20 Aug 2003 Legislative Assembly 3003

WEDNESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2003

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

PETITIONS The following honourable members have lodged paper petitions for presentation—

Logan Central Plaza Police Beat Mrs D. Scott from 47 petitioners requesting the House to retain the Police Beat at Logan Central Plaza or as a compromise relocate the Police Beat but retain a Police Shop Front with at least one officer at Logan Central Plaza.

Acoustic Testing Machines Ms Nelson-Carr from 169 petitioners requesting the House to review the availability of and make available an adequate supply of Acoustic Testing Machines for new born babies in the State of Queensland and in particular in the Townsville/Thuringowa region with staffing, to all State-run hospitals as a matter of urgency.

Traffic Restrictions, Deception Bay Mr Wells from 33 petitioners requesting the House to request the Deception Bay Police take immediate action to restrict the speed and noise of traffic in the residential area of Moreton Downs Drive.

Food Irradiation Mr Wells from 923 petitioners requesting the House to: prohibit the establishment of a nuclear irradiation facility or X-Ray or Electron beam facility at any location in Queensland; ban the import, export and sale of irradiated food in Queensland; call on the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council (ANZFSC) and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) to amend Standards A-17 and 1.5.3—Irradiation of Foods in the Food Standards Code to ban food irradiation outright in Australia and New Zealand.

Manly Boat Harbour Development Mr Lucas from 2,457 petitioners requesting the House to: not approve any residential or multi-level development of the reclaimed Manly Boat Harbour precinct; halt any sale of this precinct; maintain in the current state for boating and parklands for use of the general public; ensure that the existing mangrove stand to the south of the harbour area and the adjourning reclaimed foreshore be protected and given to the people as enduring parkland.

Toorbul, Donnybrook and Meldale, Police Beat Mrs C. Sullivan from 512 petitioners requesting the House to consider a Police Beat be established in the area of the townships of Toorbul, Donnybrook and Meldale as a matter of urgency.

Vegetation Management Mr Seeney from 595 petitioners requesting the House to rescind the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Land Act 1994 and commission an open and independent review of the State's vegetation management laws.

Ambulance Services, Mirani Electorate Mr Malone, 3 petitions, from 1196 petitioners in total, requesting the House to take the necessary measures to provide residents in the localities situated west of Mackay along the Peak Downs Highway and the Pioneer Valley with access to a timely and reliable ambulance service which eliminates the need for any further health or safety risks to the sick or injured.

Perry Cross, Funding Mr Quinn from 2,086 petitioners requesting that the House reinstate the care funding for Perry Cross to be of the same value and include the same services as the past package which cost $270,000.

Prostitution Mr Quinn from 290 petitioners requesting the House amend the existing ineffective legislation so as to prevent the soliciting of street based sex workers for the purpose of prostitution, and the loitering of their pimps, in residential areas and to provide police with the necessary human and material resources to implement such laws when enacted. 3004 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003

Stock Route, Cusack Road, Charters Towers Mrs C. Scott from 95 petitioners requesting the Minister for Natural Resources and Mines and all other relevant Ministers to take the appropriate steps necessary to ensure the stock route/road leading from Cusack Road to the Burdekin River, near Charters Towers is reopened and access to our river restored.

PAPERS MINISTERIAL PAPERS TABLED BY THE CLERK The following ministerial papers were tabled by The Clerk— Minister for State Development (Mr Barton) ¥ Explanatory Notes for amendments to be moved in committee by the Honourable Tom Barton, MP to the Trans- Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 2003 Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province (Mr McGrady) ¥ National Crime Authority—Annual Report 2001-02 ¥ Letter, dated 24 April 2003, from the Federal Minister for Justice and Customs (Hon. C Ellison) to the Secretary, Inter-Governmental Committee on the National Crime Authority (Dr Peter Dahler) regarding the National Crime Authority Annual Report 2001-02 Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading (Ms Rose) ¥ Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Commonwealth) MINISTERIAL PAPERS The following ministerial papers were tabled— Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mrs J Cunningham)— In accordance with section 78 of the Local Government Act 1993, copy of reference to Electoral Commissioner of Queensland relating to the division of the Area of the Shire of Bowen Shire for the 2004 local government elections In accordance with section 154 of the Local Government Act 1993, copies of Local Government Electoral and Boundaries Review Commission's reports on reviewable local government matters in relation to proposed electoral arrangements for 26 local governments—Barcoo Shire Council, Beaudesert Shire Council, Bowen Shire Council, Bundaberg Shire Council, Burnett Shire Council, Caloundra Shire Council, Gatton Shire Council, Gayndah Shire Council, Gold Coast City Council, Hervey Bay City Council, Isis Shire Council, Jericho Shire Council, Kilkivan Shire Council, Kolan Shire Council, Mackay City Council, Maroochy Shire Council, Maryborough City Council, Mount Morgan Shire Council, Murgon Shire Council, Murilla Shire Council, Noosa Shire Council, Pine Rivers Shire Council, Pittsworth Shire Council, Redcliffe City Council, Redland Shire Council, Townsville City Council—for the 2004 local government elections referred to the Electoral Commissioner of Queensland.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science in Parliament Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.36 a.m.): It was my pleasure this morning to welcome more than 210 scientists to the House for Science in Parliament 2003. Last year's inaugural event was such a success that we decided to hold it again. In fact, we had to turn people away. I table a copy of the program for Science in Parliament 2003 for the information of honourable members. Science in Parliament is an important part of my Smart State strategy for Queensland. It is a meeting of the minds—political minds and scientific minds. This morning we had the privilege of hearing an address from Queensland's own Nobel Laureate, Professor Peter Doherty. I thank Professor Doherty for being here today and adding his eminence to the occasion. I am delighted that he is lending his name to a science education awards scheme that the Education Minister, Anna Bligh, will detail shortly. Today I am releasing our prospectus for the Smart State. I table the prospectus for the information of Queenslanders. It is called Queensland the Smart State—investing in science: Research, education and innovation. All members will shortly receive a copy. I would hope we can get bipartisan support for this strategy. It is a $2 billion strategy for investment in science, research and innovation in the Smart State, making it one of the biggest programs of its kind in Australia. It details the $1.5 billion we have already spent and projects in the pipeline. It will attract more private investment in the exciting research and development which is taking place in Queensland. It is about attracting human capital as well as financial investment. We want a brain gain as well as a dollar gain. 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3005

During the estimates hearings the opposition's innovation and information economy spokesman, David Watson, asked the minister, Paul Lucas— Can you provide a straightforward document or explanation as to which programs are included as part of the Smart State strategy— Here it is. We have delivered. Mr Lucas: What a listening government we are! Mr BEATTIE: I take the interjection from the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Dr Watson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: There he is! I wondered what happened to him. He has been moved around. It was a perceptive question. He has just got an equally perceptive answer. In fact, he has a more than perceptive answer; he has a detailed answer. The initiatives it details include our plan to appoint a Queensland chief scientist who will provide government-wide advice of the high quality we are coming to expect from the Department of Primary Industries' chief scientist, Dr Joe Baker, whose position will continue. I thank Dr Joe Baker for his significant contribution in this area of science and I thank his organisation for today's Science in Parliament. We are spending $14 million over three years on reforms to encourage more students to study science, enhance the skills of science teachers and raise the wider community's interest in science. Very shortly the Minister for Education and the Minister for Innovation will spell out further details. One of the things the Minister for Education will talk about is that from 2005 all students in state schools will be required to study science to the end of year 10. A new year 11 and year 12 elective subject relating to science in society will be developed. There is $2.2 million for teacher professional development in science. And the list goes on. The prospectus which I have tabled will be sent to universities, conservation groups, farming and business groups, major research and development organisations, scientific companies and organisations referred to in the document. While we are talking about innovation, I noticed an item in this morning's Australian Financial Review in which the head of Manchester University's commercialisation arm, Dr Maire Smith, says Australia should be setting up biotechnology incubators to encourage more entrepreneurs to this field, and I table a copy for the House. I would like to remind honourable members we are already doing that, and we are showing the rest of Australia how it should be done. Our incubator, i.lab, has already scored successes with companies such as Liquid Animation and Genetraks. Our Smart State prospectus details plans to expand our incubators. We have also established the Australian Institute for Commercialisation and a $100 million biocapital fund to provide venture capital for biotechnology companies. I am proud to say that the Smart State is a leader rather than a follower. We are also spending more per capita on research than any other Australian state. We are investing more than $600 million in the biotechnology industry, and this spending has already leveraged investments worth more than $540 million for Queensland. Government entities such as the Agency for Food and Fibre Sciences are models for investment attraction. The agency attracts approximately one-third of its funding, $48 million in 2003-04, from external sources—that is, industry, other research providers and funding bodies. The prospectus spells out how Queensland's future and the jobs of the future lie in the Smart State. Raw ABS labour force data indicates between February 1998 and February 2003 a 24.4 per cent increase in ICT occupations in Queensland. An Ernst and Young report showed a 67 per cent growth in employment in the biotechnology industry from 1999 to 2001, and that is an extra 2,040 jobs. There is a quiet revolution taking place in Queensland, and this prospectus will make the rest of the world sit up and take notice of the Smart State and what we are doing. The other thing I want to highlight is the value of science itself. We know what science can achieve. We are trying to lift its respect broadly across the community, and it deserves respect. We have some of the great minds of the world working in our science institutions and our research institutions, and every single Queenslander should be very proud of what they are doing. 3006 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Ethanol Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.42 a.m.): Let me move on and talk about ethanol. The Australian ethanol industry is on its knees. Projects such as the Dalby biorefinery, where the proponents were looking to invest $79 million to derive ethanol from grain, are doing it very tough. Some 400 construction jobs and 34 direct ongoing jobs are at risk. Last night at the state reception I held for a range of Queenslanders, particularly those for the environment movement, there was a representative from the Dalby biorefinery who expressed concern about where matters were. CSR has been looking to invest around $70 million in an ethanol plant at the Pioneer Mill at Brandon. This investment, jobs and the consequent benefit to sugarcane farmers are now at risk. The difficulties being faced by this industry are large, and unfortunately some of the problems are the result of Commonwealth policy. On 11 April the federal government finally decided to place a 10 per cent cap on ethanol. Queensland had been repeatedly calling for this cap since October 2002. Industry is in no doubt that the federal government's slow response eroded public confidence in ethanol. The state government is attempting to rebuild confidence through participating in Caltex's ethanol trials in Cairns. We were previously keen participants in the E-10 trials with BP service stations in Brisbane before these fell over. We also removed a significant impediment to the growth of the ethanol industry when we adjusted the Reid vapour pressure regulations in Queensland in 2002. Without this adjustment, ethanol sales in Queensland during summer would have been adversely impacted. After much delay, the 2003-04 budget set out the federal government's regime for taxing ethanol. While extending the concessional excise treatment of ethanol to 2008 was a start, it has become clear that this still does not provide enough certainty for investors. It can take up to two years to get an ethanol plant operational, so for potential new operators the period of the full concession is really only a maximum of three years. This is in stark contrast to the federal government's earlier promise that excise would not be imposed on ethanol. The leader of the state opposition has indicated that he would mandate a 10 per cent ethanol content on fuel sold in Queensland and lobby the federal government to extend ethanol's excise exemption for no less than 10 years. There are at least two fundamental shortcomings with the Queensland National Party's policy. Unless the federal government's excise subsidy is extended indefinitely, the state Opposition Leader's policy of 10 per cent mandatory ethanol in fuel could eventually drive up fuel prices in Queensland by around 2c to 3c per litre. This would be bad for families and bad for business. I want to make it clear that we favour the cheapest possible petrol available. The only way to avoid the state National Party's planned fuel price hike would be for the federal government to extend the fuel subsidy indefinitely. I would therefore suggest that the Leader of the Opposition join with me and advocate an indefinite extension of the subsidy. Growth in the ethanol industry could particularly benefit Queensland sugarcane farmers. However, we need to grow the ethanol market throughout Australia to deliver a real boost to activity in regional Queensland. Any mandatory ethanol content rules need to apply nationally if they are to deliver real benefits to Queensland. The major beneficiary of the National Party's 10 per cent mandate on ethanol in Queensland would be large existing interstate producers. Their policy just will not work. It would do more harm than good. Three things need to happen to grow the ethanol industry and boost jobs in regional Queensland. First, consumer confidence in ethanol needs to be rebuilt. Initiatives such as extending the Cairn's Caltex trial will play an important role. Second, the federal government needs to extend the excise subsidy indefinitely to provide certainty for producers and to satisfy the undertakings previously given by the federal government to the industry. This would help to keep the ethanol price competitive and provide a more certain climate for investment. Third, a more competitive environment for ethanol production that rewards producers who innovate and reduce production costs must be encouraged. To achieve this, the federal government needs to ensure that its capital subsidy regime is available to new entrants to the market. This three-step plan would deliver a real future for ethanol and a real boost to employment in regional Queensland. 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3007

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Death of Mr R. Whitrod AC Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.46 a.m.): I wish to acknowledge the passing of a great Australian, Mr Ray Whitrod. Born in Adelaide in 1915, Mr Whitrod rose to national prominence as an innovative and dedicated police officer. Throughout his career, Mr Whitrod distinguished himself as a police officer of the highest integrity. From 1953 to 1960 he was Director of the Commonwealth Investigation Service before becoming Commissioner of Commonwealth Police from 1960 to 1969. From 1969 to 1970 he was Commissioner of Police of the Royal Papua New Guinea constabulary for the territory of Papua New Guinea. Mr Whitrod accepted the post of Queensland Commissioner of Police in 1970. He soon discovered deeply entrenched corruption in the force. Despite lack of support from within the force and especially from the Police Union, Mr Whitrod implemented a number of important reforms to the Queensland Police Service, including the enhancement of training and education programs. These reforms were the forerunner of the highly professional and ethical police service Queensland has today. We have one of the best police services in the world, and we should now be very proud of it. In his autobiography, Before I Sleep: Memoirs of a Modern Police Commissioner, Mr Whitrod detailed the political struggle he encountered when he set about changing the regime. For Mr Whitrod, the final straw was the appointment of corrupt junior officer Terry Lewis as his deputy by Premier Bjelke-Petersen and his cabinet in 1976. Mr Whitrod could see he would be isolated and resigned. Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Is it not interesting, the National Party's support for the Terry Lewis appointment? It has never changed. It did it yesterday; it did it today. The National Party would go back to the corrupt practices of the past like Flash Gordon given the chance. Mr Whitrod's outrage at the appointment was later vindicated by the Fitzgerald inquiry. After retirement, Mr Whitrod continued to serve the community, lecturing in criminology at the Australian National University. He also worked with cancer patients, visited prisons, and with his wife, Mavis, helped establish the South Australian Victims of Crime Service. Mr Whitrod's service and achievements were recognised through many awards, including the Queen's Police Medal and being made a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Order of Australia and being named Queenslander of the Year in 1972. I take this opportunity to extend the sympathy of the government and that of this House to his family.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sugar Industry Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.49 a.m.): The sugar industry is an important industry in Queensland, but to survive and prosper reform is essential. The prosperity of many of our coastal regions depends on our sugar industry being able to compete against producers like Brazil. The Centre for International Economics, Boston Consulting and Hildebrand have all identified that significant reform is required to secure the future of the sugar industry. The CIE report in particular demonstrated that each region in Queensland would benefit from reform and that each part of the industry would also benefit. In the face of all the evidence, there are still some who would rather see the sugar industry die than improve its ability to compete. We are approaching the first anniversary of the memorandum of understanding on sugar reform that we signed with the federal government last September. Our governments agreed to work together to deliver to the industry a $150 million funding package subject to reform. The federal government has had to make some very tough decisions, like imposing a sugar levy to fund reform. We recognise that many large users of sugar are opposed to the federal government's levy and that unless real reform of sugar is achieved the opposition will grow. In recognition of our partnership with the federal government, we are waiting for it to finalise its position on reform. We have approached this partnership in an open and flexible manner. As befits the importance of this industry, we have responded promptly to any federal government requests for further information and clarification on how the reforms are proposed to work. The 3008 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003 federal government has been finalising its position over recent months and we hope to hear from them shortly. Just as the industry needs reform, it needs certainty in the way forward. I have spoken to the Prime Minister about this recently. He will be writing to me shortly. I look forward to that letter to finalise these issues.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Paroo River Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 a.m.): Recently I signed a Paroo agreement. It is about protecting our inland rivers. They are a precious resource which must be protected. I signed that agreement with the Premier of New South Wales, Bob Carr. I seek to incorporate the details in Hansard for the information of the House. Leave granted. I recently signed an agreement with my New South Wales counterpart, Bob Carr, to protect one of Australia's last wild rivers, the Paroo. We agreed on the importance of providing security for water users while at the same time protecting the ecology of this unique resource, which flows through both our states. It's not just the river that's important; it's the whole system of wetlands which has resulted in a rich biodiversity. The protection of our biodiverse regions is integral to my Smart State strategy for Queensland. It's no good promoting the growth of industries centred on the biosciences if researchers no longer have access to rich ecosystems such as the one found in the Paroo system. The region's rich biodiversity also makes it attractive to the ecotourism industry. The lakes, billabongs, swamps, the river and smaller streams are a significant haven for wildlife. They are recognised as Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention, which was signed in the Iranian city of that name in 1971. National parks, Currawinya in Queensland and Nocholeche in New South Wales, make up a large portion of the Paroo system, which covers about 76,000 square kilometres. The wetlands support an enormous avian population of up to 250,000 water birds, including 14 species listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act of 1995. Ultimately it's hoped that we'll be able to maintain the status of existing wild populations and perhaps extend their distribution back into some of their previous haunts. Currawinya National Park is renowned for a project to establish a wild breeding population of endangered bilbies. The bilby has disappeared from New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and is now found only sporadically in isolated arid and semi-arid areas of Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Aboriginal communities and others depend upon the Paroo system remaining unchanged. The world has very few pristine or near-pristine water systems intact and this agreement between our states is an historic deal which will preserve and protect a unique part of Australia for the future. I want to thank all the stakeholders who have contributed to this agreement, particularly the traditional owners and landholders who depend on the Paroo for their livelihood.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Tree Clearing Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.51 a.m.): Recently I engaged with the Minister for Natural Resources in a number of inspections in relation to tree clearing. Those consultations are continuing. For the information of the House I report on those discussions and seek to incorporate the details in Hansard. Leave granted. Consultation continues on the joint State-Federal agreement on tree clearing. Meetings were held last week in Canberra and more are to take place in the coming weeks. A month ago I met with key industry and environmental groups in the Executive Building on July 25 and then undertook further on-site inspections at their directions. As a result in the past month I have now visited Barcaldine, Hungerford, Goondiwindi, Mitchell, Roma, Alpha and Jericho. I have at times been joined on these inspections by Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson, Environment Minister Dean Wells and Primary Industries Minister Henry Palaszczuk. During those inspections we met with rural groups including Agforce, their leadership and many scores of their members. 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3009

As well I have met with environmentalists including representatives from the Wilderness Society, the World Wide Fund for Nature Australia, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Queensland Conservation Council During those bush inspections we listened carefully to the views of people on the land and environmentalists to ensure a clear understanding of all their issues. Co-operation and consultation are the keys to ensuring that the tree-clearing package put forward by the Prime Minister and me provides certainty for the future. I especially want to thank the conservation groups for allowing Agforce to be represented on the Conservationist's day at Alpha Jericho. The main focus of discussions was the phasing out of broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation and also the implications of meeting the Federal Government's greenhouse requirements. The last thing landholders need is uncertainty caused by lengthy and unnecessary delays in delivering a fair and equitable package. As a result I still believe that with some give and take we can finalise this with the Federal Government and the stakeholders by October. It will further protect Queensland from the threats of salinity, erosion and other land degradation; declining water quality; the extinction of species and other threats to biodiversity; and degradation of the Great Barrier Reef. Since Federal Ministers detailed the proposal to Agforce and the Queensland Farmers Federation in Brisbane in May both the Prime Minister and I have listened to concerns. The $150 million adjustment assistance package for landholders includes incentives worth: $130 million to assist with the transition, or for exit assistance if necessary; $12 million to improve the management of more valuable remnant vegetation; $8 million to develop best practice farm management plans. Key elements under discussion include: Immediate protection given to 'of concern' vegetation on freehold land; A phased reduction in broadacre clearing of remnant vegetation to zero by 2006, under a transitional cap of 500,000 hectares; The continued clearing of regrowth; Continuation of the Regional Vegetation Management Planning process; Continuation of some exemptions, including woody weed control, infrastructure development, fire breaks, legitimate forest practices, and fodder harvesting under permit. I remain confident that the joint outcome sought by the Commonwealth and the State will be achieved.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Governor Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.52 a.m.): The swearing-in of the Governor was a great success. I want to share those details with all members for the record and I seek leave to incorporate them in Hansard. Leave granted. I am delighted to advise the House that Ms Quentin Bryce, AO, was sworn-in as the 24th Governor of Queensland on 29 July 2003. The formal proceedings of the swearing-in consisted of the reading of the Commission appointing the Governor, the recital of the Oath of Allegiance and of Office by the Governor in the presence of the Chief Justice and the issuing of a Proclamation notifying of the Governor's assumption to office in accordance with Constitutional provisions and conventions. More than 700 key Queensland community members, including the judiciary, members of this House and representatives of community groups attended the function on the Speaker's Green. The official ceremony was followed by an afternoon tea and an opportunity to meet with the new Governor. It ended with an inspection of a Guard of Honour comprised of 100 Australian Defence Force personnel, including the Australian Army Band Brisbane, and Queensland Police Service officers. The appointment of a new Governor is an important State Occasion with significant implications for the governance of Queensland. It is one of the largest and most complex occasions coordinated by my Department and I congratulate staff who delivered a smoothly executed, dignified and positive function. As I've publicly stated on a number of occasions, Ms Bryce has had a long and distinguished record of advocacy for human rights and, in particular, the rights of women and children. I am confident she will discharge the responsibilities of Governor of Queensland with great distinction and dignity.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Gold Coast Indy Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (9.52 a.m.): The Rugby World Cup will not be the only big sporting event kicking off in 3010 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003

Queensland this October. The Gold Coast will once again turn into a motorsport mecca for overseas, interstate and Queensland visitors. Preparations have now shifted into top gear for the 13th Indy 300. Today I will host a luncheon to acknowledge Indy's major sponsors, including Lexmark, which signed on as naming rights sponsor earlier this year. Next week I will join the Premier on the Broadbeach Mall to officially launch this year's event, which will run from 23 to 26 October. Last year's Indy set a new attendance record with 290,835 people over the four days of the carnival. With this year's sales comparable with previous years and with good weather permitting there is a real chance the 300,000 mark will be reached this year, especially when one considers that the Rugby World Cup—to be held around the same time—may boost sales closer to the date. I am sure many members would have seen speculation in the media recently over the future of the Gold Coast Indy. The organisation that runs the series of races—Championship Auto Racing Teams or CART—has publicly signalled cashflow problems. Most of the news surrounding CART's financial situation was known at last year's event. However, the problems impacting on CART's operations are being closely monitored by the Gold Coast Motor Events Company, the company responsible for the running of the Lexmark Indy 300 race. Company representatives and I recently met directly with the vice president of CART, who expressed his confidence regarding the future of CART and that of the Gold Coast event. I can assure members that this year's race is well and truly on and we are confident that CART will be able to fulfil the remainder of its contractual obligations. The state government's support for the Gold Coast Indy has not faltered. Our contribution towards the staging of this year's event is $11.2 million and our support for Indy is well justified. Last year the event pumped more than $50 million into the state economy. It creates an employment boost, with more than 700 jobs across several industries. It also delivers tremendous exposure to Queensland. Last year's race was broadcast to a potential international audience of more than 700 million people in more than 190 countries. It is estimated that two million viewers across Australia watch the race on television. This year's race will again be well supported by a dedicated army of volunteers. We expect there will be approximately 1,500 of them in total and without them Indy simply would not happen. I would also like to thank Avesco for its support of this event through the V8 Supercars. Last year, for the first time, the V8s at Indy became an official round of the supercar series. This year they are being heavily promoted alongside the Indy race itself. They have brought a new dimension to the carnival and they are clearly another reason why this event is so well supported by motorsport fans everywhere. This year's Lexmark Indy 300 will be another sensational event, and I encourage everyone to come along and enjoy the festivities in October.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science Education Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (9.55 a.m.): Advancements in science and technology are changing the shape of society, our lives and the futures of our children. One of the biggest challenges facing education systems in Australia and across the world is keeping pace with these changes. It was for these reasons that last year I launched a major new initiative called Science State—Smart State. During 2002 students, teachers, academics, TAFE, industry, government and the community were consulted about the role of science and science education in Queensland. The key issues which emerged from these forums have been included in a six-point action plan which will be launched today as part of a wider Smart State initiative. I table the document for the benefit of the House. Some $14 million over the next three years will fund our government's comprehensive vision for science education. We will also establish a special task force to be headed by Queensland's first Science Education Ambassador—an eminent Queensland scientist whom I hope to be in a position to name soon—to progress these initiatives. We are taking bold steps to elevate the profile of science and to support our classroom teachers at the chalkface. Under the plan, from 2005 all students in state schools will be required to study science to the end of year 10. In addition, a new years 11 and 12 elective subject related to science in society will be developed. These steps are necessary to help arrest the serious decline in the percentage of year 12s completing some science subjects. For example, the percentage of year 12s completing biological science declined from 30.3 per cent in 1998 to 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3011

25.8 per cent in 2002. Over the same period, the percentage of year 12s finishing chemistry dropped from 21.1 per cent to 18 per cent. Our government wants science to excite and fascinate students. Our teachers have a vital role to play in igniting student interest in this important field. That is why we are making science a priority area for teacher professional development. We are allocating funds to ensure that at least 70 per cent of teachers of science in primary, special and secondary state schools will have undertaken professional development in science education by the end of 2005. Under the three- year action plan we will also see $900,000 to support programs for teachers such as the new Scientists in Schools program, district science forums and mentoring networks; $520,000 for enrichment programs for students such as summer schools; $660,000 for community engagement programs such as Biobus and Careers Expo; $4.3 million to continue to fund Queensland's eight centres of excellence in technology, maths and science; and $850,000 for a new awards and scholarship scheme for teachers, students, educational institutions and industry. I am delighted to announce today that the new awards program will be named after leading Queensland scientist and Nobel Prize winner Professor Peter Doherty AC. The Dohertys will recognise outstanding secondary science students and primary science students and teachers as well as schools, educational institutions and industry. Under the scheme, 10 scholarships worth $10,000 each will be awarded to science teachers who want to undertake postgraduate study in either science or science education. A further 20 scholarships worth $5,000 each will be awarded to outstanding year 12 students who want to undertake a double degree in science and science education. I am delighted that Professor Doherty, a product of Queensland's education system as a graduate of Indooroopilly State High School, has agreed to lend his name to these awards. I look forward to the day when the Dohertys become as hotly contested and as actively sought after as the Oscars or the Arias. These initiatives will help position Queensland at the forefront of the knowledge economy and underpin the creation of a skilled and dynamic work force.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science and Technology Hon. P. T. LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (Minister for Innovation and Information Economy) (9.59 a.m.): The Premier's announcement about the $2 billion investment prospectus, Queensland the Smart State—investing in science: Research, education and innovation, will make the world take notice of Queensland as a serious leader in the information economy. This blueprint is not some high-brow vague statement that will mean nothing to the average Queenslander; on the contrary, it is designed for the everyday Queenslander going about their everyday business. It is about promoting the value of science and technology in the Smart State to everyone from primary school children through to researchers and start-up companies. It is about providing a better future for our kids, a future in which they are well equipped for new technologies and where an innovative spirit is second nature. This government has been driving a change to the new knowledge economy since we came to power in 1998. So far we have spent more than $1.5 billion on science, research and innovation initiatives. We are not a government that sits around on our hands and hopes that Queenslanders embrace new technologies or get interested in science. We are constantly out there telling the people of this state how fantastic science and technology truly is. For example, thanks to the Beattie government, our biotechnology industry is booming. We have so far invested more than $600 million into this industry, and this spend has already leveraged investments worth more than $540 million for Queensland. Not only that, but we have spent $240.3 million on R&D, leading the way for our businesses which have increased their R&D spend by 41.2 per cent or $210.8 million from 2000-01 to 2001-02. We are also providing lots of support for our cooperative research centres, providing $150 million from 1999 to 2010. We currently boast 54 CRCs out of 74 in Australia with 17 headquarters in the Smart State. In fact, we beat both Victoria and New South Wales in absolute terms in the last round of CRC funding. We are laying the bricks and mortar for a scientific powerhouse in this state. For example, $105 million in funding to the Queensland bioscience precinct at the University of Queensland has provided more than 700 jobs for the Smart State. But we are even going a step further than that. We are not only creating the infrastructure and jobs but also helping to fill the jobs by encouraging our youngsters into science and technology careers and establishing programs to retain our brain trust here in Queensland. For example, under this $2 billion initiative, we are 3012 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003 setting up a new Queensland Chief Scientist position to nurture our scientists, advise government and liaise with industry. But the Smart State is not just about science; it is also about using new technologies to help our traditional industries such as mining, agriculture and energy. For example, while at BIO 2003 in Washington, the Premier announced $3.5 million in funding and in-kind support for the CRC for sugar industry innovation through biotechnology over the next seven years, plus we announced further funding for the mining industry with $450,000 over three years to the CRC for mining. We are investing in these centres because we understand the importance of applying new innovative R&D to boost our traditional industries into the new knowledge economy. As members can see, the Smart State prospectus truly is for all Queenslanders from all backgrounds to improve the quality of life of all Queenslanders. I also table my report to parliament on my official visit to the United States between 17 and 27 June 2003.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Sugar Industry Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (10.02 a.m.): The need for reform in the sugar industry is urgent. My recent mission to Brazil highlighted this key fact to me. I am pleased that the Brazilian government and industry are keen to work with Queensland in developing our ethanol industry. The possibilities for cooperation here are very encouraging. However, in relation to raw sugar, the Brazilian industry continues to aggressively compete with Australia on the world market. In the next two years, it is expected that 25 new mills will be opened in Brazil and cane throughput will increase by 50 million tonnes. I saw first-hand how advanced the Brazilian sugar industry is. We must catch up with it, and reform is needed for this to happen. Reform of the industry in Queensland has been delayed by the apparent indecision of the federal government on this key issue. Both governments signed a memorandum of understanding last year in September committing to reform and change in the industry. In April this year the federal government agreed to a series of specific reforms to the Sugar Industry Act 1999. After a promising beginning, reforms to this vital industry are in abeyance until the federal government decides whether it really wants to reform the industry. We are still waiting for the federal government to reply to our proposals to move this issue ahead. But the Brazilians are not waiting for the federal government to sort out its position. They are moving forward and increasing their lead over us. The Queensland government remains committed to reform. We signed an agreement, and we will live up to our obligations under that agreement. For the industry's sake, I hope that the federal government will do the same. Time is running out. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook and member for Mirani, order! Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hinchinbrook will cease interjecting. Opposition members interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Gregory! I call the minister. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Member for Hinchinbrook, this is my final warning.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Science in Parliament; Sugar Industry Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.04 a.m.): I commend the second annual Science in Parliament to all honourable members. Mr Beattie interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: I do not think so, Premier. We are too humble. It is an initiative that originated with the Department of Primary Industries last year. This year there are 32 scientists from the Department of Primary Industries in attendance. This is the largest contingent from any scientific organisation at Science in Parliament. The contingent, of course, is led by DPI's Chief Scientist, Dr Joe Baker. Our department continues to be a driving force in science and practical 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3013 application of science across the width and breadth of the state with researchers from as far afield as Charleville, Charters Towers, Biloela, Toowoomba, Cairns and right here in Brisbane. I also want to support the statements made by our Premier and the Minister for State Development about the need for sugar industry reform. No-one who in the sugar industry can sensibly argue that the status quo should remain. The status quo is killing the industry. Already, the projections for the sugar price this season are lower than last year and well below the estimated costs of production. Our government has made significant positive reforms on behalf of the sugar industry. We have returned more than $380 million in terminal assets back to growers and millers. We have given industry control of marketing, and now we are in the process of giving industry direct control of its research and development. Further reform of the sugar industry is needed. We now have a reform package that aims to remove the impediments and provide $150 million in assistance to help industry to adjust to the changes and build a stronger future. We are not proposing hit and run reform. We are not proposing to do what the Howard and the Borbidge governments did in 1997 when they removed the sugar tariff. The sugar tariff was worth $55 per tonne to growers. The tariff was taken away with no plan to take the industry forward and no substantial assistance package to underpin the changes. What we are proposing to do is to secure the future of the sugar industry with real reform and real assistance to back it up. It is true that many of the sugar industry's problems—such as world sugar prices and seasonal conditions—are beyond our control. But we can give the industry a regulatory regime that encourages productivity gains and diversification into new products from cane. Rebuilding the sugar industry will not happen overnight, but we must get to work, and we must get to work on the reforms as soon as possible.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Australian Health Care Summit Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (10.08 a.m.): Yesterday we saw an extraordinary sight in Canberra when more than 250 people who care passionately about the future delivery of quality health care in Australia marched on federal parliament. Those people who represented health care professionals such as doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, consumers, welfare and disability groups and others had just attended the Australian Health Care Summit, where they spent three days discussing the problems facing the health system and developing constructive policy options to address those problems. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those people and, in particular, Professor John Dwyer, the clinical dean of Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital, who chaired the summit and was its driving force. I attended the first two days of the summit and saw for myself the determination of those people to improve Australia's health system. Over the past few years, the states and territories and, initially, the federal government as well were working together to reform the health system through the Australian Health Care Agreement process, establishing a number of task forces to work on ways we could collaboratively make the system work better. Despite all of the work that went into that process, the federal government disregarded this great opportunity to make the system work better by offering—and I use the word 'offering' loosely—the states and territories non-negotiable five-year funding deals which not only cut funding but also allowed no opportunity to reform the system. In fact, it went backwards, with a funding deal that actually encourages the less efficient practices. I want to take this opportunity to put paid to one of the furphies being peddled by the federal government, which says that the states and territories must match its level of funding for public health services. Queensland already more than matches the federal government's proposed level of funding for public health services under its lousy deal. The summit developed a comprehensive nine-page communique containing a statement of principles, proposals for the way forward and a call on all governments to take action. Those principles include universal access underpinned by a strong primary care system in a timely fashion, based on health need, not ability to pay; equity of health outcomes, irrespective of socioeconomic status, race, cultural background, disability, mental illness, age, gender or location; consumers must come first in health care services; health promotion, preventing disease and maintaining health must be appropriately emphasised and balanced with our duty of care to those already unwell; the health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians 3014 Ministerial Statement 20 Aug 2003 must be improved so that they match those of other Australians. I table the communique for the information of all members. The Prime Minister and his Health Minister dismissed the Australian Health Care Summit as a politically motivated event. It very clearly was not. A look at the groups represented at the summit should dispel this myth. But, if believing in the principles agreed to at the summit makes for a left- leaning radical, then the federal government should be very worried, because I have news for it—the vast majority of Australians would support those principles. They want a high-quality health system available to all Australians equally, based on need, not ability to pay or where they live. I call on the federal government to heed the advice of that group to agree to an interim health care agreement; to discuss, as a matter of urgency, the health reform agenda at the forthcoming Council of Australian Governments and work with the states and territories to provide Australians with the quality health care they deserve.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Police Service, De-Mux Forensic Software System Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (10.12 a.m.): Given that today is Science in Parliament Day, I thought I might draw to the attention of the House an excellent new development in forensic software by our own Queensland Police Service, which it may be possible to market internationally. The government is assisting Queensland police to internationally market a forensic software system developed by two police officers. The De-Mux forensic software application allows investigators to quickly access footage captured of crimes, offenders, or witnesses to crimes on closed-circuit television systems. Many CCTV systems use different encoding systems and, previously, if police needed to access footage, they would either have to borrow or purchase the individual decoders at costs of up to several thousand dollars. Naturally, these things dragged out investigations and meant that it took longer for police to access footage, investigate the circumstances of the crime and get pictures of the offenders out to the public or use pictures in the courts. Queensland police's electronic recording section developed De-Mux, which effectively decodes the information on external public and security video tapes straightaway, allowing police to quickly get to work on catching the offender and solving the crime. For example, De-Mux software was used to decode footage taken in the city which was used in the murder investigation of a prostitute last year. The software enabled investigators to ascertain her movements on the night of her murder, which assisted police in the initial stages of the investigation. The software has been used to decode footage of armed hold-ups, ram-raids, break and enters, fraud, serious assault, particularly in nightclubs, and drug investigations. The Queensland Police Service has provided this system to police in South Australia, New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria and is now working with the Queensland government's Information Innovation Industries Bureau, in the department of my colleague Minister Lucas, to examine marketing the system internationally. This is really an example of the Smart State concept in action. It took two years for two officers to develop this system, working part time. Queensland police are now leading the way with this innovation to make our community a safer place.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Impact of Salinity on Aquatic Plants and Animals Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Stretton—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines) (10.14 a.m.): Salinity is a growing problem in Queensland, with the potential to devastate thousands of hectares of land across the state. However, salinity is not only a problem for our land. It can also affect the quality of our water, both on the surface and below ground. This has the potential to be a major problem not only for the people who rely on good water quality water for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes but also for the aquatic plants and animals that live in and around our waterways. My department's scientists have recently started a new project to look at the impact of salinity and other water quality factors on the plants and animals that live in our freshwater systems. 20 Aug 2003 Ministerial Statement 3015

