicable to everybody in local government right across the state. Many people come into local government now and undergo training schools for new councillors. This provision is very responsible because, at the end of the day, those people who go into local government are no different from those of us who come in here. They have a responsibility to their local communities, just as we have a responsibility to the state of Queensland and federal politicians have a responsibility to the country of Australia. This program should be monitored very closely so that impediments are ironed out in the early stages. If that is the case, I think this transition will work wonderfully. It is a transition that the Aboriginal people want to happen without too much drama and conflict. It does not need to be a rocky road. Yesterday I spoke to a couple of the chairs of these communities who were in Cairns trying to work through a few things. One of them said to me, ‘We want this to work and we want to make it so that we can be proud of what we have achieved here.' I think they have to be given every opportunity to do that. We have to take the negativity out of the Aboriginal debate. We have to put the positives back in it. I think this represents a good start. As I said earlier, the important thing now is to put in place good business plans and corporate plans which will parallel with the alcohol management plans and the other practices we have put in place in these communities so that we can achieve outcomes that will advantage these communities rather than retard them. I heard the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy touch on the issue of the retention of the word ‘Aboriginal' in the renamed shire councils. I half question that. I do not know whether it is a good idea or not. In the early stages I can see that these people want to hang in there. We know their heritage, we know their cultural heritage and we know their ancestral heritage. We also know that they are the indigenous Australians. I just wonder whether this will create a perception of ‘black up there and white out here'. I believe that this is the start of a process of working together, but if the Aboriginal people want to retain ‘Aboriginal' in their council name then maybe that is their prerogative. We are an inclusive society today. I believe that we have to look at the pros and cons of this decision to see if it will be advantageous. Whichever way it goes, I hope it will be advantageous. I am pleased to see that there is also a requirement to improve superannuation arrangements in line with the Local Government Act. Councils will have to use the local government superannuation scheme. Many already use that scheme. Ultimately they will have to contribute 12 per cent of employees' salaries to the scheme, with the employees themselves contributing six per cent. I ask the minister to elaborate in her reply on the six per cent that will be coming from the councils. I ask the minister to elaborate on the amounts of money that will come into those local authorities. They will have to do budgets, capital works programs and infrastructure programs for roads, sewerage, water and so on that conform with the Local Government Act. I wonder how some of those fees will be met. In her second reading speech the minister stated— To avoid an immediate impact from increased costs for the councils, the implementation dates are being staged over the next four years. New money committed through our Community Governance Improvement Strategy will support the councils through this period of change. Does that mean the implementation of this program will be staggered or will all of these councils be included in the local government family as of the same date? Another issue is that the Aboriginal councillors are prohibited from employment in only senior positions within the council. With an improvement in education we will witness responsibility sooner rather than later. In a lot of these areas, while there are anomalies there now I believe that we will see them ironed out as the programs progress. In her second reading speech the minister stated— Much of the treatment of past generations has been marked by a level of disrespect that is undeniably reprehensible. 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3095

I could not agree more. As I have been saying from the start, we have to take the criticism out of the debate and we have to put fairness back into the debate. We have to work together with the minister of the day or the government of the day to address this scourge on our society here in Queensland. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not want to be looked on as second-rate and third-rate citizens. They want to be in an inclusive society. I believe this bill will go a long way towards making that happen. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (8.27 p.m.): I rise to support the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 2004 and welcome the shadow minister's support of the bill and his call for bipartisanship to improve the lives of Aboriginal people. This bill has an enormous effect on people in the Cook electorate. In fact, it affects 15 deed of grant in trust communities, 10 of which are in the Cook electorate. The 10 communities in my electorate that this bill affects directly are Hope Vale, Injinoo, Kowanyama, Lockhart River, Mapoon, Napranum, New Mapoon, Pormpuraaw, New Magico and Wujal Wujal. For many years now there has been some bad press about Aboriginal community councils in terms of their financial accountability. It needs to be put on the record that not all Aboriginal communities are in dire financial straits and not all Aboriginal communities have bad financial accountability records. I know that honourable members would have looked closely at Audit Report No. 8, which was tabled in this parliament earlier this year, and would have noted that the New Mapoon council has had unqualified audits for the last seven years and the Mapoon council has never had an unqualified audit. Other councils such as Wujal Wujal have also improved their accountability structures over the last few years. So it is not all doom and gloom in terms of financial accountability in Aboriginal communities. But certainly there is room for improvement and certainly this bill before the House this evening improves the capacity for those communities to improve their financial accountability and the way that they operate to better deliver services for the people in Aboriginal communities. There have been accusations of serious inefficiencies, with real needs in the community not being addressed. This bill provides a means to turn this around and to ensure that proper standards of openness, transparency and accountability are met. There are a number of important measures to highlight. Firstly, councillors and council staff will now have to comply with a clear set of duties and obligations set out for them under the Local Government Act. This requires them, like they do in every other council across Queensland, to disclose material personal interests, not to be present or take part in meetings where they have a material personal interest and not to make improper use of information. Community councils will now be required to have a register of financial and other personal interest, registers of delegation, a register of enterprises, a register of regulatory fees, a corporate plan and an annual report. There will be new community government finance standards which impose a high level of practice in financial management. This will include, for example, policies in relation to lending to local residents. One of the things that we need to understand about Aboriginal communities and community councils, in particular, is that Aboriginal community councils sit at the very centre of that community. All activity within that community falls upon the community council to somehow organise, arrange, fund or resource if it is going to happen. That is something that does not happen in mainstream community councils. Some of the responsibilities and obligations that community councils have do not have to be provided by mainstream councils—for example, lending for funerals, lending for family obligations, running a community police service, running the post office, running Centrelink services, running housing services and running a whole gamut of services that are not normally provided by mainstream community councils. That is the thrust of this legislation here today. We are saying to those community councils or those shire councils, ‘What is your core business? What is the business that you need to concentrate on? What is the other business which either a community group or another agency—whether it is the federal government or the state government—should be taking responsibility for? One example of that is community police. There is no other council in Queensland that has to run a police service, but yet in Queensland Aboriginal councils run a police service. What capacity do they have to service those officers, to provide them with the resources that they need to do their job and to ensure they have the proper training to enforce the by-laws of the council? Really, we put them in a position where they are bound to fail, I suppose, because there is just not the capacity within those communities to provide those services. It would be foolish to imagine that the legislative requirements and the legislation before the House tonight will of themselves deliver more accountability. Solid training and guidance are also needed and more training is provided within this bill. There is funding in this year's budget of $16 million to $17 million over the next three years to improve the capacity of local councils and to get them to the same level as mainstream local governments across Queensland. This government strongly believes that when this legislation is reviewed in four years time we will see a substantial change for the better. Community councils will then be able to take their place as local governments under the Local Government Act. What that will do is give them the capacity to recruit people to those councils who have more extensive local government experience. There is a lot of movement in local government authorities at the moment. Staff move around the state quite a bit, and 3096 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 they move around the country quite a bit as well. But people are reluctant to go to Aboriginal communities—one, because of the remoteness; two, because of the differences in Aboriginal communities compared to mainstream communities; and, three, because the skills which professionals bring to the table in those communities are not always recognised when they return to mainstream councils and then are then reluctant to go there. If it is a step back professionally, and if that experience is going to be frowned upon, then professional officers such as accountants, financial controllers and CEOs will be reluctant to go to those communities. I think the legislation before the House today gives those professionals the ability to improve the capacity of other people within the community. For example, if you have a financial officer who can mentor a local person on their operations and on their skills, then you are more likely to get that person coming into the community and doing that job rather than their looking for a mainstream council. Some of these councils in Cape York Peninsula, in particular, are fairly large. The Kowanyama community is a community of about 3,000 people. So somebody in a small shire out west, perhaps in the member for Gregory's electorate, may be able to step forward into a larger community and progress his or her career. But if it is a community council then there is a stigma attached to that. I think this legislation goes a long way towards removing the stigma associated with working with Aboriginal community councils. I think capacity building is one of the most important things that we need to do in Aboriginal communities. This bill makes important improvements in accountability and the design of community governments, but equally it is an important step in building capacity and improving performance. It lays the groundwork for more efficient and effective local governments, putting in place a raft of measures that will improve the way Aboriginal councils are constituted and the way they do their business. Firstly, the expectations placed upon these councils in terms of what they deliver are being changed. These councils will now have a general competence power to do anything for the good governance of the community rather than the more restrictive set of powers currently set out in the community services act. Efficiency will be improved by the requirement that councils have a corporate plan and an operational plan together with a review process that comes through an annual report. Decision making will be set within proper limits by the requirements for registers of delegations and the separation of powers of councillors, except for the mayor, not being permitted to give directions to staff unless following the guidelines set by CEOs. For the first time, Aboriginal councils will set up local services committees to manage some of their programs. This should enable them to focus more on core functions of local governance where standards need to be lifted. The key change in the legislation before the House tonight is that we have to start paring back some of the responsibilities that get dumped on community councils. We have to look for greater capacity either within the community or outside the community to provide some of the services that are currently being provided by the community council. The community council can no longer be seen in those communities as having the answers to every problem that exists within that community. That is the present situation, but we have to start working with people so they can set up business committees. In Pormpuraaw they have done this quite effectively by setting up an organisation called Pormpur Paanth, which runs all the human services that were normally run by the council in those communities. So Pormpur Paanth runs the home and community care services, the aged care services and child care services in Pormpuraaw as well as a host of other services. It really takes the pressure off that community council. In other councils where there is not an organisation like Pormpur Paanth, then it is up to the council to run those services, to be accountable for the money for those services and to deal with complaints about those services. It just adds to the burden that there is on that particular council when it should be out there delivering core services and core business—roads, rates, rubbish, economic development and housing in indigenous communities. The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy talked about the electoral model and the fact that there is flexibility within the act for communities to choose the electoral model that suits them. An example that is often touted when we talk about different electoral models is Saibai Island in the Torres Strait. The model they have at Saibai Island is that there are seven different clans which make up that community and each of those seven clans, no matter what size they are—some clans are obviously bigger than other clans—have a representative on the community council. Other communities may wish to adopt this model as well. Other communities might want to have a traditional owner on the community council or ensure representation of a traditional owner on the community council to ensure that land matters are effectively dealt with or that there is a representative there who can speak on land matters. If a person is dealing with some traditional country and there is not a representative on the council who comes from that country, then it is not really proper for those representatives to be speaking about those countries. In fact, if they were to speak about that country and to make decisions about that country they could find themselves in some pretty serious hot water. Research from the United States and Canada has shown that for indigenous governments to be successful they must have legitimacy within their own population, and that requires that their structures match local cultural norms. Having said that, I think the example in Wujal Wujal at the March 2004 election is worth noting. For the first time, a non-indigenous person has been elected to the Wujal Wujal council. That is a real milestone, not only for that community but for all communities. We talk about 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3097 having representatives from clan groups and traditional owners, but here the community has democratically decided that the best person to represent them on their council and the best person to do the job for them on their council is a white man. That is a decision that community has taken. The act does not exclude others from running for election on those community councils, though it is obviously up to that community to decide what structure is best for them. The essence of this bill is that it raises the standards so that people on DOGIT communities can start to enjoy not just the same quality of local governance but the same quality of life as other people living in Queensland. That has to be the goal of not only this government and this parliament but also all Queenslanders: that Aboriginal people and Torres Strait islander people enjoy the same quality of life that we enjoy in mainstream communities, whether we live in Brisbane, Cairns, the Gold Coast or elsewhere; and that they have the same opportunities, the same standard of housing, the same government efficiencies and the same government working for them. This government has taken a strong stand in line with best practice. Equally, there has been a flexible approach that recognises the very different realities in DOGIT communities. The changes are phased in over time. The consultation that has been done on these changes has been quite considerable. I have been in communities when the team for DATSIP has come in and the team from local government has come in to talk with councils. They have not sat down for an hour and nicked off. They have been there for days at a time going through the details and the provisions of the changes and how it is going to affect councils. It is fair to say that a lot of changes affected CEOs and financial administrators rather than affecting councillors themselves, though certainly there are some provisions in this bill and in a future bill with the code of conduct for councillors that will affect them as well. As has been reported by other speakers, there is broad support for this bill on the ground in DOGIT communities within my electorate. The most important part of this bill is the local service committees. This bill provides for the establishment of these local service committees. I think we are going to see these committees set up to look after a range of different things. I know from my experience on the Cairns City Council that one of the things we did was to set up a water committee that looked specifically after our water infrastructure. It had responsibility for our water infrastructure, for water pricing and for delivery of those water services. That is the same thing that we are going to see in indigenous communities. Members will see committees set up to run enterprises, committees set up to run land and sea matters, and they reference back to the council. We have already seen most committees set up community justice groups. That is going to be another important reference for the councils as they move forward through these changes. Other communities have elders groups which also act as an important sounding board and an important way for community councils to get cultural authority from the elders within that community as they progress particular policy issues. This bill builds on the Meeting Challenges, Making Choices document. While the focus in recent months has been on alcohol management in those communities, there is other work that is going on to reform Aboriginal communities and to improve the communities for the better. Communities now have the opportunity to seek changes in the way the councils are elected. Councils are able to augment their administrative structure with local services committees, and that new and higher standards of corporate governance are being introduced. A very important part of the reform agenda is that councils have to meet new standards of financial management. The onus is being taken away, in some sense, from Aboriginal communities. We are trying to ensure that not everything that happens within those communities falls on them to decide and to resource. We are going to be working in partnership not just with the Department of Local Government but with all departments through this champion process, ensuring that there is efficient service delivery for state government services to those councils and that we are not just dumping responsibilities on them. The next important key to this will be to ensure that the federal government comes on board. This is to make sure that it is part of the process and the structure that the state government has put in place; to make sure that it is working with our champions and working with our officers to ensure that the services that it is delivering are not just dumped on communities but that they are resourced properly; that they are administered properly; and that they are done in the best interests of that community. This is an important step forward for Aboriginal people and for Aboriginal community councils. I hope, trust and believe that the legislation we are putting through will improve the lives of Aboriginal people in my electorate. I commend the bill to the House. Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (8.48 p.m.): I rise to say a few words in support of this bill and indicate my party’s support for it. This bill deals with a number of issues, including: providing indigenous councils with the capacity to attain full shire status under the Local Government Act; and, equally importantly, providing and maintaining, as the minister stated in her second reading speech, an accountable, transparent and streamlined system of government. In addition, the bill requires the new shires to incorporate a strategic planning and reporting strategy, and to move towards an accrual based financial accounting system. Due to the unique situation of the current councils and the way such 3098 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 councils have operated in the past, there is an acknowledgment of the need to recognise these cultural characteristics and the individual needs of the councils. This is to be applauded. As a consequence of this acknowledgment, they will be exempt from certain provisions in the Local Government Act but still be accountable for their actions. In general, whilst protecting the essential elements inherent in these councils, the bill furthers the process of their development by moving them into the status of local government shires. Importantly, the bill provides for the training of councillors and senior staff in corporate government and leadership, and it assists in putting in place a structure that will provide certainty and security for the future of these councils. The bill is a major step forward. Hopefully, it will alleviate the past problems faced by these councils. We must always remember that we live in one state and we need to work as one. The practices of teaching, assisting and guiding contained in the bill are to be commended. As I have stated, I support this bill. Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (8.50 p.m.): As a former officer of the Department of Local Government, I am very proud to stand here tonight to be a part of this debate. Many members here this evening know that there has been a lot of bad press about Aboriginal community councils in terms of their accountability. Most members have read the adverse findings of the Auditor-General. There have also been reports of councils making decisions that unfairly favour a particular family or clan. They may have been decisions in relation to jobs, housing applications or even loans. I point out that many other councils have been the subject of adverse findings, including the Ipswich City Council in my home city. There have been accusations of serious inefficiencies and some people believe that this legislation is necessary so that these particular issues are addressed. The bill provides a means to turn all of these problems around and to ensure that proper standards of openness, transparency and accountability are met. Proper public administration practices will be laid down in the law. There are a number of important measures to highlight. Firstly, councillors and council staff will have to comply with the duties and obligations to be set out in the Local Government Act. As the member for Cook has said, there will be clear requirements to disclose material personal interests, to not be present or even take part in a meeting while an issue is considered in which they have such an interest, and to not make improper use of information acquired in the course of their duties. There will also need to be registers of financial and other personal interests, a register of enterprises, a corporate plan and an annual report. Again, all these measures reflect modern public administration practice. There will also be new government finance standards. Policies in relation to lending to local residents will be a part of the process. Another major advance in the pipeline, which I am very pleased with, is the code of conduct. The Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women has recently announced that legislation will be prepared that requires all councils to have an enforceable code of conduct for councillors, including a complaints management process. This will also apply to Aboriginal councils. It is necessary for all councils. The Ipswich City Council trumpets its code of conduct but enforces it—like some other councils— only when it feels like it. In my city it is known as a Clayton’s code of conduct and my constituents regard it as a bit of joke. I will turn briefly to local services committees, which the member for Cook spoke about. The bill provides for local services committees, which answers a longstanding need in Aboriginal communities. The government's green paper in 2003 identified one of the key problems for Aboriginal councils as being how all the services in the communities should be managed. Currently, community councils are responsible for managing not only the usual local government services such as roads, water and sewerage, but also services such as housing, banking, employment projects and community policing. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on violence in 1999 recommended that councils should just perform core local government functions, leaving other agencies and community organisations to do the rest. However, these days, when local governments everywhere are doing more and more, we have to ask ourselves where to draw the line. These issues were explored at length through the green paper process and, more recently, during the consultations on the draft bill. The green paper considered four options. Firstly, allowing councils to set up advisory committees for certain functions; secondly, allowing functions to be managed by separate bodies but all under the council umbrella; thirdly, transferring non-core functions from council, perhaps to incorporated community organisations, or; fourthly, transferring non-core functions to regional or even statewide service delivery bodies. Of course, there are advantages and disadvantages to these proposals and they were discussed at length within the communities. I think it is fair to say that no single solution emerged as the clear favourite. The solution offered by the bill is sensible. It builds on the Local Government Act, which allows councils to set up advisory committees of community members. However, it goes even further by allowing councils to fully delegate decision-making powers to these committees. It is very good because the bill makes baseline provisions to ensure that there is proper accountability. For example, the powers of the committee must be recorded in a register of delegations, and the membership and conduct of 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3099 meetings must be subject to a local law that is approved by the minister. In other words, the government is serious about accountability, not only in matters like annual reports, compliance with financial standards, and the like. Accountability and good governance in general is being built into the entire structure of the new community governments. Alongside these constraints there is also appropriate flexibility. Councils can choose the functions they place in the hands of these committees. They can choose the membership and they can establish whatever administrative arrangements they need to make the committees work. What will be the practical effects of this reform? Important community services—for example, stores, women's shelters, housing and employment programs—can be administered by the people most suited to do so. General oversight by councils will continue as a mechanism for ensuring the effective coordination of services. Importantly, this measure will reduce the burden of decision making on councils and allow for greater community participation in local government. This is just one instance of many where this bill meets community needs. The member for Cook raised the matter of community justice groups and how important they are in relation to the operation of local communities. When I was an officer with the Department of Justice, I had the great privilege of working with community justice groups and community councils in relation to implementing the justice of the peace program in Aboriginal and Islander communities. Over a period of several years, I was privileged to visit Kowanyama, Edward River, Wujal Wujal and most of the Torres Strait Island communities. The justice of the peace program would never have got off the ground without the support of the community justice groups and the community councils. I want to place on record that there are very good people involved in this process, including Michael Bertram, Michael Stubbins—who is present this evening—Nev Bawden and other very, very good officers of the public service who supported the JP reform program. I congratulate the community councils and the community justice groups that were involved in the JP program and continue to be involved in it to this day. In conclusion, I thank the minister and her staff for their wonderful work. I particularly thank our wonderful officers of the public service who have assisted the minister in putting this together. I commend the bill to the House as being a fine piece of legislative reform from our Beattie Labor government. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (8.58 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 2004. In speaking to this bill, I note, as other members have, that it will primarily apply to 15 Aboriginal councils in Queensland. While this bill will enable these Aboriginal communities to have local government shire status, it will also require an appropriate level of responsibility and accountability. It is very important that elected members of state parliament or elected members of local councils, who are making decisions for others in the community which affect their lives and what happens in the community, are accountable to their community. I am very pleased that the minister has stressed and has made very clear in this bill that there will be that level of responsibility and accountability that goes with that decision-making process. I note that the bill requires the minister to review the efficiency of this act within four years of the commencement of the act. It is so important to have a review of this new act of parliament. I would love to see this initiative continued into other new acts passed by the Queensland Legislative Assembly. As we do not have an upper house and as our current committee system is a little limited in its capacity to review legislation passed by this House, it is important that it be set in concrete. It should be enclosed in the actual bills that we debate in parliament— Mr Lawlor: Enshrined. Mr WELLINGTON: Yes, it should be enshrined in legislation; I thank the member. It is important for the good of our community that we have an ongoing review of how the acts of parliament are operating. I note that the government is allocating approximately $16.6 million to assist the Aboriginal communities in training in the operation of councils and the corporate governance and leadership issues that they will be responsible for. I hope that after four years we do not just review how the new act of parliament has been operating but we also have an ongoing and regular review of the accountability of the $16.6 million that has been allocated to the training process. That is $16.6 million of Queensland taxpayers' funds. We need to ensure that there is proper accountability as to what is happening with that money and that it is not being wasted or frittered away. I am very pleased that the bill outlines a process to train our new councillors to ensure that they are aware of corporate governance issues and the problem matters that relate to the leadership decisions that they will be making for their communities. I am looking forward to the minister, at a regular date in the future, reporting to the House on how that $16.6 million has been allocated and how it is being used. I note that the bill will strengthen the appointment of the financial controllers and their powers to assist the councils in making the right decisions, enabling the financial controllers to ensure that the councils have the right strategies in place to operate in the best interests of their respective communities. I note that the bill requires that the councils must cooperate with those financial controllers in carrying out their functions. It is very important that we make it crystal clear to elected councillors that 3100 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 they cannot snub their noses at the financial controllers, who are there to assist them in making the right decisions—indeed, are there to ensure that they always make the right decisions—in the best interests of their communities. I am pleased that the legislation will require all councillors to operate under an enforceable code of conduct, which will include a complaints mechanism process. In her second reading speech the minister set out clearly the importance of the code of conduct. She indicated that this code of conduct will apply to all local government councils throughout Queensland. As we are aware, local councils throughout the length and breadth of this great state deal with very important issues. There are always temptations and councils are always under pressure to consider the development applications that come before them. Therefore, I am looking forward to the day when the minister will come into this chamber and review the code of conduct to make crystal clear not only to the Aboriginal councils but to all councils throughout the length of breadth of Queensland the importance of doing the right thing. They are paid good money to make good decisions in the best interests of their communities, and they have a duty of care to ensure that the code of conduct is always applied. I note that the bill allows the chairperson of Aboriginal councils to be elected by the councillors rather than the communities, which unfortunately is what happens with other government elections such as we had in Queensland only recently. When the minister replies to the various contributions that the members have made to this debate, could the minister tell the House what our communities have to do if they want to follow the lead that she is proposing for Aboriginal communities in allowing them to elect chairpersons, mayors or shire chairpersons in this manner. A number of people on the Sunshine Coast have raised this issue with me. They have said, 'Mr Wellington, we would like a similar opportunity so that we do not simply see all of these candidates running for mayor creating such a loss of knowledge.' They have indicated that they would like to have the opportunity that is proposed for our Aboriginal councils, so that the mayor, the chairperson or the shire chairperson is elected by the elected councillors. I note that councillors must withdraw from decision-making processes where there is a possible conflict of interest. The bill provides an opportunity for elected councillors to delegate various decision- making processes to various committees. Once again I am very pleased to see that we are focusing on the importance of the people who are making these decisions that impact on their communities, so that if there is a potential conflict of interest they must walk out of the room, declare the interest and not be involved in the decision-making process. I congratulate the minister on this bill. I am looking forward to her clarification as to what other local councils in this wonderful state of Queensland have to do if they want to follow the lead of what is being proposed for our Aboriginal colleagues, that is, the election of a mayor by elected councillors rather than by the community. I commend the bill to the House. Hon. D. BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and Women) (9.05 p.m.), in reply: In a nutshell, the bill does three main things. Firstly, it applies the Local Government Act to the Aboriginal councils so that communities and their councils can enjoy the benefits of best practice corporate governance, efficiency, effective service delivery, and open and accountable decision making. Secondly, it makes adjustments to the law to reflect the special circumstances of Aboriginal communities: for example, the lack of a rates base, the need for stricter discipline in financial management and the need for time to allow certain changes to be phased in. Thirdly, it contributes some entirely new provisions, giving a measure of flexibility to Aboriginal communities and their councils in regard to their electoral model and how they elect their councillors and mayors, taking into account the particular cultural and historical factors that apply in each community. As my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy told the House, this bill is the outcome of a long and thorough process of consultation, research and deliberation. Together with the communities and their councils, we have identified the key stumbling blocks to progress in local governance and the issues to be addressed, and explored the options. So much agreement has been reached on these issues that I feel confident that the bill will achieve its overall objective. To borrow the language of the Local Government Act, that is a system of community governance that is effective, efficient and accountable, where local governments can take autonomous responsibility for the good rule and government of their area with a minimum of intervention by the state. The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has reported on this bill and I intend to provide a detailed reply in writing. The committee has reported that it is satisfied that the bill has sufficient regard to Aboriginal tradition. Three other issues are raised: firstly, whether it is appropriate that matters specified in clause 53, including electoral arrangements, should be dealt with by regulations rather than being included in the bill itself; secondly, whether the power to make transitional regulations provided in clause 84 is appropriate; and, thirdly, whether it is appropriate to retrospectively validate, in clause 84, all previous declarations of Aboriginal council areas. I inform the House that the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has noted the arguments which support the government's approach in each instance and, while referring these matters to parliament, has not made objections. 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3101