Once again, the Beattie government is leading the way in scientific endeavours that truly make Queensland the Smart State. My department is working in collaboration with universities and other scientific organisations around the country to look at this problem. Very little information is currently available about how salinity and other water quality components affect river health. However, this knowledge is crucial if we are to set realistic standards and targets for acceptable levels of salt in our freshwater systems. The regional natural resource management groups that have been set up across Queensland have been given the task of setting 'end of valley' targets for the level of salt in our waterways. The information gathered in this project will help these regional bodies determine what are safe and realistic targets for their own catchments. We will also gain a better knowledge of the likely scenarios and responses from our aquatic plants and animals to different salinity levels. It will identify which aquatic plants and animals are responding to salinity and other water quality factors, such as increased sediments or nutrients, and what are their relative sensitivities. The project will be conducted both in the field and the laboratory. A series of sites will be selected around Queensland waterways based on the different levels of salinity and water quality. Scientists will look at how the different aquatic plants and animals, from large fish to microcrustacea, react to different levels of salinity and water quality. Experiments will then be undertaken in the laboratory to determine the salinity tolerance of the chosen species and processes, and to compare the laboratory results with those in the field. Maximum salinity tolerances for all representative species will be determined, and scientists will use this information to develop a model to predict what process changes and what proportion of species would be lost from a system if salinity and/or other changes in water quality were to occur. At the end of the project we should have a selection of river health indicators that are scientifically robust and informative; information on the likely responses of these indicators in relation to the degree of change in salinity or other water quality components; regional standards and targets for the maintenance of river health and aquatic biodiversity; and enhanced community monitoring and assessment methods. I look forward to sharing the results of this project with interested honourable members in the future.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Child Protection System Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (10.17 a.m.): In the past five years, this government has initiated wide-ranging legislative and internal reform of the Department of Families. These are not bandaid measures; they are not part of a quick fix. They are part of a long-term and measured response to the consequences of historic underfunding at a time when community expectations and workloads have been escalating. We set out to rebuild the system. I am personally committed to this reform agenda, and I am proud of the significant changes we are making. This government has already rebuilt the youth detention systems; we have introduced new juvenile justice legislation; and we have implemented the recommendations flowing from the Forde inquiry. This government also set out a long-term plan to rebuild the child protection system, not just tinker around the edges but deliver substantive change to the way it is funded and the way our staff work. Yesterday the Premier and I announced an extra 25 suspected child abuse and neglect—SCAN—coordinators. This is a significant step in improving the protection of Queensland children. This initiative will ensure that there is consistency of decision making across the state, with the referral, documentation and recording of sexual abuse complaints all strengthened. This should not be seen in isolation; it is part of a planned program to rebuild the system. The changes I have been developing have been outlined to the Premier and the Treasurer. They cannot be delivered quickly. They must be delivered in a careful, planned and measured response. But it is not just about dollars; where and how we spend the funds is critical. Mr Springborg interjected. Ms SPENCE: The Leader of the Opposition should listen to this, because he clearly has no understanding of our child protection system. The best international and local research says that the more money we spend on prevention and early intervention programs the more likely we are to save families from crisis and young people from statutory intervention. That is why we have committed ourselves to increasing the spending to 25 per cent of our budget on these programs 3016 Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Regulation 2003 20 Aug 2003 in the next four years. We are focusing on the sources of problems as well as the way we respond. We are changing the way our staff work, with trials of a range of responses to child protection notifications in selected area offices; we have stopped workload management and replaced it with a suite of new initiatives. These will increase the range of responses to children and families to ensure that all notifications of allegations of abuse and neglect of children are dealt with. We are well advanced in the planning of a $12 million major overhaul of the information and technology systems. An Alternate Care Committee has already been formed and is planning a major restructure of the alternate care system. The reform process that began with the election of the Beattie government continues. The improvements to the SCAN teams are an important step forward but, as I have outlined, there is much more to be done and we are determined to complete the job.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants Hon. N. I. CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (Minister for Local Government and Planning) (10.21 a.m.): Councils in Queensland are facing economic hardship because of the refusal of the federal minister to release more than $70 million of Commonwealth financial assistance grants due to be paid to them last Friday. Under Queensland's new methodology, some 54 Queensland councils will be losing funds while the other 103 councils, including the 32 ATSIC councils, will gain. Queensland's independent Grants Commission's recommendation was that these changed grants should be phased in over five years to allow councils, particularly the ones that are losing funds, like Townsville, Burke, Miriam Vale and Hervey Bay—just to name a few—to adjust without causing financial hardship, without having to raise their rates, without having to cut services and without having to pay staff off. Minister Tuckey is riding roughshod over our councils and he has told me we can either distribute the grants his way, which would be disastrous for some, or councils can go without any phase-in at all. This is totally unreasonable as the last two changes in Queensland were phased in over five or seven years. It is totally unrealistic because it would cause enormous hardship to 23 of our councils which would have to raise their rates by 10 per cent or more just to break even, or alternatively cut services or pay off staff, and as well some of our smaller councils will face cash flow problems if the federal government continues to withhold their funds. It is no use Wilson Tuckey playing games with figures in an attempt to blame the state government—we have met every demand he has made. He has had our figures since January. I have asked him on five occasions, right back to September of last year, to meet with me to resolve the issue, but he has refused. The Acting Premier wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to intervene and we have offered a compromise of a four-year phase-in period in an effort to resolve the issue. But the Premier has had no reply from the Prime Minister after almost two months. Wilson Tuckey refuses to listen to the concerns of our councils. He refuses to discuss the issue. In fact, in his reply to one of my letters dated 13 June 2003, he stated, 'No more correspondence should be entered into in regards to this matter as we are simply reiterating past advice.' The first quarterly payment to councils of more than $70 million was due last Friday, and still we do not have a response from the Prime Minister and we do not have a response from Wilson Tuckey. If the federal minister had spent as much time trying to help our councils as he has spent trying to get his son out of a transport fine, then this matter would have been resolved long ago. The federal minister can make all the excuses he likes. The facts are that we have offered a compromise of a four-year phase in. Councils' payments are overdue and it is time the federal government stopped playing games at the expense of our councils and paid the money. It is time the Prime Minister intervened to resolve this very serious issue for Queensland's councils.

COMMERCIAL AND CONSUMER TRIBUNAL REGULATION 2003 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10.25 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That the Commercial and Consumer Tribunal Regulation 2003 (Subordinate Legislation No. 144 of 2003), tabled in the parliament on 19 August 2003, be disallowed. 20 Aug 2003 Private Members' Statements 3017

NOTICE OF MOTION Child Abuse, Royal Commission Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (10.25 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That this House calls for a royal commission into the failures of government to adequately provide protection to children and further that the royal commission include in its investigation the identification of systemic failures; areas of abuse including home based care as well as departmental care and failures by the Department of Families to adequately respond to reported abuse.

RECORDING OF EVIDENCE AMENDMENT REGULATION (No. 1) 2003 Disallowance of Statutory Instrument Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.25 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— That the Recording of Evidence Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 2003 (Subordinate Legislation No. 155 of 2003), tabled in the parliament on 19 August 2003, be disallowed.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Child Protection System Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.26 a.m.): Over the last day we have seen the absolute spectacle of this government running around in cover-up mode with regards to its systemic mismanagement of the issue of child protection in the state of Queensland. Yesterday, the Minister for Families stood up in this place and ridiculed the opposition because it proposed to employ an additional 30 child protection officers in the state of Queensland. She was even joined by a whole haggle of well-trained backbenchers. What did we see then? We saw the minister walk outside no more than one hour later and announce 25 additional child protection officers in Queensland which were not a part of the budget process which was scrutinised by the estimates committee only a couple of weeks before. What we saw yesterday was a government in damage control. This is a government that has no proper policy in this area. We saw a government in the period of an hour between the end of question time and a press conference pick out the figure of an additional 25 child protection officers in Queensland. What makes matters worse is that only 15 of those are to be full time and 10 part time. That is what has been done when we scrutinise it. It is not good policy and it is not about protecting kids. Under this Queensland government we do not have a child protection regime; we have a ministerial protection regime. We have a government which is about protecting ministers from the dysfunctional mismanagement and systemic mismanagement of this department, particularly in areas which are so crucial to the support and protection of children—our most vulnerable citizens. It is absolutely appalling that they came into this place yesterday and ridiculed an announcement by the opposition that we would employ 30 additional officers and said it would be inadequate. Yet in the space of one hour they said that 25 was enough when 15 are part time and 10 are full time. What sort of policy development is that at this stage? Time expired.

Federal Workplace Relations Amendment Bill Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (10.28 a.m.): The House has cause for celebration this morning. The Howard government's latest attack on workers was brought to a crashing defeat in the Senate Monday night of last week. Senator Santo Santoro's ideological twin, federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Tony Abbott, has been bullying the Senate to pass the Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Bill 2002. This bill would apply to all workers employed by corporations throughout Australia. Without consultation or the agreement of the states, it would have abolished the power of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission and the commissions in other states to reinstate workers wrongfully dismissed where the employer's action was deemed by the state commission to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Approximately 55 per cent of 1.8 million Queensland workers are covered by state awards and a significant number of this group is employed by corporations. For nearly 100 years the Queensland commission has successfully exercised its power in this area. Abbott's bill would force 3018 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003 the workers who have been unfairly dismissed to go to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in an effort to get their jobs back. Labor and the minor parties defeated this bill because, firstly, Abbott was also significantly restricting the grounds on which a worker could be reinstated under the exclusive federal laws. Secondly, the federal laws were a complex nightmare for workers, a sanctuary for irresponsible employers and a goldmine for lawyers. Thirdly, the federal commission's procedures were slower compared with the straightforward state system which is easy to access, especially in a highly regionalised state like Queensland. Fourthly, the loss of the state unfair dismissal jurisdiction would seriously undermine the long-term viability of the Queensland commission. It is time for the Howard government to take off its anti-worker, anti-union blinkers. It is time for the members of the National and Liberal parties in this House to get stuck into their federal mates rather than, through silence and inaction, aid and abet yet another attack on Queensland workers. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for private members' statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Foster-Children, Allegations of Abuse Mr SPRINGBORG (10.30 a.m.): My question is directed to the Minister for Education. In May 1999 the Queensland police raided the Toowoomba office of the Department of Families as part of a probe into its failure to investigate claims of sexual and physical abuse of four children in foster care. This raid came after the children's commissioner also wrote to the minister and the CJC with concerns that the department had failed to act on the same complaints. Why did the minister not hear the alarm bells ringing then? Why did she not hear the alarm bells ringing when her colleague the member for Cleveland raised another case just two months later? Why did she do nothing? Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is out of order. I reminded the opposition yesterday that it is to not continue asking questions out of order to a minister— An opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am making a ruling here. I said yesterday that I would allow the minister to answer the question if she wished. That situation remains. I again warn the opposition that it cannot keep asking questions that are out of order. I will have to finally step in and say that is it. Minister, do you wish to answer the question? Ms BLIGH: I support the ruling, but I am very happy to put on the record again my view and the view of the government that the CMC is currently inquiring into the matters that the honourable member has raised. It is our job to let the CMC do its job. I, like every member on this side of the House, look forward to the outcomes of that inquiry.

Aboriginal Communities, Dr L. Wieland Mr SPRINGBORG: My question is directed to the Minister for Families. The government shamelessly attempted to demonise Cape York doctor Lara Wieland after she exposed her department's failure to address child abuse in Aboriginal communities, and I ask: have Dr Wieland's concerns been forwarded to the Crime and Misconduct Commission? If so, when? What other action has the minister taken to address Dr Wieland's complaints, other than to deny them? Ms SPENCE: I wrote to Dr Wieland in the last few days asking her to detail her complaints to me and asking whether she had any further evidence to add. I also wrote in the letter that I would like to meet with her. In fact, Dr Wieland rang me this morning. We had a good conversation. I will speak to her again later today. She expressed to me that her concerns are of a general nature. She would like to sit down and talk to me about the Families Department, the Health Department and other issues she has observed in the cape. She said to me that she knows that we have a lot of good officers in that part of the world who are very committed and doing a very good job. She believes that I am doing a very good job as minister and she particularly wanted to congratulate me on the job I am doing in encouraging Aboriginal communities to adopt alcohol management plans. I am happy to sit down and will be sitting down with Dr Wieland personally in the near future to talk about the issues that she has raised. Obviously as a person who has lived and worked on 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3019 the Kowanyama community and is now working throughout the cape as part of the Royal Flying Doctor Service she has observed a lot. Her views are very important to me and to this government and we will continue to keep those lines of communication open.

Australian Health Care Summit Mr REEVES: My question is directed to the Premier. I draw the Premier's attention to the communique for health reform issued on behalf of 250 leading consumers, doctors, nurses, allied health and other health professionals who formed the Australian Health Care Summit 2003, and I ask: will the Premier take any notice of the plea these experts have made in their communique to all governments? Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable member for his question. The answer is yes. I think people are fed up with what they perceive to be political argy-bargy over health funding. The communique is a well-considered assessment of Australia's health system. It is drawn up by 250 leading consumers, doctors, nurses, allied health and other professionals who consider that it is essential that our health system undergoes urgent reform. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that I totally agree with them that all governments should discuss as a matter of urgency the health reform agenda at the forthcoming Council of Australian Governments meeting, which is what we have tried to do. I also agree that there should be an intergovernmental mechanism for reform, because meeting the health needs and demands of an ageing population is a country-wide problem rather than something which is peculiar to just one or two of the states. Most importantly, I draw the attention of the Prime Minister, the state opposition and the federal Health Minister to the conclusion reached by these experts, who have no political axe to grind. They say that all governments should sign an interim Australian Health Care Agreement for one year only. This will give governments and experts time to consider a better way of arranging our health system. In their letter to the Prime Minister on Sunday all premiers said that the 1998 to 2003 agreement should be extended and should be the basis of a one-year interim agreement. That is what I am proposing as a solution. I will be consulting with my fellow leaders to arrange for a one- year agreement to be drawn up so that it can be presented at the Council of Australian Governments meeting for all leaders, including the Prime Minister, to sign. This way, we can put into operation what is considered by all of the experts to be the best way forward and thus break the political impasse that exists between the Prime Minister and the states. I table for the information of the House the communique from the health summit. I highlight that page 2 of the document states— Accordingly, we call on all governments: To discuss, as a matter of urgency, the health reform agenda at the forthcoming Council of Australian Governments meeting. To sign an interim Australian Health Care Agreement for one year. We now have a solution to the impasse, suggested by the health professionals. I say to the Prime Minister: let us act on it. Let us sign an agreement for a year and in the meantime agree on the program of reform between the states and the Commonwealth. Let us fix it. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand on this issue. I say to the federal government: here is an impasse breaker from the health professionals themselves. Kay Patterson should act on this, rather than simply seek to bludgeon Queensland and the other states. The losers if we continue this impasse are ordinary Queenslanders and ordinary Australians, so let us fix this. We have a plan to fix it. Let us have an agreement for a year. In the meantime, let us agree on the way forward. Let us agree on the reform necessary.

SCAN Officers Mr QUINN: My question is directed to the Minister for Families. Media reports last night indicated that the minister was not sure whether she had requested $2 million in funding for 25 full-time and part-time SCAN officers in the lead-up to the state budget 11 weeks ago, and I ask: now that the minister has had some time to think about it, can she advise the House whether she did or did not seek funding for these officers in the last budget? 3020 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003

Ms SPENCE: I know that the opposition has been critical of the fact that we announced an improvement to our SCAN teams yesterday. I am very proud of the fact that we have taken the decision to appoint full- and part-time coordinators to our SCAN teams where none existed. SCAN is a very important part of our child protection system. I know that the ministers for Police and Health understand the importance of the SCAN teams. I am proud of that announcement yesterday. What the opposition fails to understand, I believe, in terms of the budgetary process is that we have a Cabinet Budget Review Committee whose role is to reassess budgetary decisions throughout the year. Budget decisions are not made once a year and delivered at budget time. We obviously have a rolling system of reviewing our decisions so that we can meet need when we observe need, subject to available finances. That is what has happened in this case, and I am very pleased that we will see properly resourced SCAN teams for the first time in Queensland's history. The difference between the 30 officers that the Leader of the Opposition has promised in a three-year term of a Springborg government and our decision to employ 25 officers to coordinate a SCAN team clearly shows the difference in the opposition's understanding of the child protection system and our belief that merely putting on more Families officers would not be the quick-fix solution that those opposite would have us believe. We are going through the child protection system, we are reforming the system and we are rebuilding the system. Yesterday's announcement was just another block in the building and the creating of a better child protection system in this state, and those opposite can look forward to more announcements as we continue to reform the system.

Sport Mr CUMMINS: My question is directed to the Premier, and I ask: with events like the Rugby World Cup shining the spotlight on Queensland as Australia's sports magnet, can the Premier inform the House of the opportunities on offer in the Smart State's sporting industry? Mr BEATTIE: In a nutshell, you bet. I thank the member for Kawana for his question because I know that he has a keen interest in these matters. With a bit of luck, if we can get Robert Hill to see sense we will sort out the business about HMAS Brisbane. We will eventually get him to see wisdom: we cannot sink a ship in a shipping channel. It is pretty fundamental, I would have thought, but we will get there. Mr Purcell interjected. Mr BEATTIE: We are not going to wreck ships. What the Minister for Defence wants to do is to sink the ship in a shipping lane. We will get there. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He wants to wreck only one ship. We want to save shipping. We will get there. The sports industry is a significant contributor to Queensland's economy, and I plan to take full advantage of the enormous jobs growth in the industry. The industry includes sports facilities, goods, services and events. My government will put a strong focus on investment attraction and trade industry development, which will also develop regional economic benefits. Sport and recreation is ranked sixth in Australia's top 10 industries for jobs growth, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics reporting that the industry has been growing at about five per cent since 1984 and will continue to do so. It is estimated that more than 52,000 Queenslanders are employed in the industry. The Department of State Development is working closely with Sport and Recreation Queensland, the Queensland Events Corporation and the Department of Tourism and Racing to maximise international training opportunities and attract significant sporting events to Queensland. Queensland has the potential to be a training and education hub, a research and development hub and a high value-adding supply chain hub for the sports market. We are funding a Centre of Excellence for Applied Sports Science Research at the Queensland Academy of Sport, which will put Queensland on track to be a national leader in sports science research. With $2.5 million over four years, the centre will help give our champion athletes the edge and will be the only state government sponsored centre in the country focusing on applied sports science. Another example is the Department of State Development's work with the Cooloola-Sunshine Institute of TAFE and the Mooloolaba Yacht Club to establish a maritime training school at 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3021

Mooloolaba on the Sunshine Coast in conjunction with a UK based sailing school—hence the member's interest in this. From September 2003, all United Kingdom sailing association professional instructor training courses will operate for six weeks in Cowes, UK and six weeks in Mooloolaba, Queensland. The United Kingdom sailing association web site states— In our never ending mission to scour the globe in search of the best waves, and increasingly awesome venues, we have stumbled upon an absolute beaut—Mooloolaba in Australia. The University of the Sunshine Coast has also established a sports training presence and will extend this over the next 18 months through the establishment of a program that will focus on sports medicine, sports training, physiology and sports related research and development. The state government's current $130 million a year commitment to local sport and recreation development is the highest of any state in the Commonwealth. It complements our sport tourism strategies and, along with the examples that I have referred to, will enable Queensland to add to its already enviable reputation as a leader in sporting performance and achievement as well as enhancing the Queensland economy. In other words, it is working.

Department of Families Mr LINGARD: I direct a question to the Minister for Families. I refer to the minister's statements this morning about legislative reforms in the Department of Families over the past five years, and I ask: can the minister guarantee that section 88 of the Child Protection Act is being implemented by her department? Ms SPENCE: I do not know each particular section of the Child Protection Act, but I can guarantee that my department abides by the Child Protection Act. Obviously, it is the body of legislation that determines our principles and practices and formulates our decision making. Section 88, like any other section of the act— Mr Lingard: Section 88 says that they have got to be reviewed every six months. Ms SPENCE: In terms of how cases are reviewed in the department, I have to say that I am very proud of the fact—and I announced it this morning—that we have ended workload management. In the past the department was severely criticised for not conducting an investigation on every notification that it received. We now do that, and I am very pleased to say that as of 1 July this year every notification to the Department of Families gets an appropriate response. Unlike when the member for Beaudesert was a minister, it does not get put into the too-hard basket. Cases where files are open and continue to remain open are continually reviewed. Not every notification remains open for a long time. One of the issues for the department has been the unfriendly and complicated IT system, which has meant that our officers have been negligent in the past in closing cases in the IT system and writing them off. They may have completed the work, but they have not necessarily finished the system response to that work. Where cases are open and remain open, they are continually reviewed.

Triple Organ Transplant Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Health. We have all read the story about the young Wavell Heights man who was the first person in Australia to have a triple organ transplant at Australia's leading cardiothoracic facility at the Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, and I ask: can the minister advise the House of any other world-class medical work being done in Queensland? Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for Stafford for the question. I think we all know how passionate he is about supporting the Prince Charles Hospital and all of its staff. I am sure that all members are now aware of the recent Australian first triple transplant surgery at the Prince Charles Hospital involving medical staff from the Prince Charles Hospital and the Princess Alexandra Hospital working together. I am equally sure that all members will join me in wishing Jason Grey all the very best as his recovery continues over the weeks and months ahead and in congratulating all of the staff involved. Jason is living proof of the importance of the organ donation program in Queensland, and I fully support what his family has said about appreciating the kindness of the family of the donor and calling on more Queenslanders to consider being donors. Jason's historic 13-hour heart, lung 3022 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003 and kidney transplant operation was the latest in what is a very impressive list of medical achievements in Queensland's public hospitals. In July last year we received international recognition with the announcement of the first spinal regeneration trials involving the Princess Alexandra Hospital and Griffith University. These trials evolved from a discovery made by Queensland Health's schizophrenia research project. It is hoped that one day these trials will lead to treatment breakthroughs for paraplegics around the world. Earlier this year doctors at the Townsville Hospital announced that they had found a new treatment for irukandji syndrome, which had been successfully trialled on two patients with that condition. The new treatment involving magnesium infusion was trialled in the intensive care unit at the Townsville Hospital with outstanding results. To further support the work being done in this year's budget we announced a four-year $550,000 commitment to public awareness campaigns and further research into irukandji syndrome. Queensland Health research work was recognised this year in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine with the publication of the results of a landmark study that promises to change the way children with bronchiolitis are treated all around the world. The research had shown that nebulised adrenaline is not an effective therapy in babies hospitalised with acute viral bronchiolitis. The results from this research involving staff at the Royal Children's, Redcliffe, Caboolture and Gold Coast hospitals indicated that the best treatment for babies hospitalised with acute viral bronchiolitis is good supportive care. Our Smart State approach to health does not stop with patient treatment and research. We have also made a number of significant improvements in administrative processes, including the electronic clinical record system already in use throughout the Logan-Beaudesert and Redcliffe- Caboolture health service districts as a system to store patient records. It has reduced the space that is required to store those records from the equivalent of seven tennis courts to a unit the size of a domestic fridge. This system allows patient records to be located and delivered in a matter of seconds, whether to the theatre or the emergency department, instead of the old system, which could take hours and result in more mistakes.

Department of Families Mr SEENEY: I direct a question to the Minister for Families. I refer again to the issue that was raised by the shadow minister a moment ago, to which the minister gave a long and rambling answer. Section 88 of the Child Protection Act requires the chief executive of the minister's department to review care plans for all children in foster situations at least every six months, and I ask: can the minister tell the parliament—yes or no—if her department is abiding by this section of the act? Ms SPENCE: I suggest that if the opposition is aware of any cases where we are not abiding by section 88 of the act then opposition members should bring them to my attention immediately. Child protection is too important to be a political football. If opposition members are concerned about individual children in this state, then they should bring them to my attention. We have an audit team. We have a review. We have a CMC inquiry. There is no excuse for the opposition member to sit there with a smirk on his face if he has information about children who are not being protected. He should bring them to my attention.

Port of Brisbane Mr PURCELL: I refer the Minister for Transport and the Minister for Main Roads to the port of Brisbane's continued success in attracting business to the port. I ask: can the minister advise the House of recent activities at the port of Brisbane? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. Last week I had the opportunity to be at the port of Brisbane. I should acknowledge the member for Bulimba's ongoing interest in activities at the port, as I should the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy and energy who, with the port in his electorate, has taken a very active interest. In fact, he kindly filled in for me and represented me at a lunch with the port of Brisbane board last Friday at the port. The port has become one of the major drivers and engine rooms of not just the south-east Queensland economy but Queensland's economy and stands alone in ports in Australia—in 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3023 capital city ports in particular—in terms of its capability for future development, which is primarily founded on the amount of land that is available there for future port expansion. Last week I was able to announce that the state government, through the Port of Brisbane Corporation, is about to expend $90 million on further expansions to the port. The $90 million will allow for the construction of a 4.5 kilometre seawall, which will be used for dredge spoil disposal over the next 20 years to 25 years and will ultimately create an additional 230 hectares of land at the port. The area of the port will extend further out to sea by about 1.8 kilometres. That, obviously, is a major expansion. We have had to undertake very serious environmental evaluations to ensure that the mouth of the Brisbane River, seagrass areas and the proximity of the Moreton Bay Marine Park are taken into account. It is an important area for roosting birds, for example, as well as other environmental concerns. We are undertaking this to make sure that all of those environmental issues are appropriately addressed. That is a very high priority for us. The project will also create 70 jobs during the construction phase but, importantly, once it is fully operational we expect that an additional 2,000 jobs will be able to be created in businesses that are located on that section of the port, bringing the total work force of businesses located on the port to 6,300 people by about the year 2025. There are spin-off benefits, of course. In Toowoomba, the geotextile contractor, Darling Downs Tarpaulins, is stitching the geotextile for us. So there is a benefit there for the people of Toowoomba. Beaudesert Blue Metal Quarries at Bromleton will provide 1.25 million tonnes of rock. Pacific National will deliver the rock to the port of Brisbane by rail, which means that we have 1.25 million tonnes of rock off the road and on the rail. QR will build a one kilometre rail siding near this quarry to eliminate the need for trucks to be used. The seawall is due for completion in March 2005 and involves an alliance of contractors, which will provide great benefits and economic and employment opportunities for south-east Queensland.

Road Reserves, Fire Hazard Mr CHRIS FOLEY: I direct a question to the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Approximately four days ago I was advised that Main Roads had received advice from its legal department that a letter of indemnity would now be required of all persons, including rural fire brigade volunteers, should they wish to reduce the fire hazard in the road reserve. This uncertainty needs to be rectified as a matter of urgency with the approaching fire season and a large build-up of fuel on many roadside areas of main roads across the state. This window of opportunity to reduce this fuel load is quickly closing. What steps can the minister take to ensure that rural fire brigade volunteers who wish to protect their family's assets do not simply refuse to sign the indemnity, pack up their colourful overalls and stay home? Mr BREDHAUER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am aware of some concerns that have been raised in that area about roadside vegetation and possible fire hazard reduction. My understanding is that, under the Main Roads Act, ancillary works and encroachment permits are necessary to undertake work in the roadsides and that normally would require a legal indemnity to be provided. That is because we live in an increasingly litigious time and many people are exercising their right to sue wherever they feel that there has been property or possibly stock damage, or whatever it happens to be. However, I am advised that the indemnity is not required when the applicant gets a valid permit from the rural fire warden. I would have thought that the Rural Fire Service in Maryborough or in any other part of the state would seek to get a permit from the local fire warden prior to undertaking fire hazard reduction. The advice to me is that in those instances where a valid permit has been sought from the local rural fire warden it is not necessary to provide an indemnity and it would be possible then for the local rural fire services or local land-holders to undertake fire hazard reduction in those circumstances. I would have thought, though, that one of the constraints on fire hazard reduction at this time is actually the dry weather and the difficulty that might be experienced in achieving a permit from the warden for fire hazard reduction work. But if they have a permit from the warden, I am advised that it is not necessary for them to get an indemnity. If anyone up there in the Rural Fire Service has any concerns about the Department of Main Roads in relation to its responsiveness to these issues, then the member should raise those specifics with me. I am happy to have them pursued. We take our responsibilities as a good neighbour in these circumstances quite seriously. We do 3024 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003 not want to see unnecessary damage done to property or potential risk to people as a result of increasing fire hazards. Whatever we can do to help we will.

Research and Development Mrs CARRYN SULLIVAN: My question is directed to the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy. Minister, the Queensland government seems to be a big advocate of companies investing in research and development. I ask: is the state government putting its money where its mouth is in this regard? Is the federal government helping out? Mr LUCAS: At the outset, I acknowledge the presence of a number of eminent Queensland scientists in the gallery today. This morning the shadow minister and I had the pleasure of being in the conference room on level 5. When one looks around that room—and I mix in the circles of our scientists frequently—there is a who's who of Queensland scientists. Also present is the eminent Australian Professor Peter Doherty. It is wonderful to see such commitment in our science community to educating others and sharing with us in parliament what they are doing. I thank the honourable member for her interest in research and development, because as a parent what will deliver the standard of living for my children and their children and those in the future is continued commitment in this state to research and development. That will deliver the standard of living, and that is why I am so delighted that in Queensland we have an understanding now which will improve productivity and provide more jobs for Queenslanders. It does help our emerging industries. In the 1890s Australia was the wealthiest country in the world and then we slipped behind the rest of the world. We have an opportunity with the life sciences now to improve our position again, because they will be the key area of development in the future. It will be in agriculture. It will be in biomedical sciences. It will be in areas where we are using our tremendous biodiversity. In the last five years the Queensland government has spent $1.5 billion on science research and innovation initiatives. We have the largest biotechnology research facility in Australia with the Queensland biosciences precinct at the University of Queensland. We have the largest medical research institute in Australia with the Queensland Institute of Medical Research. We have the second largest e-security cluster in the world. We have one of the largest mining and metallurgy R&D sectors in the world based in Mount Isa and Townsville. We have one of the largest concentrations of tropical marine scientists in the world based around Townsville, James Cook University and AIMS. In April the Queensland government identified R&D priorities for our state such as enabling technologies, an environmentally sustainable Queensland, foods for the future, safeguarding Queensland, sustainable health, and tropical futures. They are in our R&D strategy issues paper. That very closely aligns with what the Commonwealth is doing, because we are very keen to work with it. The great news is that recently announced figures from the ABS showed that the Queensland business spend on R&D increased by 41.2 per cent between 2000-01 and 2001-02 to $210.8 million compared to a national increase of 14.9 per cent. Still, it is very sad that AIG figures indicate that most Australian companies spend more on electricity than they do on R&D, and as energy minister that is one statistic that I am not proud of. Now for some good news. With our cooperative research centre programs, Queensland outdid both New South Wales and Victoria in real terms when it came to the latest round of CRC grants. We spend more per capita on R&D than any other state. As a state government we spent $240.3 million, which equates to $66.21 per person compared to $42 in New South Wales and Victoria's $39. We just want a fairer deal from the Commonwealth.

Government Advertising Miss ELISA ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Premier. Previously when I have requested details regarding the cost of the printing of advertisements and promotional material by his government, the Premier has responded by stating that he would be more than happy to provide that information if I was specific about which material I was referring to. Therefore, I ask: how much of Queensland taxpayers' money was spent on recent advertisements regarding the federal government's five-year health plan? Mr BEATTIE: Can I say that I am absolutely delighted with this question and I think it is important that the member be given the opportunity to hear the answer in silence, because it is a very important question. I can tell the member that the amount we are spending in relation to this 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3025 program is around about the penalty that we will get for one day if we do not sign the health agreement—one day. The penalty for that is $146,000. In rough terms, that is the cost of the program. There may be some additional placements that we do over the next week and a half, depending on whether the federal government is prepared to accept the initiative that I put on the table this morning—that is, a one-year health agreement until we can continue the reform in the health area that we need. That may require some more expenditure, but in rough terms it is about the penalty that we would face for one day—around about $146,000. If the member wants to ask me for an update on that when I come back in September, if any more has been spent I will be happy to tell her then. The other thing I want to say is this: compare that $146,000 approximately to fight to get a better health agreement for Queenslanders to the $21 million that the federal government is spending destroying the Medicare and bulk-billing arrangements. It is spending $21 million wrecking Medicare. In addition, the member should ask the question: how much are federal National and Liberal Party members spending on the most dishonest direct mail campaign we have ever seen? It is somewhere between $500,000 and $600,000 in Queensland alone. So what does that mean in terms of what we are spending? We are spending chickenfeed to get a better deal for Queenslanders in our hospitals. Let me make it very clear: I will continue to fight to get a better health deal for Queenslanders and I am not going to be stood over by the National Party or Liberal Party either in this House or anywhere else. This is a five-year agreement and it means that 61,000 Queenslanders are going to miss out if we are forced into it by the blackmail and thuggery of the federal government. In terms of the penalties that I referred to earlier if we do not sign up, they are $9 million if we do not sign by 31 August and $146,000 every day thereafter. That is nothing more than blackmail and thuggery. I say to the member for Gympie: thankyou for the question.

Science Education Ms BARRY: My question is to the Minister for Education. Earlier the minister outlined to the House a new vision for science education in Queensland, and I ask: can the minister please give members some examples of what students are now studying as part of their science subjects? Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Like other members who have spent any time in our schools recently, she will know that science has changed substantially since most members of this House were at school. Examples of education innovation will be on show this afternoon on the Speaker's Green when the Premier and I and my colleague the Minister for Innovation and Information Economy will be launching the new science agenda for schools. I would encourage members to come on down and have a look. There they will see not only some of the high-tech initiatives that are happening such as robotics but some of the more commonplace applications of science, such as that at Pine Rivers State High School in the member's electorate. This year that school developed a Wine in Society Unit as part of its multistrand science course. The aim is to increase student engagement and participation. Parental permission was sought and students were not allowed to drink the wine. I am advised that, with the exception of a few accidents with the siphoning very early on—and I am reliably informed that the alcohol content is virtually nil and the taste is disgusting—the school believes that the policy was adhered to by the students. The objective of the course was to learn the skills of wine making by producing several bottles of wine. These enterprising young Queenslanders then entered this wine into the fruit wine competition at this year's Ekka. These novice winemakers took out the first prize in the open dry white wine class. They were competing not with other schools but with other winemakers. They also came a very close second to the grand champion wine of the show. I congratulate the head of the Department of Science at Pine Rivers State High School, Gordon Power, teacher Carol-Ann Morel, and lab assistant Monica Hammond. It is these kinds of initiatives that mean that we are serious about engaging young students in meaningful scientific work. Other schools to demonstrate this afternoon will include Redcliffe State High School, Whites Hill State College and St Paul's School, and I look forward to seeing their activities. But that is not the only thing that has been happening this week in National Science Week. The second Bush to Beach community quiz on science was held and this year's winner—I am pleased to inform the member for Fitzroy—was Moura State High School, which won $5,000 for its scientific expertise. There were 2,500 participants. Each team had to answer questions about current Queensland 3026 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003 innovations. The winning question was: why can no-one hear you scream in space? Does anyone know? Mr Foley: No air. Ms BLIGH: The minister has got the answer right; because there is no atmosphere to conduct sound waves. Well done! But he does not get the $5,000. Unfortunately, there is atmosphere in this chamber and people can hear the sound waves. The Moura State High School will spend the prize money on multimedia equipment to help enhance its scientific experiments. The five runners-up were Morven State School, Bray Park Holy Spirit Catholic School, Winton State School, Barcaldine Shire Council and Yeppoon State High School. Congratulations! They will all receive $500.

Ms C. Wong Ms LEE LONG: Once again, I refer the Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy to the issue of Christina Wong—with her permission—who was an involuntary patient at the Toowong Psychiatric Hospital when ordered to work as a trainee GP at a state government clinic. After work, she returned to the psychiatric hospital to receive her own psychiatric treatment. I ask: who is responsible for her decisions at the clinic given that she was ordered to work even though her own treatment was not complete? Mrs EDMOND: Universities, Queensland Health and the Medical Board all take very seriously the responsibilities of both their staff and, more importantly, patients who may be vulnerable. The person concerned was having psychiatric care. I am very reluctant to discuss this in a public forum. However, because the member is insisting and has said she is doing so with Ms Wong's permission, I will do so. Her treating psychiatrist advised that it was appropriate and that he believed she was well enough to work in a supervised manner. It became very quickly apparent to her supervisors that that was not the case, that Ms Wong was not mentally stable and that it was not appropriate for her to be treating patients. The decision was made that that supervised work process would be stopped in the interests of patient care and the safety of patients. Ms Wong has been through a long and involved process that has involved the Medical Board removing her registration while she is unwell. I have had several meetings with Ms Wong, as have numerous other people. All of us have advised Ms Wong that she should focus on regaining her mental health and accept the offer by the board and the college to provide her with support to access rehabilitation programs when she has regained her mental health. That advice has not changed. I am sorry that Ms Wong has had the embarrassment of having this discussed in the House. However, although I indicated that this was the case yesterday, the member insists on pursuing it and putting Ms Wong through that embarrassment. For that reason, I apologise to Ms Wong and her family for that embarrassment.

Q-Fleet, Ethanol Mr PEARCE: I refer the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing to the fact that he has been quoted many times as praising Q-Fleet's environmental initiatives to reduce the impacts of vehicle use, and I ask: can the minister inform the House of the latest trial that Q-Fleet has commenced in partnership with the University of Central Queensland? Mr SCHWARTEN: I thank the honourable member for the question and for his ongoing support for that great university, which we both share. On that subject, I welcome amongst the scientists in the gallery Professor William Lauder and Dr Kerry Walsh, who are part of the scientific team that is here to better inform the parliament today as part of our Smart State agenda. I am delighted that Q-Fleet has stayed in public hands thanks to the intervention of this government, which prevented it from being privatised. I will never miss an opportunity to remind the people of Queensland that the agenda of members opposite was to privatise those 12,600 vehicles and what that would have meant. Every time they open their idiotic traps about ethanol, I will remind them that we were the first government in Queensland to have mandated ethanol into our tanks. Mr Lucas: They wouldn't know methanol from ethanol. Mr SCHWARTEN: They probably get methanol and ethanol fuel confused at times. The fact is that there is a broader agenda through the government having this fleet. We have been able to 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3027 influence the fleet. Some 54 Prius vehicles and other vehicles are limiting the effect that such a large fleet has on our environment. We are also partnering an innovation with the University of Central Queensland to further advance the capacity to use solar cells to power vehicles. A lot of research has been done at the University of Central Queensland into this. Today I am delighted to reannounce that Q-Fleet is sponsoring the University of Central Queensland to the tune of $314,000 over three years for a program run by Professor Davies to enhance the capacity of the solar cell. Not being a scientist, I am totally unfamiliar with that sort of work. However, I have visited the University of Central Queensland, and I invite the would-be information technology boffin opposite to have a look at it for himself. I am sure that he would know more about it than the scientists and would be able to advise them on what they were doing. The fact is that this is a very good project. It shows that a smart government working with a smart university and with a Smart State agenda is the right way to go. The fact is that we all must ensure that we try to limit our impact on the environment. We are not going back to the days of Joh and trying to run cars on water. This research into solar energy is important. I congratulate the University of Central Queensland and I am happy to be a partner in this program. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Keppel, I welcome to the public gallery students and teachers of the Shorncliffe State School in the electorate of Sandgate.

Seniors Week Mr LESTER: I refer the Minister for Families to a collection of Seniors Week materials produced by her department which began arriving in some opposition members' electorate offices yesterday but which, in some cases, still has not arrived in others. Government members interjected. Mr LESTER: This is quite a serious matter. Given that the minister released press statements almost two weeks ago indicating that people wanting to find out more about Seniors Week could collect this information from electorate offices, RSL clubs and selected pharmacies, I ask: was it only non-government members who got these materials, including calenders of events, magazines and so on, three days into Seniors Week or did all honourable members get them three days after Seniors Weeks events had actually started? Ms SPENCE: I can assure the member that mail-outs to do with departmental publications are not done from the ministerial office; they are done from— Mr Hobbs: You are in charge of the department, aren't you? Ms SPENCE: The member should be ashamed of himself at the inference of the question. Mail-outs are done by the Department of Families through the seniors interests units. Mr LESTER: What a load of rubbish! You are the minister. For goodness sake, take responsibility for what you are doing. You cannot blame anybody for that. What do you think you are doing? Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Keppel will resume his seat. Ms SPENCE: The inference is that the public servants in that department are playing politics about when things are done. That is not the case. The member should ask Australia Post why things were delayed.

Environment, Plastic Shopping Bags Mr MICKEL: I refer the Minister for Environment to the public debate about the impact of plastic shopping bags on the environment, and I ask: what measures is the Queensland government taking to address this issue? Mr WELLS: Some seven billion of these bits of plastic junk end up in our waste stream each year, clogging the waste stream, strangling our creeks and rivers and choking our turtle and dugong in Moreton Bay and elsewhere. On 1 August the ministerial council of environment ministers took action to put an end to this cycle of waste, rubbish and junk. We held a meeting at which we received a code which had been offered to us by the Australian Retailers Association. The Retailers Association had received a considerable amount of encouragement to provide us with a code which would have the effect of reducing the number of plastic bags used in supermarkets. We accepted their code and gave them thanks. 3028 Questions Without Notice 20 Aug 2003

We are interested in moving on to the next step. The next step is a complete phase out of this non-biodegradable plastic junk. The Queensland position was that it should be phased out within three years and substituted with biodegradable plastic bags—biodegradable plastic bags like a Queensland invention which was generated as a result of the support of my department to local industry. They developed a biodegradable plastic bait bag. The same technology can be used for biodegradable bags in supermarkets. The UK supermarket chain Sainsburys has biodegradable plastic bags but they are water soluble. As soon as shoppers put the ice-cream tub into the bag it starts to biodegrade. Shoppers do not have a guarantee of getting it home. These bait bags are biodegradable but they will not biodegrade immediately. They can be digested by turtles and dugongs without doing them any harm. This technology is the answer to the problem. When I put this to the other ministers at the ministerial council meeting they did not have the scientific verification of the technology. I explained to them that we are the Smart State, that we had done the scientific verification and it would work. They had to go away and get scientific verification in each of their jurisdictions. Of course, that is understandable. The ministerial council decided on a five-year phase out of these non-biodegradable plastic supermarket bags. At the end of that various options would be considered, including the substitution of biodegradability. There was some talk of a levy. Queensland does not support a levy. There will not be a levy on plastic bags in Queensland because people should not have to pay for something that they are already getting for nothing. There should be a biodegradable and smart scientific solution.

Racing Industry Mr HORAN: My question is directed to the honourable Minister for Tourism and Racing. I refer the minister to the government appointed Harness Racing Board and its attack on grassroots harness racing in Queensland by its move to close down Toowoomba, Queensland's most economical club; Rocklea, the only club to show a profit every year since 1999; and Redcliffe, a cornerstone of harness racing in Queensland. I also refer to the recent harness racing industry public meeting attended by over 250 people which called for the resignation of the board and its replacement with people who understand the industry. I ask: will the minister act on this call and replace the board, or will the minister do her usual act and walk away and say that it has nothing to do with her? Ms ROSE: I thank the member for the question. The board has been through a consultation process to look at the best options to maximise prize money and support among the harness racing industry. Prize money levels have been too low for some time and the board has moved to increase prize money by $1.2 million in the new season. It does surprise me that some race clubs are so vehemently opposed to ensuring that harness racing maximises its revenue from the TAB considering they all survive on industry welfare. Despite telling industry participants that they are making profits, the Harness Racing Board spent $1.2 million propping up clubs across Queensland—money that could have been used as prize money. The Redcliffe Harness Racing Club has been particularly vocal, claiming Friday nights as a great success, yet it was the recipient of more than $350,000 or more than $7,000 per week in handouts from the board last year. Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South has asked his question. I want to hear the answer. Ms ROSE: Claiming to be profitable while living on industry welfare does nothing to bolster the profitability of those clubs. It is time that the clubs put the industry's needs before their wants. Obviously the member has raised with me his concerns about Redcliffe for some time. He is very passionate about the Redcliffe Harness Racing Club. He has been working with that club. The club is now, I understand, having serious negotiations with the Harness Racing Board. I understand that the club will be getting back to the board no later than the opening of business hours tomorrow. It has been in serious discussions with Redcliffe on running Wednesday night meetings. It is not that race dates were not allocated to Redcliffe; it was recommended by the Harness Racing Board that they would race on Wednesday nights. The facts of the matter are clear. The only reason that the Redcliffe and Toowoomba clubs exist is that the Harness Racing Board underwrites— 20 Aug 2003 Questions Without Notice 3029

Mr Horan interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for Toowoomba South will cease interjecting. Ms ROSE:—their operation to the tune of $230,000 a year. For Redcliffe it is $360,000 a year, and for Toowoomba it is $76,000. That is industry money. Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before calling the member for Clayfield, I welcome to the public gallery student leaders from Bribie Island State High School and Caboolture State High School in the electorate of Pumicestone.

Racing Industry Ms LIDDY CLARK: My question is to the Minister for Tourism and Racing and Minister for Fair Trading. The minister has previously explained to the House the government's role in the racing industry and, in particular, has stressed the government's role in ensuring the probity and integrity of the industry. I ask: can the minister provide information on how the Racing Science Centre helps to ensure the probity and integrity of the racing industry? Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: The member for Warrego will cease interjecting. I gave the member a final warning before. I am now warning him under standing order 123A(3). I call the Minister for Tourism and Racing. Ms ROSE: I am glad the Speaker reminded the parliament who the member is, because I do not know what shadow portfolio he has. I thank the member for the question. Mr Hobbs interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have warned the member for Warrego. You will now leave the chamber under standing order 123A. Mr Hobbs: I did not say anything. Mr SPEAKER: You did. The member will leave the chamber. Whereupon the honourable member for Warrego withdrew from the chamber. Ms ROSE: The Queensland racing industry has undergone significant change over the last few years. An opposition member interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! If you would like to defy the chair, I will warn you under standing order 124. I call the minister. Ms ROSE: Privatisation of the wagering system has resulted in completely new operating arrangements at the strategic level. The government's role and responsibilities have changed and all three racing codes have had to look at their operations and make some hard commercial decisions. In simple terms, racing has had to become a business and run as such. One thing has not changed, and that is the important role that the Queensland government's Racing Science Centre plays in ensuring the integrity of the industry. Without the public there would be no racing industry and, in today's competitive environment, if public confidence is lost many alternative forms of entertainment exist to attract participants away from the racing industry. Any loss of confidence, real or perceived, in the industry's drug control systems would have serious consequences. The Racing Science Centre, which delivers drug control, veterinary and a range of associated integrity services to the three codes of racing, plays a pivotal role in preventing such confidence loss. The centre is part of my department's Racing Division. It is totally independent of the racing industry and is an accredited facility under the recently enacted Racing Act 2002. Last year the centre analysed over 16,000 samples taken from racing animals for the detection of drugs and prohibited substances capable of affecting the performance of licensed animals. The fact that the centre is totally independent of the racing industry ensures that industry participants and the public can rely on and have confidence in the accuracy of analysis undertaken by the centre. The Racing Act 2002 requires each control body to enter into an agreement with an accredited facility that will provide it with analytical and professional services relating to drug control and animal welfare. The Racing Science Centre provides its services to the three industry control bodies on a fee-for-service basis. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for questions has expired. 3030 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL APPROPRIATION BILL Committee (Cognate Debate) Appropriation (Parliament) Bill Estimates Committee A Report No. 1 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Poole): Order! The question is— That report No. 1 of Estimates Committee A be adopted. Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (11.30 a.m.): Estimates Committee A conducted a public hearing on 15 July 2003 to take evidence from the Speaker of Queensland's Legislative Assembly. The report and recommendations from Estimates Committee A are in two parts, being in accordance with sessional order 31.2. Report No. 1, which honourable members are debating this morning, relates to the investigation by the committee of the proposed expenditure for the Legislative Assembly. Report No. 2 reports on proposed expenditure for the Premier and Minister for Trade, the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport, and the Minister for State Development. In addition, a range of organisational units which were also allocated to the committee for examination will be reported to the House in report No. 2. It was an honour to once again chair Estimates Committee A. The estimates process, established by the Goss Labor government in 1994, is tremendously important for the democratic process of government and the institution of the parliament. The estimates process keeps the expenditure of ministers and their departments open, transparent and accountable both to the parliament and to the public in general. I would like to thank all of my fellow committee members, both government and non- government, for their cooperation in the preparation for and conduct of the public hearing. As the Speaker would agree, a huge amount of work goes into preparation for the public hearings of estimates committees. On behalf of the committee I thank the Speaker, the Premier, ministers, their departmental staff and ministerial officers, secretariat officers Deborah Jeffrey and Lynn Knowles, Parliamentary Service staff and the directors and staff of the organisational units. I will speak about report No. 1, which relates to the Legislative Assembly. I thank the Speaker and his officers for their assistance with this year's estimates hearing. As a new member to this House I have quickly become aware of the great pride with which Mr Speaker goes about his job. Whether it be hosting a class of schoolchildren or a group of overseas visiting dignitaries, the same graciousness, passion and energy is communicated when he starts to discuss his favourite topic: this most beautiful Legislative Assembly building and its fine history. It is not surprising, then, that key issues raised in Estimates Committee A comprised upgrades and maintenance of this heritage building. The Speaker informed members of refurbishment of the conference room, media room facilities and the front entrance and public and disabled access to Parliament House. As well, an upgrading of the audio system for Hansard reporting is proposed and very welcome in the appropriation bill. I thank the Speaker for the invitation to members of the committee to view the stonework restoration which is being conducted along the Alice Street side of Parliament House. Mr Schwarten: Done by Q-Build. Ms KEECH: And it is doing a fantastic job, too. The committee certainly enjoyed the Speaker's passionate and vibrant description of the progress of the stonework restoration. Ongoing pest control also continues in the precinct. The committee particularly appreciated the clear and fulsome way in which the questions on notice presented to the Speaker were answered. The total appropriation provided for the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Service for 2003-04 is $57.081 million. I note that an operating surplus of $0.3 million is projected. The Speaker has responsibility not only for the parliamentary precinct and the staff employed in it but also for maintaining and improving the facilities and employment of officers in members' electorate offices. The upgrading of the existing Internet connection provided in the electorate offices and expenses incurred in the ongoing maintenance of the offices are particularly welcomed in this budget. As chair of Estimates Committee A I recommend to the chamber that the proposed expenditure for the Legislative Assembly be agreed to without amendment. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (11.35 a.m.): At the outset I would like to commend the chair of Estimates Committee A for the way in which she 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3031 conducted the committee and I acknowledge the participation of the other members of the committee, both government and non-government members. I would also like to acknowledge the spirit with which the Speaker participated in the committee hearings. He was very open. He obviously has respect for the estimates committee process. That was quite evident. During the course of the committee hearing I commended the Speaker for respecting the request of the committee relating to the time frame for the return of answers to questions on notice. This has been a convention rather than the strict interpretation of the rule which has been followed generally by speakers and ministers over a period of time. I commend the Speaker for his respect of the committee's request. There are a couple of matters which I think are of importance. I join with the chair of the committee in commending the stonework restoration on this building. It is extremely important. People sometimes dub it the Taj Mahal and ask why we should spend money on these sorts of things. I remember, as you do, Mr Speaker, a period some years ago when some areas of the annexe were starting to become quite tatty. There was some reticence on the part of the government of the day to address that. It asked what people would think when we spent the money on it, but money has to be spent on it. What sort of signal does it send to have a tatty Parliament House or annexe? It is just stupid. I think anyone with any respect for process and the dignity of the place understands that it has to be done. Mr Speaker: You could not do it without Public Works. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is right. Mr Schwarten: It is good work. Mr SPRINGBORG: I acknowledge the contribution of Public Works with regard to that and the work of the apprentices, as the member for Toowoomba South said. The important thing is that we have to have a place which is seen and respected. The other day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition represented me at a reception for the Crown Prince and Princess of Thailand. Can members imagine bringing them to a place where the stonework is decaying, the carpet is tatty or the paint is falling off the walls? It is absolutely stupid for anyone to criticise appropriate expenditure to ensure that the people's house has some degree of dignity, maintenance and majesty about it. That is what it is about. I commend that process of stonework restoration. I did not realise until recently how much stonework, particularly sandstone, breaks down. I was in my Opposition Leader's office one day when a member of my staff saw a big chunk of stone just fall off the other side of the building. I think staff here quite often take it off the roof which is just outside. We often see pieces of stone, so it does decay and work has to be done. I commend that process. Mr Terry Sullivan: It wasn't Mike Horan throwing it at you, was it? Mr SPRINGBORG: I can assure the member that that was not the case. I do not know about a Labor Party factional brawl. There is one issue that was not raised during the estimates committee process but has come to my attention subsequently; that is, safety at the car park entrance to the annexe. It has arisen after the reconfiguration of the road—the safety mounds which have been put in and the reduction in speed to 10 kilometres per hour. It has been brought to my attention—I have even witnessed it myself, particularly at periods during the day when there is quite a lot of traffic—that some people are confused. Pedestrians are walking across the road wondering whether they have right of way or not. Sometimes cars come speeding down there and do not slow down to 10 kilometres an hour, other vehicles are trying to turn the wrong way and are doing U-turns in an area where quite obviously that should not be the case. I know there are some safety concerns. I have witnessed them. I was speaking to one of the staff members who was sitting at the security post one day and I noticed that he was expressing a concern that he had seen it previously. Maybe there is a role for you, Mr Speaker, in coordination with the Police Service, to do an audit of that strip. I think that there are some safety issues that need to be addressed. It is an entry into the Parliamentary Annexe car park and it is also an area where people turn into car parks A, B and C. Mr Speaker, I would commend you in that area. We have a duty to look at it. I think it is a legitimate concern. By and large, we have to make sure that the areas that are important to members are looked after because it is a functioning democracy. There are IT issues with the sorts of materials that we distribute from parliament— Time expired. 3032 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Poole): Order! Before I call the member for Ashgrove, I welcome to the gallery teachers and students from Redcliffe State High School in the electorate of Redcliffe, which is the honourable Speaker's electorate. Hon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove—ALP) (11.40 a.m.): I am pleased to be here talking to the estimates committee process, which is part of what the parliament is about. We hold the executive accountable before the House and in this case our Speaker for the way he uses funds to run our parliament. I note in the overall budget that $56.203 million for the parliament was an increase of only around 2.8 per cent on last year's budget, which is really just keeping pace with inflation. Staffing levels under those circumstances have been maintained at last year's level. I want to congratulate the Speaker on his recent achievements, particularly with regard to electorate offices. I became a member in 1977, but in 1974 members got their first office. I remember what I had in my first office in 1977: three tables, one cupboard for filing and one typewriter. It is ludicrous compared with what we have now. I see that we now have provision for an extra staff member. Since Speaker Hollis has been in power we have much better equipment—for example, our computers and our photocopiers—and much better accommodation. My first electorate office was a dive. It really was. Now we have offices that are extremely well set up, that have very good security and that have coffee rooms and meeting rooms. I think this is proper because we do an important job in the community and we ought to have an office that accommodates that job. It is extremely important that we do that. We are providing an environment for our staff that is conducive to working properly. I remember my first office was located on top of a milk bar, and in summer it was a sweatbox. I would disappear occasionally and go to somewhere with airconditioning for a cool drink, whereas my secretary had to stay there and cop the dreadful environment. I think we have come a long way towards improving our accommodation facilities and our electorate offices. I should not be saying this during Science Week, but I do not use the computer in my office in Parliament House. I am sure a lot of members here are appreciative of the fact that they have a computer at their office in Parliament House. My secretary very much appreciates the Internet access that she has in the electorate office. I think that has been a wonderful innovation. I see in the Speaker's portfolio statement we have budgeted for a refurbishment of the conference room. I notice that the existing furniture is to be replaced with modern style theatre seating alternatives and provision of modern audiovisual equipment. Community groups that use that conference room cannot afford to pay big fees outside and are very appreciative of having access to that conference room. I have been to many community conferences there. I congratulate the Speaker and welcome the fact that we are upgrading that conference room. I notice that the Minister for Public Works is in the chamber. He was present when the stone restoration program was commented on quite positively by the Leader of the Opposition. I was Speaker when this program was started in 1993-94. It is a very expensive project, but we have a building of which we are very proud and for which we must pay to upkeep. I think the Minister for Public Works is very proud of the fact that we have maintained the art of stonemasonry in this state through Q-Build. It is the only place in Australia that does stonemasonry. I know that it is now working around the corner from the Speaker's office. I will be pleased when I will be able to see outside my room. Nevertheless, it is a very important task that we are doing. Again, we are going to improve Internet access to our electorate offices in this program. Broadband will provide us with much faster access. This is something that we need today. When we talk about being the Smart State, we ought to at least insist that our systems also behave in that manner. I know that when I was Speaker we had a problem with the audio in the chamber. It has always been a problem. I am not sure how many times I have tried— Time expired. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.45 a.m.): In rising to speak to the report on Estimates Committee A, I want to also congratulate the Speaker on the way in which he has used funds and sought the support of Q-Build to maintain the precinct. From my perspective, this House is part of an historical precinct in Brisbane and we should never forget that it goes with a suite of other buildings in this part of town—whether they be Old Government House on the Queensland University of Technology site, the Mansions or other major buildings in this area. To allow the House at any stage to fall into a decrepit stage before finally making major restorations and to not understand the historical and cultural significance that this building has in Queensland's history would be a shame and a mark of failure by not only the Speaker but also this House in general. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3033