The regulation-making power to fix electoral arrangements for community governments is intended to provide sufficient flexibility to address the unique circumstances they face. The power to make transitional regulations is intended solely for the purpose of dealing with any unforeseen issues that may arise. A similar power to make transitional regulations was included in the Local Government Act 1993. The retrospective validation of the Aboriginal council areas is necessary to address the uncertainty that arose during the drafting process about the declaration of these areas. The policy intent of the provision is to ensure that the establishment and continued existence of current areas is beyond doubt. I will now turn to the issues raised by members during the debate. I thank the shadow minister for local government and planning, the member for Mirani, for his significant contribution this evening. His support for the bill is much appreciated, and I agree with him that it will send a considerable message of encouragement to all of the people on those Aboriginal communities to which this bill will apply. He made mention of a number of significant elements of the bill, the uniqueness of Aboriginal councils and of their culture, and of the importance for us to recognise that there may need to be special arrangements made for clan groups. I thank him for his recognition of the flexibility in that we have to accommodate those particular needs as these next years pass. The member for Mirani also mentioned the poor history that there has been in some councils of financial management and the importance of us addressing that through these new arrangements. His recognition of the importance of the additional budget of $16.6 million over the four years to resource the community governance strategy is quite correct. He made the point quite rightly that it will be important to make sure that we get experienced people who do have knowledge of Aboriginal culture, the commitment and the will to do what might be in many ways a difficult job yet who have the experience of accounting and other requirements of local government to provide the kind of training, support and mentorship that will be needed. I am pleased to let him know that the process of taking on people who can do those jobs is well under way. Some senior people have already taken positions and are based in Cairns. Advertisements have been placed and the interviewing will proceed shortly for another 10 to 11 people—management consultants and the like—who will have the accounting and other local government knowledge to provide the guidance that is essential to make this process work. The member for Mirani also spoke of the difficulty that there can be for Aboriginal councils of moving from cash to accrual accounting. I have a little bit of good news in that regard, and that is that the Mapoon council has already achieved this milestone. I also know that other councils are eager to take it on. So while there may well be times ahead of them when they do not feel quite as eager as they do at this point, the fact that they are recognising the importance of doing so is surely a good start, as is the fact that they have the guidance of Mapoon and other councils which have already taken some steps in this direction. He is also right when he says that the additional service burden carried by Aboriginal councils must be addressed in that they do in some ways carry a heavier burden in looking after services in the areas of health, housing, tourism and business than do other councils around the state of Queensland. The member for Mirani also spoke about the importance of this being a very significant step towards Aboriginal councils taking control of their own destiny in the broader sense. This is an important direction along with the initiatives taken by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy. I thank Minister Clark, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, for her significant contribution. She has been a significant part of how this legislation has come to the parliament tonight. Her tremendous efforts since she has taken on the portfolio with regard to the implementation of alcohol management plans and her tremendous efforts in building relationships with people in the communities, her pride in their successes and her advocacy on behalf of Aboriginal people is already well known and certainly appreciated up in Cape York in particular. She has given recognition to the importance of the partnership that she has with Aboriginal people, which all members of this parliament can have through this legislation and through their support for it. I commend her also for the additional time that she is now able to devote to health issues on those communities and in particular that dreadful issue that we have not dealt with as well as we should—that is, foetal alcohol syndrome. I thank the member for Gregory for his support for the bill and the good points that he made in emphasising the need at this time for us to send a message of support by all of Queensland for the initiatives that are contained in this bill and for the achievements that we hope will come out of it. He said that this is about inclusion, about walking into the future together with indigenous people to a prouder time when they can still recognise their culture but nonetheless have full participation in society. He also spoke of the importance that this bill may have in giving Aboriginal people in their council areas the purpose, the identity, to stand up to make a difference, and I join him in those sentiments. Nonetheless, the member for Gregory did raise some important questions with regard to performance development plans and questioned whether there may be a staged implementation, particularly considering that the $16.6 million is available over a four-year period for the community governance strategy. In fact, the performance development plans will be developed individually with each council. They can therefore reflect the uneven performance that already exists in terms of the councils’ capacity. Some councils have taken a strong lead already in the accounting area. Some 3102 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 20 Oct 2004 councils are already, for example, preparing their corporate plans. Some others are not yet so far advanced. Rather than developing a one-size-fits-all set of targets and rather than setting in place a training program that would be administered at the same time to all councils, the performance development plans will be individualised and the implementation in that sense will be staged to allow some councils to go ahead faster than others in some divisions. However, target dates will be set by which all councils must have, for example, their corporate plans in place, their strategic plans in place and their operational plans in place. With regard to the retention of ‘Aboriginal' as the name within the council area, I inform the honourable member for Gregory that this is a matter of great importance to many of the councils and is yet undecided by some of the councils. There are indications at the moment that about 10 out of the 15 councils may well decide to keep the word ‘Aboriginal' at least for now. I will not mention the particular council because I do not have its permission, as it were, to talk of a discussion that I had only last week with a particular council where we discussed the relative benefits and disbenefits of using the word ‘Aboriginal'. While on the one hand the council said that it wants to use the word ‘Aboriginal' to emphasise the importance that it has in its culture and history, at the same time it recognises that there are opportunities ahead maybe through the expansion of its boundaries which might include, for example, more freehold land and therefore more people from European or other cultural backgrounds. In those circumstances, it would see it as not being appropriate to include the word ‘Aboriginal'. I have encouraged the council to do whatever it believes is right for a start and to allow it the flexibility to change that at some future time should circumstances, boundaries and ratepayer bases change. The member for Gregory also asked about the financial arrangements, particularly with regard to superannuation. I can inform the honourable member and other honourable members that the financial circumstances are these: that while the bill does change the legal status of Aboriginal councils, it does not change the funding arrangements. Other than that, the additional money that has been allocated under the community governance improvement strategy will be made available over four years to assist with this transition. The funding that they have been receiving previously will still be available to them. Additionally, they are able to apply, as are all local governments in the state of Queensland under the funding programs run through my department, to other state government departments for funding programs available to local governments in general. I would expect that they may be more competitive in applying for those funds than some have been, at least in the past. Nonetheless, whether or not additional moneys will be required for superannuation provision is a separate issue. Some councils have already been contributing to the local government superannuation scheme while others have not. Some councils have been making superannuation contributions to schemes other than the local government superannuation scheme. Although this is permitted under the current legislation, it contravenes industrial awards that many Aboriginal council employees are under. The Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation has contacted the relevant council clerks and drawn their attention to the oversight. At the same time, however, it is acknowledged that these councils and their employees would need time to change from their present scheme to the local government superannuation scheme. The bill, therefore, allows them up to 1 July 2005 to make this transition. It is quite possible that they will make the change sooner and the department is certainly encouraging them to do so. On the topic of support for the councils and their employees to offset the cost of the new superannuation contribution rates, may I inform honourable members that the government expects that councils and their employees will meet any costs for the new contribution rates from existing resources. No additional money is being given by the government for this purpose. It is anticipated that councils will make savings through greater budget efficiencies as a result of the community governance improvement strategy and that these savings would offset additional costs. The requirement on employees is no different, however, from the requirement that applies to other councils. I reiterate that the introduction of the new higher rates is being phased in to allow the necessary adjustments to personal and organisational budgets. I state on the record that the Department of Local Government, Planning, Sport and Recreation will closely monitor progress in this matter and consider whether an education and awareness campaign is needed so that councils and their employees are fully informed on all aspects of membership of the scheme and are able to budget accordingly. I thank the member for Cook for his contribution tonight but, more than that, for his energetic activity as the new member for Cook. He has brought to that not only a background knowledge gained from previous positions but also a tremendous energy to ensure that this new period for Aboriginal councils in his electorate of Cook is as productive as possible. He did say that in his view—and I support his view—that one key to the success of these new arrangements will be assisting the Aboriginal councils to divest the services and functions that have been historically dumped on them through there being no other organisations visible or apparently ready or able to take up these functions. It is a fact that Aboriginal councils have had to carry much more of a burden in terms of ancillary service provision than have other councils throughout the state of Queensland. The member for Cook mentioned the importance of the community being involved in these functions, of the opportunity through state departments—not only the Department of Local Government 20 Oct 2004 Local Government (Community Government Areas) Bill 3103 and Planning—for the champion program, and for other departments to properly consider whether, through local service committees, they can divest Aboriginal councils of these additional functions. Other growing organisations in these Aboriginal communities will contribute in any case to the better health of the community, to a greater participation, and to a greater leadership that is spread across the communities rather than the burdens being carried by the mayor and the council alone, and the local member. In that regard I would like the member for Cook to know that he clearly has my support and I will be pleased to work with him to ensure that all state government departments are assisting in this important process of developing other committees, other organisations and others participating in those Aboriginal communities, in the wider provision of services. The legitimacy that these Aboriginal councils need within their own communities is recognised and the member's important point is rightly made that, although we are tonight talking about a quality of governance, where we are leading is to ensuring that Aboriginal people in these local government council areas have the same quality of life as all other Queenslanders. The member for Cook has 10 of the 15 deed of grant in trust councils in his electorate. He has truly been a champion of this legislation and I thank him for his support. I thank, too, the member for Caloundra for speaking clearly and unequivocally in his support on behalf of the Liberal members of this parliament. That support, too, is recognised as important and in sending a valuable message to all of the people who live in the Aboriginal communities. The member for Bundamba spoke from her experience and demonstrated her understanding of the details and the difficulties there has been with infrastructure provision and service provision in these councils. Again, she demonstrated to the House her sensible and informed approach and tonight, particularly, her genuine concern for the indigenous people of Queensland. I thank, too, the member for Nicklin for his support for the bill. He quite rightly recognised that there is much work to be done around the financial control issue and that it is important that we are firm in our encouragement of the councils to lift the standards of financial performance. I am pleased to offer him the news that there is a tremendous, positive energy and will from the Aboriginal councils to do this. For those councils that have from time to time failed in their financial duties, they have felt the shame, as much as others around Queensland have, about their performance, and they are eager to be proud and to succeed where other councils are expected to succeed. Might I also remind the honourable member for Nicklin that, in terms of financial management, not all of the other 125 councils have always performed perfectly, either. In fact, in that regard there are a couple in my sights at the moment that are getting very stern messages. The particular issue that the member for Nicklin raised is that the mayor of these councils will be elected, as has been the pattern, by the councillors. He clearly indicated in his question and associated remarks that he supports this method and that maybe this method should be available to the other local government authorities in Queensland. I do not hold the same view. It has been put to me, particularly by some councillors from Sunshine Coast councils, that they would prefer that councillors are elected and then the councillors choose among their number the mayor. These councillors have suggested to me that they may choose to have a different mayor each year. The reason that I do not support that system, or changing our present system, is that the job of mayor is not only a statutory position but also requires commitment, a level of expertise and responsibility such that I think the days are long gone in the major councils where councillors' mates can say, ‘We think that you would be good for this year and then we will give you a turn next year.' Although that sounds a very democratic and a very fair way of going about things, it understates the importance of the job of mayor. Instead, I wonder if it will not be very many years before the Aboriginal councils will move to that system of recognising that it may be that the office of mayor should be on a separate ticket to indicate to the community the seriousness and the importance of that leadership provision as distinct from the duties of councillors in general. This bill is a landmark in the history of local government in Queensland and a landmark for Aboriginal people in this state. This is the first time that all of our local governments have been brought together under the one legislative regime and the one set of principles and standards embodied in the Local Government Act 1993. This is also the first time that our deed of grant in trust communities will have the benefit of a modern and culturally appropriate system of local governance. Under this legislation, they will enjoy the same charge of their own destiny and have the same opportunities as do other Queenslanders. Gone for good will be the inappropriate, sometimes paternalistic laws that they had to endure for so many years. The Queensland parliament is sending a very important message of encouragement and support tonight. The National Party opposition, the Liberal members, and the Independents are united in their support for this bill. As a parliament tonight, we are really saying that it is indeed a new day, a new partnership between the Queensland government, all members of the Queensland parliament and the Aboriginal councils. I thank all members for their support. Motion agreed to. 3104 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 86, as read, agreed to. Schedule 1— Ms BOYLE (9.30 p.m.): I move the following amendment— 1 Schedule 1, amendment 33 of the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984— At page 55, after line 25— insert— ‘(4A) Subsection (4B) applies to a person if— (a) the person— (i) is not a resident of a trust area; and (ii) is permitted under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 to enter and be on Aboriginal land (the Aboriginal land area); and (b) the Aboriginal land area is situated within the trust area. ‘(4B) The person may enter and be in another part of the trust area for the purpose of entering the Aboriginal land area.’