We should do all that we can to make sure that it is maintained and refurbished in the appropriate manner. I am constantly amazed at the number of people I see being guided around Parliament House by the attendants and the interest that they take in the historical significance of the building. I think that is also a measure by which we can make sure people understand the need to preserve these types of buildings and respect what goes on in them. It is all part of a complete package about how the public in general gain an idea of the workings of parliament and the significance of this particular precinct. Mr Speaker, I would encourage you to maintain the building to the highest possible standards. I know it is not always possible given Treasury's iron fist that seems to pervade most government departments these days, but it is a matter for you to use your persuasive powers with the Treasurer, or indeed the minister responsible for Q-Build, to make sure that the appropriate funds are found and the precinct is maintained to the highest possible standard. I want to make a couple of other comments. I was also glad to see an upgrade in security such as the electronic doors out the front and other measures around the place. Everyone has had security issues uppermost in their minds over the past 12 to 15 months. Whilst it is one thing to have security uppermost in our minds, it is another to make sure that the appropriate measures are put in place. We should never be so complacent as to think that we might not be a target here. Extra security in terms of doors and other measures around the place are appreciated by all members of the House, I am sure, particularly by the staff who work in the House. It is for their benefit as well as ours. One of the great innovations over the recent couple of years that the Speaker has put into place has been linking electorate offices by Internet to the parliamentary system. I find it a huge benefit to me as a member of parliament to be able to get into the parliamentary web site to access reports of the parliament, Hansard and other measures that are available. Even the members' handbook is now on the parliamentary web site. It cuts down a lot of paperwork in the office that we normally would have. Requests by fax, telephone and a whole range of other communications can now be pushed to one side as we can access those resources immediately. As I said, they are a great benefit to electorate officers and to members themselves. I raised the issue of the West Indian termites in the committee process itself because I was aware of the damage that they had done before. We must never get to the stage where we have to put a huge tent around it again and fumigate it for a series of months. As I said before, in terms of the stonework as well, that would be a dereliction of our duty. We have to make sure these pesky little things are kept under control. A government member: Preventative maintenance. Mr QUINN: Preventative maintenance. We will probably never eliminate them, I suspect. We will probably be chasing them around the precincts forever and a day from now on. An honourable member interjected. Mr QUINN: There is a lot on that side. I think I will put a tent over them as well. That is an issue that I think we need to keep an eye on. As I said, once they are in we have a duty to make sure that we maintain a watching brief on them and I suspect chase them around the precinct forever and a day. I would hope that this building continues to be used as a parliament for the next hundred- odd years. The buildings themselves are, as I said before, of historical significance. The longer we can maintain the parliament here the better it is in terms of public perception about what we do here, the respect that the building has and the work that we do here. It may very well be that in 50 years time we have to leave because of a whole range of reasons but I think that would be a shame. Time expired. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Poole): Before I call the next speaker, I would like to welcome to the gallery teachers and students from the Tweed Primary School in New South Wales. Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (11.51 a.m.): I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to report No. 1 of Estimates Committee A. I was grateful for the opportunity to participate in Estimates Committee A. I will talk about the day as a whole rather than specifically part of it. I will take the opportunity to talk about the day as it progressed, starting off with the Speaker. I agree with previous 3034 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 speakers on the importance of upgrading the stonework to this building. It is something that has to be done. It is something that has to be maintained, as other speakers have mentioned. There are a couple of other things from the Speaker's portfolio that I think should be mentioned. The first is the wonderful success of the regional parliament at Townsville last year. For regional members it was a great experience. Members could see, from the number of school kids and the number of people coming through the doors of parliament, that it was good to be a part of it and I think it was good for the parliament. The Speaker and his staff did a wonderful job. It is the only place I have ever been to where I have seen a sign up on the streets saying, 'Welcome, parliamentarians, to Townsville.' I am sure we may not see that too often in the future, but it was a pleasant sight. Another issue that was touched on during the course of that day was the Queensland Audit Office. There were a couple of things on that. One of the main priorities of that issue was the consolidation and extension of the implementation of the Catalyst case and records management system to include all non-case related administrative records. That was something that they have been working on for years and obviously there was going to be some major improvements as far as the Audit Office was concerned. There were some other things from the Ombudsman's office. One of the issues raised was the continued program of regional centre visits. The Ombudsman is a welcome visitor up my way. It is an opportunity for people to see the Ombudsman on a face-to-face basis. The next issue of the day was the Crime and Misconduct Commission. There were a couple of issues raised there, including the progress on working in partnership with law enforcement agencies to investigate the large scale production, supply and trafficking of heroin and cannabis and the work that they are doing there. Also the Commissioner for Children and Young People played her role there. Of course, one of the priorities in the budget that was mentioned for that issue was the implementation of a training program to enhance the advocacy skills of people working in community organisations in regional centres involved in the provision of child advocacy. As the day went on we went on to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. One issue that was raised that I thought needed to be mentioned was the implementation of the community engagement improvement strategy to enhance the ability of the Queensland public sector to support effective government community engagement. That is something, from a regional perspective, that the Premier's department has done extremely well. Another issue canvassed was the organ retrievals by the government jet, which does outstanding work, and again the Community Engagement Division. Also discussed was the development in bio-technology in Queensland and how the Security Planning Coordination Unit works to address counter-terrorism issues, which has been mentioned in this chamber in recent times. Some of the things that obviously affected regional Queensland were the responsible gaming initiatives and research, the Gambling Community Benefit Fund and, of course, the maintaining of Queensland's AAA credit rating which has a flow-on effect to everybody here in Queensland. As far as the sport and recreation portfolio of the Deputy Premier is concerned, it is maximising the opportunities for Queensland in the Rugby World Cup this year and it is assisting Queensland's elite athletes to prepare for the— Time expired. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (11.56 a.m.): This particular section of Estimates Committee A looked at the issues to do with the Speaker. It was held in good spirit. I would like to join with the Opposition Leader in thanking the chair, the member for Albert, for the way that she conducted that particular committee. I particularly want to speak about the visits of the schoolchildren to the parliament. I think it is just so important for them to learn about the history of this place, to be able to see how it actually operates, to see the physical facilities here and also to learn about how the parliament itself operates. I think that is one of the very valuable services conducted by the Speaker's office. It is essential that this building is maintained in absolutely pristine order because this building belongs to the people of Queensland. It is one of the most important buildings for the people of Queensland. When this building was being constructed—I think in the early years of the 1860s—construction actually stopped because the government of the day was broke. It was only when gold was found in Gympie that the economy got stronger and this magnificent building was able to be continued. It is a big responsibility to maintain it. I am pleased to hear that there are 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3035 apprenticeships in stone masonry that enable those skills to be maintained, not only for this building but also for many other historic stone buildings throughout Queensland. The staff in this building and the associated annexe are very important for the proper and efficient functioning of the parliament. For many people who come here from distant parts of the state to be members of parliament, at times it is almost like their home, even though they only live in a single room and on the weekends have to go up the road to town to find a feed. For many of those people, when parliament is sitting and at other times—when ministers, shadow ministers, people on committees and so on are on parliamentary business—it is their home. Ministers or shadow ministers would spend almost half the year here on parliamentary business. It is important that a reasonable standard is maintained. I think it is very important that the security levels of the parliament are maintained. It has been good to see some of the electronic systems going in. It is also good to see some of the search methods that are now here because it could be a vulnerable place. One thing I do say is that it is very important to have adequate numbers of people. All the machines and cameras in the world do not make up for having human beings who actually are there in the event that something happens. If someone tries to climb the fence and runs across to do something, a camera cannot chase them and pull them up. Only a security officer can do that. It is essential we never get to the stage where cost cutting cuts back staff levels to a point where, if an incident occurs, we do not at all times have adequate numbers of people to protect the staff of this place, to protect the members of the parliament and to protect the institution. Internet usage has been greatly appreciated by our electorate officers, and I thank and compliment those staff who come under the Speaker's oversight who look after our electorate offices. They are very helpful and courteous at all times. However, the use of Parliament House for functions is something that we will always have to watch. We always have to remember that the core business of this place is the operation of parliament and the associated parliamentary needs. Even during one stage of this estimates committee we could not hear what was going on because of the loudspeaker testing on the Speaker's Green for a function. Mr Speaker interjected. Mr HORAN: That is right, regardless of what it was. There have been other times when we have been working in our offices while a band has been playing on level 7 and we could hardly work in our offices. We need to ensure that the No. 1 business of this place is the proper and efficient running of parliament. I have no objection to the parliament being opened up as much as is practical and possible so that people are able to use the lovely facilities, because it does belong to the people of Queensland. It is nice to see people feel welcome and able to attend functions here, but we have to remember what our No. 1 priority is. They are the main comments I wanted to make. I particularly wanted to emphasise the school visits and the preservation of this building, and I thank the staff who look after the running of this place and particularly our electorate officers. Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) (12.01 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure to speak to Estimates Committee A report No. 1 regarding the Legislative Assembly. I echo the words of the member for Toowoomba South. One of the important activities that occurs apart from parliament sitting is the school tours. I have much pleasure in attending the majority of tours when schools from my electorate come to tour the building. I actually think that they get a better experience when parliament is not sitting in that they can sit in the chamber and the attendants and I hold a mock parliament with them. They get a much better experience of it rather than sitting in the gallery and listening to one or two people speak. While it is important for them to understand what happens in question time, with these modern days of teaching it is all about interactive participation to get a better understanding as to what it is all about. If they are just observing, they do not get that same experience. I want to make special mention of all the attendants who do the tours. They do an excellent job and should all be commended, and I know that all members and the Speaker would agree with that. I ask the Speaker to pass those comments on to them in that they do a superb job. In terms of other areas of the parliament, just last night I had the pleasure of using the barbecue area for representatives from all of the Neighbourhood Watches in my electorate. Because that was held while parliament was sitting, I was able to get the Police Minister to attend, and in fact the Police Commissioner came and said a few words to them as well. A government member interjected. 3036 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Mr REEVES: They were actually, and then I took them on a tour during the dinner break to show them parliament so that they could experience what it was like. Because that facility is there, it is terrific to be able to use it, and tonight I have another function, actually. My local P&Cs are coming in tonight for the same purpose. Facilities such as these mean that constituents have the opportunity to tour the building plus meet important people such as ministers to have a chat with them. In that regard, I also make special mention of the catering staff for organising the barbecue as well as feeding all of us during sitting weeks. It is very important, particularly for those members who come from far and wide for whom this place is virtually their home for a big part of the year, to have such a smiling and happy catering staff. They meet the desires of all members and do a superb job. A government member interjected. Mr REEVES: No, we could not ask for better staff and better treatment. I hope the Speaker passes on my compliments to them, because they do a terrific job. In terms of electorate offices, there has been an increase in facilities such as new photocopiers and an improvement in the computer technology. I make special mention of Property Services and Peter Mills and Barry Hensler, who assisted in negotiating a better deal, hopefully, for the Legislative Assembly in terms of my electorate office to improve the facilities so that it is easier for constituents to come and visit. It is now a much more accessible office than it was previously. I thank the Speaker for all of the upgrades and the use of computers, but one issue I want to put on the record is that with modern technology there is the capability of having a laptop or another computer in the electorate office. A laptop is probably more suitable for members. Now that we have two officers, it is ridiculous that we have to say to them, 'You go and do something else while I get on the computer.' I know that the Speaker tries, and will continue to try, to upgrade facilities, but I think I speak for all members when I say that a laptop which can be used in our electorate office and other places would be more suitable for modern members. Once again, I thank all staff in the Parliamentary Service because they do a terrific job, whether it is HR or Property Services or the like. They do a terrific job. I also make special mention of the electorate office staff who do a great job, and for me that is Steve as my full-time staff member and part-time staff Sarah and Ravi. They do a magnificent job for me, as I am sure that all electorate officers do a magnificent job for all members, particularly those members who are not as lucky as I am in that I am only 15 minutes away from my electorate office. I commend all of the great work that the Speaker has done in the parliament. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12.06 p.m.): I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments about Estimates Committee A even though I did not participate in the committee hearing. I think it is important that I lend bipartisan support for many of the things that have already been said in the debate with regard to the report of this estimates committee. I reinforce the concept that this parliament is a very important place. It is more important than all of us and it would be too easy for whoever is in this place to use it as a political issue. There is no doubt that the money that is required to keep this parliament up to the standards that many speakers have already spoken about as being necessary would seem to be an exorbitant amount to people in the general community, and it would be easy to make a political issue out of that. I hope we never see that day. I hope that irrespective of where the political parties sit in this parliament there is bipartisan support for the maintenance of this parliamentary precinct to the very best standard, because it is the house that belongs to all of Queensland. It should be maintained to a standard that all of Queensland can be proud of, that every Queenslander can be proud of. It certainly should not be the subject of political point scoring in respect of the amount of money that it costs to do that. In that regard, Mr Speaker, I wish you well in your endeavours to increase the amount of money that is available to you and whoever becomes Speaker after you in maintaining this place to the great standard that it is at the moment. As other speakers have said, that has not always been the case, but we hope that it always will be the case. It should be a place that all Queenslanders can be proud of and that all Queenslanders can come and visit and take pride in. In that respect, I also endorse the comments that have been made about the school tours and the availability of this place to people who casually walk past and see the sign out the front that 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3037 says that tours are available. That is a great opportunity to access this place that I think should be further encouraged. I know it does take time in terms of staff time, but those staff do a great job. I also congratulate those who do that job, and do it so well. Unfortunately, my electorate is in a regional area and I do not have the opportunity to get as many schools and community groups down here as do Brisbane based members. Interestingly, the previous member stated that he was able to entertain P&C and Neighbourhood Watch groups in the parliamentary precinct. I wish that great opportunity were available to members such as me who represent regional areas in Queensland. Ms Keech: We could always do a regional parliament. Mr SEENEY: I will hold the member to that. I will look for that in the next term. I wish also to make some comments about the electorate offices, which need to be maintained to a certain standard. In the main I think they are up to standard. Electorate offices are very much the face of parliamentarians and the public image of the parliament in communities right across Queensland. It is important that they be maintained to a similar standard as other professions in the community; we do have a professional role. I acknowledge that that costs money and that a lot of effort has been put into upgrading offices and equipment available to the members and staff who work in them—and so it should be. There is a bit of an issue concerning the second electorate officer. One of the greatest improvements in terms of our being able to do our common job of representing our electorates has been the appointment of the second electorate officer. Without any doubt at all, that has been the greatest single initiative that has helped us to perform our core responsibility, irrespective of where we sit in the parliament. The issue of the remuneration for that second officer needs to be resolved. I trust that the Speaker has that issue in mind. Time expired. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (12.11 p.m.): I thank the Treasurer, Mr Speaker and the CBRC for their budget allocation which will enable the efficient operation of the parliamentary precinct and our electorate offices. I congratulate the Speaker on the planned major refit of the level 5 conference room. This area is already a great asset, but the changes will make it even more appealing and able to be used for a variety of other purposes. In the next couple of minutes I would like to focus on aspects of IT in the parliament. Five years ago Mr Speaker established the Speaker's Technology Advisory Group, or STAG, to review IT services at Parliament House. Six MPs trialled laptop computers and certain software packages and procedures. Mr Speaker was wise in choosing the six MPs. He chose people like the Leader of the Opposition, who is well versed in matters technological, but he also chose me, who at the time was something of a computer troglodyte. The work of STAG and Parliamentary Services personnel resulted in major upgrades to the IT facilities in the annexe tower and in our electorate offices generally. Mr Speaker faces an enormous task because of the rate of change in the IT area. The period for replacement and total depreciation of IT equipment is very short, so the Speaker has a frequently occurring challenge in meeting the needs of the parliament in this specific area of service. In thanking Mr Speaker for the improvements he has introduced, I encourage him to continue his excellent work, particularly in two areas. The first is that of the members' computers themselves. Many visitors to our office are surprised to find that members are not provided with a computer that is fully integrated into the IT service. As someone explained to me, even an AO2 or AO3 in any government department or people in any small business would have their own workstation fully linked to the local network. They find it difficult to believe that someone in our position does not have those facilities. When they ask, 'So you log your laptop into the network, do you?' I have to say, 'I have purchased the laptop separately and it is not part of the network.' They cannot believe that. Businesspeople with whom we deal all the time—and I see the member for Callide nodding—are surprised; they would see an integrated IT system as much a part of our facilities as electricity or the provision of a vehicle. I appreciate where we have come from, and I encourage the Speaker to see if we can work more on that. If we can have that upgrade, we should also look at providing portability so that members can work when they are out of the office, return to their office and have their work integrated into the electorate office system. We need links between the electorate office and the parliament so that the work we do here does not have to be double handled; it can be part of the entire network. 3038 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Secondly, there is a synchronisation problem with Outlook, which seems to be particularly problematic in the late afternoon and out of hours. I know parliamentary officers have been working on this, but it really creates a problem when we cannot get proper access to Outlook. When we look around the chamber, we see why Mr Speaker faces another challenge. Older faces like mine are becoming fewer in number and a greater percentage of younger MPs are taking their places in the parliament. These younger MPs are generally more IT savvy and have come from jobs where computer networks form a big part of their everyday work. I thank the IT staff at Parliament House who, under the expert leadership of Mike Coburn, provide an excellent service to us. All electorate office staff appreciate the assistance they receive from the helpdesk in particular. In conclusion, I thank all members of the Parliamentary Service for their work. Mr Speaker, in every aspect of our work at the parliament—in providing our electorate office materials and support—your staff in the Parliamentary Service do an excellent job. I was very pleased to be here on Queensland Day, when the parliament was open to the public. A number of officers of the Parliamentary Service volunteered their services and the route chosen for the general public tour was probably the best I have seen at Parliament House. What was open for the general public to see on that day was remarkable. One of the officers from the Parliamentary Service who works in a specific area said that he has no reason to come to parts of this building and that he saw things on that day that he had not previously seen. Mr Speaker, your stated philosophy has been put into practice. You see this as the people's house and you have made it available to the people of Queensland and to overseas visitors. I thank you for that and I encourage you to continue with that excellent work. Mr SPEAKER (12.16 p.m.): It is a very rare occasion that I have the opportunity to speak in the parliament. Firstly, I thank the members of the committee who took the time today to say a few words about the estimates committee and what we do in the parliament. I take it from the absence of One Nation and Independent members that they are very happy with the operations of the parliament and feel that they do not need to contribute to the debate. An important point that has been noted many times is that I really believe this is the people's house. However, I believe also as the custodian of this place that I have a very big responsibility to make sure that this place is maintained to a high standard. Another point noted by the Government Whip was the importance of the history of the parliament and the role of parliamentary tours. We need to be mindful of the history of this place. Indeed, we see the history of the parliament evolving through such things as the North Queensland Gallery in the annexe, the portraits of premiers, speakers and clerks of the parliament, including a description of what they did when they were here. That is useful in helping visitors to understand the importance of this place. The member for Stafford also referred to Queensland Day. Five years ago it attracted 660 people. This year 5,720 came through the parliament on that day. There has been a huge increase in the number of public tours. We are now open for tours on Saturday and Sunday. We are encouraging people to share in the activities in this building, which belongs to them. The member for Toowoomba South said something about bands playing and interfering with his work. We do not make such arrangements on purpose; sometimes things clash. We should be tolerant of other people who want to be part of the parliament. In particular I refer to the first morning of the estimates, when there was a band on the Speaker's Green. Following the estimates, I went out to see what was going on. A wonderful hymn called How great thou art was being played. I told the president of the CWA, 'If the Premier complains, just tell him that you were playing his hymn.' She was tickled pink about that. Mr Terry Sullivan: You would be a brave person to take on the QCWA. Mr SPEAKER: Exactly. We have to go forward in this place. IT has been referred to. I agree with members that we need computers. Some people, such as me, are semi-illiterate on computers. But, I am sure that if we had one in front of us we would learn a lot more. It is one of my aims to provide that to members as soon as possible. I think it is important that members be able to communicate by computer to their staff, their office and the parliament and that they have the facilities that everybody else in the business world has. Members could not compare what has happened in the past five years with what happened before that. We all have to be patient and make sure that when we do this, we do it properly. A great example of this is the added equipment we provided to members in their electorate offices—the printer and copier choice. We have to keep seeking advice from members on what 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3039 they want and we will try to provide that over the years. I welcome the suggestions that come to me. It is very important that we know what members want so that we can get the staff working on that. A couple of things were said about security and how good security is. The member for Toowoomba South said that people are more important than cameras. I remember an estimates debate some years ago when Rob Borbidge was the Leader of the Opposition. He asked, 'What would you do if armed people suddenly came over the fence and you had only four or five people there?' I said, 'I would call the police.' Our security are watchmen. If they see people on the cameras or wherever, they react by calling the appropriate law enforcement people to handle that situation. I do not expect any of our unarmed security people to go out and try to deal with the situation. We have to look at the difference between security per se—that is, keeping the precincts of this place safe—and the role of a police service, which is to keep people safe. Within the next year members will see improvements at the annexe. Everybody coming into this place will have to be screened. That is very important. We have a situation at the moment where people going to a function on level 4 or on the Speaker's Green come into this place with no screening whatsoever. We have to change. It is very important that we screen people. That will happen very soon in this financial year. We are doing many things to make sure that not only the members of parliament are safe but also the staff is safe. That is just as important as anything else. The other matters that were mentioned were the conference room and the media room. That is also part of going forward. When we finish that conference room, which will be completed by the time the parliament returns early next year, it will seat 300 people at proper tables for a conference. It will have all the latest AV equipment, a good stage—everything people need. The media room will also be a mini-theatrette where we can hold committee meetings and closed committee meetings for committees that need that. It will be another asset to the parliament which will get a lot of use. All these things are a part of opening up the parliament, making sure that the people of Queensland value what they have got and are able to use it. It is really important that we welcome them. One member spoke about the sign in Townsville which said, 'Welcome, parliamentarians, to Townsville.' That is an indication that we can be here in Brisbane as well. If we open those doors and show people what we are about and let them see the good side of parliament, I am sure that they will have a greater appreciation not only of the parliament itself but also of the people who work here. As we all know, one of the hardest things is to raise the image of parliamentarians. Unfortunately, the image of parliamentarians is not really true. That image is of a group of us rather than individual people. I can go into opposition, government or One Nation electorates and ask people about their member and they will hold that person in great esteem. They know that person and know how good they are. We have the problem of the collective look of parliamentarians. It is up to us all to improve that image. Part of improving that image is letting more people see us at work and more people enjoy this parliament. I thank the estimates committee for their very tolerant and very supportive comments this morning. I thought the estimates debate itself was a great chance for me to explain what is happening in the parliament. They gave me that opportunity. I look forward to a very successful year with the wonderful staff we have in the parliament. I thank those here in the parliament and electorate offices for the great job they do. We could not do it on our own. Report adopted. Clauses 1 to 4, as read, agreed to. Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Appropriation Bill Estimates Committee A Report No. 2 The CHAIRMAN: The question is— That report No. 2 of Estimates Committee A be adopted. 3040 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Ms KEECH (Albert—ALP) (12.26 p.m.): The Beattie government's vision for Queensland is a state where everyone shares in the rewards of economic prosperity. Improving the lives of Queenslanders therefore relies on the sound economic management of the state. Our economic success since taking office in 1998 has allowed us to deliver investments in infrastructure that makes a real difference to Queenslanders and improves services where they most matter. Importantly, the Beattie government's economic management of this state continues to be conducted at the highest levels of accountability and transparency. The estimates process introduced by the Goss Labor government in 1994 is an additional method to enable the scrutiny of the government's economic management. In particular, the public hearings of estimates are an opportunity for an opposition, if it has the ability, to put the government under the spotlight on its proposed budgetary expenditure. It was my honour to once again chair Estimates Committee A for 2003, which examined the proposed expenditure of the portfolio areas of the Premier and Minister for Trade, the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and the Minister for Sport and the Minister for State Development. On behalf of the whole committee, I thank the Premier, the Treasurer and Minister Barton for their assistance during the estimates process. In particular, the committee expresses its appreciation for the tremendous amount of work done by ministerial and departmental staff to ensure the evaluation of the expenditure of the portfolios was carried out in a manner which encouraged open and honest scrutiny. In addition, the committee examined the organisational units of the Queensland Audit Office, the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and the Public Service Commissioner. I say to the agency directors who appeared before the committee: thank you for your attendance and assistance in the examination. The Office of the Governor was also allocated to Estimates Committee A. However, following convention, the committee chose not to investigate its expenditure during the public hearings. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Queensland Governor, Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, who was sworn in as our 24th Governor at a beautiful ceremony on the Speaker's Green on 29 July 2003. I also thank all members of Estimates Committee A, both government and non-government members, for their assistance and cooperation during and in the preparation of the procedures. I know I speak on behalf of all members of the committee when I express our thanks to the secretariat officers: Debbie Jeffrey and Lynn Knowles. I also thank the Hansard staff and timekeepers. I am honoured to be a member of a government which, through its Smart State strategy, has enabled Queenslanders to enjoy strong economic growth over the past five years. Solid growth of four per cent is forecast for 2003-04, exceeding the three and a quarter per cent forecast nationally. A general government net operating surplus of $153 million and a cash surplus of $152 million are forecast in the 2003-04 financial year. Through its policies the Beattie government is positioning our state for continued strong and sustained growth into the 21st century. However, as we all know, a state's economic growth means nothing to ordinary Queenslanders if their children are sick and they do not have access to an appropriate level of public health services. The 6.9 per cent increase in the Queensland health budget is in the context of Mr Howard admitting that Australians will receive $1 billion less in funding for public hospitals than was planned for over the next five years when the states signed the latest federal health agreement. Sadly, this means that Queensland— Mr Horan interjected. Ms KEECH: I am leading to a point. The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Toowoomba South and the Leader of the Liberal Party worked cooperatively with government members during the estimates committee hearings. I strongly urge them to show the same cooperation by working with the government to ensure Queenslanders are not unfairly disadvantaged when it comes to getting our fair share for Queensland public hospitals. I fully support without amendment the recommendations of report No. 2 of Estimates Committee A. I thank all those who were involved in the estimates committee. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (12.30 p.m.): This particular estimates committee hearing was held against the background of the third budget deficit in a row and Queensland still having, after about 32 months, the worst unemployment figures in mainland Australia. Therefore, 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3041

I thought there were some very important aspects to this estimates committee, particularly in the area of state development. The minister may be able to address one issue. It is probably just a technical matter. In the figures in the budget papers, why is it that the departmental outputs under 'Appropriation', at $159.378 million, vary from the departmental outputs in the table as against actuals for the prior year, where they are set at $167.512 million? There is no doubt a technical reason for that. I made a dissenting report on the estimates process. In my dissenting report I spoke about what the estimates is really about; that is, questioning the government about how it has handled the money of the people of Queensland. My questioning regarding the AMC project related to why the government did not have a representative on the board of AMC, particularly after the financial assistance the government provided to the second float to provide a guaranteed dividend. It was that particular guaranteed dividend that lured many mum and dad investors into the project. There was a total government and government owned corporation financial commitment of $348 million at one stage. There were distribution assistance arrangements of $128 million, infrastructure agreements of $50 million, a stamp duty refund of $5 million, a rail infrastructure commitment of $9 million, an energy supply agreement and associated infrastructure of $50 million, a cost overrun reserve facility of $70 million, an infrastructure agreement of $22 million and an additional infrastructure agreement of $14 million. There had been no effort to ensure that, despite this possible commitment of $348 million by the government, there was someone on the board to know what was happening and how this project was going. As it turned out, prior to Christmas 2002 the board knew that there were some financial problems with regard to the construction contracts. As a result of questioning of the minister, it appears that the minister did not know until the following April. By then it was probably too late and the damage was done. This was a hinge point of the whole project. The financial arrangements with the bank—over $900 million—depended on a fixed price contract. That was not there. Despite some $348 million commitment of taxpayers' money by the government, it did not have someone on the board to know what was happening, to safeguard some of this money and to provide some assistance to do the very best to make this project actually go forward. I believe that this has been an example of gross financial mismanagement and imprudence—for a government to commit that much money to a private project and not have a finger in the pie. There is an old saying: the best fertiliser is a farmer's footsteps. If you are not there, you do not know what is happening. That is what has happened in this case. There was a $350 million commitment but no involvement to ensure that money was safeguarded and to ensure the project had the best chance of proceeding. It is an example of gross mismanagement and slack observance and management of a massive investment of taxpayers' money. The other thing that concerned me was the ambulance levy. The minister being questioned was the minister responsible for small business. Here was one opportunity for this department, its officers and minister to stand up for small business. Instead, small businesses have been slugged with the inequitable ambulance levy. Many of them are having to pay it many times over. Unlike other people who might be professionals on a high salary and pay it once, those with small businesses pay the levy at home and at their businesses up to eight or nine times. Mr Mickel: Is this the GST? Mr HORAN: This is the ambulance levy to cover up the black hole of all the money the government has lost. It is levying new taxes. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr HORAN: He is not interested in small business, which is the biggest driver of jobs in this state. Time expired. Ms STONE (Springwood—ALP) (12.36 p.m.): As a member of Estimates Committee A, I was privileged to participate in a process that is open, transparent and promotes accountability at the highest levels. It therefore gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the adoption of report No. 2 of Estimates Committee A. The Internet being used by paedophiles to lure children into their web is a subject that is important to all of the community. Indeed, it is a subject I have spoken on in this House several 3042 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 times. A really important point that came out of the estimates committee hearing was that the CMC's investigators are using innovative methodologies to ensure the new offence of using the Internet to procure a child is having an effect. CMC investigators have posed in Internet chat rooms as children to apprehend paedophiles. From 1 May to July there were four arrests for the offence of using the Internet to procure children younger than 16 years. Another important point raised was that the CMC has also been successfully using the powers to confiscate the proceeds of crime under the new civil confiscation legislation. More than $4.1 million in assets, including a Gold Coast canal home, two luxury vessels, cars and bank accounts, have been seized and restrained under the new civil confiscation legislation. The message came out clear: the Beattie Labor government is tough on crime, our legislation is working and criminals are not wanted in Queensland. Community engagement is an important part of good government. The Community Engagement Division has 170 staff members, of which 61 are in regional centres. Staff are involved in a range of activities, including crime prevention; multicultural affairs, which distributes $2.4 million in grants to community organisations; and the distribution of information sheets on issues such as domestic violence, suicide, employment, teenage parenting and more. They are also responsible for regional community forums. Members from Logan, Beaudesert, the Gold Coast, Redlands and other regional areas participate in meetings with ministers to ensure the government is listening to the concerns of their community. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that abolishing the Community Engagement Division would be a win-win for Queensland. I disagree. It would mean that 170 staff would lose their jobs. For Logan it would mean that we would lose our regional community forums. The last regional community forum was held in my electorate at Chung Tian Temple. Just one of the presentations made was by Thomas Gribben concerning the number of children in Logan attending school without breakfast because they do not have the ability to access breakfast at home. I am sure this is happening not only in Logan but also statewide. Like I said, this was just one issue raised. They have also been involved with the schoolies task force. These forums are important, and I am extremely pleased that the Beattie Labor government has no intention of cutting this section and is very committed to community engagement. It was pleasing to hear the Premier speak on the Office of the Public Service Commissioner, which monitors and reports to government on the progress by the sector towards 2005 targets for women in management roles. The government has endorsed a minimum target of 25 per cent of senior executive officers and senior officer levels being women by 2005. As at June 2003 women held 23.7 per cent of these positions, so we are nearly there. Assisting community organisations is a high priority for this government. In 2002-03 the Gambling Community Benefit Fund provided grants to over 2,500 not-for-profit community organisations across Queensland. Three hundred and ninety-four parents and citizens and parents and friends associations have received over $7 million. Six hundred and eighty-one organisations providing sport and recreation have received grants totalling over $7.5 million. Seventy-nine neighbourhood centres have received over $1 million, and the list goes on. A total of $32 million has been given to organisations to deliver services and activities in their local community. It is not just community organisations that this government is assisting. Estimates Committee A heard a lot about the assistance government is giving to sporting and recreational activities and also to business. In 2002-03 the State Development Department assisted small business in providing a comprehensive range of management skills, workshops and talent programs to ensure that they learn the management skills required to operate a business. There has also been support for future small business people through the enterprise education model projects for which 40 schools have received grants. I find it difficult to understand the complaints by opposition members about the estimates process and their dissenting reports. They had ample opportunity to put the Premier, the Treasurer, the departmental staff, the Queensland Audit Office, the Ombudsman, the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and the Public Service Commissioner under scrutiny by their questioning. I find it very difficult to understand how they can criticise the process in this report when they could not even find enough questions to fill in the time allotted to questioning the Treasurer. To the people of Queensland I say that the Beattie government's high priorities are families, health, education, police and disability services, and that was clearly seen in this report. I know 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3043 these are the same priorities the people of Queensland have, and this government has delivered. I would like to compliment the chair and the parliamentary staff of Estimates Committee A for their efficient handling of all procedures, and I commend the report to the House. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition (12.41 p.m.): I would like to commend the chairman on the fair way that she conducted the Estimates Committee A process. I do agree that the members of the committee did work well together. There are a number of issues, though, that concern me and I would like to bring those to the attention of the chamber. One is the Premier's absolute callous disregard for the request of the committee insofar as answering questions on notice. It is true that the Goss government established the estimates process back in the early 1990s. I think it was a great innovation. However, there are certainly things that we can do to refine the process to make sure that it works better. Ministers from all sides, including Speakers, since that time and until this year have generally abided by and respected the requests of the committee insofar as time frames for ministers to respond to those questions on notice. It has never been a problem with any other government in the past. They had a couple of weeks to answer those— Mr BARTON: Madam Chair, I rise to a point of order. It has been a problem with every other government in the past. When the Borbidge government was in power, not only did we not get them 24 hours before the hearing actually started but in the case of Minister Cooper I did not get mine until the afternoon before the hearing started the next morning. All of our ministers complied with the standing orders of this parliament, and this is an absolute piece of nonsense that the Leader of the Opposition has raised. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Phillips): Order! There is no point of order. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is endemic of the problems the government has with its 66-seat arrogant approach to this parliament. It was orchestrated right across the government. All of the government ministers were directed to do it. The person who was able to comply with the requests of Estimates Committee A was the Speaker. He did not have any problems, and he probably has one of the smallest staffs around the place. He was able to do it. Why could other ministers not do it? It was an orchestrated effort on the part of the government to restrict the committee and its capacity to do its job. Mr BARTON: Madam Chair, I rise to a point of order. There was no orchestrated campaign. There are standing orders of this parliament that were complied with. Mr SPRINGBORG: Last year the request was abided by. In previous years the request was abided by. The Minister for State Development cannot tell me that there was not a degree of orchestration or direction with regard to this. It was far too good to be coincidental. Sure, it is a strict interpretation. I said that earlier with regard to report No. 1 of Estimates Committee A. There also has to be an element of respect to try to comply with what has been the convention insofar as the operation of those committees. Another concern which I raised during the committee was what I think is a farce with regard to estimated actuals. The government sets the target—and I am not referring particularly to this government—and then we find out the actuals are calculated back at a particular period of time, and the real outcomes are sometimes further down the track. So we do not know what the actual outcome was at that particular stage. I think this is an issue. I have pursued it with the Premier. It is something we need to address in this place in order to get a far better picture. What we have is a bunch of people running around concocting best case scenarios, and I am not necessarily sure it bears any resemblance to any real relativity. Child protection issues were directed to the Commission for Children and Young People. It was not able to fulfil its requirements insofar as the issue of blue cards within a certain time. Also, at that committee the Premier was quite happy with the number of child prevention intervention officers. He did not have a problem. But yesterday, within an hour of question time, he did. I turn to Australian Magnesium Corporation. Once again, as the honourable member for Toowoomba South said, this has been another example of hands-free government. The Premier provided advice and encouragement to small investors to invest in that corporation and they have done their dough. Quite frankly, the government should at least have requested to be an observer on that board so that it knew what was going on. With regard to events management, I think the Premier dropped something in the committee and then gave us ABARE's analysis at 1 o'clock and expected us to be able to— Time expired. 3044 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Mrs MILLER (Bundamba—ALP) (12.46 p.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly today to the budget estimates, particularly as they affect the people of Bundamba. I would like to talk about the Community Renewal Program of the Department of Housing because it has been an outstanding success in my area. We had two community renewal programs—one in the Dinmore-Riverview area and the second one in the Goodna-Gailes area. Although we are coming to the transition stages of both these programs, I can honestly inform this House that community renewal has made a huge difference in my area, especially insofar as community self-esteem, community wellbeing and our community's positive outlook on its future. As the Community Renewal Program nears the end I can say that one of the most important programs funded by the Department of Housing was the multiarts multiskills program that ran in six primary schools and two high schools. We need an arts focus in community renewal, and I would like to thank our reference groups and, in particular, a former officer of the Department of Housing, Jane McTaggart, who helped champion this program in our local communities. I would also like to thank Julie Chenery of Youth Arts Queensland, all the principals, teachers and students of Bundamba State Secondary College, Redbank Plains State High School and our primary schools, including Dinmore, Riverview, Redbank, Goodna, Kruger and Redbank Plains for their involvement. The finale of this event, held at the Goodna Cultural and Arts Centre, showed us how we, the people of our area, feel about our suburbs, how we are proud of who we are and proud of what we are, and how together we look forward to a better future. I would also like to inform the members of this House that we probably could not have put this together five or six years ago, but we are at the stage where we feel so good about our area that we were able to have this wonderful grand arts finale. Tonight I will be officially opening the Redbank Plains State High School arts expo that also celebrates arts in our community. This expo has been an annual event since 2000 and is a significant date in our visual arts calendar in my area. Ian Ferguson, the principal, Nicholee Clarkson, the head of the department, Rachel Ingham, Suzie Bennett, Corinne Berry, Linda Delwjinen and Brenda Trezise are all great arts teachers and great role models in our community. I would also like to acknowledge Tammy McDermott, our school arts captain, and her fellow students who should be congratulated on their works of art throughout 2003. I want them to know that I stand in this parliament today as their representative with a smile a mile wide because I am so proud of their efforts. I am in awe of their academic, personal and social skills, and am pleased that their creative, critical and imaginative thinking has resulted in such fine visual arts. I am also proud that their families, their school and their whole community recognise their fantastic achievements. The Premier, the Minister for the Arts, the Minister for Education and I are all proud of them, and tonight I will be presenting a book called Secret Knowledge to an arts student in recognition of their fantastic arts achievements. Today is also a significant day in our area as the Bremer TAFE is hosting a Springfield learning, skilling and work project seminar, but maybe it should be a little broader in focus. I have been working closely with industries in my electorate, with our TAFE, with our schools and with the Ipswich City Council and all our government departments as I want my electorate to be developed in a balanced and sensible way so that my people can get jobs, can get training and can live in a happy, healthy community. To this end, I think that it is important that the mayor, the councillors and I work together and that we work with our town planners to ensure that our local planning and regional planning is a top priority of our city. Just in my electorate, in regionally significant business and industry lands in the Swanbank- New Chum areas, there are now approximately 400 jobs, yet the jobs carrying capacity is estimated to be many times this level. In the Bundamba-Riverview areas there are approximately 3,400 existing jobs and in the Redbank area there are approximately 1,700 existing jobs, mainly in the QR workshops area. Yet we believe that the jobs carrying capacity could be much higher. We need to work together as a community between our levels of government and within the town planing and regional planning frameworks to ensure that any development is planned in a sensible and environmentally sustainable and healthy, friendly way to ensure that the jobs that come are local jobs. Education and Training Reforms for the Future—one of our government's key initiatives—is important in this process in linking schools, training, jobs and our community's future. My electorate has a great future. I would like to thank the Premier, who recently was in my electorate at the Thiess landfill and who has always shows a keen interest in the people of 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3045