. I table the explanatory notes. Amendment agreed to. Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to. Schedules 2 to 4, as read, 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) (9.31 p.m.): I move— That government business order of the day No. 6 be postponed until a later hour of the sitting. Motion agreed to.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed from 28 September (see p. 2411). Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (9.31 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. Through this legislation the government is seeking to outlaw home- brew in communities where it is proving to be a problem, in some of the Torres Strait communities. A number of small communities have asked for this restriction. Accordingly, the opposition will support the bill. I will make a few observations. In order to be successful, these restrictions must have the support of the communities in the first place. This is where the government made its first mistake—imposing restrictions that had not been properly considered by the communities. I was the shadow minister at the time this historic legislation was passed in Townsville under the stewardship of the former minister, Judy Spence. As I said in the debate on the local government legislation, there are times when we do not get it right the first time. This is probably an example of that. That is not just my opinion. A check of the records of the House will show that this position has been supported by the member for Cook. Like any law, it will only be successful when the majority of people accept the validity of the law in the first place. The best way is for this to result from appropriate consultation, not just by imposing the government view. I think that has happened now. I have spoken to some of these communities in question. This is a very difficult task, one that will continue to provide hurdles until such time as we get an outcome that is beneficial to all. As was stated in the debate on the previous legislation, all of these communities are different. They all face different situations. I believe that, whether they are dry camps or wet camps or whatever you want to term them, we have to treat each community on its merits. The minister will be aware that the communities are concerned that the application of the alcohol management plans is a piecemeal approach to the major problems being experienced by many of these communities. Ms Boyle interjected. 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3105

Mr JOHNSON: No, I haven’t. In many of these communities what people want is fresh food to be available at reasonable and fair prices. This is a matter, as the minister knows, that I raised at the estimates hearings earlier this year. Frankly, I am disappointed that there does not appear to have been much progress made on addressing this particular issue. The opposition understands the objectives of the alcohol management plans and welcomes the improvements that the minister has reported in relation to the reduction of domestic violence, but I caution against gilding the lily, because real problems continue to exist and alcohol management plans are certainly no panacea. They are a step in the right direction when they have earned community support but, as the minister said, they are currently being reviewed. I simply urge the minister to listen carefully to what the communities are saying. I also trust that she may be able to use her good graces to have the Treasurer spend some of the nest egg that he revealed in the parliament yesterday to make real changes to these communities by providing them with the services they deserve. Certainly abuse of alcohol and other substances has been a significant problem, but this problem is a symptom of broader social issues. While we may look at different aspects, whether it be home-brew kits or alcohol, we have to make certain that education programs are put in place. The minister herself said in the House tonight that it is about re-educating people and about teaching people the best way to go. It is about getting better health standards, better education standards, better job opportunities and better career opportunities and about giving people a purpose in life. Whilst there are some anomalies, we will not find solutions to the issues by being critical. These communities want real jobs and health services. Quite frankly, until these communities are given the resources to achieve life with real dignity there will be persistent problems. I also wonder how long it will be before we are back in the House considering similar legislation regarding the abuse of other substances. The minister might like to clarify, for instance, the situation in relation to the consumption of kava. A couple of years ago I went to Western Australia over the outback highway from Ayers Rock, through the Territory to Western Australia. I pulled up at a place called Docker River on the Northern Territory-Western Australia border. Many of those poor unfortunate people there had no education at all. Many of them had no purpose in life. The main source of recreation there was petrol sniffing. I understand that nothing much has changed. No doubt the minister would agree with me when I say that I hope we do not see that become rife in our Aboriginal communities, or any other community for that matter. The other day I heard talk on the radio about petrol sniffing. Many of these people are virtually brain dead. It comes back to education. These poor unfortunate people have not been told the ills of this horrible habit. We all know the problems being encountered with chroming and the sniffing of petrol. How will it be possible to prevent vehicles going through these communities with petrol? It is an important commodity in those communities. That is something we just have to be aware of. Even the minister would agree that it would be difficult for planes to service the airports without fuel. The same would be applicable to vehicles passing through. I think it is something that has to be included in education programs, health programs, corporate plans, development plans, business plans and every other plan we are trying to implement to make a difference. When I say ‘we', I believe that collectively as members of parliament we would be irresponsible— even those of us on the opposition benches—if we did not support the government of the day, regardless of who the government was, in trying to make a difference to these people and giving them a purpose in life. That is certainly where I come from as the opposition spokesman for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy. I hope that the support of the National opposition and any input I can have in assisting the minister or assisting the government might make a difference so that somebody else's life will change—and let us hope it does. I believe we do not need more patronising but resources that address the rehabilitation, that create real jobs and that provide proper education about the problems being encountered. I spoke to a CEO of one of the communities yesterday. This legislation was enacted in Townsville and finished off here in Brisbane a couple of years ago. I note that the member for Mount Isa and Minister for State Development is in the chamber tonight. A lot of people come in from some of those communities to larger centres like Mount Isa, Cairns and to places where alcohol is readily available. I am talking here about home-brew kits, which is one issue that we have to look at. I hope the minister does not take this the wrong way, but some of these places have gone cold turkey in totally cutting out alcohol, and I am wondering whether we had it wrong from the start and whether we should have had a program allowing canteens to serve low-alcohol beer. Mr O’Brien: Most of them have canteens. Mr JOHNSON: I know that, but the point I am making is that we have to be able to teach them how to use it in the proper way. By doing that, I believe we will get rid of those sly-groggers. If it is going to be more available, we could manage it in a more practical, more responsible way. If we let them have autonomy for themselves, I think we will see some of these issues clarified and cleared up. It is worth a thought, Minister. This problem will not just disappear. We have to look at ways and means of addressing it. 3106 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004

As this particular CEO said to me yesterday, whilst some of these problems have moved from the Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy, they have become the problem of the Department of Families. With readily available alcohol, domestic violence starts again and all these other problems associated with alcohol start again. I think every avenue needs to be thoroughly exhausted to make certain we get it right. I say to the minister tonight: if we do not get it right this time, maybe the next time we are legislating in this area we can have some consultation with these communities. I believe we can only do it by talking to the people in these communities. I have spoken to a lot of people, and I know the minister has, too, because they have told me that she has. We can make a difference just by having that consultation. Those people want purpose in their lives. They want a life that will be useful and fruitful. Whilst these might be only minor technicalities, I think they are going to go a long way towards overcoming the problem. It gives me great pleasure to have the National Party opposition support this very important piece of legislation. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (9.44 p.m.): I am pleased to rise tonight to support the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. As some honourable members would know, I have a number of Aboriginal communities in my electorate which over many, many years have been loyal to me and loyal to the party which I represent. Normally in Doomadgee and Mornington Island I receive 91 per cent to 95 per cent of the vote. So I stand here tonight as somebody who I think knows the people and, in particular, knows the circumstances in which they live and spend their lives. Mornington Island is one place that I want to discuss briefly tonight. At the recent state election my vote on Mornington Island tumbled by about 30 per cent. This was a direct result of the policy of our government in restricting alcohol sales. Each and every one of us in this chamber has to ask ourselves the following question: why are we here? Are we here to be nice and be afraid to take unpopular decisions, or are we here to try to make a difference? I went down the path of making a difference because I get no joy at all in getting off a charter plane at Mornington Island airstrip and spending time in that community meeting particularly with the women who have just had enough. The women in these communities are the strength. They are the ones who are fighting; they are the ones who want us to take action about the abuses in those communities. There were times when we did not want to talk about what was going on but we could see people who were basically dying as a result of the abuse of alcohol. You could see women bandaged. You would go into the hospital and see the results of domestic violence. I am not trying to be melodramatic tonight because I am not reading from a speech. I just want to try to get the message across that you have to have experience in these communities to understand. You cannot read about it. You cannot see it on the television or in the movies. You have to go and see how these people live and the daily battle that some of these women, in particular, fight. These women literally cried and begged us to do something about alcohol, and we did. There were many people who were not happy. In fact, the last local council election was fought on a promise that a certain group, if elected, would bring back the grog. What happened then was that there were pallet loads of home-brew coming in on the barge—home-brew kits which were being sold at enormous prices. The home-brew was being made by people who did not quite understand the science of making home-brew. They were drinking the home-brew before it was ripe to do so, and it was causing untold illness in the community. Around the cabinet table I showed photographs of the pallets of home-brew coming on to the island, and the minister will confirm this. When we examined the evidence which I placed before the cabinet, we decided there and then that something had to be done. As I said in my opening remarks, politically that cost me 30 per cent of the island vote. It went from 96 per cent down to 66.9 per cent. At Doomadgee just down the road where they do not have this problem— Mr Johnson: You got all of my vote in Winton, didn't you, Tony? Mr McGRADY: I did actually. When I took over from the member for Gregory, I think I got his vote. I think he had 25 per cent and then when I took over we went up to 52 per cent. In Doomadgee, which does not have an alcohol problem, I still maintained 91.73 per cent. I received a call from one of my indigenous friends and she said, ‘I've got the results for you, Tony.' She said something like: ‘Tony McGrady, 497; the National colleague, 15 votes' or something. ‘Never mind,' she said, ‘we think we know who they were.' The reason I have stood up here tonight is to say that the bill which is before the parliament will not be popular in some circles, but it has to happen. If we want to stop paying lip-service to the ideals of helping these people and yet allow this wholesale trade in home-brew we will see these people literally kill themselves. I am not being paternal and I am not being a do-gooder, but I see first-hand exactly what this stuff is doing to the people I represent in this parliament. If I did not stand up here today and make these comments I should not have the pleasure or privilege of representing these people. 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3107

The minister and I are going to Mornington Island and some of the other gulf communities next week. I want to be able to say to those people that this government and this parliament have unanimously supported the restrictions which are contained in this bill. They are restrictions which, in my opinion, have to be placed on the community. Simply imposing these restrictions on people is not the answer. We have to continue to provide services and try to provide alternatives for these people to spend their time on. In the time that I have been visiting Mornington Island—25 or 30 years—I have seen services to the islanders from both state and federal governments improve. I have seen the services to the islanders improve a thousand times, but there is still that basic problem associated with grog and, in particular now, the way people are getting around the previous alcohol restrictions. As somebody who represents, along with the member for Cook and other members, Aboriginal communities, I would implore this parliament to support what the minister is doing. This place is never a mutual admiration society, and we do at times disagree violently. Tonight we are discussing the plight of people who need our help and our assistance. We are discussing giving moral support to the women in those communities who have been crying out for this sort of legislation. They succeeded in the original legislation and then the people found another way of getting grog on to the island via home-brew. Home-brew is causing untold bad health to these people. It is causing untold damage. Today in some communities when kids are arguing with the parents they say, ‘Well, I'm going to go and commit suicide.' This happens in some communities. Whenever I visit the island or other communities people will tell me of instances resulting from the abuse of alcohol. I appeal to all of the members of this parliament to speak with one voice and to support the initiatives which our minister has introduced here tonight. I said before that this place is not a mutual admiration society, and it is not. In the short space of time that the present minister has been in this portfolio—and some people would expect me to say this, but I mean it—I think she has certainly brought compassion but also commonsense to indigenous affairs. She is doing a tremendous job, and I want to hear her, at the end of her first term in this portfolio, be able to say, ‘Well, I made a difference with the support of my colleagues, and as a result of this we have now introduced a better quality of life for the people in indigenous communities,’ because I can assure members that it is a major problem. As a result of the previous restrictions we saw that more kids were going to school and more money was being spent in the local store. These are facts which are written down; members do not need to stand up and say I am guessing this. Money is being spent on food, and there has been this major improvement. After the federal election the other night one of the women rang me up on the Sunday morning and she said, ‘Tony, yesterday as people came to vote the island was just so peaceful. People were coming along, friendly, talking to each other, and came in to vote because we think that we have the grog under control but please, please, do something about the home-brew.' This is legislation which makes a lot of commonsense. I wish we did not have to be here discussing this tonight, but I can assure members that as someone who understands the people of the Gulf Country, and in particular the people of Mornington Island, I know we have to do this. It is not going to be an easy battle because there are many people who believe that they should still have equal access to as much grog as they want, but I can assure members that the decision that hopefully we all take unanimously tonight will go a long way to improving the quality of life for our fellow Queenslanders. This is one way in which politicians together can do much to ensure that we do give a better quality of life to the people in those communities. I ask all members to support this bill. Debate, on motion of Mr McGrady, adjourned.