Bundamba. Bundamba is a Labor heartland and we are a community that cares about each other. Thank God we have a Premier and a Beattie Labor government that cares about us. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (12.51 p.m.): In rising to speak to Estimates Committee A report No. 2, there are a couple of issues that I want to canvass. The first issue is in relation to an issue that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, that is, the ministerial process in terms of answering questions that the committee puts on notice. I simply do not accept that when a committee of the parliament gives a minister and a department seven to 10 days or even two weeks notice to provide answers to 20 questions that particular department cannot have them answered in the required time as requested by the committee. For those who do not know the process of departments preparing for estimates committees, I can say that it is long and involved. It is through no accident that the ministers and their departmental people walk into the committee hearings with a stack of briefing notes sometimes 20 to 30 centimetres high. To suggest that a department that has gone through that level of preparation cannot find one officer to answer 20 questions that the committee has asked within a seven- to 10-day time frame is just a nonsense. We ought not, as a matter of form, put committees of this House in a position where they request a minister to provide answers to questions on notice within a time frame and then have a minister respond by saying, 'No, I am going by the standing orders.' That treats the committee and the committee system with a degree of disdain. This parliament now has two options: it can either change the standing orders to give effect to the request of the committees or not require the committees to put a time frame on the ministers. We have to do one or the other. We cannot go on having the committees make a reasonable request and having the ministers turn that request down in terms of time frame. That is not a proper and appropriate treatment of committees of this House. I think the Premier understands that. Something has to be done. That shows that the executive who ought to be responsible to this parliament, through the estimate committees, holds the estimate committees in contempt in terms of the time frame. I have mentioned the fact that it can be done. The fact that it is not done is a deliberate decision of the executive. We have to do one or the other. This cannot be allowed to occur any longer. The system should be changed or this committee system will be brought into further disrepute. The other issue that I wish to raise relates to when I asked the Treasurer on the day a question about the Major Sports Facilities Authority. He said at the time, 'That is not my responsibility. I am not going to answer the question.' From my perspective as a member of the committee, I find it somewhat strange that we can have a minister responsible for the legislation but not be responsible to the committee for the authority that comes under his alleged purview. I think that when we reach the stage in the parliament where we have authorities that are funded by the government—by the taxpayers of Queensland—and an estimates committee cannot ask a question through the minister of that authority about how it expends its funds, we leave ourselves open to all sorts of things that can happen within the authorities and yet there is no ministerial responsibility through to the committee at that stage. I think that we ought to look carefully at that as well, because there can be issues that need to be raised at the committee level and are unable to be raised because of that particular issue. The last thing I wish to talk about very briefly is the ambulance levy. More and more as we go down this track we are finding the anomalies. We now have dead people being charged an ambulance levy. They are way past being able to use an ambulance, yet they are still being charged the ambulance levy. I think the issue of the policy needs to be finalised as quickly as possible. The excuses that there are rare anomalies will not hold water. There are always people who fall into those categories. The more anomalies there are the more the question of the policy is brought into disrepute. If the government is serious about this—and I am not by any means supporting its position in terms of how it wishes to apply it—it needs to wipe out all the anomalies as quickly as possible. Otherwise more and more of these cases will be brought to our attention. There are a few other issues I wish to mention. I am concerned about the fact that 3.5 per cent is being allocated to the various agencies in terms of a salary rise over the next three years. Teachers have 3.8 per cent. I think it— Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (12.56 p.m.): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for its detailed examination of the units 3046 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 and independent agencies in my portfolio. I note the committee's reports support the expenditure proposals for which I have ministerial responsibility and I thank it for that. I now turn to the statement of reservation submitted by the Leader of the Opposition. He is keen to criticise the role of the Commission for Children and Young People and the Department of Families without acknowledging that there have been great advances in the way in which Queensland safeguards the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people since the Commission for Children and Young People was established in February 2001. The commission is an independent statutory authority and is recognised as the most empowered child protection monitoring and complaints agency in Australia that has set a new global benchmark for independent children's rights agencies. Let me demonstrate that through outlining the range of initiatives and activities that the commission has introduced in the past 12 months. Firstly, the commission has been overseeing the current audit into Department of Families' records of foster carers in Queensland. Secondly, I refer to the complaints and investigations mechanism. The commission responds within 24 hours to complaints where there is a concern about a child's safety. This goal is met 100 per cent of the time. In 2002-03, 2,596 inquiries were received from throughout the state. Of these, 330 cases were formally progressed. In terms of the working with children check, the commission issued 133,183 blue cards from 1 May 2001 to 31 July 2003 and 105,588 in the 2002-03 financial year. The commission also issued 33 negative notices and had another 127 people withdraw their application. The commission manages the statewide community visitor program where over 200 sites were identified and visited on a monthly basis to provide advocacy and other support services to children and young people in out-of-home care. This includes disability respite centres, authorised mental health facilities and juvenile detention centres. The commission has developed a working with children kit and training program to complement the blue card. It provides advice to organisations on developing policies and procedures to protect children and young people. The commission monitored and reviewed laws, policies and practices impacting on children, with 98 commission submissions made, and was represented in over 40 committees and working groups. It is currently conducting a review of child labour in Queensland to address issues such as the possible exploitation of children in such industries as modelling and entertainment. It is also currently developing a child advocacy training program for community organisations across Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition also raised the issue of a lack of accountability and responsibility that I displayed in relation to the government's role and my role in encouraging mum and dad investors to invest in AMC. I would like to repeat what I said at the estimates committee hearing, that is, in terms of the advice that was given on AMC, the advice in the prospectus is the advice that people act on when they invest. The government took the best advice from within the government, from consultants and advisers, before a decision was made. In answer to non-government question on notice No. 9, a number of the audit tasks were not provided as disclosure of the findings could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of the implementation. That is a fair and reasonable assessment by the department and supported by me. I might just add that I fully support Robin Sullivan, who is, as we all know, the head of the Commission for Children and Young People. I do not think that the Leader of the Opposition does himself any service by seeking to undermine that commission. At a time when we are having a robust—and appropriately robust—debate about the protection of children, there are some institutions who are performing well and they need to be supported. The Commission for Children and Young People is one of them and I have full faith in Robin Sullivan. I reject any criticism of her and any criticism of the commission. I stand by her. She is an independent statutory officer. I have a lot of faith in her. In relation to AMC, I am prepared, as is the Minister for State Development, to support whatever sensible investment programs will advance this state. On one matter, I should correct the record. I mentioned yesterday that the Warner Brothers Roadshow studios were full and had been full since their extension following the repayable loan that we advanced. I am advised that the Warner Brothers Roadshow studios were full up to the conclusion of the filming of Peter Pan on 8 June, which is understandable because Peter Pan was a major blockbuster and obviously used a lot of studio space. The Leader of the Liberal Party raises the issue about time for answering questions. Maybe that is something that should be prescribed in sessional orders. We obviously want to ensure that the committees have an appropriate amount of time, but then ministers need to be given an 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3047 appropriate amount of time to prepare detailed answers. One of the things that members of the committees could perhaps do is actually stick to the standing orders and actually ask questions that are one individual question as opposed to multifaceted questions, because they often go on and on like Blue Hills. We try to give honest answers. If the committee wants to complain about it, fair is fair. How about members asking one question—they might get an answer—instead of trying to put us through the hoops for some cheap political gain? I am prepared to look at what the Leader of the Liberal Party said, but let us not just see this as a one-sided argument. These things are never black and white; there are two sides to the argument. So if the committee system wants to be fair to us, let us have one question; members then get one answer. Sitting suspended from 1.02 p.m. to 2.30 p.m. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (2.30 p.m.): I thank the committee, because I was an invited member. I was not part of the original committee, but because the opposition is having trouble with many of its portfolios I was allowed the courtesy of a few minutes. I thank the minister and the committee for that. There is only one issue I wish to address, and that is still the issue of Lang Park or Suncorp Stadium. If we believe in our committee system and in scrutiny by both the Auditor-General and the committee system, it is absolutely ridiculous to think that we have been unable to scrutinise what has happened at Lang Park, or Suncorp Stadium. I have mentioned this issue at times, and I have been on the Public Works Committee for a long time. I have been referred to the privileges committee because of the things that I have said, but it is still ridiculous to think that a Public Works Committee will not allow and has not allowed an investigation into the spending of money at Suncorp Stadium, nor has this minister referred to either the Public Works Committee or the Public Accounts Committee the issue of Suncorp Stadium. It will go down as one of the things that the public will see as completely ridiculous, because we have got to the stage now where the government has received a lot of kudos about Suncorp Stadium. That is fair enough; it is a magnificent stadium. I attended on the first night and you would not get a better rectangular stadium. However, there is still the fact that the opposition, the government and the public have not been able to criticise and scrutinise what has happened at Suncorp Stadium, and that is absolutely ridiculous. The government continually talks about its special levy to raise $235 million. It continually talks about the fact that this year it is behind in its money raising. The minister continually says that maybe the major facilities levy, which was set up to repay the money within 20 years time, may have to be increased. Yet the revenue taken from poker machines has risen from $257.2 million five years ago to $400 million now, and still the government says that maybe there is not enough money to repay the $235 million. Then in another breath the government says that maybe it needs to increase this levy and have money left over at the end of the 20 years so that it can spend money on other facilities. It is ridiculous to think that even in an estimates committee the minister can turn around on some subjects and say, 'No, I will not answer that. That is part of Ogden,' the company that is managing the whole thing. Yet still we get that. We have continually heard about the grass. We have continually heard different answers in terms of the grass issue, but anyone who watched the Bledisloe Cup on the weekend which was played in New Zealand—it was played at a magnificent stadium—would know that there was a reference to the turf and underlay used at that stadium. That is completely different turf. It is no use saying that there is different sunlight in New Zealand and that as a result some parts of the ground do not get any sun. If we as a community and we as a public—especially a public that has spent $235 million on this stadium, and in the end $280 million obviously—cannot criticise the grass used and cannot ask and investigate whether there might have been a better system, then I think that clearly there is something wrong. One of my criticisms of Suncorp Stadium is that, as with the Cultural Centre, there are too many inlets where people can come in which therefore means that there needs to be too many personnel when conducting a function. That is all right during an event such as a State of Origin when there are 52,000 people attending, but when there is a smaller activity the same number of staff is still required. In the case of the Cultural Centre, that has meant that it has not maintained some of the shows. I still worry that the same will happen with Suncorp Stadium. However, I have received assurances that the top part of Suncorp Stadium can be closed off and only the bottom section used for smaller functions. That, to me, is good. The other worry I have relates to the lease arrangements, because when there is a single entity like Rugby League at a place like Suncorp it is depending on only one group. If the Broncos do not go well and if the public does not come to see them, then the Broncos will not be able to 3048 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 maintain the massive cost of the lease. We have seen that happen at the Brisbane Cricket Ground, where the lease is shared by the Cricketers Club and Aussie Rules. Time expired. Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP) (2.35 p.m.): Promoting harmony within our culturally diverse community has been a strong focus of the Beattie government through Multicultural Affairs Queensland in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. Firstly, I want to make mention of an important election commitment delivered in this current term of the government, the introduction of amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 which makes unlawful any public statement that incites hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group on the basis of race or religion. In the first term of the Beattie government a total of $1,000,662 was provided for 110 projects aimed to promote positive community relations and eliminate racism. In the government's second term, 171 projects have been funded for a total of $1,353,844. Since 1998 a total of $2,354,508 has been allocated to support community activities countering racism, prejudice and intolerance and promoting positive acceptance of diversity in our community. In 2002 Multicultural Affairs Queensland funded the Anti-Discrimination Commission of Queensland to jointly undertake a project to disseminate antivilification information to key ethnic communities in Queensland. The result of this is a rights card on racial and religious vilification which is available in five languages and which has been distributed to ethnic communities. During this year MAQ has also established the Multicultural Antiracism Community Reference Group to provide a mechanism for monitoring community relations and developing strategies to respond to racial and religious vilification. The protocol ensures that the Queensland government is at the forefront in countering acts of racism, developing appropriate community relations interventions and maintaining harmonious relations during times of crisis. On the community front, the Local Area Multicultural Partnership program, or LAMP as it is otherwise known, is a great strategy between the state government, local governments and the LGAQ to support and engage with communities to be actively involved in multicultural Queensland. Under the strategy, councils are funded to employ a full-time multicultural community relations officer. LAMP funding has been provided to 14 participating local governments and the LGAQ over the past five years. Following the successful evaluation of the program, I am pleased to report that LAMP has been extended for a further four years. The Beattie government continues to strongly promote multiculturalism and community engagement by providing grants to foster participation in multicultural Queensland. One component of the cultural diversity support strategy is the Multicultural Assistance Program community worker funding, which aims to assist six key community organisations to engage with governments on multicultural issues. This program has been extended for a second round. Other funding includes that available under the Multicultural Assistance Program, which provides submission based funding for festivals, community relations and development projects, including special projects to support Australian South Sea Islander initiatives and special projects for refugees and targeted community development projects addressing participation and engagement. Other significant initiatives include the creation of the skilled migration unit, which is being led by the Department of State Development to assist businesspeople to migrate to Queensland and to act as a conduit for the provision of services to other skilled migrants and their families. In 2001-02 the skilled stream program attracted some 53,520 migrants—58 per cent of the total migration program—and in 2003-04 there will be 63,300 places available in this category. Skilled migration brings new investment, job creation and economic activity to Queensland, which this government is keen to capitalise on. During this year MAQ also launched its productive diversity kits. The kits provide case studies encouraging maximising our multicultural advantage and using language skills, know-how, networks, experience and cultural knowledge for business advantage. Multiculturalism involves concepts of a fair go, equity and social cohesion. It also includes production diversity, which is about the economic benefits of diversity—the business dividends. Queensland's first productive diversity kits provide practical case studies on how multiculturalism can assist business with improving customer service, export development and sales knowledge and international expertise. Ms LEE LONG (Tablelands—ONP) (2.40 p.m.): I rise to speak to report No. 2 of Estimates Committee A. In particular, I want to raise in this place the vital underlying attitude that this Beattie ALP government brings to the distribution of state resources, the provision of state programs, the funding of state facilities and so on. We have all seen the efforts of the spin doctors to dress up 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3049 the most recent budget brought down by the ALP. There were some pains taken and some efforts made to try to highlight the point that the funds allocated to this dot on the New South Wales border were less than those for the rest of the state. That is an easy way to make a comparison—a simple glance at a dollar figure which this government hopes will convince those of us from regional areas that we are getting a fair deal or an even better than fair deal. That is not true. There is a far more equitable and just measure that this government is loath to use, namely, not measuring the simple division of dollars but instead looking at who has what. That is, if a Queenslander living in the electorate of Brisbane Central has a certain number of publicly funded medical specialists within 30 minutes or perhaps an hour's travel, then so, too, should a Queenslander living in my electorate or any other regional electorate. We might say that if someone chooses to live in rural or regional Queensland that is their choice and they should not expect their lifestyle choices to be subsidised by anyone else. I believe that is a narrow, selfish and callous view to take towards their fellow Queenslanders. Heaven forbid if people chose not to live in Brisbane or nearby; they do not deserve to do without hospitals, public transport, publicly funded museums, art galleries or world-class sporting facilities! Wherever people might live and work in this state, they deserve the same deal as those in the south-east. It is no more complicated than that. But that is beyond this government, as any honest member from outside the south-east would affirm. Let me give honourable members some examples. We are all well aware of the $300 million price tag that accompanied the refurbishment of Suncorp Stadium—a facility built simply to have a bigger and better version of something that was already in existence. A government interested in the regions, in Queenslanders living elsewhere in the state, might have considered 100 sports facilities at $3 million each. What a boost that would have been to the lives of country Queenslanders. Alternatively, it might have funded the retention of health services instead of the constant contraction of specialist services in fewer and fewer locations. In the field of State Development, I am disappointed that this government has failed to support a development that would protect our banana industry from the impact of imports and that would provide non-polluting, new downstream value-adding industries and help take this state forward. I refer to the banana fibre project, about which I have spoken before. Queensland has the chance to leap ahead here, but instead we find the Department of State Development a less than enthusiastic proponent of moving the state forward. Indeed, under this government, Queensland is losing industry and losing company headquarters—MIM, Kelloggs, AMC, LG AUSTOFF, Queensland Cement, QNI, QCT Resources, Jupiters and even Castlemaine Perkins. Perhaps we have a department of state underdevelopment. Whether we do or not, we certainly have a government intent on ripping off Queenslanders. In the fortnight before the end of the 2002-03 financial year, almost 850 taxes, fees, levies and fines were increased by more than the annual rate of inflation. Included in this, of course, is the compulsory, highly controversial ambulance tax, which has one part of the community paying nothing at all, the second part paying once and the third part paying multiple times. Nobody should have to pay for the ambulance more than once. The collapse of the Australian Magnesium Corporation—AMC—has left many ordinary Queensland battlers worse off after the huge publicity given to this project by the ALP government and the Premier. They were lured into buying shares in this project because this government provided funding for the payment of distribution entitlement shares and gave funding for the second float. Yet as we found out later, it did not even have a representative on the board of AMC. That is daffy duck economic management at its best or worst, as the case may be. This is a government that does not want to know about regional Queenslanders when it comes to equality of services but knows exactly where to find them when it comes to raiding their wallets. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Liddy Clark): Order! Before calling the honourable member for Gladstone, I welcome to the gallery principals, teachers and students from the Alexandra Hills State High School in the electorate of Capalaba. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (2.45 p.m.): I rise to speak to the report of Estimates Committee A in relation to the three portfolios. I note that the report summarised again the fact that, for the Commissioner for Children and Young People, the revenue estimates had deteriorated from $8,000,060 in 2002-03 to $5,000,089 in 2003-04, with expenditure expected to change from $7.677 million to $5.089 million in the forthcoming year. I find that reduction in funding unfathomable. The minister might be able to point to a special project that was undertaken in 2003-04. However, in the few months of this current financial year, I believe 3050 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 sufficient problems have been highlighted in the areas that the Children's Commissioner deals with to ensure that that statutory body was appropriately funded. She protects the rights, interests and wellbeing of children. The commission must be properly resourced in light of the impacts on children's rights and wellbeing that have been identified recently. The Treasurer has developed a couple of rote letters that he forwards back to members of parliament when we write on behalf of our constituency in relation to the community ambulance levy. I have one outstanding example that I was hoping the Treasurer would have handled with a little more compassion and insight. John Nixon has a communications business in Gladstone. He made an irate phone call to my office because he was going to pay the levy 20 times. Seventeen of the levies were for unmanned repeater stations on small blocks of land. He was seeking at least for those 17 repeater stations to be exempt. The irony is that for the past few years John has allowed the ambulance and emergency services the use of the repeaters for their two-ways and beepers free of charge as a community service on his part. He is now being asked to pay $22 a quarter in ambulance levy on sites that are unmanned and that he has made available, as I said, free of charge to the ambulance and to the community. In response to John Nixon's issue, I received a rote letter that I forwarded on advising John of that fact. It is disappointing that somebody with such a good community spirit was rejected out of hand in the way that he was. We all continue to have public liability issues raised with us. I do not believe that is the government's problem. I believe the insurance industry needs to examine itself in terms of the risk it is prepared to accept and at what cost. Within the area of state development, I noted that one of the minister's key priorities is the implementation of staged strategic infrastructure work to support major project development in Gladstone. It is a dynamic region and it does need that infrastructure investment. The minister is aware of the dollars that have been allocated to buyback in the Targinnie area. I have written to him about a number of instances of members of the community being disadvantaged at best because of the government's valuation offers. Some of the best examples have been where the government valuer, whom I acknowledge is located in Gladstone, has actually gone out to farms and looked at the farm's assets—and one would have assumed he was valuing them for the purposes of government compensation and replacement. He would look at the sheds on the farms and say, 'For a farm of this size you don't need a shed that big,' and value it to the size shed and valuation that he thought that farm really needed. I did not know that valuations were as subjective as that or subjected to the whim of the valuer at the time. I would have expected, as did the community, that their assets would be valued as they were in the condition they were and taking into consideration their size and type so that they could then go and replace those assets in a new location after the government bought them out. There are a lot of issues in this budget that directly affect members of our community. The issue of the ambulance levy will not go away, nor should it, because people should pay that levy only once. Situations such as John Nixon's need to be rectified in good faith on the part of government to recognise the contributions that members of the community make as a community benefit. I commend those issues to the House. Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (2.50 p.m.): I want to first thank the members of Estimates Committee A for their consideration of the estimates of my department and thank them for their report that recommends that those estimates be accepted by this House. I do need to make some comment, unfortunately, about the minority report, particularly that part of it that has been contributed by my shadow, the member for Toowoomba South. The issues that he has canvassed in his minority report were very thoroughly canvassed on the afternoon at the estimates hearings. I would have thought that he would have understood the answers without needing to repeat some of the nonsense in his dissenting report. It is clearly arrant nonsense for a belief to continue—although I am not surprised that the member for Tablelands has that same belief in arrant nonsense—that this government should have had a director on the board of AMC because of the nature of support that we gave to AMC. Again, as was repeated by the Premier before lunch, the prospectus made very clear to people the type of investment they were entering into. It made very clear the type of support that this government was providing to that float. Of course, people need to make those decisions in their own right. However, the rules for public companies in this nation do not allow people who are not shareholders to decide that they are going to have directors on the boards of those public companies. We were not a direct shareholder in AMC. We chose to support it in a very 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3051 transparent way by other mechanisms, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that we could have or should have placed directors on that board. I gave the estimates hearing an indication of an experience that I had when I was on the board of the Queensland Investment Corporation before coming into parliament. In our wisdom we put our chief executive on the board of Kern Corporation and Quintex because of the significant shareholdings that had been entered into by a previous government, even before QIC came into place. We actually had to agree to take that chief executive off that board because he was one person who could not get access to the information that he needed and would have critically damaged his reputation as well when those companies fell over. Some comment is also needed about the fact that we were not aware of the full extent of the problems that AMC had until April, and that was repeated by the member for Toowoomba South this morning. Very clearly, in our communications with AMC we were aware that it was having difficulty getting the fixed price contract that was required, but no-one told us the extent of the problem that it had in achieving that until April. That is a matter that is currently being considered by the securities commission. I think it is up to it to determine whether shareholders as well as this government were given proper notification. If it was such an important issue, I remind those members who raised it this morning, including the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Toowoomba South, that on 9 July last year at the estimates hearing I provided very detailed answers to their questions about the whole arrangements for our support for AMC. It was also well known that that fixed price contract was a feature of those arrangements. However, at that time neither Mr Horan nor Mr Johnson, who was questioning me, made any comment or suggestion that we should seek to have a director on that board. I think they are hoisted on a petard of their own making. They did not make the suggestion at that point when they could have. It could not occur in any case. The ambulance levy features in the shadow minister's dissenting report. I need to stress—and I answered it at the time—that that is not a matter for my portfolio. I certainly argued my position in support of small business before cabinet, and some changes were made to improve the position of small businesses. However, it is not up to me to answer questions on the ambulance levy because that is the responsibility of other ministers. Before I close I also want to make comment about this nonsense of members of the opposition asking us for answers to detailed questions a week and a half before the hearing when the sessional orders provide for 24 hours before the hearing. The Premier's point this morning is very valid. If that is going to be possible we need the sessional orders to also be abided by in terms of single questions. The nature of the 10 questions that my department or I received from the non-government members was more like 100 questions, and many of those individual questions were way outside of the spirit of an estimates committee. In fact, they required answers of some 20 or 30 pages. If we are going to be required to provide the answers earlier we need to be capable of getting questions that can be answered earlier. Report adopted.

Estimates Committee B Report The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Liddy Clark): Order! The question is— That the report of Estimates Committee B be adopted. Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP) (2.56 p.m.): It is a delight to address the committee in relation to Estimates Committee B. I want to firstly place on record my appreciation on behalf of the committee to the three ministers involved, Minister McGrady, Minister Welford and Minister Robertson, who was acting for Minister Reynolds who unfortunately was absent on sick leave. I want to also commend the ministerial staff from each of the three ministers' offices and the departmental staff. There were 10 hours—three hours for each portfolio—of scrutiny that was applied by our committee at a highly detailed level across a whole range of diverse activities within each portfolio. The capacity for each minister to adequately and competently respond to the committee's scrutiny is largely dependent on the work of ministerial and departmental staff and I want to convey my appreciation to them. I also thank the research staff and the research director, Andrew Timperley, for the work they did in supporting the committee and also all of the Parliamentary Service officers. I finally convey 3052 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 my appreciation to my fellow committee members for the way in which the committee conducted that hearing. This budget, of which Estimates Committee B deals with three portfolio areas, was handed down on 6 June 2003. It lay on the table for a period of four to five weeks and then there were two weeks of hearings through the estimates committee process. Before moving to the detail of our committee, I want to place on record how important the estimates committee process is within the parliamentary system we have here in Queensland, particularly bearing in mind that we have only one chamber of the parliament. That estimates committee process was substantially introduced under the Goss administration in the early nineties and it provides unprecedented parliamentary scrutiny by members of government and particularly by members of the opposition of the government's proposed spending for the next financial year. That is to the benefit of the parliament and the benefit of the Queensland community. It obviously also complements the role of the Auditor- General and other accountability mechanisms that are built into the modern state and government instrumentalities that we now have here in Queensland, which is a long way ahead of what was the case in the 1980s and years before. This budget comprises $21.5 billion in expected income and expenditure. This expenditure of $21.5 billion is across 19 departments and many agencies. I want to contrast the size of the Queensland budget with that of the federal budget, whose income provides $179 billion for the 2003-04 financial year. The Queensland budget's income is about 11.7 per cent of the federal budget income, just to get a sense of proportion measured against the national budget. Fifty per cent of Queensland's budgeted expenditure is on wages and salaries. In this coming financial year, almost 50 per cent of expenditure will go on education and health. That gives some sense of setting in which to assess the level of expenditure available in the Queensland economy under the Queensland budget. A number of key areas have been addressed in the various portfolios. The appointment of the state coroner is an important initiative of this Beattie government. There has been considerable progress made in the trials of drug courts in south-east Queensland and north Queensland. Significantly, in the emergency services area we have seen the introduction of the much-appreciated community ambulance system, which provides universal cover for all Queenslanders and replaces the voluntary subscription scheme that was showing clearly that it was not adequate for the modern needs of Queensland. I commend the report of Estimates Committee B to the consideration of the parliament. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (3.01 p.m.): I commend the chairman of Estimates Committee B for the job he did. I think he very fairly carried out his role. As I said in relation to Estimates Committee A, the committee worked very well together. A whole range of issues were examined in detail by Estimates Committee B. They are all contained in the committee's report. I would like to touch on a couple of issues which are of significant interest. One surrounded the payment of legal support to the protagonists and the former chief magistrate herself. That added up to around $400,000. I think the quantum surprised many people. Whilst providing such support appears to be established practice, one wonders if that should not be looked at in order to rein in any future similar expenditure. There could possibly be a greater benchmark in terms of qualification or some better process than we currently have with regard to expenditure of such moneys for such purposes. There are other issues of course, including the process of judicial appointments. I think this is an extremely important matter, particularly if we consider some of the issues surrounding judicial appointments in Queensland which have been controversial, more notably probably in the last three or four years. I believe it is time to look at making this process far more transparent to the extent of consultation with the opposition spokesman in this area. That does not mean there needs to be any right of veto. Certainly when opposition spokesmen and ministers work together on a one-on-one private basis a lot of good things do happen. That is the relationship I generally have with the Attorney-General. People can run things by each other, one on one, and get a reasonably frank view of whether something is likely to cause a problem. I encourage the Attorney-General in that area. One thing that really does concern me, particularly with regard to appointments in the magistracy, is the growing tendency towards challenging one's location in a particular area around the state. I suppose in the modern world people want a greater range of choice. Over the last 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3053 decade or so the magistracy has been opened up to outside appointments, and I think this has brought about a change in the culture within the magistracy—from a Public Service attitude that they go wherever they are sent to having people appointed from outside. People from the legal profession who are more used to running their own profession and deciding their own way are being appointed. That has probably led to one of the issues we now face. When an Attorney-General rings a magistrate designate and says, 'I am going to appoint you. Are you prepared to accept and abide by the direction of the Chief Magistrate insofar as where you are going to be located?,' they should give an absolute guarantee or not get the job. I understand that they give some undertaking, but certainly issues have arisen over the last couple of years which have led to some ongoing issues in that area. Reform of the legal profession has taken longer than the gestation period of five elephants. I hope it is something which is just around the corner because it is vitally important. Whilst the Attorney-General says that it is something he is keen on and is expeditiously pursuing, there does not appear to me to be any specific allocation in the budget or identified amount that it is going to cost to do this. He says that it will by and large come from within the profession or from sources which are currently available. I think that is something we need to know, to make sure it will not become a huge, monolithic bureaucracy which is not going to serve either the profession or the consumers very well. There are still some issues in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I encourage the government to continue the process of revitalisation and putting people in that area. Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (3.06 p.m.): The estimates process has once again given members an opportunity to review the budgets of all government departments, as well as that of the parliament. Estimates Committee B reviewed first Attorney-General and Justice, then Emergency Services and finally Police and Corrective Services. Many of the issues discussed during our deliberations touched on my electorate of Woodridge in various ways, and it is to these issues that I would like to address my comments. This government made a commitment to the people of Queensland to not only reduce crime but also address the causes of crime. Crime statistics at present have shown a marked decrease. In fact, many areas of crime are at a 10-year low. There are no doubt many reasons for this, including a very professional Police Service that is well trained and focused. We have such initiatives as the Tactical Crime Squad, police shopfronts and police beats giving police a high profile in communities, Neighbourhood Watch groups with all their fine volunteers and, in my area, a Police Service that is very involved in community issues and projects. I should also mention community renewal. Although within the portfolio of the Housing Minister, it has nonetheless had a pronounced impact to reduce crime in the area through some very fine projects. A further initiative within the portfolio of Attorney-General has been the drug courts trial, which has now been extended due to the positive results seen. At Beenleigh court, Magistrate John Costanzo and his team work very intensively with offenders who have chosen to take the option of kicking their habit. When we consider the high offence level of a drug addict and the fact that it is estimated that 80 per cent of crime is now drug related, we realise that every graduate from the drug court program can represent a significant amount of theft, breaking and entering, drug dealing and so on. With the extension of this program to Cairns and Townsville, I am sure the positive reports will continue. The drug diversion program, which is aimed at early intervention, is yet another initiative to reach young people before they develop an addiction to drugs. I welcome the measures taken in our courts to reduce the stress suffered by children when required to give evidence. Some 18 months ago I visited the workers at PACT—Protect All Children Today—in my electorate. This is the organisation which offers support to child witnesses. The organisation's role is a very sensitive one, and I know it will applaud measures to speed up the installation of closed- circuit television and other initiatives to shield children from undue stress. Having recently had the opportunity to visit a number of Cape York Aboriginal communities such as Yarrabah, Bamaga, Aurukun and Napranum, I was very heartened to hear the impact the justice of the peace program is having. Communities are responding in a very significant way to the new justice committees, and the increased number of justices of the peace in these communities continues to empower people to make important decisions which will advance the very positive work going on. I must also applaud the work of the dispute resolutions service and the telephone legal advice service. We all realise the huge divide where people without high income are unable to access legal services. 3054 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

In the area of emergency services, our Queensland organisations are second to none. I have personally toured the training facility at the Port of Brisbane which attracts fire and emergency services personnel from other states and overseas. Our professionals are well trained and very dedicated to preserving life. Our ambulance levy is now ensuring that our Ambulance Service will be well equipped into the future. I have recently had the pleasure of attending a combined Neighbourhood Watch meeting in my electorate where fire service officers gave a home fire safe presentation. The community information work done by our fire and ambulance officers is invaluable. At Woodridge Primary School last year the minister launched Adopt a Paramedic, a program to ensure our children understand the 000 concept and acquire some basic safety knowledge, including what to do if mum or dad is lying on the floor unconscious. I now turn to the police and corrective services review. My electorate, and indeed the whole area of Logan City, has demonstrated that the direction this government is taking in policing is working. We have seen an increase in the number of police officers. I recently attended a swearing-in service at Chandler and was very impressed with the graduates. Diverse in background, age and with many female members, these new constables will make a very valuable contribution to the areas they have been assigned. Police officers in Logan work in partnership with our community on many levels. We see officers attending Neighbourhood Watch meetings— Time expired. Mr BELL (Surfers Paradise—Ind) (3.12 p.m.): As a member of Estimates Committee B, I rise to support the recommendation of the committee. At the outset, I would repeat the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the chairman and the ministers were efficient and competent. I would like to add the word 'friendly', and I would like to also compliment the clerk of the committee. That said, I was mildly surprised that, whilst the questions quite properly were wide ranging, I had some concerns from time to time as to whether they were limited to financial matters. I mean no criticism of the chairman of the committee when I say this, but I was in some doubt as to whether I could ask a particular question and whether what others were asking was strictly within the ambit of the matters referred to the committee. The estimates process is, however, a very useful mechanism by which members on all sides of the House can ask questions of ministers. To that extent, I applaud the estimates committee system and the opportunity that it provides. However, I would not be fair if I did not question the usefulness of the resources in the whole estimates committee procedure. I believe the matter could be dealt with much more efficiently. Perhaps I am used to another form of interrogation in the courts where interrogation proceeds much more quickly and there is more of an ability to ask a whole series of questions and hear much more concise responses—sometimes even yes and no answers. I felt a bit constrained this year and last year by the mechanisms involved in the asking of questions and by the limited number of questions that could be asked in the time allotted. I felt very distressed at some part of the proceedings at the number of Crown employees who were necessarily in the room in case certain questions were asked. I would have thought another procedure worth considering would be one where questions are much more quickly asked and answered, where there are fewer Crown employees present, where those doing the questioning might be prepared to accept a little more often that answers will be delivered later but where the whole purpose of the estimates committee procedure could be enhanced and a lot more questions over a lot more territory could be asked. However, it is clear that the report before us from Estimates Committee B is accurate, it has been well drafted and it well covers the matters which were the consideration of the committee. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting the committee's recommendation. Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (3.15 p.m.): It was a pleasure serving on Estimates Committee B. It was my first time on that committee this year and I certainly found it worth while. I would like to make some points with respect to the three portfolios if I have time. The first point is in relation to Justice and Attorney-General. I note that the Attorney-General made some comments in about the middle of this year—about June, I think—in relation to statements made by the Chief Justice concerning the increase in judicial wages. It turned out that they followed the Federal Court system and their wages went up about five per cent. The rest of Queensland—public servants and most other workers—had an increase of about 3.5 to 3.8 per cent. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3055

Personally, I do not have too much of a problem with the superior courts—the Supreme Court and District Court—level of payments because we have to compare what those judicial officers earn compared with what they would otherwise have earned as senior barristers, junior barristers or silks. It is probably anywhere from $300,000 to $1 million a year. To go down to $220,000 to $230,000 a year is a big sacrifice. However, with respect to magistrates, I want to place on record my view that the position is different from that of judicial officers in superior courts. Most magistrates either come from the private solicitor branch of the profession or from the Public Service. At the moment they are currently paid $173,610 a year, which to my mind is a very, very generous wage. Often the requirements in terms of workload for any competent person can be carried out between the hours of nine and five. They have generous holidays, long service leave and extra generous superannuation payments. After taking into account the deduction for superannuation and tax, they are not that far off the salary of District Court judges. It is with that in mind that recent events in the magistracy concerning the goings-on that were reported in the press and in the media generally led to some disappointment, bearing in mind the amount of salary they receive, particularly with respect to the reluctance of any one of them to accept an appointment to Mount Isa. Having regard to what I view as a generous package, I find that to be rather surprising. I think the position should one day be reviewed. Magistrates should perhaps be put on the same salary as backbench members of parliament. That, as honourable members would know, is considerably less than what magistrates are paid. I think the hours of work are considerably fewer for magistrates as well. I would suggest that the senior and deputy senior magistrates be paid the equivalent of a state cabinet minister—they would have to come down a lot to that level—or a parliamentary secretary respectively. The Attorney-General made reference to reforms in the legal profession. These have been pretty well received by the profession as a whole. I think there was some shock in the Law Society ranks, but I think the Attorney-General has obtained the confidence of the rank and file of the profession as a whole, from the perspective of my dealings with many in it, and I commend him for his leadership role and his ability to get on with the profession. I declare an interest in that I still hold a practising certificate, although I do not practise. I would like to mention the emergency services and the introduction of a defibrillator, or a first responder scheme, at Highfields. I commend the work of Murray Excel, Glen Maule, Jim Castles, Geoff Patch and David McEvoy of the Crows Nest Shire Council in that regard as well. That will be a great innovation for Highfields pending the presence there one day of a permanent Ambulance Service. The Minister for Police is present in the chamber. I would like to reiterate to him comments that I have made in the past with respect to the acquisition of land for a police presence at Highfields. We are working towards that becoming a reality. The purchase of land is a great first step and I appreciate what he has done very much, as do the citizens of Highfields. Finally, might I congratulate the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service— Time expired. Mr FLYNN (Lockyer—ONP) (3.20 p.m.): I rise to commend and thank the three ministers who faced Estimates Committee B and their staff for their responses with few reservations. In the field of the Attorney-General and Justice, my main question to the minister was: was the government planning to fix the absurd situation where a convicted or jailed person, particularly in the judiciary, could continue to draw an official salary and entitlements? Of course, the question arose from the matter of the former chief magistrate. The minister explained the difficulty of removing a judicial officer, thus curtailing payment of salary. However, given that a judicial officer can be removed only through an application of the Supreme Court, it is still not clear if the government intends to remedy the situation and change the process of removal. The case of the former chief magistrate served to highlight this ridiculous situation where taxpayers continued to pay a large salary to somebody who had not just been charged, who was not on trial, but who was in jail having been found guilty of a crime. That was a ridiculous situation. The government admits that at this stage it does not know what to do there. In the area of Emergency Services I asked Minister Robertson, representing Mr Reynolds, when we could see an improvement in funding to rural fire brigades. He replied that Rural Fire Service funding would be $16.76 million and he said that funding continued to increase under his government. It did not address my main concern that the present level of funding is clearly 3056 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 inadequate given that brigades still have to rely upon meat tray raffles and suchlike—money- raising activities—to supplement government money. I suggest we start thinking of funding the remainder of our Emergency Services along the same lines as we now do our ambulance. What apparently is not appreciated is the rising— Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr FLYNN: Yes, perhaps that might be the case. I take that interjection. One only has to look at the large number of residential properties scattered through electorates like my own in the Lockyer Valley to realise the task that faces them, especially since land clearing laws came into effect. That has served to discourage some landowners from taking sensible and legal steps to clear buffer zones around their home. To meet this demand the fire service needs to be brought up to the standard of the Ambulance Service, which is now being funded, as the member for Southport said, by a levy. I also asked the minister if he appreciated the need for advanced training for rural firefighters. To this the minister replied that $7.78 million was set aside over five years to enable rural fire brigades to implement improvements to volunteer training and safety, including the provision of better personal protection equipment. I trust this money will go some way towards reducing the brigades' reliance upon raffles. Incidentally, I note that the Ipswich City Council, and probably other local authorities, are planning to write bushfire zones into their planning schemes, which hopefully will make the rural firefighters' task a little easier. The plans in Ipswich, which affect some developments in my electorate, will regulate building in bushfire hazard areas. I note Minister Robertson's statement that the community ambulance cover—the levy—has established a solid funding base for our Ambulance Service, although I might take the opportunity to say that I still disagree with the method of collection. I have said on many occasions that I support the ambulance levy. As we now know, some businesses will have to pay the levy dozens of times while in many households residents will pay nothing. It should be noted that in areas like my electorate, many have always contributed to the ambulance fund simply because of the huge bills that they could face in an emergency. We do not want to have a return to ambulance officers—highly professional in their qualifications: midwives and paramedics—having to sell raffle tickets outside Coles. People do not mind paying the levy, but they do not want to have to pay it more than once. In the area of Police and Corrective Services, I was pleased to commend the minister and the police commissioner on the introduction of police beats similar to those that exist in the UK. Minister McGrady agreed with my opinion that the best option was that of residential beats. That is a police house in a suburb as well as police stations. I expressed concern that beat policing from the shopfront point of view may be seen to act as second-rate, low-cost police stations, but the minister assured me that this was not the case. But I think that time might tell. I am satisfied with Minister McGrady's grasp of his portfolio, but I am still bewildered by the apparent need to have school based police. I wonder what sort of society we have where we find it necessary to put police officers in schools. I stand by my advice to Commissioner Atkinson—that much could be achieved by a change in attitude of some police officers towards youth on the streets because sometimes young people do have a hard time at the hands of police. Whilst welcoming the general thrust of policing methods in Queensland, I have strong reservations about the use of manpower. Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (3.25 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in support of the report of Estimates Committee B. I would like to start by thanking our chairman, the member for Ferny Grove, for his work. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the parliament for the work that they put into the committee. I think it is also appropriate to acknowledge the secretariat of the committee, in particular Andrew Timperley. I would also like to have my appreciation noted for the three ministers who attended the meetings on the day and also their ministerial staff and the significant numbers of departmental staff who I know prepare extensively for an estimates committee hearing. While Estimates Committee B dealt with a number of portfolio areas, today I would like to focus my attention upon the portfolio area of Police and Corrective Services. I think we all acknowledge that we live in uncertain times and it appears that there is a growing threat of international terrorism. I know these are also very difficult times for policing, but I am pleased that this state budget demonstrates that a policing focus has been placed well and truly in the hands of local communities and in the hands of police officers working locally, where police belong. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3057

I would like to talk about some of the policing issues as they exist in my electorate. I got involved in local politics in the Indooroopilly community at a time when there were significant numbers of community police stations being closed throughout Queensland. I remember that the Oxley Police Station had been closed in late 1997 or the middle of 1998. The Toowong station was closed at the same time. There was significant concern in the Sherwood community that the Sherwood Police Station would also be closed. At the time a lot of people signed a petition that was tabled in the parliament. I think 4,000 residents signed the petition in the parliament to keep the Sherwood Police Station open. The Sherwood station has always been a very important part of the Sherwood community. It has always had a very strong link with community groups and schools in the area. For a number of years the officer in charge, Sergeant Ray Green, has been a very popular fixture in the community around Sherwood, Graceville and Chelmer. Ray was acknowledged recently with a Centenary Medal. People expressed a significant concern that we would lose that police station as part of what I believe was an ideological push to rationalise police stations in Queensland. I am pleased that when I was elected to this place Sherwood station, which then had a strength of about four officers, quite shortly after that increased its staffing up to about six officers. Frankly, I do not believe that that was enough and I made representations, as did a large number of people in the local community, to our Police Minister. I was delighted with the state budget on 6 June because it allocated around $430,000 for the construction of a new police station at Sherwood. It is a sign that the Beattie government is listening to the community. It is certainly a sign that the Police Minister is listening to our community. It is a great victory for the Sherwood community. It is a victory for Graceville and it is a victory for Chelmer. It is also a clear sign that this is a government that is going to do everything it can to put policing back into the hands of the community and make sure that our police officers are a part of the Queensland community. We all know that we get better policing intelligence the closer the police are to the ground, and a community station in Sherwood will work wonders for our local area. Plans of the station are available for viewing at my office and also at the Corinda library. I have been encouraging members of the community in my area to go and view those and to let us know what they think. I think the design for the station is absolutely wonderful and it looks like what a Queensland police station should look like. The plan provides for excellent off-street parking and disabled access and also for all the mod cons one would expect in a modern police station. This is great news for Sherwood and it is great news for my electorate. I am absolutely delighted. I thank the Police Minister and the department and am therefore very pleased to support the report of Estimates Committee B. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (3.31 p.m.): I rise to speak on the report of Estimates Committee B with regard to the portfolio area of Emergency Services. The most controversial and most important aspect of that portfolio is the community ambulance levy that was introduced just prior to the budget, an issue discussed quite extensively during those hearings. When asking questions in the estimates committee we were not able to get a satisfactory explanation from the minister with regard to a whole lot of questions in terms of community ambulance cover. I must say that the acting minister was standing in on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Services, and we wish him well and hopefully he will be back here shortly. However, the fact of the matter was that we were not able to get questions answered with regard to community ambulance cover. Of course, that issue has had a fairly chequered history in terms of the government endeavouring to pass that on to local government to collect. After a fair bit of toing-and-froing and great concern by local government, the government decided without consultation that it would then add that on to the electricity accounts of all Queenslanders. As it has transpired, members of the community will have an amount added to their power bill for community ambulance cover—it is $22 for a quarterly account—and they will have to pay that amount in addition to the power charges they have incurred. So we were able to establish fairly quickly that the enforcing mechanism within the levy system in terms of community ambulance cover was very effective in that most people find it fairly difficult to do without power and will obviously have to pay the community ambulance cover levy. The other issue that we established quite quickly was that there were winners and losers within the system. Even though most people would pay the levy at least once, there would be quite a number who would not pay it at all—that is, those not connected to the grid and those people who live in caravan parks. Also, if three or four people shared a house and all earned an income and were not pensioners, they would share the cost of the $88 four ways or five ways, 3058 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 depending on how many people lived in the house. So there are some inequities in the system. In terms of businesspeople, they would be paying it at least twice—once at home and again at their place of business. If that business had a warehouse or a fabrication area or a storage area, the multiples just kept adding up. It became very clear fairly early on that the cover was fairly inequitable in that regard. The extreme case is that one person who runs a business with roadside signs will be paying it over 150 times. When one applies the exemptions, I am at a loss to understand how the government could even estimate what it is going to receive from ambulance cover. It is interesting to note that Treasury is collecting the cover and passing the money on to the QAS, which is handling exemptions from ambulance cover. There is still great confusion in the electorate. This is one of the big issues in terms of people being absolutely confused about how they are going to pay and what exemptions there are. I now want to move to the technology that is supposed to be paid for by this ambulance cover, such as computer-aided dispatch systems. I can relate an incident in my electorate where an ambulance was called from a site that was almost in view of the ambulance station and it took 31 minutes for the ambulance to arrive. Unfortunately, the person they called the ambulance for died in the interim. The patient dying is not necessarily happening in every case, but it appears that there is a great way to go in terms of enhancing the technology, and I will take that up with the minister at a later stage. In terms of the Fire Service, we raised the issue of call-outs to car accidents. Time expired. Mr PURCELL (Bulimba—ALP) (3.36 p.m.): It gives me pleasure to rise today to support the report of Estimates Committee B and to support the three ministers in the portfolios of Attorney- General and Justice, Emergency Services, and Police and Corrective Services. I want to spend the time I have on police and corrective services. The ongoing establishment of tactical crime squads and sniffer dog teams and increasing the size of the Flying Squad, an issue I will come back to, are very good initiatives of this budget and need to be applauded by everybody within the community. It is intended to increase the size of the Queensland Police Service to 9,100 officers by 2005. Since this minister has taken over this portfolio he has been increasing the size of the Police Service. The police get very tired when there are not enough of them, and it is very important that there is always a chase to put those extra numbers in place each year. A fairly large number of police are resigning and leaving the force, and this is going a long way to relieving the pressure on the police force. In terms of the capital works upgrade, this year there has been extensive work carried out all over the state when you look at the budget papers—from the cape down to areas in and around the Gold Coast and west out towards Toowoomba. I did not see anything in the budget papers—and I know that the minister knows it is a hobby of mine—about upgrading the training facilities west of Brisbane. We do train a lot of officers through there and we need to be mindful of the facilities— Mr McGrady: Is that the academy, Mr Purcell? Mr PURCELL: Yes, the academy. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr PURCELL: Thank you, Minister. I could not find that. Now that you have told me, I congratulate you on that. Mr McGrady interjected. Mr PURCELL: It is good that the academy is getting that. Mr McGrady: And you also know that we bought a motel at Townsville. Mr PURCELL: Yes. I have not seen the motel in Townsville, but I have seen the academy. Mr Mulherin: Bessell Lodge. Mr PURCELL: I stand corrected by half a dozen backbenchers who live in the north. You have a lot of support there, Minister. Mr Horan: Remember when you opposed us having a police academy in Townsville? Mr PURCELL: I do not think the member would have heard me opposing him for having a police academy there. I think he has got that wrong. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3059

In this budget the service continues to exercise proactive policing strategies that have the potential to reduce crime rates in the long term. As previous speakers have said, crime is at a 10- year low. That has not happened by accident. The minister, the department and the officers involved have to be congratulated on their magnificent work in keeping that rate down. In a lot of cases the perception is what people are concerned about. The statistics indicate that crime is at a 10-year low, which is a marvellous result. That result is achieved through the Neighbourhood Watch, police beat and shopfront programs that this government has implemented and continues to implement in this budget. In the Bulimba electorate crime is as low as it has ever been since I have been the member. That is no accident. The officers there are very hardworking officers. Mr Mulherin: My brother-in-law. Mr PURCELL: Barry Bullion is the officer in charge at Morningside. And? Mr Mulherin: My brother-in-law, Gerard Smith. Mr PURCELL: He was officer in charge while Barry was away. They work very hard for the area. Because they are such hardworking officers, they attract good police to the Morningside station. If I hear one more shopkeeper or person at Cannon Hill shopping centre tell me how good the police beat is I do not know what I will do. It really has cleaned up the crime down there. Probably about 25 per cent of the crime was happening in a very small area down there. It has really tidied that up. When a person can call the police on a mobile phone from one end of the shopping centre and the police can catch an offender before they get out at the other end, that is very proactive and very good policing. Time expired. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (3.41 p.m.): I want to speak about a couple of matters—the new Toowoomba Police Station and also the system of justice and some of the serious problems we have in Toowoomba with the court system. Firstly, it was wonderful to see the police station in operation this year. The Premier and the Police Minister opened it recently. It has been functioning for some months. It has been a long, hard battle to get that police station. It was basically under way in the late nineties when there was a major proposal to redevelop the CBD of Toowoomba. A developer proposed to purchase the old courthouse, post office and police station to construct a major inner city condominium development complete with a hotel and a retail area. That would have been a marvellous boost to the CBD. At the time, the Minister for Public Works and Minister for Housing was very helpful with some of the matters. There was a pause for a year or two in the progress on the police station. However, eventually in budget year 2000-01 the initial funds were approved for the preparatory work and the final detailed plans to get that under way. It is good to see that come to fruition. The police are very happy with it and we are now seeing the construction of the district office. Eventually, there will be the redevelopment of the old headquarters and the police will be able to move from the regional centre to the old police station, which will be redeveloped. The issue has some closeness for me; my father was the equivalent of the assistant commissioner there. As the regional superintendent, he looked after the area from Toowoomba to Birdsville. Together with two assistants, they operated out of the old building in the years before they moved to the new system. The police are very happy with the new facility. Another thing that I wish to speak about that will be of assistance to the police—and I am very serious about this matter—concerns some of the decisions being made by the judiciary. At times the police in Toowoomba are devastated and frustrated. Recently, I had cause to ring the minister's office. I thank his staff. I have been endeavouring to put in place an appeal process for a certain matter. I will not go into the details of that, because I do not want to prejudice it. Some of the little criminals around Toowoomba simply say to the police, 'Arrest me if you like, because so-and-so will let me out.' That is very frustrating for the police. We are not complementing the good work of the police by having a system that is unfair to the citizens of our city and the police themselves, and which puts the interests of criminals who want to transgress before the interests of the community. Recently, on one night in Toowoomba there were 12 break and enters and five car thefts. In many cases, the police know who was responsible. The parliament should take note of the serious problem of the dilution of our laws, particularly the Juvenile Justice Act. If young people are out on bail and if they breach the conditions of their bail they cannot be taken back into custody. They can be taken back into custody only if they commit another indictable offence. We have to have a degree of accountability in the justice system so that the police are not frustrated, 3060 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 can put their shoulder to the wheel and do all of the hard work they do and know that at the end of the day the people they are working on behalf of—their community and the citizens of their police district—feel appreciative of that work because the people who have committed a crime have been locked up. I know of a lot of discontent amongst some people. The other day I had cause to see some of my constituents who were up in arms—in fact, the whole suburb was up in arms—about one of these matters. I have lived in my town long enough to know the police well. I know the level of frustration that exists amongst the police. We have a serious problem in our city with some of the decisions being made by some of the judiciary. This has to be fixed. It cannot go on. We have a budget process that is looking at millions and millions of dollars on police stations, on the training of police and equipment. When they get a result, there have to be effective justice systems and fair decisions made by the judiciary. It is about time the parliament got fair dinkum, looked at the Juvenile Justice Act and, more importantly, looked at a system of accountability within the justice system. Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) (3.46 p.m.): Again, I wish to raise the issue of policing. We should be extremely proud of our police officers and their efforts to combat crime. I would have to go along with the previous speaker, the member for Toowoomba South. At one point, we had similar problems in Rockhampton, where certain magistrates were belting somebody with a feather duster for doing the wrong thing. It is an extremely frustrating situation for our police officers when they have tried hard to catch somebody and that person then gets belted with a feather duster in the courts. However, I am very pleased to say that that situation has rectified itself in Rockhampton. We have 16 uniformed officers in Yeppoon. There are now two trainee officers. We have three detectives, two administrative staff and three water police. After a heck of a lot of work, that station is now called a 24-hour station. It is probably 24 hours in name only; it is pretty difficult to keep a station open 24 hours with that number of staff, the reason being that sick leave and holidays have to be taken. However, it is a good start. Certainly, under John Hemray, the officer in charge of Yeppoon, it is a pretty well run unit. This gentleman is interested in surf-lifesaving and all sorts of other activities in the community, as are his officers, where they get the opportunity. There is a lot of respect for the police in Yeppoon. They do not do stupid things such as booking people unnecessarily. They are pretty much on the ball. No-one drinks and drives around Yeppoon or anything like that; otherwise they will be in trouble. However, there are a lot of good public relations exercises at the same time. We have come to the point, though, at which the present police station has served its time, so to speak, and it is time we did have a new police station. I say to the minister that I have to push the pedal a bit with this one. Certain works were done to extend the current police station in recent times, but it is still very crowded. One of the reasons is that through continuous agitation—not only from me but from police officers and the union—we are getting more police officers there and the space is limited. I understand that we are on a 10-year plan. That is a start as we did not have one before. I would like to see that changed into a five-year plan. Of course, I understand that everybody seems to want a police station in this parliament. I probably have to get in there and battle with the rest. But I am not a bad battler so we will keep going. We should be looking for a site and we should be doing that forward planning. That would complement the good work that has been done in providing an emergency services area—our ambulance centre and our fire brigade area. A sensible thing was done—and I might say that it was my suggestion, although it does not matter as it was done anyway—when the old Telstra building was purchased and rebuilt to some extent. That provides for the fire station, ambulance services and, with the help of the council, the state emergency services. In conclusion, our rural fire brigade is also doing absolutely great work, as are our other emergency services people. It is a pretty good story up there. We all work together well—the council, me and all of these people who do so much. I have nothing but praise for all of our people who are tied up, whether it be the ambulance, the fire brigade, the police, the state emergency services or whatever. They all work well beyond their call of duty and I am proud of them all. Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) (Minister for Police and Corrective Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Carpentaria Minerals Province) (3.51 p.m.): I thank all of those people who assisted me in preparing for the estimates. The estimates process was an initiative of the Goss government. It makes sure that the minister knows his or her portfolio inside out because you have to be ready for whatever questions are brought up during those three or 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3061 four hours. It also makes the bureaucrats understand, too, because they have to provide the information. It gives the minister the opportunity to go through every single cent which is spent by the department and also to see whether there are any skeletons in cupboards. So it is a very, very important time for both the minister's office and also the department of which he or she has political control. It is really gratifying for me as the Minister for Police and Corrective Services and also prostitution to sit down here and listen to the accolades which are coming forward from both sides about how well law and order is being handled in this state. As I said at the estimates, last year the crime figures came tumbling down and the trend this year is exactly the same. That is no consolation for people who will go home tonight and find that their house has been broken into or their car stolen, but the big picture is that the crime figures in this state are coming down in a magnificent way, and that is something of which we are proud. For the first time ever the Queensland Police operational budget surpassed the $1 billion mark. This has never happened before in the history of Queensland. It is all very well for me to say that it has gone past the $1 billion mark, but you have to hear by how much and how much we spent last year. The reality is that the increase was 9.2 per cent. We increased the Queensland Police operational budget by 9.2 per cent, which in anybody's language is a massive increase. When you take into account that the CPI figure is around 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent, that should demonstrate that our government is committed to a law and order program. On top of that we are employing an additional 300 police officers per year. That is a net increase of 300. On top of that, of course, we are also filling those positions vacated by people who have resigned, retired or whatever. It is a net gain of 300 positions. As well as that we are also employing civilians. As different members have said, we are building police beats. We budgeted for 20, although we have established 23. We also have shopfronts in the shopping centres. I am starting to question the value of shopfronts. When this scheme started the developers were prepared to offer accommodation for free. Of course, we would move in and it would cost us something like $300,000 to establish them, including the staff, police car and whatever. The trend now is for the shop developers, in the main, to refuse to provide the accommodation. I just want people to understand that I am not going to be party to providing free security at selected shopping centres. If those shopping centres want to participate in the shopfront scheme they will be making a contribution. Otherwise the resources will go into the suburban police beats where I think they do a tremendous job. In fact, the CMC report came out recently and stated that the shopfronts and police beats are doing a magnificent job. Where they are established there has been a decrease in crime on average of 44 per cent. It also gave examples of some places where it has decreased by 68 per cent. That just shows how successful police beats are. That is the warning I want to give today. If those shopping centres want a shopfront, they will come up and donate the premises. I am not going to be party to giving them free security at the expense of other places. In this very short amount of time I want to talk about civilianisation. I also want to talk about the $250 million plan to bring IT into the Queensland Police Service which would then free up police officers. At present a police officer spends almost half of his time on paperwork. I want to be able to move the police station into the police car and free up police officers to allow them to do the work they should be doing: out there fighting the crims rather than sitting behind the desk. Report adopted.

Estimates Committee C Report The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr McNamara): Order! The question is— That the report of Estimates Committee C be adopted. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (3.57 p.m.): I was very proud to have the opportunity to chair Estimates Committee C. This committee examined expenditure in the portfolios which are the foundations of our Smart State and the keystone of the Beattie government's training and education reform agenda, those being Employment, Training, Youth, the Arts and Education. Estimates Committee C also scrutinised the area of industrial relations and workplace health and safety—another vital element in the development of the Smart State and ensuring safe working conditions for all Queenslanders. 3062 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

My gratitude goes to the member for Cunningham, who was the deputy chairman, and the members for Greenslopes, Ipswich, Whitsundays, Gympie and Nicklin. I will mention that the member for Nicklin did ensure the headline of the evening when he questioned the numbers of departmental staff in attendance on the day, which was well answered. It is a very good question because while you are scrutinising the budget, the members should have the power to get the correct answers from either the minister or the departmental staff. While it was questioned, I do feel that a minister or the department would be lacking if they then said, 'We do not know the answer to that question. We will have to get back to you.' While that did happen on the very rare occasion, I do believe it is very important to have the relevant departmental staff there. I also mention that the other members who attended as guests or ring-ins included the members for Callide, Mirani and Caloundra. An honourable member interjected. Mr CUMMINS: I use the word 'ring-in' only in jest. I was very pleased that they attended. I must commend everyone on a very productive day. The member for Caloundra, as shadow minister, did have concerns about the amount of time spent on the Arts portfolio. All I can say is that it was voted on by the committee. After a decade of being in parliament, it was probably a little late for the member to raise the issue at her last estimates committee. In future, if members of the committee think that more time should be spent on the Arts, they should have their concerns addressed earlier in the process. I particularly thank Sarah Lim, the research director; Tania Jackman, the executive assistant; and the other parliamentary staff for their assistance and expert handling of the whole process. I believe it ran very smoothly. I express my sincere thanks for their expertise and dedication to the task. My thanks also go to the three ministers and their staff for their cooperation and assistance during the estimates process. I will touch quickly on the various things that I found important. Within my electorate on the Sunshine Coast, I have well over a dozen schools—primary and secondary, public and private. Joining that will be a new college, Chancellor College, which will be one of the first middle schools on the Sunshine Coast. Under another minister's portfolio we have seen the opening of the new Mountain Creek TAFE, at a cost of approximately $15 million. That facility will be of great benefit for training. That is part of our strong platform for creating more and more jobs—training people so that they can get into the private work force and be earning money for people from day one. There is also a new WorkCover office on Nicklin Way on the Sunshine Coast. I am very grateful for that. That will ensure that workers on the Sunshine Coast have safe working areas. During the process a lot was said about the evaluation of the preparing for school trials, the number of vocational, education and training courses being offered in schools and school based apprenticeships and traineeships. The Sunshine Coast leads the state and Queensland leads Australia in that area. I am very pleased about that. I have mentioned the Cooloola Sunshine Institute of TAFE at Mountain Creek, Mooloolaba. I make no apologies for rattling the can on behalf of Queensland electricians, as the Electrical Safety Act protects the safety of Queenslanders, or for questioning the Ombudsman's workplace electrocution project and the recommendations that arose out of that. The building and construction industry on the Sunshine Coast is booming and workplace health and safety is a very important part of that industry. I thank all members for their assistance. I commend the process and thank all those involved. Mr COPELAND (Cunningham—NPA) (4.02 p.m.): I also thank the other members of the committee who participated in the hearing. I commend particularly the government members, who were so courteous in the way they asked their questions of the minister. During the committee hearing a question was asked about the number of departmental staff in attendance. I put on record my thanks to those staff, as well as the ministerial staff and the opposition staff who assisted me personally. The estimates committee process takes an incredible amount of work—for the department and for the opposition. I certainly value the work that goes into it. Sometimes one comes to the end of it and questions how much work has been put into it, but it is an important process that we go through—both for the minister, to make sure that they are across the portfolio, and for the shadow minister, to make sure that they are aware of what is going on in the budget. I did submit a dissenting report for inclusion. It mentions a few areas of concern about which we raised questions during the committee hearing. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3063

I turn to the Youth portfolio, which is one of my areas of shadow responsibility. I again place on record my desire to see the Youth portfolio recognised as an individual item in the budget papers, in the MPS. The area of Youth warrants a minister, so I think the least that can be done is to have it set out as a separate departmental line item. At the moment it is just subsumed within Employment and Training, so we cannot really discern what is going on in the Youth portfolio. It is a very valuable portfolio that does some valuable work, and we need to ensure that what it is doing is actually hitting the target. Speaking of targets, I want to mention the targets that are used by the department in measuring youth participation in the government decision-making process. The MPS states that 64,000 people have actually taken part in the government decision-making process. That is skewed a little because 63,359 of the 64,000 actually represent hits on the youth web site. Of those, only 132 were actually users who could be described as having participated. So to claim that there are 64,000 is probably overstating it a touch. The other thing I question is the use of the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme as a measure of youth participation in government decision making. That counts not only active members of the Duke of Edinburgh scheme but also non-active members. Even though it is a very good scheme in which I did participate when I was somewhat younger, I do not think it can truly be classed as a measure of participation in government. There are an awful lot of other organisations that could probably claim to have done so as well. There are a large number of education issues. Of course, education is the main focus of my shadow portfolio responsibilities. I went through the issue of teacher numbers yesterday in a speech during the debate of matters of public interest, so I will not go through all of that again. I think that there has been some manipulation of numbers to cover the 800 jobs promised before the 2001 election. The main one relates to the 147 teachers who actually started work before the election was even held in 2001. The other point of concern is that 510 teachers were predicted as being required for 2004 to meet growth and only 249 were put on. There are very real concerns with teacher numbers. The community ambulance cover was another area we questioned. The minister has made the assumption that only one lot of ambulance tax will be paid per school, based on the assumption that there is only one electricity account per school. That obviously is a false assumption. There has been no work done on that. The department really does not know how many times the schools will have to pay that tax. That is just another example of the ridiculous nature of that tax. In closing, I thank the minister for one particular item we have been after for some time, that is, a new administration block at the Drayton P-7 state school. I have sat in the administration office there. Depending on which way the principal has his desk aligned, either people's pens will not stay on the table because they roll off or people get a crick in their neck because they are sitting at an angle. If the principal wants to have any confidential discussions he has to go for a walk around the oval with whomever he is talking to, because there is no way in the world he can do that in the facilities he currently has. There is $450,000 in the budget for that. It has been a long time coming, but it is very welcome. Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) (4.07 p.m.): I rise to support the report of Estimates Committee C. I commend the three ministers involved and all of their staff for their work on the matters that were considered through the course of the estimates hearing. I will make a brief comment on the estimates process overall. It is a relatively new phenomenon in terms of accountability in this state. I think it is working quite well. Whilst there is not a drama every five minutes of the process, it is there as part of the overall framework of accountability in this state through the overall committee system, which includes the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Works Committee and so on. So it is included in that general array of accountability processes and is there as a safety net. It is there for this parliament and its members to examine carefully and closely, with full public scrutiny, the estimates that are contained within each year's budget. There was some concern expressed by one of my committee colleagues about the number of public servants attending the hearing. I do not have a problem with that at all. I think it is very important for public servants to see the outcome or final result of what they are involved in over a year. Indeed, they have put a lot of hard work into it. It is easy for public servants, and certainly for people in any area of management, to be alienated from the end product of their processes. It is very important for people to see the connection between their daily work and the people who 3064 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 must ultimately account for that work, for the moneys being spent, to the public and the primacy of this parliament and the ministers in that process. It is a very healthy process. I fully commend all of its operations that I have seen in recent years. There were three ministers involved in Estimates Committed C. First of all, there was the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth. I asked a question relating to the music industry—an industry which is very dear to my heart. I am very interested to see how this budget evolves, especially in relation to that particular area of the arts and youth. I have made my views very clear in the past on the music industry and the way it should evolve. I would like to see an even greater emphasis in future in the way this budget is administered on treating the music industry as an industry. It is indeed a major industry. It has many complex sectors—retail, recording, copyrighting—and it is now moving into highly electronic areas, including Internet modification of music. It is a very significant industry—an industry which I believe in Queensland has great potential to develop. We have a supercharger of youth and talent coming through our school system. I believe we have the best music school education system in the world. It is important that we give young people career opportunities to evolve throughout their life and that we keep music as a part of their life and allow them to be part of an industry that has a recreational component which is very significant now in economic terms. Companies like Ellaways Music in Brisbane are certainly at the forefront of furthering that cause, and I commend Ellaways for finding that niche in the marketplace. People who are taking commercial risks and doing the hard yards out there certainly need to be supported. The Minister for Industrial Relations provided a great response to questions. I commend the minister on his very keen interest and activity, especially in working with the committee of which I am a part in terms of worker safety. The minister has had his committee out in all quarters of the state inspecting farm equipment, safety in shearing, accommodation, the diving industry and other locations because they are very significant parts of this portfolio. I again commend the minister and Estimates Committee C. Miss ELISA ROBERTS (Gympie—Ind) (4.13 p.m.): I would like to begin my response by acknowledging the chair of Estimates Committee C for his fairness in the allocation of questions and to the admin staff for their friendly assistance. The issues and effects of high unemployment rates are of huge importance to the people of my electorate. Whilst the unemployment rate for Gympie has improved since I was elected, with Gympie going from having the third highest unemployment rate in the state to the seventh, this is a positive outcome. But it is still way too high and the issue of unemployment still remains a priority. It is for this reason that I was pleased to have been a member of Estimates Committee C so that I could question the Minister for Employment, Training and Youth about areas which are crucial to the lowering of Gympie's unemployment statistics. My first question related to the delivery of targeted training to the region in response to the specific training needs of local industry, enterprise and individuals. Apparently the Gympie campus of TAFE does not offer this type of targeted training, as is the case at the Central Queensland Institute of TAFE. However, the Gympie electorate was in receipt of $740,000 for user choice funding, which was allocated to 35 registered training organisations. Apprenticeships and traineeships are being carried out in areas such as automotive sales and personal service areas as well as primary industry, tourism and hospitality. The very well renowned Gympie and District Landcare Group received approximately $427,000 for the delivery of horticulture training by the local TAFE. The Gympie electorate has also seen almost $1 million under the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle initiative, and Gympie has had 151 full-time public sector trainees, including six school based trainees and two full-time apprentices. As at 30 April this year, there are 106 school based trainees and four school based apprentices, which is a significant increase from last year—which had only 64 school based traineeships. Whilst the minister stated that he was mindful of the fact that unemployment is a big issue in the Gympie electorate and the people who make up the electorate are grateful for each one of the employment and training programs, there still remains one major impediment to employment—that is, the lack of adequate public transport. Whilst public transport is a Queensland Transport issue, it has become a contributing factor in the ability of people getting from areas such as Pomona, Cooran, Kandanga, Amamoor and Imbil to the Gympie Centrelink office. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3065

I have in response to this issue approached the federal government in regard to having a Centrelink Jobseeker computer installed in Pomona to enable easier access to the site. I have been told of people who have missed out on job opportunities because they cannot depend on a regular bus service at the hours their respective work requires, particularly for shiftwork and bar work which is outside the basic nine to five bus operating hours for those areas which do have a bus service. The minister commented during the committee that the federal government should be more proactive in assisting the unemployed via fare assistance. However, fare assistance means little to those who do not have regular access to public transport. One of the issues I have been actively interested in over the last two years has been that of the lack of airconditioning in many of the state schools throughout the Gympie electorate. Up until this year's estimates committee I had lobbied the Minister for Education to have our schools included in the Cooler Schools program. Unfortunately, three budgets from this budget have failed to include Gympie students as recipients of the necessary funding for airconditioning. With this in mind, I attempted another approach to obtaining airconditioning in our schools via the issue of workplace health and safety. During the hearing with the Minister for Industrial Relations, I quoted the description of workplace health and safety as outlined in the last budget. It states that one of the primary aims is to improve workplace health and safety, and I assumed this would be for all public sector employees, including teachers. According to the workplace amenity standard of 2000 it states that 'where airconditioning is not installed the inside temperature should not exceed by more than three degrees Celsius any outside temperature of 22 degrees or more'. I can assure this House that temperatures inside the schools within the Gympie electorate often exceed 25 degrees Celsius. When I asked the minister to explain why teachers were exempt from the same working conditions as other public sector employees the committee was told that these were only recommendations of an advisory standard and therefore not compulsory. Obviously this government picks and chooses who has the entitlement to work under reasonable conditions and who does not. Nevertheless, I sincerely hope that the schools throughout the Gympie electorate will get a positive outcome for airconditioning in their schools at next year's budget. Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (4.17 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the report of Estimates Committee C. The process of budget estimates hearings affords an important and valuable opportunity for both government and non-government members to examine and scrutinise the budgetary proposals within each of the ministerial portfolio areas, and this forms an integral part of the process of accountability within government. I have to confess that on a personal level I often struggle to prioritise and balance my weekly budget. So I have nothing but respect for our ministers whose responsibilities extend to massive budgets which, particularly in the case of Education, run into billions of dollars. My overriding feeling at the end of our estimates hearing, which examined proposed expenditure in the areas of Industrial Relations, Employment, Training, Youth and the Arts, and Education, was that we are indeed very fortunate to have the services of three very astute ministers who perform a monumentally difficult task with such great vision and skill. As a former teacher and mother of two boys who are now young men, I intend to highlight today some of the exciting and visionary programs revealed through the estimates process that pertain to our young people. Our inquiry into the areas of Education and Training revealed yet again the priority that this government places on ensuring that young people in the near future should be learning or earning. The Education and Training Reforms for the Future program, together with the recently announced focus on middle schooling, are undoubtedly the most important new direction given to education and young people for many decades. While it will take some years for the entire program to be trialled and rolled out, I do welcome the continued progress being made towards the ultimate goal through the current budget priorities. This government, like no government before it, has made a commitment to the future of our young people. Some $784.6 million has been earmarked for vocational education, training and youth services across the state. I am particularly proud that this government is targeting those young people who have traditionally been put in the too-hard basket. I welcome Minister Foley's announcement that a $1.6 million employment program has been established to target 300 at risk teenagers with the aim of helping them avoid long-term unemployment. Let us be perfectly clear. This is not warm, fuzzy politics. This is a demonstration of social responsibility being shown towards a group of people who have for so long been silent, marginalised citizens within our own neighbourhoods. 3066 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