SITTING HOURS; ORDER OF BUSINESS Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for State Development and Innovation) (9.55 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move— That notwithstanding anything contained in the standing and sessional orders, for this day's sitting the House can continue to meet past 10.00 p.m. to consider government business until the adjournment is moved, to be followed by a 30-minute adjournment debate. Motion agreed to.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading Resumed. Mr O’BRIEN (Cook—ALP) (9.56 p.m.): I rise this evening to support the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. As the member for Cook, I spend a lot of time in many of the 3108 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that were part of Justice Tony Fitzgerald's Cape York Justice Study. Thirteen of the 19 communities included in the study are in the Cook electorate. It is not possible to be a representative of the people of this region and not see the critical issues they face every day. The problems Justice Fitzgerald details in his studies are more than just statistics and anecdotes. They are real events in the lives of my constituents. The member for Mount Isa illustrated that in his speech much more eloquently than I am capable of. Descriptions of the lives of some Aboriginal people living in communities—the circumstances that they find themselves in, the tragic situations that they sometimes find themselves in and the violence that women and children and men are subjected to in those communities—would horrify people living in mainstream communities. Residents in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities face a higher level of violence, abuse and illness than other Queenslanders and other Australians. Children in Aboriginal communities face challenges that are just horrifying. This government has taken a brave step in its tough line against alcohol dependence. It has not done it alone. It is the people within those communities who are leading this campaign every day. I have already put on record my support for alcohol management plans. They are a necessary first step in loosening the grip of grog in many communities. Only when women and children are no longer cowed by the threat of abuse and violence will we be able to see real progress. I have also put on record my concern that in some communities people believe they have not had a say in the details of these plans. While there is widespread support for alcohol restrictions and alcohol control in Aboriginal communities, there is still a stronger need for community ownership of those restrictions. The legislation we are debating today is an important step in listening to this concern. The bill before the House delivers a way to ban home-brew, home-brew concentrate and home- brew kits in the communities which know it to be a problem. Every Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community is different and the legislation is not a one-size-fits-all answer. The impetus for these bans must come from the communities. A misconception in a lot of communities at the moment is that people just assume this bill introduces a broad ban against home-brew kits in all communities. That is simply not the case. The impetus must come from communities, through their councils and their justice groups, to make these changes. It is good to clarify that on the record because it is part of the feedback that I have received from some communities. In reality, home-brewing is not an issue in many communities. In fact, probably in most communities nobody is home-brewing. It is just not part of the culture of the local people. They are just not up for it. The legislation is in direct response to the plea from a small number of communities for the government to find a way to fight the effects of home-brew on the progress of alcohol management plans. One of those places within my electorate is Aurukun. I support the Aurukun community in its bid to make the alcohol management plan work. In fact, it is the first community where an alcohol management plan was introduced. Any person who has been going to Aurukun for a long period of time would see the changes in that community over the last 18 months to two years as nothing short of remarkable. It is certainly not perfect and there are certainly people in Aurukun who are resisting the alcohol management plan. However, there is no doubt that Aurukun is a safer community, a quieter community at night-time and, quite simply, a better community for all of its residents since the introduction of the alcohol management plan. Mr Rickuss interjected. Mr O’BRIEN: There are only a couple. The only strictly dry community is Wujal Wujal, where there is a total ban. There is a canteen in Aurukun. In fact, it is a fantastic canteen. The council built it a few years ago to demonstrate how the ravages of alcohol had affected Aurukun. They borrowed about $1 million or $1.5 million to build that canteen and they were able to pay it back within three years. That demonstrates how much money the community was pouring into that canteen in those days. The Aurukun canteen still operates. It is a great facility and it is very well managed. I think it is open from 3.30 to 8.30, Monday to Friday, and it sells light beer. Home-brewing in Aurukun is not a huge problem. There is anecdotal information to indicate that some people might be selling that alcohol or giving it away to locals. The justice group wants to nip that in the bud as soon as possible. The community of Aurukun need to sit down and work that through. They need to have a community meeting, the council needs to develop a position and they need to draw on the moral authority of the community justice group and take heed of that group and come to some arrangement that will work for them, as they need to do in all of those communities in my electorate. This legislation shows that the government is listening to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Reviews of alcohol management plans are also under way in four communities. This is another way that we can hear the concerns of those communities and refine alcohol restrictions to make sure they meet the needs of each community. I do not think the review will come up with wholesale changes or that many communities are even asking for wholesale changes. However, I think 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3109 there are some ways and means to make these restrictions more effective than the initial evidence indicates they are so that they can be even more effective. The minister's departmental review team is working closely with community members to ensure that the review truly reflects how alcohol management plans are affecting people. The review team is headed by Col Dillon, a former senior ranking police officer, who was once the highest ranking indigenous police officer in Queensland. It is consulting with as many people as possible in each community. Col is also talking to people from the Cairns City Council, the Mareeba council, the Weipa town committee and the Cooktown council. As the member for Gregory mentioned, sometimes people are coming out of these isolated communities and into mainstream communities. It is having an effect on the mainstream communities when those people come into town, basically, to drink—to get on the grog and go on a bender. That is having an effect on some of those communities. I think that has been exaggerated by some people, particularly in the media. However, there certainly are instances where people are coming from Aboriginal communities into the towns and that is having an effect on them. Col Dillon is talking to those people as well and making sure that any refinements to the alcohol management plans will also be of assistance to those communities. Their reports back will allow us, together with community members, to look at where changes might be made. Implementation of alcohol management plans is a key part of the government's Meeting Challenges, Making Choices initiative, but it is not the only part. The Beattie government has been working in the key areas of children, youth and families, crime and justice, governance, economic development, health, education and training, and land and sustainable resources. There have been significant achievements in these areas, with substance abuse, anger management and alcohol management programs, community alcohol workers in a number of communities, and new shelters for women and children escaping family violence. This is a cornerstone of change and, as I said, there is always some resistance to change. There are some people in our communities who simply do not want to change and will resist what the government is trying to do at all stages. When those people see that their communities are better—that they are quieter and there is less violence, and that the capacity of those communities is building through engagement with the school and young people being better educated—then I think we can turn those people around. There is still some way to go before Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people enjoy the same standard of living as other Queenslanders but already there is positive change. Alcohol management plans have the potential to save lives and I am committed to ensuring they are working in the best possible way for my constituents. This bill is another step in the right direction and I commend it to the House. Hon. K.W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP) (10.07 p.m.): I rise tonight to support the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This bill, as we have heard from previous speakers, addresses alcohol abuse and misuse in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. It demonstrates not only the government's willingness but also—from what I have heard here and from listening to the member for Gregory—this parliament's willingness to support those communities which have taken the difficult step of finding solutions to this problem. The alcohol management plans are making a difference. For instance, recent figures from Lockhart River show that there has been a strong response to alcohol restrictions, with a 76 per cent reduction in the average monthly alcohol related injury presentations at the health clinic and a 74 per cent reduction in all alcohol related presentations. These are not just figures. We are talking about people's lives. They represent significantly better days in the lives of residents. They represent a day without pain; they represent a day without illness. Enough of those days represent a safer, happier and more productive life for people living in those communities. These successes are not achieved by the government; they are as a result of the state government working in partnership with the committed men and women of the community justice groups. The introduction of alcohol restrictions has not been easy. The member of Cook talked about some of those issues before, as did the members for Gregory and Mount Isa. Those members demonstrated the challenges that are involved. This path is not well trodden. With the people in the communities, the government and, I think, the whole parliament are continuing to find the best way forward. Community justice groups have worked tirelessly to implement their alcohol management plans. The government has and will continue to actively support community justice groups in their endeavours. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community justice groups around Queensland will receive more than $3 million in funding to enable them to carry out their important work, which is aimed at providing people with a better life. Community justice groups and indigenous councils continue to work consultatively to finetune their strategies as community needs change over time. The member for Cook gave some examples of that. I am also aware that some community justice groups have advised the government that the increased use of home-brew kits threatens to undermine their alcohol management plans. That is why 3110 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 this bill is before the parliament tonight. Community justice groups are only able to make dry place declarations for public places within the community area. This leaves private places such as houses unregulated. These amendments give the government the ability to respond to community justice groups' concerns about the impact of home-brew. As previous speakers have said, it demonstrates the work and the effort that is involved with the community justice groups. It is important that this parliament provides support to those people who are working to improve the lives of people in their communities. We may come back to this legislation, as tonight we have come back to address the issue of home-brew. Maybe next year or the year after we will come back to this place to deal with other issues, because this is a continually moving feast. Tonight the parliament is demonstrating that it is willing to support the communities and the community justice groups to give people in those communities hope. It is very important that that happens. As I have said, all previous speakers have been united in their approach to the problems. We know that the problems are massive. However, by introducing the community justice groups and giving them the strength and the power to deal with issues related to alcohol, there is a chance that we can inch away from the problems that are endemic in many communities. In the end, this will improve the lives of the people who live in those communities and will provide them with better opportunities. That is the importance of this bill. We would not be doing the right thing by the people in the communities if we did not pass this bill tonight. The restrictions on home-brew within a community will complement existing restrictions on the carriage of alcohol under the Liquor Act 1992. Without this, the integrity of the alcohol management plans would be seriously threatened and the hard work of community justice groups would go to waste. Things are finally starting to improve and tonight we have heard from members about those improvements. I have raised issues before about the health clinic at the Lockhart River community, where the reduction in alcohol related presentations demonstrates clearly the improvement that is going on. Things are starting to improve for remote indigenous communities. We cannot afford to allow the abuse of the previous legislation to continue through the impact and use of home-brew. I commend this legislation, which provides the support needed by community justice groups to continue the critical work that they are carrying out in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I commend this legislation to the House. Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—Ind) (10.14 p.m.): I rise to participate in the debate on the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. I have listened to the contributions of members in this parliament to the debate. I echo their sentiments and the support that they have expressed for the minister's and the government's endeavours to respond to the problem of violence and alcohol abuse in our communities. The member for Mount Isa talked about his experiences in his electorate, as did the member for Gregory. Whilst listening to the member for Mount Isa, I reflected on a visit that my wife and I made, at the invitation of the minister and his wife, without the media or the fanfare, to some of the Aboriginal communities in his electorate. I recall vividly meeting with the women of those Aboriginal communities. It was not the men; it was the women who met with us. At one Aboriginal community, we got off the aeroplane and walked to a nearby tree where a number of women of different ages were waiting to talk to us. They spoke to the minister, Mr McGrady. They were calling for help. Tony said, 'Where is so-and- so?' They said, 'When they heard you were coming they left town.' That was the menfolk. It was the women of different age groups who were calling for help and assistance to respond to the problems that they were having in their communities. At another Aboriginal community we spoke with a few people. We visited one elderly woman who must have been in her seventies or maybe even older. I am not good at judging ages. We were talking about grandchildren. She said, 'Well, it is my responsibility to raise our grandchildren.' That was her job. She was raising the grandchildren because of the alcohol abuse and other problems that were occurring in her community. Earlier today we talked about supporting our children and trying to stop violence. At that time I was thinking about the many grandparents, throughout this wonderful state of Queensland and Australia, who are now taking on the role of raising their grandchildren. We certainly have to do better. The member for Mount Isa challenged us in this the 51st Parliament not only to support the bill but also to send a very strong and powerful message to the Aboriginal communities and to all Queenslanders that we are united on this issue. Let us send a unanimous message so that the people who have some ulterior agenda to get alcohol into the communities, for whatever reason, know that this parliament—the government, the Nationals, the Liberals, the Independents and One Nation—is united. We will respond as quickly as they will in their attempts to move the goalposts. We will respond by coming back into this House and introducing whatever amendments to legislation are necessary to provide the best support and protection for the children, the women and the families in those communities that are calling out for help. These people live so far away from the , which is based in Brisbane, that we can understand why they might feel forgotten or not thought of. Therefore, tonight let us send the clear message that we are one, we are unanimous, and that the 51st Parliament will respond as 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3111 quickly as the goalposts are changed. We will respond by showing Queenslanders how quickly we can introduce and pass amendments to legislation to ensure that we have the best possible systems in place. Without speaking further on this bill, as I know it is getting late, I would say that as an Independent member of the House the government certainly has my support. I thank the member for Mount Isa, Mr McGrady, and his wife for inviting my wife and I to join them on a quiet fact-finding trip through his electorate to see first-hand some of the challenges that we are facing in the Aboriginal communities in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (10.18 p.m.): Tonight I rise to support the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The government, by way of the justice agreement and in partnership with communities, is committed to reducing alcohol related violence against women and children in remote indigenous communities. These amendments further support this critical strategy. They will apply only to the communities that believe that the production of home-brew is having a serious impact on the progress made through alcohol management plans. These amendments will apply to everyone within those communities. They will apply to public servants, teachers, police, nurses and contractors. The government has consulted with key public sector unions during the development of the bill. Understandably, there has been some concern about how their members working in a prescribed community would be affected by a regulation banning home- brew alcohol. However, it must be remembered that these laws respond to the concerns raised by community justice groups and other community reviews in a number of indigenous communities. The government must continue to support indigenous communities to break the cycle of alcohol abuse, and this is something recognised by public servants and by contractors. A recent letter to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Minister from the Queensland Public Sector Union stated that the overwhelming response of its members was that anything that can be done to stop the destructive cycle that stems from alcohol abuse in these communities is welcomed. There are many dedicated and hardworking police officers, nurses, teachers and all manner of workers in many of these communities. They know that violence in indigenous communities is often fuelled by excessive alcohol consumption. Some of these communities have also seen that conditions have improved with fewer assaults, fewer health presentations and more children in school. In Aurukun, Doomadgee, Lockhart, Napranum, Woorabinda and Wujal Wujal there has been a 48 per cent reduction in the quarterly number of hospital admissions for assault. This early data is encouraging. Current restrictions on alcohol are making a difference in remote indigenous communities. The bill does not impose a blanket ban on home-brew. A further regulation must be made to apply the ban to a community. Any ban on home-brew will be in response to the needs and the concerns of indigenous communities on a case-by-case basis. The way this bill operates means that there can be an amnesty period from when a regulation is made to when the regulation takes effect. This will give residents, including public servants, ample time to dispose of their kits and any existing home-brew. There will also be an opportunity for a communication awareness strategy before home-brew restrictions are imposed in a community. I am confident that the government will consult with all stakeholders, including the community, public sector unions and key government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, Education Queensland, Queensland Health and the Queensland Police Service. The current laws are a key response to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence and Justice Fitzgerald's Cape York Justice Study. The objectives behind the current alcohol restrictions must be supported. The government in partnership with the communities must continue its commitment to build a better quality of life for the residents of these communities and a better future for their children. Many of the workers within these communities themselves are making a difference, and I want to congratulate the members who have spoken in this debate tonight. We have first-hand experiences from the member for Mount Isa, the member for Cook and the member for Gregory, who represent these communities or have represented these communities in the past, and also the member for Nicklin, who, on an invitation from the member for Mount Isa, visited the area and got first-hand experience of the tragic effects that alcohol has on the community. It is the women in those communities who will make a difference. As the members for Mount Isa, Cook and Nicklin said, unanimous support in this parliament tonight will provide encouragement to the majority of people in these communities who want to improve the quality of their life, their lifestyle and their health so that it can continue for other generations. I commend the bill to the House. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (10.22 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of this very important bill, the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. This bill is a further example of this government's commitment to addressing the issue of alcohol abuse in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Justice Fitzgerald in the Cape York Justice Study and before him the women involved in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence identified alcohol abuse and misuse as the most pressing issue facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 3112 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 communities today. In his report, Justice Fitzgerald recommended that measures should be undertaken to reduce the supply of alcohol to the Cape York region. The report states— Alcohol abuse and alcohol related violence and other offences are central to the problems in the communities. There is an urgent need for a simple community action plan on alcohol management in each community which is immediately implemented. That should be the first priority. A significant number of people in the communities drink alcohol to harmful and even hazardous levels. Life for those who don't drink to excess, including children, is spoiled by those who do. Following amendments to the Community Services (Aborigines) Act 1984 and the Community Services (Torres Strait) Act 1984, the government has worked very closely with Aboriginal and Islander communities and community justice groups in the development of alcohol management plans. The alcohol management plans have introduced a range of new measures to restrict the sale and consumption of alcohol in 17 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, including the imposition of dry place declarations in some communities. The home-brew amendments respond to recent concerns raised by community justice groups and communities regarding the avoidance of the new restrictions, particularly in communities that have a zero carriage limit. Recent reports have indicated that people are avoiding the new restrictions by buying some home-brew kits and producing their own alcohol at home. The amendments under consideration today are in response to these concerns and ensure that the recent initiatives and positive changes within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are not undermined by the actions of a few individuals. The government is committed to providing a safer community for all Queenslanders, and these amendments ensure that this commitment is fulfilled for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. I was very pleased and honoured to be able to accompany the minister on a recent trip to Weipa and to the Mapoon community in particular. This certainly was an eye-opener for me in seeing the immediate impact of the imposition of a dry area in that community. This legislation and the forbearing legislation that commenced this process should also come with a very significant warning. It is a warning that essentially alcohol in these communities has been a soporific—a repressive—substance which has dulled and diluted the energies of these very magnificent people of the cape. It has been a force which has held these people back. In releasing this repressive force, we are also releasing a great spring of activity, of energy, of creative endeavour and of entrepreneurial endeavour in those communities. That is a force which this government must deal with in a range of areas—in education, in the arts, in all sorts of social endeavours and in industry in terms of supporting industries. So it is a salutary warning that we as a government must be there and ready to respond to these great energies that are being unleashed. The minister knows that I share her passion for the arts in its various forms in fine arts and music and the significance of those arts in terms of industry development in those communities as well as the importance of those elements in self-development for those people. In particular, in our visit to Mapoon it was great to see the energy being unleashed in that community through the arts group. I know that the minister shares my appreciation of Daphne de Jersey's work in that community. That is a very good example of the range of artistic practices that are being unleashed and the number of other people in that community who are being drawn into that energy that Daphne is driving in that community, and I commend her for that. I have had the pleasure of corresponding with Daphne since that visit and we are discussing such matters as the merits of using gum arabic as an additional art material to allow the use of local ochre materials for artwork in the community and also some other little tips that I am able to forage and share, such as, for example, the use of local oyster shells in creating very white painting materials after they are baked and ground. I wish them very well. I look forward to a long association with that community and sharing our knowledge and exchanging our knowledge. I can certainly put a plug in on Daphne's behalf for future support by way of artists in residence who are really needed in that community and other communities. I know that Daphne indicated to me that only in very recent history someone tried to tell them that it was not a good idea to have artists in residence up there—that is, that it would not do any good and it was not something to be supported. Whoever said that must have been really, really stupid, because it is a magnificent idea. We should support such ventures and the great energy that is coming out of that community. These initiatives are not only going to save lives; they are also going to create many great things in the future—many great outcomes in the arts and industry in those communities. I commend the bill to the House. Mr LANGBROEK (Surfers Paradise—Lib) (10.29 p.m.): On behalf of the member for Currumbin, who is the Liberal Party shadow minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, I am proud to say that the Liberal Party supports the Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004. The bill will provide the option for indigenous councils to outlaw the home-brewing of alcohol in areas where it is undermining the alcohol management plans. As a new member in this House, I was concerned about delivering a speech about something that I am not necessarily particularly au fait with. I thought that it was very interesting to hear the contribution from the member for Mount Isa and other members who gave a number of heartfelt examples about what happens in these communities. I can honestly say that, as the member for Surfers Paradise, I have not been up to these areas. In fact, as I heard these members speak, I looked up my parliamentary 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3113 record and at the map at the front. It is interesting to get an insight into some of the things that are happening in these communities. I realise now the personal nature of some of the things that we have heard this evening. It certainly makes me realise just what a broad spectrum of communities we have in Queensland and how important it is to think about various aspects of life that many of us in more urban areas do not often think about. So I applaud the government for not making a blanket ban across all indigenous communities and leaving the choice to each community to determine if banning home-brew suits their needs. The production of home-brew has become a problem in a few communities, especially in the shires of Aurukun and Mornington Island. This legislation will enable communities such as those to help further minimise the harm caused by violence and alcohol related injuries. One downside to this legislation is that indigenous communities that are affected by this legislation also have as members of their communities non-Aboriginals who work within the area such as police, teachers and nurses. The Teachers Union, the Public Sector Union and the Police Union have all raised concerns with the minister. The Queensland Public Sector Union General Secretary, Alex Scott, told the Australian that if bans went ahead the state government would have to come up with proper incentive packages for people to work in remote areas. That is a separate issue that will have to be addressed in the near future after the effects of prohibiting home-brewing can be properly evaluated in the communities that have enacted the legislation. But I am sure that things can be worked through in the interests of the people who reside in those communities. I do not believe that we should be placing blame on anyone who is currently selling home-brew kits in these areas, as currently it is legal to do so. Unfortunately, it is sad that there are obviously unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of the fact that they are in isolated areas. Basically, they are operating a cartel. I know that we have seen that with normal alcohol sales, but to see that happening with home-brew kits just shows that some people will— Mr Lawlor: They even do that in Surfers Paradise. Mr LANGBROEK: That is right. I take that interjection. I have been to many dinner parties where I have taken sixpacks of Crown Lager and been offered a glass of home-brew. Obviously, we should be asking why home-brew laws were not introduced in 2002 when the state government first introduced the alcohol managements plans. As I say, it is disappointing that there are members of the community who will always look for ways to get around the laws. It is often hard to legislate the behaviour of people who look for ways to get around legislation. It has been reported in the Cairns Post that many elders are so concerned about the effects of home-brewing that many want to implement the legislation immediately. It is not uncommon for residents in remote alcohol-restricted communities to become violently ill after drinking their home-brew too early. I think that we heard some examples of that earlier this evening from another speaker. It is something that we would not think about as a normal way for people to behave when they purchase something like a home-brew kit. Unfortunately, a common practice is to distil the alcohol in the morning and to drink it in the afternoon. A community justice group manager has expressed concerns that the implementation of this legislation will have a negative effect on many of the alcohol-dependent people within the communities who do not have access to rehabilitation or counselling services. If we are going to implement alcohol management plans, then we need to ensure that the support services are available to all communities, no matter how isolated they may be. I am sure that the minister would have made arrangements in that regard. We have a duty of care to all people within our communities to provide ongoing support and commitment. We just cannot rush in, make laws and then leave people in those communities to pick up the pieces. If the government is serious about helping the Aboriginal communities, then we must first listen to the indigenous councils, ensure that support mechanisms are in place and then act in a timely manner. But, most importantly, we must respect Aboriginal culture and customs and comply with any laws that cover these areas, including not taking our own alcohol into restricted areas. I commend the bill to the House. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (10.35 p.m.): I count it as a privilege to be able to speak to this bill tonight. I have long enjoyed a close association with many indigenous people—many respected elders—mostly in urban areas. One of those elders, whose friendship and wise counsel I value, is Uncle Paddy Jerome. Paddy's association with the Labor Party goes back a long way. I believe that he was the first indigenous member of the party. He has now been recognised; he has received his life membership of the party and he has a very strong sense of social justice. Many years ago Paddy recognised the harm that alcohol was doing to his people. He wrote many scholarly papers on the issue and he recognised that many indigenous men conform to the community's poor expectations and that prison was almost a rite of passage. Paddy's longing to forge a new way for his people led him to work with many young people. For many years he was chaplain at our Brisbane prisons, but he felt such sorrow at seeing men return time and time again often because of the effects of 3114 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 20 Oct 2004 alcohol. He is now a champion for his people. At present, he has gone to assist them at Cherbourg. He is passionate about restoring pride in Aboriginal culture, teaching language and mentoring young people to help them have a feeling of belonging and understanding of who they are. Other respected community members and elders include Martin Wattego, with his young Aboriginal dance group; Uncle Reg Knox, who works so well in our schools with his artwork; and Auntie Betty McGrady and Auntie Peggy Tideman, who are both showing incredible leadership within the Logan community. Then there is Auntie Janna Richardson, who represents our Torres Strait Islander community. We have many fantastic leaders. In 2003 I was very privileged to have the opportunity to visit a number of the cape communities. Having only visited Cherbourg on one occasion, I was very keen to see how more isolated communities operated. Although we were there for a very fleeting glance at these communities, we were still there long enough to really have an appreciation for how things were there. We visited Yarrabah, Lockhart River, Bamaga, Injinoo, Aurukun and Napranum. It was a great privilege to listen to the members of those community justice committees. We also visited a number of women's groups and visited some of the women's refuges. We toured the neat community of Yarrabah and saw the colourful homes with young children playing in the yard. We heard stories of the huge decrease in the number of women seeking assistance at the refuge in Lockhart River. We had a barbecue on the balcony of the arts centre there. I have a picture of a man who was alternating between turning the sausages and doing his painting that he had on the table. The artwork was just magnificent. In Injinoo we heard of the increase in school attendance and the improved diet of the people. In Aurukun work participation was on the increase. Yes, there were still many, many challenges ahead, but there were signs of hope. I recall at Napranum looking into the face of a gentle woman elder where I could see the results of past violence. The restriction of alcohol has already made an appreciable difference. However, there are now indications that a small number of communities would like a legislative framework by which they can put in place restrictions on home-brewing. It is most important that these communities are empowered themselves to make these decisions. This bill will do just that. I believe that the men and women on the community justice groups are taking their leadership roles very seriously, and our government will continue to work with them to ensure the continued improvement of family life within their communities. This bill will extend the powers of police to seize and dispose of homemade alcohol, and it will be an offence to possess a home-brew kit or home-brew alcohol or to supply such to another person. Similar penalties will apply as for sly grog under the Liquor Act 1992. This is about empowering indigenous communities and ensuring a safe and healthy environment in which families and children, and indeed the entire community, can grow and improve their living standard. It is about offering protection to our Aboriginal women and children—giving children a happy, safe environment in which they can learn and be free from the fear of violence. All evidence points to great improvements as the alcohol management rules are applied. Our indigenous people and in particular our strong women elders are taking control of their future, and I commend them for it. I have much pleasure in also congratulating the minister and her team on their commitment to our indigenous people. I am happy to support this bill. Hon. E.A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.40 p.m.), in reply: I thank all members for their contributions this evening and for the bipartisan support for this important legislation—small in pages but hugely important for the communities. It is important, especially for the members for Cook and Mount Isa and a number of members who have a lot of the Aboriginal communities and remote communities in their electorates, to be there all the time to work with them and to understand them. What they give to us as Australians is enormous. Being the minister in this portfolio has just given me so much—so much great learning, great understanding, an awareness of their culture and an awareness of how government does business. It is really important for all of us in this House to know that English is not their first language, so when we do business with them we have to understand that cultural difference and we need to be able to work with them in that way. I thank the member for Gregory for his support. We are in communication and we are in agreement that the alcohol restrictions need the support of the community. There needs to be moral and ethical ownership of the restrictions. To have that we have to have really close communication. Like I said when I spoke to the previous bill debated this evening, it is about rolling up the sleeves, going out there—not flying in and flying out—spending time and talking about what the issues are for them on the ground. It has to be in total consultation. The member for Surfers Paradise asked why this was not done in 2002. It is because of the importance of consultation. It was really clear to me when I came into this portfolio that I needed to get to know and understand the communities. I was not prepared—I take responsibility for that—to go ahead with the bill that was ready to go until I as the minister was comfortable that the communities wanted 20 Oct 2004 Community Services and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3115 this. It was hugely important for me. Not only did they have to have ownership; I as the minister wanted to have ownership and understanding. That is why it was held over. I am really pleased that it was held over. As we go around and conduct the reviews of the alcohol restrictions and the management plans, we are able to talk to people about home-brew, substance abuse and addiction and about how they want to address that and how we as a government can pursue that. That is why the bill was held over, and I think it was really important for both parties to hold it over. It has been a hard step. As we have heard from my colleague the very committed member for Mount Isa, what we do is not always popular. It is difficult and it is tough. There will be people who support and people who do not support. There will be people who do not like things being taken away, but we have to look at the bigger picture. I know that the women and children are tired and that the aunties and the grannies are really, really tired. We need to be able to go in and support them and make sure that the next generation can go to school and be supported. We are continually consulting with the remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and listening to what they have to say. No-one is denying that there are still real problems in these communities. There is ongoing, and in some cases groundbreaking, work on education, health, employment and all kinds of services and strategies. It has to be across-the-board. But the alcohol management plans are gaining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people some ground. They are making a difference, and a difference is a strong start. This government is not shying away from the many concerns which face Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. There is progress being made in all areas of the government's Meeting Challenges, Making Choices initiative. What we are talking about tonight is tackling a specific problem, and that problem is home-brew. I know that the members who have spoken tonight have spoken passionately and from the heart, and that makes me feel really fantastic. I know that the communities will be really pleased with that heartfelt passion. I thank Minister McGrady for his words of support and for the sincerity of his concern for the people of Mornington Island and Doomadgee. I know that the member for Cook also feels deeply about the future of his Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander constituents. He is always an advocate for the people of the cape and it is always a joy to tour around the cape with him. This bill simply delivers a way for a number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to deal with an issue which is holding them back. The state government was made aware that in a small number of communities the production of home-brew was posing a threat to the effectiveness of the plans. It is a credit to the dedication of these communities that they have identified that danger and have approached the government to find a way to deal with this problem. We have not gone in and said, ‘We are doing this.' They came to us. The plea has come from the people who want their alcohol restrictions to work effectively—people who want their community to have the best possible basis for the future. We have heard that this legislation means a home-brew ban for only the communities that need it. This legislation supports the alcohol management plans, it supports the community justice groups and it supports the communities themselves. The member for Mount Isa also pointed out how many home- brew kits were being sold. It is something we had to action. In line with what the member for Surfers Paradise raised about the QPSU, the home-brew bans will apply to everybody living and working within any community in which they may be implemented. I have a letter from the QPSU actually supporting the implementation of the home-brew kits. The letter suggests to me that ‘if it is saving lives then we support it'. I have also spoken recently with the Minister for Education and the Minister for Health. The people who work in these communities are aware of the restrictions. They know that when they take on the positions they are there to make a difference, and they are very supportive of what is happening. I refer to the team on the ground at the moment—Col Dillon and his team doing the reviews. I was briefed on those reviews this week. All of the communities differ in their restrictions, but together they say that they are working, that they are really making a difference. We will go just this bit further, only for those communities that want it. It is done by regulation. It is the choice of the communities. We will regulate to ban the home-brew. It is a health issue. It is not good for people if they are drinking it green. As I said, the communities have asked us for this regulation, and I am very, very happy to actually do that. Everyone is talking about how we work with the restrictions and move forward in the other areas. Education and health are hugely important. Nought to five is the area that we must concentrate on. We need to change the cycle of alcohol and abuse, and things will change. As I said, I am very proud of everyone supporting this bill tonight. I think it is hugely important. To all the members who have travelled with me, I know that it has been an eye-opener and I know how supportive they are of equality for all Queenslanders. As the member for Woodridge mentioned, for a lot of young men the rite of passage is to drink and go to jail. That is a rite of passage that we cannot support. We talk about women and we talk about children, but this is really important for the men also. The men's groups are getting stronger. They are starting to come back and be the man of the family. It 3116 Adjournment 20 Oct 2004 may sound old fashioned to us but that is what they need culturally. The men need that face. That will then support the women and the children. It is about understanding their culture and changing the cycle. I thank everybody for their input tonight. We have heard all about the statistics where the plans are working, but tonight the focus is simply on home-brew. The state government has been asked for help, and tonight I am happy to deliver that assistance. Motion agreed to.