I also welcome the news that the number of apprenticeships and traineeships in our state has risen by 20 per cent in the period between March 1999 and March 2003. In the Mackay/Whitsunday region the public sector employment program alone has provided 152 full- time trainee positions and six full-time apprenticeships in the last five years. I only hope that this trend continues because each of these positions means that a young person has been given an opportunity to fully participate in their community. Our schools are also doing their bit to promote school-based traineeships and apprenticeships with these positions in Queensland representing 57 per cent of the national total. Having worked as a primary school teacher, I know only too well the crucial role that early literacy learning plays in the future success of any student. I take this opportunity to give a big plug to all the dedicated teachers in our schools who are working so hard in this important field. One school in my electorate, Bowen State School, this year won a regional showcase award for their innovative approach to early literacy learning. I congratulate them for this. I know that many schools in my electorate who have benefited from our government's commitment to the provision of additional teachers this year have used that opportunity to bolster their early literacy programs. With the minister's announcement that a further 636 new teachers will be employed from the beginning of 2004, I look forward to hearing more about the innovative ways that these schools and teachers will contribute to improved learning outcomes for our children. Other government initiatives aimed at improving student literacy include strategies such as Literate futures, support for 21 learning and development centres for literacy, and our ongoing commitment to the reading recovery program for young students at risk. I want to place on record my personal support for the reading recovery program which is based on the work of Marie Clay. I have witnessed for myself the enormous success of this one- on-one program that sequentially builds a reader's confidence and ability. While curriculum quality and teacher skill are important ingredients in the provision of a quality education, we cannot underestimate the importance of environmental factors in the overall assessment of the delivery of education. For instance, the Cooler Schools program has made an enormous difference to both students and teachers in schools in my electorate. It is not difficult to understand how, in the hot and humid north Queensland climate, a cool classroom could enhance anyone's capacity to teach and learn. Therefore, I welcome the minister's confirmation that the program, which was due to have finished at the end of this year, has now been extended with a further injection of funds that will see a total of $152 million spent over almost 500 projects during the life of the project. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (4.23 p.m.): I rise to speak to this portfolio. I would like to acknowledge the great work done right across Queensland in collaboration with education and employment and training with school-based apprentices and school-based traineeships. We have three very active schools and one slightly less active school involved in these school-based apprenticeships and school-based traineeships and the students are excelling in their areas of interest. However, I asked a question yesterday of the minister for training in relation to the user choice funding and the change in direction of that user choice funding. I acknowledge his reply. However, this change in direction has negatively impacted on a number of registered training organisations in my electorate. The statement that the minister gave was that the area of skill shortage and those disadvantaged persons most in need of training programs are targeted by this new user choice. In the area of men's hairdressing, it may not be an identified skill shortage but we certainly do not have an abundance of them in my electorate—I think we only have one. Stuart Howland, from Stu's Styles, has an apprentice who usually goes through an RTO called Matters and Grey. They travel along the coast and give training to all of the men's hairdressers. Matters and Grey have a certain amount of funded positions. Now that the funding has been reduced by the state government, Matters and Grey cannot do the training of the men's hairdresser. The apprentice will have to travel to TAFE in Toowoomba for two blocks of three to four weeks. The dislocation that that creates is quite significant. They have to find accommodation for this young man for that period—they have to cover all those ancillary costs—and it really is quite a disadvantage in the way that the new training has been reorganised. I would ask the minister to look at the definition of skill shortage and disadvantage because the skill shortages, like these men's hairdressers, may not be the top of the list and they may not 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3067 be glamorous, but they are certainly necessary and essential and should not be falling through the cracks. Another couple of areas where the funding has ceased is the area that I raised yesterday, salesmanship et cetera, which the minister dealt with. However, I am saying again that there are existing apprentices who are going to be required to travel quite extensively as a result of that change of training funding. Those families will be significantly disadvantaged. If the RTO funding was phased out, as the case is in these instances, at least those apprentices who are currently being trained could continue their traineeship or their apprenticeship until they qualify and new trainees or new apprentices would at least know what they are up against when they start their training. The minister has said that the areas that I raised yesterday are not priority areas, but I say in defence that for the apprentices involved it is a priority. There is another company, A-Z PC Consultants, that has been giving IT training. They have been doing Certificate II or III in IT. They have increased the skills of the children over time from Certificate II to Certificate III at no cost. However, Axial, who is the training organisation, has advised that because of changes to government funding—funding stoppages—those children will now have to pay for the training. If the student does not pay their certificate will not be allocated to them at the end of course. Whilst this may look good on paper to the department, for the families that are directly affected it is a significant shift in policy and a significant shift in their eligibility to be able to access training. As I said, it may be a change in policy for this budget but for the people currently affected it has quite detrimental impacts on them, on their family and on their children's future. The area of Youth and the Arts is important. We have an abundance of talented young people and older people in my electorate. I think that is replicated across the state. The reinvestment in arts in the state has been welcomed by those participants in arts and also by those of us who observe and enjoy art, whether it is built structures, drama, dance or whatever it is. I believe those investments have been sound but it should not be to the detriment of other skills, particularly those skills involving lifestyle and income generation. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (4.28 p.m.): I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to this consideration of the report of Estimates Committee C. Even though I was not a member of the estimates committee, it was the estimates committee that dealt with the portfolio responsibility of Industrial Relations. It is one of the areas which I have responsibility for as shadow minister. Therefore, I did play a small part in the committee that considered the budget allocations for the portfolio of Industrial Relations. It is not a portfolio that has a big budget so there was not a lot to consider in terms of budget allocation. I did take the opportunity to question the minister about a number of issues, amongst which was the level of industrial disputes in Queensland and the extent to which that level of late had been so much higher than southern states. The minister informed the committee at the time that it was something of an abnormality—I think a glitch or something was the term he used. It will be interesting to see in the year ahead—between now and when we next consider that question at estimates—whether or not that level of industrial disputation we saw in the figures that were released a day or two before this committee hearing are, in fact, continued through and it becomes a feature of the Queensland industrial relations sphere that that level of disputation continues. Everybody would join with me in expressing the hope that that is not the case, that we do not see a continuation of that high level of industrial disputation, which is to nobody's benefit. The other issue that I want to take the opportunity to make some comment on that was part of the consideration of this estimates committee is the Cooler Schools Program, and other members have spoken about the Cooler Schools Program in this debate already. My electorate is in a unique position—I do not suppose it is the only electorate in this position—in that some schools are eligible for the Cooler Schools Program and other schools are on the other side of the line and, therefore, are not eligible for the Cooler Schools Program. This raises a degree of concern, of course, between students of different schools who find themselves on different sides of the line. This has been a program that has delivered some very real benefits to schools who have been lucky enough to qualify for it, and it is one that I am pleased to see the government continue. There have been concerns, and some quite justifiable concerns, about some of the specifications that have been imposed on schools by Q-Build—and not without some good reason I might add. Some of those specifications have resulted in the cost of the airconditioning 3068 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 that the schools have had to bear being quite considerably more than would have been the case without those specifications being imposed. A case in point in my electorate is the Theodore school, where the walkways and the decking that Q-Build insisted on for it being part of the Cooler Schools Program have made the school end up looking like some sort of a prison farm. When one drives into the Theodore school one almost expects to see the guards walking along the walkways that are along the top of every building. To some extent, it has gone a bit over the top in terms of what has been required and has made it a lot harder for that school community to raise the money that it needs to raise to ensure that its classrooms are airconditioned. The other issue considered by this estimates committee related to employment and training and apprenticeships. I, too, would like to add my voice to what has been said by other members already this afternoon about the importance of apprenticeships. Most electorates across the state would be seeing the effects of a gross shortage of tradesmen in all of the trades. It is critically important that young people have the opportunity to complete apprenticeships and become skilled tradesmen and qualified tradesmen to be able to fill those roles in the future. The figures that are important are the number of apprentices who complete their apprenticeship, not so much the number of apprentices who take up apprenticeships. There are a number of areas in which the government can take some very positive action to make sure that apprentices are able to complete those apprenticeships so that a big percentage or, hopefully, as many as possible of those who enter into those apprenticeships are able to complete them and become qualified tradesmen. Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (4.33 p.m.): It is a privilege for me to speak to the process that we went through in Estimates Committee C. The first minister to appear before the committee on the day was the Minister for the Arts, Minister Foley. I want to thank him very much for the initiatives that he presented through the estimates process. But specifically, I want to thank him for the really strong commitment that he has to regional economic development through the arts. Minister Foley has made a huge commitment to my electorate and to many other regional electorates in his capacity as Minister for the Arts and Minister for Employment. He is an extremely regular visitor to Ipswich. As a result of his period as minister, we have seen some really major regional arts developments. Those things have made an enormous difference to the city of Ipswich. Some years ago we opened Global Arts Link, which is a fabulous regional art gallery and museum in the centre of town. It has been the best rejuvenation project in the centre of town for some years and is playing a key role in the rejuvenation of Ipswich city. Similarly, the railway workshops have brought many tourists to Ipswich. These things have happened because Minister Foley is genuinely committed to regional arts. I thank him very much for that commitment. It is my view that we really are only scratching the surface as to the extent to which arts can play a key role in regenerating a community. The two per cent public art policy that Minister Foley introduced makes a real difference to the introduction of art in public space and the celebration of our culture in public spaces. I would like to see that happening through private developments, particularly through the Integrated Planning Act. It is my view that, in terms of putting the soul of a community into its public spaces, we are only scratching the surface and there is much more that can be done. But I am sure that that is a view that Minister Foley shares and I thank him very much for his commitment to communities like mine. Mr Pearce interjected. Ms NOLAN: I note the support of the member for Fitzroy on that point. The Minister for Industrial Relations was the second minister to appear before Estimates Committee C. He outlined some of the significant changes that the Beattie government has made to protect vulnerable workers, including casuals and outworkers, and I thank him very much for those changes. They have made a huge difference to the lives of many ordinary Queensland people and on their behalf I express my appreciation. Minister Bligh spoke at length about education before Estimates Committee C. Her performance was extremely professional. It is great to have a good leading female minister, and she did a tremendous job in the estimates committee process. I found it extremely disappointing to see the gutter attacks on her in recent days emanating from her time as the Families Minister. I find it really quite shocking and appalling to see opposition members who underfunded areas like child protection for decades, if not generations, getting up on their high horses and pretending to take some kind of high moral ground about child protection. I find the hypocrisy of it absolutely 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3069 mind blowing and I think that it is extremely disappointing to see those kinds of attacks on a minister who really genuinely has put her heart, her soul and the government's money into child protection in recent years. I am sure the community will share my state of being appalled at the hypocrisy of these people. Having succeeded in child protection, Minister Bligh has made the most significant changes to education that we have seen in Queensland for 30 years. We are in the process of introducing a prep year. We have the senior school reforms in conjunction with Minister Foley's portfolio and we have recently announced some really significant changes to the middle years of schooling. That will make a huge difference to education, particularly state education, across this state. One of the things that has saddened me is that some years ago—probably 30 years—we saw real social change because the Whitlam government made higher education accessible to all. As a result, a whole generation of working-class people had the opportunity to become professionals. The hope of education transforming people's lives has, to some extent, been lost in recent years and the value of education has been lost to the vulnerable people who perhaps most need it. I believe that these significant changes to education that Minister Bligh is introducing can again inject that hope and that belief in the power of education to all Queenslanders. I commend her for the changes. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (4.38 p.m.): I wish to speak to a number of issues but in particular to the arts, which is an extremely important department. I was the one who put up the pro forma to have it made into a department, and I am very pleased that Minister Foley did so. That means Arts, through its director-general, has its feet under the table, so to speak, at a lot more forums, it has a lot more clout and it can manage its own budget without interference from whatever other department the minister of the day might have. Traditionally, before that it was very much treated, in many ways, as the poor relation. Arts is crucial to our whole social structure and provides a real heart and core to our community. I congratulate the museum on the Museum Foundation. The minister was there, as I was, the other night at the inaugural launch of that Museum Foundation, the chairman of which is our former Governor, Major-General Peter Arnison. I thought it was a very good night. I hope they raise a lot of money from it. Certainly, it was aiming for corporate sponsorship of the arts, which is vital. We have to make that as attractive to our corporate entities as possible, both through state and federal incentives, in particular federal tax incentives. Philanthropically, in the United States arts and its various portfolios are totally funded by the corporate sector. The government funds very little art. I would hate to think what would happen both in this state and federally if state and federal governments pulled funding either directly or through their various corporations to the arts community. It will be a big plus if we can involve our arts community in more corporate sponsorship and make that more attractive. I raised some concerns during the budget estimates. In particular, I asked questions about the film industry, which is a vital industry to Queensland and one that I totally support. I raised the question of government incentives—not that I disagree with government incentives. I raised the example of Big Brother. I fully supported the incentive for the first series of Big Brother, which attracted the producers to our state. However, when it or any other of these sorts of programs, and not just in the arts, become commercially viable for an entity, provisions should be in place such that funding is given on the basis that an entity that becomes highly commercially viable returns some of its incentives into a development fund within the industry. In this case, it would be a film development fund. Importantly, although we have one of those already, it could benefit from more money if that were available. I commented also on the public art policy—Art Built-In. I note that this was mentioned by the member for Ipswich. My major concern is that the minister has grossly underspent the capital value of the program, which was $15 million a year based on a two per cent injection, with capital money spent by departments. Either the departments have not spent this capital money or they have not spent it on Art Built-In. One has to query the accountability of that. $15 million a year over five years, on anyone's estimation, is something like $75 million. Yet on the minister's own figures, only $4 million has been spent. $11 million was described as 'active', which amounted to $15 million, although the question did cover the years that I asked about, so that had to be the total. That does concern me. I support Art Built-In. It was actually my initiative. As minister, I did not place a percentage on it, mainly because I could see problems involved with that. If we are going to nominate a percentage—and that is the policy of the government—that should be delivered or there should be a public statement to say that that is not going to be delivered. 3070 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

I congratulate a number of our public entities. The Art Gallery is currently hosting a Pierre Bonnard exhibition, an Aboriginal exhibition and a Namatjira exhibition. There is a huge festival of arts that I encourage people to see. Time expired. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (4.44 p.m.): I thank honourable members for their contribution to this debate. The budget for the Department of Employment and Training provides the fiscal basis for the greatest reform to the training system we have seen in Queensland since the introduction of TAFE as a separate institution. We have also seen in this budget a profound effort to ensure that training is delivered to those most in need. There are 10,000 young Queenslanders aged 15 to 17 who are out of school, out of work and out of training. That is a scandal. We have to remedy it. The budget is one of the ways that we do that, as set out in particular through the Youth Access Program. It is also significant in the training area that programs have been put in place to address the economic wealth of the future, in particular the Central Queensland Employment and Training Strategy, which is helping to deliver the skills necessary for such major projects as the Comalco alumina plant at Gladstone. The top government priority of jobs, jobs, jobs continues to be reflected strongly in this budget. Similarly, the expenditure reflects the emphasis on reaching out to the unemployed through the Breaking the Unemployment Cycle program. We set a target of 56,000. We have exceeded that target. We passed that target well before the due date. That is important because it is not just the overall number of jobs in the labour market that matters; it is who gets access to them. Where there are people who are systematically disadvantaged through long-term unemployment or through other circumstances, we need to reach out. That is exactly what this government stands for. Frankly, it is what every Liberal and National Party government has destroyed whenever it has got into office either at the state or federal levels. We do not intend to destroy it; we intend to reach out for it. Similarly, in the area of the arts the budget makes provision for the most profound growth in arts infrastructure in a generation. The Gallery of Modern Art, the new State Library building, the $15 million Regional Arts Infrastructure Package, coupled with the $110 million Queensland Heritage Trails Network, are helping to ensure that the Smart State is also the creative state, whether we live in Moorooka or Mackay. The new Artspace in Mackay is a good example of the Queensland Heritage Trails Network done in cooperation with the Commonwealth government. One of the things that never ceases to astonish me—and this is the tenth occasion on which I have come before the parliament as a minister for a departmental budget and to account to the parliament—is just how absurd the opposition continues to be in its attacks on the television industry. Not only is this an industry that cries out to the Commonwealth government for that 12.5 per cent tax rebate in the TV industry that is available in the film industry; also, we have the spectre of the shadow minister for the arts attacking the support for Big Brother on the Gold Coast, which has been a very important generator of jobs. Let her go down to the Gold Coast and talk to some of the people in the television industry who are unemployed. What have they got against the Gold Coast? This is typical of the— Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. The minister is totally misrepresenting my situation. As he well knows— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Poole): Order! There is no point of order. Mrs SHELDON: There is very much a point of order. Mr MATT FOLEY: She likes to take cheap shots, but she does not like to have to be accountable in this chamber. Down on the Gold Coast they have the member's number. Just because they all voted against the Liberal and National parties, she is trying to get square. Time expired. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (4.49 p.m.): It is good to get a chance to have a bit of a talk. I quote the minister's words 'jobs, jobs, jobs', but unfortunately they are not happening in Queensland. We still have the worst unemployment in mainland Australia and have had for 34 months straight. It is great to see the minister get up and quote the jobs situation. We first heard that in 1998 when the Premier went out and advocated that we would have five per cent unemployment in Queensland. It has not happened and it is not going to happen. We have seen a budget of $784 million expended on employment and training. I say to the minister that it is an admirable budget, but I am afraid it is probably misdirected by the results he 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3071 is getting. It is quite clear in the estimates that the emphasis has turned from the registered training organisations back to TAFE. There is an overall trend away from the private registered training organisations that this government put in place, and I commend it for that. The registered training organisations were a step in the right direction and, indeed, they were leading the way. Now we have seen that registered training organisations are losing contracts all over Queensland. Unfortunately—or fortunately for the government involved in the contracts—one of the clauses in the contracts is a confidentiality clause that makes it very difficult to criticise the government in the way in which they are handling all of this. Quoting the information that was given by the member for Gladstone, numerous registered training organisations throughout our community are finding it very tough and are losing contracts. It is almost criminal to build an organisation up and then with the whim of a government policy take away its livelihood, and this is happening right across Queensland. In the child care industry the child care training providers are losing one contract after another. It appears that the rationale is that they are not in a high unemployment area; that there is a change of policy. That is great but it is also taking away the lives and ambitions of quite a lot of people throughout our community. Again, we are talking about jobs. The member for Gladstone also raised the issue of the block training for apprentices. The registered training organisations were able to provide a level of flexibility within the workplace and the training organisations were able to work in conjunction with the job providers to allow those apprentices to actually get their training, in most cases, almost on site. Now we are seeing a situation in which the apprentices have to go away for block training. I have to detail exactly how difficult that is, particularly in the more rural areas where employers are trying to put on apprentices and they have to go away for block training. Those employers have to pay the cost of travel and accommodation and basically be the provider for those students or apprentices while they are away. Also, then they have to possibly employ somebody else to take their place within the work force. Let us understand, quite often these are only very small businesses in our rural communities and it is putting a great strain not only on the families of the apprentices but also on the employers of the apprentices and the people who actually support them. It seems that in recent times the minister has lost sight of where they started out from in the early part of his term and he is heading in another direction. During the estimates debate we raised questions about overpayment of registered training organisations, and that was not fully answered. The overpayments were not actually picked up by the department; they were picked up by the providers and reimbursed. Yet, there were still court cases that moved ahead. That seemed to be on a random basis. You have to wonder about the protocols involved in that. We have seen some great programs throughout the state. During the estimates debate I raised a story about the Mini Movers in Brisbane who were training young people without any experience in the moving industry to come on board and create a great industry. Those young people come in at 6 o'clock in their morning, have their breakfast and start work. They enjoy the work they are doing. That company has grown very substantially. Riviera is another company in Coomera that is building boats. They have 176 apprentices and trainees working on that site. It is a great Queensland company and is doing a great job for training in Queensland. Time expired. Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Minister for Education) (4.54 p.m.): Estimates Committee C examined the budget of the Education portfolio for the next financial year. It is a very exciting time for education. The many reforms that are on our government's agenda that were examined by the committee, frankly, put us at the head of Australia in terms of coping with the rapid changes in our world and our economy and the necessary changes to our education system. The committee examined some of the big new initiatives in, for example, preparatory education and the trials that are occurring and the initiatives that will reform senior schooling across seven of Queensland's major regions. The committee also examined an important part of the education and training reforms—which does not get enough scrutiny in my view—and that is the very substantial roll-out of information and communication technology into Queensland schools. Mr Mickel: The people at Park Ridge are delighted. 3072 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Ms BLIGH: I am very pleased that the people at Park Ridge are delighted because it is just those people in those areas for whom we want to make a difference, and we want to make sure that they have this technology for their children when they need it. The committee also examined in some detail the resources and assistance available for students with disabilities and it did consider issues such as airconditioning, which I know other speakers have spoken about this afternoon. It is a difficult issue. We are effectively retrofitting the system and it cannot all be done at once, but I can understand the impatience of some areas whose schools are not inside the zone. One of the issues that did preoccupy the committee—and I note that the shadow minister has also raised it again—is the issue of teacher numbers. When the shadow minister raised this at the committee it was clear that he was grappling to understand how teacher numbers are rolled out. So I think it is important for me to put the facts on the record to clarify the confusion. Frankly, what I thought was simple confusion was revealed in his comments yesterday to be nothing short of monumental ignorance. It is a very big system and to try to cope with the needs of 500,000 students and make sure that the teachers are in the right place at the right time in the right class does require some very complex predictions and allocations. In terms of teachers for growth, Queensland Education does a number of things. Firstly, it does predictions a number of years out. Those predictions are refined as we get closer and closer to the beginning of a new school year. Those refined predictions are then the subject of the first allocation of staffing to schools at the beginning of the year. Those allocations are then validated by a statewide census of every Queensland classroom on day 8 of every school year. The staffing formula that is applied uniformly across the state then allocates teachers. I would like to draw the shadow minister's comments made yesterday to the attention of the House. He said— In Queensland we are witnessing a situation where extra teachers required for student growth are not being provided ...... In 2004 we will have projected student growth of 520 but our classrooms will be 261 teachers short of the number required to meet this growth. What an extraordinary thing! He proposes that next year we will see 261 Queensland classrooms with 25 or 30 children in them without teachers. What a remarkable thing! Does he really think this is possible? Does he imagine that this government or any other government is going to sit and watch 261 Queensland classrooms without a teacher in them? It is absurd. It shows, as I said, a woeful misunderstanding of how teacher numbers are allocated. Initiatives like the extra 800 teachers are allocated by an entirely separate process. They were, as I have indicated on many occasions, both part of an enterprise bargaining agreement and a subsequent reaffirmation of that commitment during the election campaign as an election commitment. Because they were part of a joint agreement with the Queensland Teachers Union, the QTU is actively involved with their allocation. The shadow minister went further and insinuated that these teachers were somehow being used in some sly and sleazy way to allocate for growth. Anyone who thinks that the QTU is colluding with the government to undercut the allocation of additional teachers that were part of an enterprise bargaining agreement does not know much about the QTU at all. It has in fact been working on the allocation of every one of those 800 teachers. It knows what school they are in and they are absolutely not being soaked up in growth. Estimates committees are, in my view, a critical part of the democratic process. Despite whatever criticisms might be made from time to time of the public servants who participated in them, I would like to thank those public servants from my department for the work they did and for their attendance at the committee. Mr Matt Foley: They did a very good job. Ms BLIGH: They did. I would like to thank the staff of my office. I thank the committee for its interest in the budget and in this very important portfolio and for the opportunity for me to elaborate on the new initiatives. Report adopted. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3073

Estimates Committee D Report The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Poole): The question is— That the report of Estimates Committee D be adopted. Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (5.00 p.m.): I am delighted to rise to support the report of Estimates Committee D. I was particularly honoured to be able to chair Estimates Committee D this year. I think it was a particularly important committee, inquiring as it does into the expenditure of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Those three portfolios are incredibly important to the people of Queensland. Collectively, the expenditures in those portfolios make up about $6 billion of the total Queensland budget. Almost a third of the Queensland budget is contained in the two areas we looked into. The level of detail and examination of the expenditures was intense and also appropriate. I particularly thank both ministers—Minister Bredhauer and Minister Edmond—as well as their ministerial staff and departmental staff, who were very helpful to me and the committee in all of our deliberations, providing prompt assistance and meeting the rather strenuous time lines which are put in place for these hearings. I also thank my fellow committee members—the member for Gregory, who was the deputy chair, and the members for Aspley, Burleigh, Broadwater, Nanango and Maroochydore. There was a fine esprit de corps shown through the process. All of the meetings we held were conducted in very good spirit, with a high degree of cooperation inherent. The process ran very smoothly. We also had a drop-in on the day from the Leader of the Opposition, who asked a few questions. I give the overwhelming bulk of the credit for the smooth proceedings on the day to the secretariat staff—research director Lyndel Bates, executive assistant Carolyn Heffernan and the other secretariat staff—and Hansard. They all performed wonderfully well over long and difficult hearings. The hearings on the day, inquiring into such important areas as Main Roads, Transport and Health, were feisty. Nevertheless, the staff managed to keep it all ticking along fairly smoothly. I was very pleased with the way the day went. I did mention the spirit of cooperation which was inherent in all of the meetings. That was certainly the case. I was perhaps a little disappointed with the deputy chair's dissenting report. Although it certainly is his right to have a dissenting report—undoubtedly it becomes a tradition—it was disappointing that the deputy chair included some things in his report which simply are not true. That is a shame. The specific reference states— ... I arranged for the Committee Secretariat to be notified that a representative of QML should be present at the hearing. Regretfully, that is not what happened. I feel the need to correct that part of the record. An email was forwarded to the secretariat at 7.21 p.m. on the night before the hearings. Quite understandably, the staff had gone home. The email merely stated that the shadow minister would like to raise issues pertaining to Queensland Motorways Limited. It did not ask for staff to be present. Overstating the facts to the degree that they actually get broken along the way does not help in the credibility of the dissenting report in any way. I think that was unfortunate. The dissenting report of the deputy chair also makes some attack on the spirit of compliance and accountability on the part of the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads in not supplying and applying staff to answer a particular question. The sessional orders that are in place for these hearings have become a rule more in the breach than the observance. Everybody looks the other way while questions are bowled up with 30 subparts and requiring enormous amounts of work. Ministers, to their great credit, by and large do not rely on the sessional orders and say, 'I do not have to answer that question.' They answer them. I think it is getting nitpicky in the extreme. The question which the deputy chair complains was not answered could have been ruled out of order by me, but I chose to let it go through. There were many in that category. By and large it was a very productive hearing. It was conducted in a good spirit. Certainly the ministers were very thorough in their answers. I commend the report to the chamber. Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (5.05 p.m.): At the outset I will put on the record my appreciation of the chair and members of the committee of Estimates Committee D. I have heard what the chair has had to say here this afternoon. These major portfolios of Transport, Main Roads and Queensland Health should be given special recognition. To have hearings relating to portfolios of this magnitude on the same day does put great stress on the hearings. I believe that 3074 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003 major portfolios such as Transport and Main Roads should be assembled with a lesser portfolio. The same applies to Queensland Health. I believe that is positive and constructive criticism. Mr Bredhauer: Can't you cope? Mr JOHNSON: I can cope, but I know that a lot of people have made mention of it. I refer to the situation involving Queensland Motorways. Yes, I did ask questions. On the day of the hearings the minister raised the issue of not being notified until 7.20 on the evening before. I take full responsibility for that. I know that it was an error on the part of one of the staff but I do not blame staff. I take that responsibility myself and I will wear that. If it caused inconvenience to the minister and his office, then I apologise about that. I would have thought those emails would have been read the next morning anyway. Apparently they were not. I know that when I was Minister for Transport I always had QML people in attendance in case there were questions. Mr Bredhauer: That is not true. Mr JOHNSON: I can tell the minister now that when Jim Elder— Mr Bredhauer: On one occasion you had QML present. Mr JOHNSON: I take the interjection. It certainly was. The committee got a question from then opposition spokesman, Jim Elder. We can argue about this all evening, but I do not have time for that. Mr Bredhauer: QML have only been there once since estimates started. Mr JOHNSON: The minister was the one who did not want to have them there. What is the minister hiding? Why did he not answer the questions? It is there in the dissenting report. That is why we made a dissenting report. There are many issues I could talk about. It is curious that the minister made no such arguments in providing a detailed response to question No. 1632 on 7 November 2002 in relation to expenditure for training programs in the Department of Transport but he could not answer the question relating to the RoadTek charges and references to RoadTek going back some time. At the same time the minister stated— The Queensland Transport and Main Roads financial systems are not configured in the manner that allows reporting on the basis sought. I would have thought that the minister would have been able to answer that question himself. He tends to want to answer questions himself. He has a lot of people with great expertise in the department. This is the situation year after year. Another issue I want to bring to the attention of the committee this afternoon—five minutes is not long enough to discuss a portfolio such as this—relates to the Tugun bypass. I have before me a document that the minister's office released on 15 August. It states— Mr Bredhauer said the State Government's preference for the C4 route was very clear, and an application to construct the bypass on the route west of the airport, had been lodged by the Queensland Government with Environment Australia in early July. That is all very good, but the minister goes on to say further down that a working party of officers from the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Queensland governments met on 2 April to finalise the application and preferred route. The C4 route is still the Queensland government's preferred option. I ask the minister: is it still the New South Wales's and Commonwealth government's preferred option? The government says it is going to commence this route before the end of the year, but it might just mention that in its summary. This is a very sensitive area and one on which there has been a lot of deliberation and a lot of procrastination over the last five years. The member for Currumbin, the now Minister for Tourism, said, 'We will start the project in a couple of weeks on assuming government.' That couple of weeks has now become five years. I will be watching the RIP very closely to see exactly what road infrastructure programs are in the rolling program for the next five years and what are not in. A lot of questions have been asked in the south-east corner as well as the rest of the state about what is happening in the area of Main Roads in this state. Time expired. Ms BARRY (Aspley—ALP) (5.10 p.m.): It gives me real pleasure to rise to speak to the Estimates Committee D proceedings. If I were to name the issues that concern the people of the electorate of Aspley the most, I would list them as personal and property safety, health, roads, including road safety and traffic, education and housing. It was with those priorities in mind that I requested membership of Estimates Committee D, which included the departments of Main 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3075