Consideration in Detail Clauses 1 to 10, as read, agreed to. Clause 11— Mr JOHNSON (10.52 p.m.): I do not want to prolong the time of the House this evening so I will be brief. In clause 11, proposed section 112B deals with the relationship with restricted areas. The minister can read what that says. If we turn to the explanatory notes, they state— 112B clarifies that if there is a restricted area declaration and a limit on the possession of liquor in an area under the Liquor Act 1992, this does not affect the prohibition of homemade liquor. For example, even if a restricted area declaration stated that up to one carton of beer can be possessed in a restricted area, it is nevertheless an offence to possess any homemade alcohol if the area is a prescribed community. Can the minister please explain the differentiation there? We are talking about a restricted area. Is that a restricted area in the prescribed community? Could the minister clarify that please? Ms LIDDY CLARK: Under the Liquor Act 1992 and the alcohol carriage offences introduced in 2002, the courts are using their full discretion in handing down penalties for breaches of alcohol units. The penalties handed down for breaching bans on home-brew kits and homemade alcohol or the supply of homemade alcohol to an offender will reflect the circumstances and the seriousness of the offence. The maximum penalties are meant as a deterrent and reflect the gravity of the alcohol problems in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the government's long-term commitment to eradicating the harm being caused by alcohol abuse, its misuse and its associated violence. Mr JOHNSON: I do not wish to dwell on this, but the part that I am trying to clarify is proposed section 112B. If the minister looks at the explanatory notes, they state— ... up to one carton of beer can be possessed in a restricted area, it is nevertheless an offence to possess any homemade alcohol if the area is a prescribed community. What I am asking is: does that restricted area have to be part of the prescribed community? This area covers 250 penalty units. There seems to be a contradiction there. Ms Liddy Clark: I am not quite sure what you mean by the contradiction. If it is a prescribed area— Mr JOHNSON: In a restricted area it is nevertheless an offence to possess any homemade alcohol if the area is a prescribed community. What is the minister terming a prescribed community? Ms LIDDY CLARK: The restricted area occurs under the Liquor Act and this bill supplements these restrictions. Mr Johnson: It's all the same. It's still a part of the community. Ms LIDDY CLARK: Yes. Mr Johnson: So it carries 250 penalty units. Ms LIDDY CLARK: Yes. Clause 11, as read, agreed to. Clauses 12 to 28, as read, agreed to.

Third Reading Bill read a third time.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. E.A. CLARK (Clayfield—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy) (10.56 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn. 20 Oct 2004 Adjournment 3117

Autism Spectrum Disorder Mrs MENKENS (Burdekin—NPA) (10.56 p.m.): Over 30,000 Australian children are suffering from autism spectrum disorder. I am told that approximately one in every 100 Australian children is born with ASD. According to statistics from the Autism Society of America, numbers are on the rise. Based on statistics from the US Department of Education and other governmental agencies, autism is growing at a rate of 10 per cent to 17 per cent per year. Autism, also known as Asperger’s syndrome, is a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life. The result of a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, autism impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills. Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions and leisure or play activities. The overall incidence of autism is consistent around the globe but is four times more prevalent in boys than in girls. Autism knows no racial, ethnic or social boundaries, and family income, lifestyle and educational levels do not affect the chance of autism's occurrence. People with ASD need a comprehensive program and a psychologist specialising in autism to assist in the implementation of the program. In metropolitan areas support is reasonably available. However, in regional and remote Queensland it is also impossible to find social workers, psychologists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and teachers who are trained in working with people with ASD. Townsville is indicative of many other centres in regional areas in that families can access only generic services, and these are spread right across the population of people with a disability. People believe that little benefit is achieved for those with autism spectrum disorder as they need intensive ongoing therapy often. I am told that families have great difficulty finding doctors who understand the disability and its accompanying gastrointestinal metabolic and immunological dysfunction. Teachers and therapists often have little knowledge of the complexities of working with these children and adults. The autism support group in Townsville consists of a small group of totally committed, professionally untrained parents of autistic children. These good people, who have their own family problems with their own autistic children, give counselling and support to often desperate parents from right across north Queensland. Speaking with them recently, I was saddened by their comments about the parents they are counselling—parents who are depressed, feeling desperate and totally alone as they cope with these very difficult children. I salute these wonderful women in the autism support group, but they need our support. They need more government support and community support to assist them in their efforts, and we need much more community education to understand this disorder. Animal Welfare League of Coombabah Mrs CROFT (Broadwater—ALP) (11.00 p.m.): Recently I was invited by the Animal Welfare League of Coombabah to present and speak at the league's first annual Queensland Companion Animal Day Awards. The awards were established by the Animal Welfare League to honour people who promote animal welfare or have performed acts of bravery or service for companion animals. The awards were held at the Southport Yacht Club and were attended by animal lovers, Animal Welfare League supporters and volunteers. The evening was compared by Sarah Wharmby from Gold FM and Murray Shoring of 4KQ who, in their own right, work hard to advocate public awareness of animal welfare. Amongst the award winners was the Minister for Primary Industries, Henry Palaszczuk, who, on behalf of the Beattie government, accepted the Government Animal Welfare Award for introducing legislation that bans tail docking in this state. The other award winners included Keith Williams, who received a Bravery Award. I also presented an award to a cat by the name of Runty Winn for an Animal Bravery Award. Go Runty! Robyn McKinnon won an Individual Achievement Award, and Valerie Jones from the Gold Coast Sun newspaper and Leah Moore from the Courier-Mail won the Newspaper Journalism Award. Tamara Pooley from Channel 9 won the TV Journalism Award and Troy Kemp, Rob Allen and Trish Whitehead from the Maroochy Shire Council won the Local Government Education Award. Karen Hallett from Jubilee Primary School won the Primary Education Award and Jusien Yong from Griffith University won the Compassionate Design Award. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Animal Welfare League committee for this wonderful initiative. I understand that last Sunday the Animal Welfare League held its open day, and I have heard that it was a great success. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to Denise Bradley, who is the president of the Animal Welfare League. I understand that in the past couple of weeks she has not been very well. I know that the members of the Animal Welfare League are very concerned and want to pass on their best wishes to her. The Animal Welfare League, its founders and its members have contributed significantly to improving the living of many animals, lobbying for legislative changes, increased penalties and promoting responsible animal care. As the state representative for the Animal Welfare League of Coombabah, I am privileged to meet and be inspired by such wonderful people. The awards support the 3118 Adjournment 20 Oct 2004 work that is being done by Animal Welfare League volunteers. The work of other people who are able to fight the cause, raise awareness and assist in other domains such as through the media, in schools, in nursing homes and in government agencies is encouraging for the many volunteers who help out at the Animal Welfare League. I congratulate all of the Animal Welfare League volunteers and the committee for putting on the awards. I congratulate all of the recipients and look forward to attending the awards next year. Time expired. Affordable Housing Mr McARDLE (Caloundra—Lib) (11.03 p.m.): Many of the current problems faced by our great state have as part of their genesis affordable housing. In times gone by families, though finding it difficult, had the capacity to have their own home, albeit as owner or renter. The fact of having your own home at an affordable price meant there were funds to meet the day-to-day expenses of the family, and that is the important point—to have funds available to meet those expenses. Those days are rapidly disappearing. There are many reasons for this and at the moment they are not relevant. One consequence, however, has been an escalation in property values and in rental prices. These figures have risen so quickly and by so much that the elderly, the young, young families and those who are disadvantaged cannot buy their home or rent a residence without serious impacts on the family's cash flow. This cash flow loss impacts on the capacity of the family to meet those ordinary expenses with, on occasion, sad consequences. This is a situation that exists throughout Queensland, including the Sunshine Coast. Recognising this, the Sunshine Coast Housing Network took the initiative earlier this year and established the project titled ‘Whatever Happened to the House that Jack Built?’ The project has the following inclusive aims: firstly, to establish workable models of affordable housing; secondly, to establish who in the community can assist the process; and, thirdly, to develop options. The Housing Network employed consultants, held six forums across the whole of the Sunshine Coast and held a large workshop on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 to establish the project findings. A task force has now been established to support the project findings. A second workshop is to be held in November 2004. I am honoured to say that I have been asked to attend the workshop. The point, however, is that the project as a whole highlights a belief I hold myself, that is, that a community can take charge of its own affairs and, as a whole, can achieve a goal or a result. In modern society governments are essential, but too many people forget the power of their community. I am proud to see the whole of the Sunshine Coast working together to tackle a critical matter. More issues can be dealt with by actions such as this, and I hope to see more resolutions achieved by this process. I cannot tell members if this will finally resolve the problem of housing, but I know that if we can harness the power and determination of the Queensland community there is nothing this great state cannot achieve. Wisdom Within Art Exhibition; Department of Housing Garden Awards Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (11.05 p.m.): I had the pleasure of attending two important community events in my electorate last week—the Wisdom Within Art Exhibition in association with Mental Health Week and the 2004 Department of Housing Garden Awards. Both played key roles in helping to promote a positive perspective on community issues. The Wisdom Within Art Exhibition was a collaboration of the Mackay integrated health service, incorporating both the community health and Mackay acute care unit. The aim of the exhibition, supported by artists John Pickup, Sandra Fletcher and Marg Burgess, was to destigmatise and draw the attention of the community to bipolar illness. It was pleasing to see that a mural painted by the bipolar support group was a highlight of the exhibition. It was also great to see the opening of the exhibition so well attended, which gave members of the community the chance to admire the hidden talents of those who had work on display. Art is a powerful medium for creative expression that can cultivate a healthy approach to reflections on affairs and events that have significance for both the artists and the wider community. Likewise, those who have a green thumb often find creative expression in the garden. This year's Department of Housing Garden Awards were once again a great success. The role the awards play in changing the way the public views community housing projects is invaluable. All the entrants are to be commended for their fine efforts this year as tending gardens in the midst of drought conditions and water restrictions posed quite a challenge. I praise them for their patience, motivation and the pride demonstrated in the beautification of their homes through gardening. Winning the Best House Garden Award was particularly memorable for Mary Walker, who lost her husband Geoff two weeks ago. Mary, who has been a stalwart of the competition for the past 10 years, had decided not to enter this year, but Geoff had secretly nominated her. She was very pleasantly surprised at her win. Mary has set an example in the Mackay community with her love of gardening and as an ambassador for what the Department of Housing Garden Awards represent. I look forward to the 20 Oct 2004 Adjournment 3119 continuation of the Garden Awards and I look forward to seeing many more beautiful gardens around the Mackay region. It was an honour to have the opportunity to officiate at both the Garden Awards presentation ceremony and the Wisdom Within Art Exhibition.

Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme Mr KNUTH (Charters Towers—NPA) (11.08 p.m.): I would like to speak to the petition tabled in parliament this morning which was signed by people within the Charters Towers electorate regarding the need for a review of the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme. The rules and regulations surrounding the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme are outdated and require serious reconsideration. For example, the rebate amount of 10c a kilometre has not increased over the last decade, yet the public has faced substantial increases in fuel costs. The majority of constituents in my electorate live in rural and remote areas of the state, and in some cases are faced with a round trip of 800 kilometres to receive specialist medical attention. This weighs heavily on constituents' pockets. There is little to no public transport available—as is available to our city cousins—and they are forced to find their own transport and extra money to get themselves or their family the treatment which is needed. Given that fuel is now in excess of $1 per litre and the cost of running an average vehicle is 50c to 60c a kilometre, the current rebate of 10c a kilometre is totally unrealistic. The travel subsidy rebate needs to be doubled to a maximum of 20c a kilometre, and this amount should be linked to the CPI so that it keeps pace with rising costs. The scheme needs urgent attention. It has caused considerable heartache amongst the elderly. There is a need to revise the paper trail surrounding the application process to receive this subsidy. For example, constituents must visit their GP for referral to a specialist, make an appointment with the appropriate specialist, get the forms necessary to claim the subsidy from the nearest public hospital, return to their GP for a signature, have their specialist verify the appointment and return the form to the nearest hospital—all of which they do without any guarantee of actually receiving a rebate. Take a minute to imagine the inconvenience and discomfort this might cause elderly and infirm patients who suffer from debilitating and ongoing conditions. It is ridiculous. Medical practitioners should be able to keep patient travel subsidy forms on hand and issue and verify them as required. Surely a Queensland Health employee could phone, fax or email the relevant specialist to confirm an appointment. How is this viable for patients when the amount of time and money wasted in the initial toing-and-froing far outweighs the advantage of possibly receiving a Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme rebate? Given that the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme has not been reviewed in 10 years, it would be in the department's best interests to urgently review this scheme.

Wine Industry Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (11.11 p.m.) The Queensland wine industry is destined to be one of the state's most exciting future growth industries. The Queensland wine industry is predicted to become not only an important part of the Australian wine industry but also a significant driver of wine tourism in both Queensland and Australia. The creation of the Wine Industry Development ministerial portfolio is a first in Australia and, as I am reminded by the minister, a first in the world. It was a far-sighted and dynamic decision by the Beattie government that firmly placed on the record our support for the industry now and into the future. Mr English: I love the Sirromet winery. Ms BARRY: A vibrant wine industry in Queensland is a creator of jobs, investment and opportunity. The expansion of vineyards and wineries in the state creates jobs in the fields of viticulture, agriculture, marketing, trades, hospitality and seasonal workers, to name just a few. The industry is a combination of small family businesses, well-established medium wineries and a number of larger commercial producers, as the member for Redlands reminded us, such as Sirromet. Opportunities, like the grapes, are ripe for the picking. The adjunct industry to vineyards and wineries is, of course, wine tourism. The creation of high-quality wines must go hand in hand with high- quality tourism. What better place to experience both of them than in Queensland. The creation of the Wine Industry Development portfolio has been welcomed enthusiastically by industry and consumers and is destined to help put Queensland wines firmly on the stage. As a member of Minister Keech's parliamentary legislative committee, I have embraced her enthusiasm for the industry. Currently, I am in pursuit of the perfect Queensland verdelho, a wine that I predict will become Queensland's signature wine. As part of that challenge, I recently had the real pleasure of attending the Dusty Hills winery in the South Burnett for the annual Dusty Day Out. The hospitality shown by hosts Frank and Margaretha Prendergast and their children, Joe and Molly, was of the highest quality. The food was first class and the accommodation was fantastic. I extend a huge 3120 Adjournment 20 Oct 2004 thanks to our hosts for a great night out and for their professional and first-class approach to wine tourism. They have indeed set a high benchmark. On the weekend our group visited the neighbouring vineyards of Bridgeman Downs Cellars, which is run by a former Aspley constituent Jan Bridges—they do a great shiraz—Clovely Estate and Barambah Ridge. We did not visit all of the vineyards in the South Burnett, so we have all agreed that we shall return. I have made a commitment to seek out Queensland wine at every opportunity, and wherever I go I ask for the Queensland wine list. Minister Keech has said that, if all members drank or bought three bottles of wine a year, we would create 1,000 jobs in Queensland. I certainly intend to do my share, and I encourage members to get amongst Queensland wine—they will not regret it. Anna Meares, Olympic and World Champion Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (11.14 p.m.) I rise tonight to salute a wonderful olympic and world champion, Queenslander Anna Meares. Recently at the Maryborough Technology Challenge, which has become a much sought-after event, there were teams from as far away as Toowoomba competing in the human powered vehicle race, the criterion road race, the smiley push carts for the school children and the CO2 dragsters. This event gets bigger and better every year. One of the major features this year was the attendance, just after her wonderful Olympic performance, of Anna Meares. She is a diminutive athlete. In fact, when I first saw her I was very surprised at how small in stature she is. However, as small as she may be in height, she is a mountain of a rider. She certainly proved that by breaking the world record for the 500 metre time trial to win the gold medal in Athens. The 21-year-old Queenslander broke the two-year record of Yonghua Jiang from China by 0.048 seconds, riding 33.952 to become the first woman to break 34 seconds for the 500 metres from a standing start. That was an absolutely outstanding result, in no small measure, by Anna Meares. She also has a very talented sister, Kerrie Meares—another great rider from the same family. It concerns me that Anna is still working part time at the National Australia Bank to support herself. This is an indictment on corporate Queensland. Just imagine what sort of financial position Anna Meares would be in if she was a gold medal award winning Olympic athlete and world record holder who lived in the United States. I call on corporate Queensland to get behind our fine Queensland Olympic athlete and ensure that she gets the support and sponsorship she so rightly deserves. Neighbourhood Watch Mr LAWLOR (Southport—ALP) (11.17 p.m.) Two Saturdays ago I had the great pleasure of representing the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, Judy Spence, at the Southport Sharks Australian Football Club and to welcome almost 300 delegates to the Neighbourhood Watch state rally. Also in attendance were Councillor Ron Clarke, Mayor of the Gold Coast, and Mrs Clarke; Bob Atkinson, the Commissioner of Police; David Melville, the Assistant Commissioner of Police; Superintendent Brett Pointing from the Gold Coast district office; Chris Lecky, consumer business manager of CGU Insurance, the major sponsor; and many other Queensland police officers. The Neighbourhood Watch program began in Queensland in 1988. The first Neighbourhood Watch group in the state was on the Gold Coast at the Isle of Capri and Sorrento. While the primary focus of Neighbourhood Watch is residential, it has expanded and diversified to include marine, commercial and rural watch programs. There are now about 685 active Neighbourhood Watch areas in Queensland, 59 of which are on the Gold Coast. As I did on that day, I thank on behalf of the Queensland government all volunteers and everyone involved with Neighbourhood Watch and their commitment to crime prevention. Law and order has always been a priority of the Beattie government and it will continue to be. For the first time in history, more than $1 billion will go towards enhancing police services and crime fighting. This year's Police budget of $1.094 billion represents an increase of $93 million compared to the previous year. The Beattie government has also committed to increasing police numbers and will exceed the goal of having 9,100 police officers on the beat by 2005. After 2005, police numbers will be maintained above the national police-to-population ratio. The Beattie government will also set up 25 new police beats around the state over the next three years as part of its election commitments to policing. A neighbourhood police beat will be established at Biggera Waters, with the program also expanded to Broadwater, Arundel and Pacific Pines. Despite all of this work and the way that technology and science are improving policing in Queensland, there is no doubt about the need for Neighbourhood Watch programs in the community. Crime prevention is a whole-of-community responsibility. It is not something that the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland government can do alone. That is why community based crime prevention programs such as Neighbourhood Watch are as relevant today as they ever were. Through these community partnerships, we continue to reduce Queensland's crime rate. Whilst it is pleasing to see a 20 Oct 2004 Adjournment 3121 reduction in crime, it is important that we do not become complacent. Without volunteers, Neighbourhood Watch simply would not exist. It provides a service which is much valued by the Beattie government and the Queensland Police Service and the communities in which we live. I thank all of the volunteers associated with Neighbourhood Watch. Time expired. Blue Care Lockyer Mr RICKUSS (Lockyer—NPA) (11.19 p.m.): I had the pleasure of attending the Blue Care Lockyer annual meeting on Monday, 18 October. The meeting was well attended, with Dr Heather Beattie as guest speaker. Heather's speech was enlightening and humorous and was enough to make people realise that politicians and their families are human and that politicians try to serve their constituents and the state to the best of their ability. However, the main event of the night was the annual general meeting where reports of the previous year are tabled and staff movements and the year ahead are discussed. I congratulate Elaine Horrick and her staff. They run a wonderful service that supports in excess of 30,000 hours of care and respite. The staff from all areas of care delivery continue to upgrade and enhance their skills. Many of the staff have attended training and education to enhance their competency. The training has involved all of the staff at the centre, from manager Elaine Horrick down. The Blue Care Lockyer centre has a very inclusive structure in place where it has regular meetings with other service providers in the area. Management and staff attend forums in the Darling Downs and Ipswich West areas. Funding and fundraising are always an issue for the Blue Care centre. I feel all the local businesses and community groups, such as the Gatton Lions, the RSL and many other community groups that help with cars and donations, are to be congratulated on their support for the much-needed service that Blue Care supplies. Another extremely exciting project is the new development in Dawson Drive in Gatton. Hopefully the plans for this project will be finalised in 2004-05. Blue Care Lockyer has already raised $450,000 towards the project. Heather Beattie was very kind to me when she spoke at the annual meeting and advised Blue Care that I would be able to support its application for funds from the state government. However, I am sure Blue Care Lockyer will continue to expand its funding base through funding applications and submissions. Blue Care Lockyer is to be congratulated on its collaborative partnerships in care delivery. Blue Care Lockyer is a very progressive carer that is to be congratulated for the benefits it brings to its clients, the support it gives to its staff and the value its places on its volunteers. I am sure that Blue Care Lockyer will continue this community support. The Uniting Church is to be congratulated for the efforts it puts into the Lockyer. I also congratulate Ray Horely, Elaine Horrick and their team of Blue Care workers and volunteers. Graffiti in Advertising Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) (11.21 p.m.): Graffiti is an ongoing problem in our communities. While serving as chair of the graffiti task force in 2002-03, I learned a great deal about graffiti, I learned a great deal about methods of prevention and removal of graffiti and I learned a great deal about community projects and initiatives aimed at trying to rid our towns and cities of this unsightly problem. An enormous amount of time, effort and money is being put into solutions to clean up graffiti. However, this can be so easily all for nought when some areas of the media and entertainment industry come along and sabotage all of this good work. Tonight I want to raise concern over the use of graffiti to sell products and the use of graffiti as a backdrop to advertisements, pop videos and other marketing tools. The use of graffiti to promote products and presumably attract the youth market tacitly encourages graffiti by presenting it as exciting and as an acceptable activity. Such use of graffiti in mainstream promotions at best desensitises graffiti as a crime and at worst legitimises it. I believe that this is irresponsible behaviour on behalf of the corporations and their advertising agents. Over recent months there have been two TV ads that have demonstrated an irresponsible and unnecessary use of graffiti. The first was a television commercial for Target department stores sales aired during the Athens Olympics. The second more recent ad was a Stayfree ad aired during last Sunday's ARIA Awards. In the Target ad, graffiti was sprayed onto the side of a house advertising bargains and reinforcing the red Target logo into viewers' minds. This was a particularly irresponsible advertising campaign for it legitimised graffiti and vandalism as an acceptable form of communication. The Stayfree ad, which bombarded viewers during last Sunday night's ARIA Awards presentation, may not have demonstrated graffiti taking place but it did extensively use graffiti as a backdrop to get the product message across. It may be argued that having graffiti covered with flowers, as happened in this 3122 Adjournment 20 Oct 2004 advertisement, sends a message of covering the ugly with something more beautiful, but I contend that the use of graffiti covered walls in the first place is not acceptable. Let us not go down the American path where graffiti and crime are used as a deliberate ploy to attract the youth market. While many television commercials, video clips and media advertisements might, at times, condone and encourage odd and outrageous behaviour, to depict graffiti in such a way can never be acceptable. After all, it is an illegal act. As far as these ads are concerned, the damage has been done, but I do urge these and other companies to think again in future advertising campaigns and act in a more responsible and community- minded manner. Perhaps the Australian advertising standards need to be strengthened in this regard. Time expired. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.