Roads, Transport and Health. I am pleased to be able to tell the people of Aspley in Queensland in the areas of road transport and health that both ministers Bredhauer and Edmond showed once again a real preparedness to give explanation and detailed answers to a vast range of questions on their portfolios. I would like to take the time to thank the ministers and their departmental staff for their work in the past year. On the issues of Main Roads and Transport I asked the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads a number of questions that impact upon my electorate of Aspley—and indeed Brisbane north and Pine Rivers. The minister provided an update on the Port of Brisbane's redevelopment, the relocation of the Hamilton port and the exciting development of the Australia TradeCoast precinct in an area that provides many jobs for the people in my electorate. The minister also gave me answers to questions on the Citytrain passenger rail system. Aspley constituents are great supporters of our rail systems, and the need for a third and fourth rail line proves that increasing patronage. I am pleased to advise constituents that security has been improved, disability access upgraded, and in July 2004 we will see a roll-out of the integrated ticketing system and eventually the smartcard. The minister noted that passengers to the Sunshine Coast in particular have contributed to patronage growth, and that has required more trains and the construction of a third and fourth rail line. I am pleased to have had excellent service from Queensland Rail staff in helping my constituents, both those who use the train and those who live close to the rail corridor, with issues that relate to their quality of life. When you live close to a rail line like many of my constituents do, it needs constant monitoring to avoid that loss of quality of life from the impact that rail services have—things like noise and graffiti. The minister gave answers to the cooperative alliance between Main Roads and the Local Government Association of Queensland and indicated that $2 million over two years will be provided to help local governments manage the local road network in a very efficient way, and I am pleased with that particular announcement. The minister advised that the upgrade between Dohles Rocks Road and Boundary Road is expected to be completed by the end of 2004. That will ease congestion between the Gateway Motorway and Caboolture. That is very pleasing news for those people who are there very late on Friday afternoon. I would like to thank Minister Bredhauer for his comprehensive answers and the preparedness of his department to respond as always to my constituents' calls. For the third time since I have been the member for Aspley I have had the privilege of being on the estimates committee for the Department of Health. The minister announced what was a $4.6 billion budget—a record budget and an increase of $300 million, or 6.9 per cent, with an anticipated $2.6 billion further over the next four years. That is a total budget increase in this state by 2007 of 70 per cent across health services since 1997-98. That is across-the-board, and Brisbane north has done particularly well. It has received additional funds in cancer services, intensive care, renal dialysis, and community and mental health. In my first speech on the estimates process I talked about the rapidly emerging site of the $496 million redevelopment of the Royal Brisbane and Royal Women's hospitals, and that project is now all but complete. Indeed, the $2.6 billion 10-year rebuilding program concludes this year. It was interesting and disappointing to listen to the opposition rattle off numbers and figures and play games with statistics, but for me I can say that the very best experience I have had over the last year has been to attend a considerable number of building openings and inspections. Quite frankly, the look on the faces of Queensland Health staff across-the-board at those openings and inspections is one of a real sense of pride and purpose now that they have world-class facilities to match their world-class skills and knowledge. I was proud to have been part of a government that has made a $2.6 billion investment in our hospitals. I must say, however, that the most profound moment for me came recently when I had lunch with my husband, Lloyd, who is a nurse at the Royal Brisbane and Royal Women's hospitals. I sat at the new canteen along with him and a bunch of nurses and I watched the demolition team with the amazing technology of T-Rex devour blocks 1, 2 and 3 of the old Royal Brisbane Hospital. I can say everybody ate in silence. It was very cleansing and very therapeutic. It was a great moment to watch those old decaying buildings that the National Party had us work in for years— Time expired. 3076 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (5.15 p.m.): Firstly, I want to acknowledge and thank the staff who supported our committee and other committee members in this process. I believe the estimates process has benefit but, quite frankly, a lot more could be gained if we moved to a Senate style estimates process, where there is an ability to question and talk more with the departmental staff to get down to the true nitty-gritty of the underlying basics of the budget. If there is a criticism of the estimates processes, it is that. We have come to the stage where there is a tendency for ministers to filibuster and not answer questions, and the process is designed to block information rather than enlighten the public. The lack of really meaningful performance indicators in the Queensland budget papers, I think, is extremely disappointing. The Health Department has one of the largest budgets of government, and yet it has one of the poorest presentations as far as the amount of information that is available on some quite large sections of the budget. I want firstly to turn my attention to the emergency departments and the lack of new real growth funding for Queensland hospital emergency departments. We have been hearing the Premier and the Health Minister say how concerned they are about growth in emergency departments, yet this budget does nothing to address the growth. In fact, they have capped the growth that they expect in this area—the most critical area of acute care where people presenting are needing to be seen in Queensland hospitals. Last year on the budget papers they saw 750,000 people presenting for treatment in emergency departments, and yet for this coming financial year they have the same target for last year's presentation—750,000. That is capping, not addressing, growth. I believe it is playing a very dangerous game with people's lives, and is putting unfair and undue pressure on the very hardworking staff in these areas. We know there has been a significant growth in presentation to emergency departments, particularly in the higher acuities. This capping and the lack of any real growth funding for emergency departments is most dangerous and contrary to what is happening in other states. Even New South Wales in its budget papers has budgeted for something like 14 times the amount of new money for emergency departments which was available in this budget. During the estimates hearing I asked the minister and her departmental staff how many new staff would be employed from this $2.2 million of additional emergency department funding, and the answer came back that there would be no new staff for emergency departments. All this despite the Premier and the Health Minister saying how concerned they are about the pressure on emergency departments. Yet they do not put their money where their mouth is and they have not in these budget papers provided for one extra staff member in emergency departments. That is from the estimates hearing, which is on the Hansard record, and that is a disgrace. We already know that there has been high growth in those higher acuity levels. We also know, from talking to experts in emergency medicine, that the triage system of category 1 to 5 does not mean that 4s and 5s can be taken for granted as GP-type patients. In fact, the research and the statistics are showing that a high proportion of those people actually do require hospital based treatment. The lack of understanding by the Premier and the Health Minister is scary. There is no real growth funding in this budget. It is totally out of step with what is happening in one of our neighbouring Labor states and a dangerous impost when one considers that the government has capped the projected figures for emergency departments in this state to the same level that was expected last year. Let us talk about how this government claims to spend more but delivers less. Take dental health—adult and child oral health. They claim to have spent more and they have claimed to have employed more staff, but 51,000 fewer treatments have been performed on children and adults. It is interesting to note that children have always been funded by the state and we have seen a significant fall-off in the amount of treatment of children. This government claims to have spent more on oral health and it claims to have employed more people, but it treated 51,000 fewer children and adults. That is a disgrace. It is typical of the mismanagement by a government that does not want to be accountable to the people. Time expired. Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) (5.21 p.m.): I am very proud to belong to a government that has continued to deliver on record health budgets. I would be absolutely stunned to have a look at the research that the member for Maroochydore refers to. This is the very first time that a government has been as open and as accountable as this government has. We publish our figures, which is more than I can say for the opposition. Importantly, we publish lists hospital by hospital across the state. That has never been done by the coalition. The coalition has never had the nerve to do it. Why are the members of the coalition jumping up and down the 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3077 way they are now? The member for Maroochydore's behaviour at the estimates was nothing short of a disgrace. Mrs EDMOND: Again. Ms NELSON-CARR: Again, yes—the same old same old. I am pleased to report that the published June quarter waiting list report records the shortest waiting times ever for urgent and semi-urgent elective surgery in this state. I am particularly proud to be Parliamentary Secretary to Australia's longest serving and best Health Minister. A government member: And you do a good job, too. Ms NELSON-CARR: I thank the member. Two weeks ago in Perth all the other state and territory health ministers voted unanimously to have the Queensland Health Minister chair the most crucial meeting of ministers that has been held for five years. This was the meeting that considered and debated the inadequacy of the Commonwealth offer for the next health care agreement. Before I turn to the health care agreement, I would like to mention some of the budget highlights for Townsville because it is particularly dear to me. They include oncology services and cancer care, $1.3 million; renal dialysis, $2 million to meet the demand; cardiac services, $500,000; emergency department, $300,000; intensive care services, $900,000; $385,000 to staff a 10-bed psychogeriatric unit to be constructed next year as part of the Townsville Nursing Home redevelopment; $180,000 for the Townsville Hospital rehab program for older persons—and the total funds for that service are $680,000; and $210,000 to continue the development of a northern zone spinal rehabilitation service in Townsville. It is a pretty great record. Recurrent funding of $150,000 will also be allocated to employ a director of renal medicine to allow more extensive outreach services and a full-time medical officer in endocrinology. Community Health Services in Townsville and Thuringowa will receive $2.6 million this year for the redevelopment of both the Kirwan and North Ward sites. There are additional allocations this year for the redevelopment of the Townsville Nursing Home at Kirwan. The minister also announced that the district would receive replacement health technology equipment valued at approximately $3.5 million for 2003-04. These achievements are to be commended. If they are compared to the dishonest campaign by federal members such as Peter Lindsay, who argued for Townsville Hospital to receive less money, this would be the net effect of Queensland signing up to a deal that the Prime Minister confirms will take $160 million away from Queensland hospitals. Mr Lindsay is in denial and I have a table that shows the decline in bulk-billing for his electorate. I am happy to table that. Leave granted. Ms NELSON-CARR: I spoke in this House yesterday about the new overseas trained GPs supposedly purloined by the member for Herbert to take the heat out of the GP shortage debacle. In fact, GPs already working in Townsville have applied for provider numbers for overseas trained doctors and they have been refused. It gets worse. These new doctors are competing with the not-for-profit division of general practice pilot after hours service. The division justifiably claims the future viability of this practice is now being threatened. The AMA in Townsville blames the decline in bulk-billing on the low rate of Medicare rebate for bulk-billed services. Townsville is classified as a RAMA 2 city for rebate purposes, making doctors in Townsville eligible for the $15,000 incentive payment if they bulk-bill more than 75 per cent under Labor's Medicare package. This payment is per doctor and paid monthly, but there is a very strong argument for increasing the incentive to bulk-bill in Townsville to $22,500 for bulk- billing 70 per cent of patients. Cairns is a RAMA 3 regional city and receives this incentive but does not have the same problems as Townsville. The rhetoric from the member for Herbert has clouded his capacity to lobby his government to give Townsville what it deserves. His insistence on concentrating on state issues is a ruse to conceal his inadequate federal representation. There is an overall shortage of GPs in Herbert, so competitive pressures on doctors to bulk-bill do not exist. The net effect of this is the increase in out-of-pocket expenses of about $16 and more to see a GP. The doctor-patient ratio is also significantly increased in Herbert. We have gone from one GP per around 1,000 patients in 1996 to one GP per almost 1,500 patients. The member for Herbert should be ashamed of himself. Time expired. 3078 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (5.26 p.m.): I would like to address the report of budget Estimates Committee D, which was concerned with transport and main roads. I would firstly like to thank the minister for the roadworks which have been under construction throughout my electorate and which are finally, after many years, resolving some of the concerns of the many shires in the area. I would also like to acknowledge the various shire projects which the government has partly assisted. One of the major concerns which I have continually sought to have addressed in this parliament is the condition of what is locally called the Blackbutt Range road. The dangerous condition of this road is very evident by the number of vehicles which come to grief whilst trying to negotiate it. Only recently two semitrailers overturned on the range whilst fully laden with oranges. In the RIP a few years ago it was stated that an overtaking lane would be constructed on the range itself and one above the range between the top of the range and the small township of Blackbutt. Both these overtaking lanes are essential. The one on top of the range is currently under construction. If members had travelled the road they would appreciate why it has been so eagerly awaited. It has been brought to my notice that because of budgetary concerns a question mark now hangs over the overtaking lane on the actual range itself. I would hope that the question mark will be removed as the range, which has only in the last couple of months had new rails erected which were destroyed within weeks, needs to be attended to urgently. I ask the minister to ensure that it is attended to urgently. It is only luck that these last accidents did not claim lives. I still have concerns with regard to pedestrian crossings—which was raised at the estimates—no longer being permitted in towns such as Woodford where many of the children must cross a major highway to get to their homes. I can understand the minister's reasoning about this particular road being a highway, but I would still like it recorded that a walkway above the road may be necessary in the future to protect these children. I have concerns that, whereas the pedestrian once had the right of way on the roads, it would appear that keeping the flow of traffic moving has taken away that right. It is my most fervent hope that a life is not the price to be paid. I note that the shadow minister, Vaughan Johnson, submitted a dissenting report which addressed the revelations of internal audit reports and that, on legal advice, the minister had reported to the committee that he is not obliged to produce the reports requested. I know that I might be viewed as cynical, but the red light comes on immediately when such statements are made by departments while the Premier continues to state that this is an open and accountable government. I will now address the section of Estimates Committee D dealing with health. There is no doubt that, in the mind of the general public, Queensland Health is failing them badly. More and more we are hearing the Premier and the minister making statements along the lines that hospitals are primarily there for emergency cases only and that private GPs should be picking up some of the other non-urgent cases. I believe in the last couple of days it was suggested that general practitioners should be willing to attend hospitals by having a room there to take over some of these cases. It was not too long ago that public hospitals were just that—for the public—and people who could afford to go to private practices did. Now those who find it difficult to raise the finances to seek a private practitioner's help are being discouraged by various techniques—perhaps not intentional but still discouraged. We continue to hear about long waiting times for attention, and it is often the case that there is no doctor on duty or simple understaffing. Patients have reportedly been left to find their own way home and often in the middle of the night. These have not been isolated cases but appear to be occurring at regular intervals. Now we hear of ambulances being told during the flu season to go to other hospitals because the hospital cannot cope. These are events that should never occur. Once can be forgiven. Twice is unfortunate, but after that it must reflect on poor management or lack of funds. Perhaps in this case it is both. I am not discounting that procedures have changed over the years and expenses have risen, but so have people's taxes, and they deserve to be treated in a timely manner. I want to put on the record that I still oppose very strongly the removal of the Farr Home aged care nursing facility from the town of Kingaroy. Limiting the poorer members of our community to where they will spend their declining years is a sad reflection on our society and those who govern it. I also oppose this move on the grounds that no regular commuter transport is available to those needing access to the people put in these premises. I know that the nurses in the hospitals who I deal with are pushed to the limits and understaffing has now become very 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3079 obvious. I congratulate them on the enormous efforts they put in to a system which is letting not only the public down but them, too. During the estimates committee hearing the minister described waiting times for non-urgent dental work as being 'unfortunate'. At the time the minister confirmed that the Kingaroy Hospital, the public dental clinic for the region, has four dentists and that the clinic completed 2,249 general courses of care in the 2002-03 financial year. If that is the case—and I am not doubting the minister on that information—how does she explain that four dentists can average only two dental procedures a day each? Many people in the South Burnett use the services of dentists in private practice, and as one local private dentist happily told me, 'If these dentists were out in the public domain they would fail miserably.' It is no wonder that people in the South Burnett have a 180-week waiting time for non-urgent dental work compared to the average waiting time of 64 weeks. Time expired. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (5.31 p.m.): I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the estimates committee report for the portfolios of Health and Transport and Main Roads. The budgets and responsibilities that go with these three departments are massive, and I add my congratulations to the ministers on the way in which they have managed these very difficult and challenging portfolios. When one looks at the significant contributions and achievements made in these areas and outlined in the budget papers, one gets a good appreciation of the important commitment the Beattie government has made to Transport and Main Roads and particularly Health, which is the issue I want to spend some time on. Even though the world record $2.8 billion Hospital Rebuilding Program is starting to draw to a close, the Minister for Health has not rested on her laurels this year. Among a large list of new and expanded programs, she will put a lot of effort into improving community based health care. This is part of the government's push to put world-class health services close to where people live. In that regard, I am particularly pleased and thankful to the minister for reaffirming a commitment in the budget to establish a $5 million community health centre in the Nundah area, which services my electorate. Since coming to office the Beattie government has increased health funding by $1.12 billion to $4.35 billion per annum. This policy differs markedly from the ideologically driven agenda which has been adopted by the Howard Liberal federal government. It is obvious that the federal government is hell-bent on destroying Medicare bulk-billing and wants to establish a two-tiered health system where the rich get quality health care and the poor have to wait. Already the federal policy is starting to bear fruit where an interstate doctors' clinic is already offering a differential fee structure where if a patient pays more they get to see a doctor straightaway, but if they pay the normal cost they have to wait their turn. This prompted the federal opposition to run some television advertisements where a doctor ran an auction with patients to see who would pay the most money in order to get a consultation, reflecting the dangerous precedent being set by this system. The newly elected president of the AMAQ was critical of these ads even though he is reported to have said that if doctors wanted to offer a differential fee structure, then they should have two separate waiting rooms so that those who pay more for immediate services should not have to sit with normal patients because it would cause too much animosity. Clearly, the Howard government wants to establish a health system like that which exists in the United States where doctors check the health of a patient's credit card first before they check the patient's vital health signs. In my own electorate of Nudgee, the Howard government's anti- Medicare philosophy is having an impact, with bulk-billing rates dropping on average by around 25 per cent. It should come as no surprise to people that John Howard has moved to dismantle bulk-billing, because his hatred of Medicare has been documented over the many years he has been in the federal parliament. When he was Treasurer in the Fraser government in the 1970s, he made his first attempt to destroy free universal health care, but thankfully he ran out of time. Each time he was recycled as Leader of the Liberal Party and since he has been asked if he would get rid of Medicare if he was re-elected and each time he denied an agenda to destroy Medicare. But, of course, in recent times we have seen many occasions where Mr Howard has been loose with the truth. He said that there would be no GST, that refugees clearly were throwing their children overboard and that he did not meet with the ethanol company representatives before giving them multimillion-dollar subsidies. Mr Howard must be feeling fairly invincible at the moment, as he has shown in the past and currently that he can mislead the public and get away with it. Dismantling Medicare is probably Mr Howard's final key plank in his ideological platform. 3080 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

This view is based on the Liberal Party ideology that individuals must look after themselves and it is not the responsibility of the state to cater for everyone's health needs. In John Howard's view, if you cannot earn enough money to get quality health care, then you are obviously not working hard enough. The stress that this federal health policy is putting on the state health system is obvious, as patients are clogging the emergency departments of our hospitals because they cannot find bulk-billing GPs and cannot afford to pay the consultation fees of the remaining GPs. Coping with this influx of patients is tying up state funded resources, but our hospital doctors and nurses have no option: they cannot turn these people away. Over the past few budgets the Health Minister has dedicated extra funds each year towards properly funding the hospitals' emergency departments. This year's budget is no different, but it also means that these funds have to be diverted from other areas of our health care system that so urgently need resources. Time expired. Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—Lib) (5.36 p.m.): I want to participate in this debate, particularly as we are debating the budgets of Health and Transport. Both of these departments and the services they provide are of vital interest to my own constituents and those on the Sunshine Coast. I first of all want to deal with the budget under Health and in particular that for the Nambour Hospital and the complete lack, really, of any real increase in moneys for the Nambour, Caloundra or indeed Noosa hospitals. In 1997, as Treasurer, I put $26 million into the budget for capital works for the Nambour Hospital. That is still the same $26 million which has been referred to in every budget subsequently and which is still being trickled out as capital moneys. If one looks at the capital works money of various other areas in Health, this shows that the minister very obviously does not consider the Sunshine Coast an important growth area and does not consider the Sunshine Coast an area where there should be equity of medical services provided. There is still a considerable lack of equipment, staff, specialist services, operating services, outpatient type services and emergency services at the Caloundra Hospital. There was an increase in funding of $1 million for emergency services. That was purely because Nambour could not cope with what was going up there from Caloundra, and it still cannot. Dental services are an absolute disgrace at the Caloundra Hospital. There is now something like a waiting list of five years. Mrs Edmond interjected. Mrs SHELDON: If the minister thinks that the public is being duped by her constantly dumping on the federal government, they are not. They regard the minister as the state Minister for Health who should be delivering to them and who is not and who is hiding behind a federal issue every time people raise the issue of inadequate health services. There is nowhere more indicative of this than on the Sunshine Coast, where there has been no real increase in health funding for the past five years, even though in that period the population has nearly doubled across the entire catchment area that uses the Nambour, Caloundra and Noosa hospitals. When it comes to the issue of roads, the Sunshine Coast is no better off, either. There is nothing in the outyears to complete the four-laning of Caloundra Road in my electorate. When we were in government the four-laning had gone from Pearce Avenue into Caloundra and $800,000 had been put aside for the planning and development of the next four lanes. The route had been decided and environmental concerns had been taken into consideration. I understand people had even received resumption notices because of where the road was going to go. Suddenly, all funds stopped, the project was pulled and it was just too bad for the people of Caloundra. I turn to the critical situation in respect of the Nicklin Way. There is very little funding for any real upgrades. The Kawana arterial road was planned and put in place by the coalition government and in particular by the then member for the area, Bruce Laming. I might add that it is mainly being funded by Lensworth, not by you lot at all, even though you keep claiming in every budget that this is new money that you, the member for Kawana, has managed to get. What a lot of rot! Mr Cummins interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Male): Order! The member for Kawana will cease interjecting whilst not in his chair. I ask the member for Caloundra to address her comments through the chair. 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3081

Mrs SHELDON: I certainly will. It was because I received an interjection from the member, who was not even sitting in his proper seat. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: And I have reminded him of that. Mrs SHELDON: It is very important— Mr Cummins interjected. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! If the member for Kawana wishes to interject, he will do so from his own seat. Mrs SHELDON: It is very important that the budget is equitable and based on the number of people in an area and not just the political persuasion of the person who may be in that seat or, indeed, seats. I find it very strange that the Labor members in this House who won seats on the Sunshine Coast at the last election have not been able to persuade the Minister for Health and the Minister for Transport that the needs of the people on the Sunshine Coast should be considered in an equitable manner as against those of the people in other electorates. Time expired. Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) (Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads) (5.42 p.m.): I wish to take up a couple of issues mentioned in the dissenting report of the honourable member for Gregory on Estimates Committee D. I wish to start with an issue that he raised at the beginning of his speech. He claimed that he notified me prior to the estimates hearing that he required officers of QML to be present to answer questions. When I challenged him on that at the estimates committee, he said that that notification had been provided to me. That was a lie. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I find that remark from the minister offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw. But having told the untruth at the estimates committee, he is not content with that untruth. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. Again, I find the minister's remark untrue and unfair, and I ask him to withdraw it again. Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw. Not content with the untruth that he told there, he told an untruth again in writing in the dissenting report, in which he stated that he would like it noted as a matter of courtesy that he arranged for the committee secretariat to be notified that a representative of QML should be present at the hearing. That is untrue. The email that was provided to my office states that the shadow minister's office at 7.20 p.m. on the night before the estimates committee, when all of the committee secretariat staff had gone home, advised that they were going to ask questions about QML and asked that it be notified that questions were going to be asked. At no stage was a request conveyed to my office by anybody that they required someone from QML to be present. I can understand that it was his staff who stuffed up and I can understand his standing up in here and copping the wrap for those incompetent staff today. But for him to repeat the untruth— Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks 'incompetent staff' unfair and without foundation, and I ask him to withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Male): Order! They were not directed at the member. Mr JOHNSON: That is a reflection on the staff. It is a reflection on those good people—those innocent people—who cannot come in here and defend themselves, and I ask him to withdraw. Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw. I will take the comment that he made, that it is a reflection on those innocent people who cannot come in here and defend themselves—just like you and your grubby mate the Leader of the Opposition— Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The member for Gregory will resume his seat. The Minister for Main Roads will resume his seat. I expect everyone to speak through the chair in a civil voice without yelling across the chamber. If members wish to speak, they will do so through the chair. I call the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. Mr BREDHAUER: He comes in here— Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I take offence at the remarks of the minister in referring to the Leader of the Opposition as my 'grubby leader'. I find that offensive, and I ask that it be withdrawn. 3082 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

Mr BREDHAUER: I withdraw. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! It has been withdrawn. I ask the Minister for Transport and Minister for Main Roads not to point and refer to the member as 'he'. The minister will direct his comments through the chair. Mr BREDHAUER: The Leader of the Opposition came into the estimates committee and launched a scurrilous attack against decent, hardworking public servants in my department who were proven to have been exonerated by the CMC before he even got into the gutter on that issue with respect to the Transport Triangle Investment Club. The clearance by the CMC on that issue has been reconfirmed in writing by Brendan Butler, the Chairman of the CMC, and the actions of the Leader of the Opposition stand condemned. The member for Gregory knows that he has lost the respect and friendship of hundreds of hardworking people across the departments of Main Roads and Transport because of the scurrilous way in which he lent himself to that attack on decent public servants who, similarly, are not able to come in here and defend themselves. He might be offended at my attack on staff. He might be offended about the fact that I suggested that he told an untruth in terms of the request about QML. He should think about the offence he has caused to others. Time expired. Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order. I find the remarks of the minister offensive in relation to the people in the Department of Transport, and I ask him to withdraw. Yes, you walk away out of the chamber. Mr Reeves: Sit down. Mr JOHNSON: No, I will not sit down. Mr Reeves: You're making a fool of yourself. Sit down. Mrs Edmond: You're digging a hole. Mr JOHNSON: No, I am not digging a hole. He is the one who dug the hole. Mrs Edmond: Hop in it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister for Health! Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (5.47 p.m.): It is a pity that the Minister for Transport has just left the chamber, because the matters that I wished to raise concerned public bus transport in Toowoomba. However, I will be contacting him regarding these matters, because there are certain answers that I will be looking for. I wish to speak about the costs of the department. Part of the department's responsibility involves oversight of the establishment of public bus services in regional cities such as Toowoomba. This year a new bus service has been put in place and there is extreme unhappiness with the local company in Toowoomba regarding the tender process. The matter is serious. The tender date was brought in as a reasonably early tender, because of the suddenness of the need to put in place a new system. Everybody hopped in and prepared that tender. As members can imagine, it took a huge amount of work to get that done—to get prices on new buses and so on involved with such a large service—yet they did that. Then there was a call for the tenders to be extended. The department allowed that and the successful tenderer then won the particular tender. I wish to talk about the propriety of the extension of that particular tender. I also wish to point out that a Toowoomba firm did not win the tender. I know that tenders have to be fair, open and accountable, but you would think that an established firm in Toowoomba, providing it did the right thing within the tender arrangements, would have some sort of a chance under government purchasing policy because if they won the tender all the proceeds would then stay in our city. It is a firm already established in the city, a firm already employing local people in the city and a firm that had complied with all the detail that was required in order to submit its tender documents within the time limit. The people of Toowoomba are wondering just where does the government stand when it comes to purchasing policies and arrangements with companies with regard to local companies already established with a successful track record in a regional city. Are we going to continually see outside companies win these particular tenders and come into the town? If the local firm had won the tender very, very extensive subsidies would have applied for a period of seven years and then again for another period of seven years. Those subsidies would apply towards buses, staff wages and particularly in the provision of new equipment. It is a very substantial leg-up to get started in the business. It means that the company that won this 20 Aug 2003 Appropriation Bills 3083 particular contract is also in a position to be able to compete very robustly with other local service providers when it comes to school bus services or other services in the town. However, those providers have been in the town for many years but do not have the advantage of the subsidies that apply to this public bus tender system. I want the minister to tell me what were the circumstances surrounding this reopening of tenders or the extension of the tender. Who requested it and what was the reason for it being allowed? Why did the department put such onerous responsibilities on other companies—some from outside of Toowoomba and the local company that tendered—to tender and get their tender documents in and then allow at the last minute an extension or a reopening of those tender arrangements? I think it is a very major issue. There are two points of principle here. One is the fair treatment of those people who have taken the time, effort and very heavy cost of preparing the documents and tendering. They need to know that they have been treated fairly and that they had a fair and equal opportunity along with anybody else. Secondly, where does this government stand when it comes to having a purchasing policy that does recognise local needs, existing businesses and local businesses who, when they make a profit, keep their profits in our town? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (5.52 p.m.): In rising to speak to the report to Estimates Committee D I concur with previous speakers that the two portfolios that are covered by this report are two that are very close to the ability of the community to enjoy their community in good health and with good access. There are a lot of transportation issues in the electorate of Gladstone and I know that the Minister for Transport has been contacted by and is in negotiation with both councils. I have sent letters to him and I know that the federal member has also been in negotiations in an endeavour not to identify—they have already been identified—but to fund and program the necessary roadworks for the changing transport patterns in our electorate. One of the issues that the Gladstone City Council has raised on a number of occasions with the minister regards the overpass on Red Rover Road. While the Red Rover Road/Kirkwood Road has been attached to residential development, the minister has rightly said that that should attach to local government funding. However, the overpass is used directly by heavy transportation to take large vehicles away from inner city Gladstone passing through heavily used areas such as shopping centres and schools. At the most recent meeting between the Gladstone City Council, the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, and me it was discussed that there could be a tripartite relationship in regard to the funding of this overpass. There is a policy now in place with Gladstone City Council that would allow for the collection of funding that would be a significant part of the funding for he development of the Kirkwood Road/Red Rover Road access. I ask the minister if we could renegotiate and rediscuss the issue, particularly in the first instance of the overpass to allow for safe use of that access point by heavy vehicles and also to alleviate the city's transport network. I believe that the Roads Implementation Program has shown itself to be a good process and I am looking forward to the new one to be released soon. The other portfolio, Health, is one about which I have had a number of communications with the minister, although not always successfully. However, I have a job to do. The concerns of my community in relation to not the people who work at the hospital but the service provision—the ability to provide services for a demographically broad and growing community—continue to grow. We have a dental wait list that is, I believe, unacceptable. We have people who need either full dentures or partial dentures who are being advised that the wait list is two to three years and that general check-ups are two years. There have even been instances in which a person has presented with emergency work and they have been asked to come back at a later time. These are people who have quite severe pain as a result of the incident. I am not blaming the staff there. I believe again it is a resourcing issue. A lot of members have discussed the interaction between the state and federal governments as far as funding is concerned. I am old enough to remember when hospitals were places that you went to with general medical problems as well as emergency problems. For many in the community that perception—and what I believe should be a reality—still exists. It is only those who could afford to who would go to private practitioners. The gap between the Medicare payment—the $23 odd—and the actual charge by private practitioners is becoming so wide that many in the community just cannot afford to go to general practitioners unless there is bulk-billing, and even then in some cases they cannot afford it because of the cost of medicines that are prescribed. 3084 Appropriation Bills 20 Aug 2003

So whether we like it or not, there is going to continue to be the presentation of people at hospitals for general medical procedures as well as emergency procedures. Their expectation as a community is realistic and we, as people making decisions in government across-the-board, should recognise those needs. There are a number of individual issues that could be raised in relation to the hospital and the inability to be able to match demand with the services that are available. I put on the record my thanks to the staff who work up there. They do work hard, often above and beyond the duties that are really attributed to them. They provide a good service for the community, but more services are needed for the Gladstone and Calliope areas and the catchments further south and west. Time expired. Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Premier on Women's Policy) (5.57 p.m.): I thank the committee for the detailed examination of our record $4.6 billion state Health budget and the way precious Health dollars are being used to address health needs across the state. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Queensland Health staff for the wonderful effort they put into preparing for the hearing. This is the Beattie government's sixth consecutive record Health budget—up $300 million, or 6.9 per cent on last year's. I was delighted to report to the committee that over the next four years at least an additional $2.6 billion, including $1.6 billion in state funding, will go into the Queensland public health system compared with the 2002-03 budget. Compared with when we were elected, funding to Queensland Health will have risen by a staggering 70 per cent by 2006-07. I have to say that Queensland more than matches the Commonwealth dollars. However, I am still surprised at a lack of knowledge opposite. We actually pay taxes. We all pay our taxes to Canberra so that they can send them back to pay for things such as service delivery—things such as health, transport and disability services. So I am always surprised when people talk about 'Commonwealth dollars' and 'Canberra's dollars' rather than 'our dollars' that we are asking for. Queenslanders now have better access to a range of health services. The June quarter waiting list report records the shortest waiting times ever for urgent and semi-urgent elective surgery, confirming the Australian Productivity Commission's finding that Queensland has the shortest waiting times for elective surgery in the country. After five years in opposition, however, the shadow health spokesperson still does not understand a lot of things about emergency departments and so on. I am more than happy to have an officer from my department try to explain to her how patients are triaged and prioritised according to a nationally accepted system of assessment. I am pleased to say that waiting times for the most urgent patients—categories 1 and 2—have improved steadily since the emergency services strategy was implemented and a statewide collection of waiting times data was introduced in 1998, when I became minister. The data shows that in the March 2003 quarter 100 per cent of category 1 patients were seen immediately by a doctor, but the member opposite calls for an improvement. We have to have 110 per cent of them seen by a doctor immediately! In the June quarter just gone, 99.9 per cent of category 1 patients were seen immediately by a doctor. And, yes, we will improve on that. In the March quarter, 74 per cent of category 2 patients were seen by a doctor within 10 minutes of attending an emergency department. This had improved to 77 per cent by the June quarter. Honourable members should remember that these are the most urgent of patients. I am told that waiting times for category 3 are pretty steady. The Premier and I have been warning for many months now that more and more non-urgent category 4 and 5 patients are attending public hospitals as a direct result of the reduction in general practice bulk-billing services. I am happy to table this graph, which clearly shows the impact of the drop of bulk-billing on emergency departments. I informed the committee that one of the worst affected areas was the Sunshine Coast. The latest official figures from the federal government show that the rate of bulk-billing in the federal electorate of Fisher plummeted from 91 per cent to 62 per cent. We heard nothing from the member for Maroochydore or the member for Caloundra. They did not say boo. They just do what they are told. In this regard I have tabled a chart which— 20 Aug 2003 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 3085

Miss SIMPSON: Madam Temporary Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The minister is misleading the House. I did mention the fact that the Nambour Hospital emergency department had a 30 per cent increase in the acuity categories 1, 2 and 3. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Ms Male): Order! There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Mrs EDMOND: As I said, she did nothing. She did not tell her federal members one thing about the declining GP rates. She did not say boo. The shadow minister has commented about unfunded wage rises. I say once again for the benefit of the chamber that EB5 wage rises are fully funded and no funding comes out of health service district budgets. I have to say that not much comes from the Commonwealth government, either. With regard to the shared service initiative, we tried very hard, in words of one syllable, to explain to the member for Maroochydore that this is being worked through. It is not something for this year's estimates debate; it will be in the 2004-05 Ministerial Portfolio Statement. She presumably did not hear me, because after explaining that on numerous occasions she said that I had not answered the question. However, any actions to improve service delivery will be in accordance with the conditions of EB5. Queensland Health staff do a sterling job—and not only in preparing for the budget. It is an enormous department. It is an enormous budget. It is an enormous responsibility. They make a great effort. They put in an enormous amount of work in getting information out to everybody in this chamber and the community and also in preparing for the estimates process. It is a pity that their efforts are so castigated in statements by the member for Maroochydore. Time expired. Report adopted. Progress reported. Debate, on motion of Mrs Edmond, adjourned.

CHILD ABUSE, ROYAL COMMISSION Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (6.04 p.m.): I move— That this House calls for a royal commission into the failures of government to adequately provide protection to children and further that the royal commission include in its investigation the identification of systemic failures; areas of abuse including home based care as well as departmental care and failures by the Department of Families to adequately respond to reported abuse. In answer to the many revelations in relation to neglect by the Department of Families over a number of years to respond appropriately to notifications of child abuse, the government referred the matter a week or two ago to the CMC for its investigation into, it appears, only foster families. I have to ask, with the papers revealing these allegations of inaction by the department over a number of years: why had an inquiry into departmental conduct not been instituted by the CMC itself? The CMC knew of systemic problems in the Department of Families. The Ombudsman's inquiry into the tragedy of Brooke Brennan documented the lack of dollars and systemic failure in relation to those events. On 25 March 2001 the Sunday Mail stated— Procedures will be strengthened so department officers are compelled to take action if they are not certain a child is safe. It is obvious because of the revelations since then that that has not worked. On Wednesday, 6 August, Dr Lara Wieland was photographed in the Courier-Mail handing a letter detailing sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities to the Prime Minister. In the article accompanying the photo, Tony Koch states— Children on remote Aboriginal communities suffer continuing serious sexual abuse because doctors' reports of the incidents given to the Queensland Families Department are not passed on to police for investigation. Why? The article goes on to say— Dr Wieland said child sexual abuse and neglect were 'out of control'... Yet the Minister for Families this morning stated that only a day or two ago she signed a letter to Dr Wieland and only this morning spoke to her. Why the wait? Did the department at an earlier time contact Dr Wieland as soon as the article appeared in the paper to get vital information? 3086 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 20 Aug 2003

The government tonight probably will not support this call for a royal commission. At the recent crisis child protection summit it was said by a participant— The government are always looking for someone or something to blame—this time deflecting to foster carers. So the government calls for the CMC to investigate foster carers only. It is not enough. I take this opportunity to outline some of the reasons we must have a royal commission and nothing less. These include matters raised by Hetty Johnston and other concerned people at the crisis child care summit. There are wider issues involved than just the foster care situation. Institutions that child victims could once turn to for support are now also corrupted by individual predators who have turned a safe haven for young people into places of risk and threat. These include organisations such as the scouts, Girl Guides and similar. I put on the record now that the vast majority of people who work in scout or guides groups or church based groups want the very best for children. They want to nurture. They want to contribute positively. Those few predators, however, mean that organisations such as the Department of Families, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and police must respond quickly to reports of alleged abuse. They must investigate. They must stop the perpetrators. There are demonstrated, not suspected, systemic failures in these departmental processes existent over a number of ministers and governments. A royal commission must investigate this failure of the state child protection system. Only a royal commission can offer the protection to whistleblowers necessary to assure and protect those who speak out. This is essential to give those working in the department, as well as those external to the department, confidence that they will be protected. Only a royal commission chaired by a retired judge of standing and not aligned to any political party will be seen by the community, by care providers and, more importantly, by survivors of abuse as independent and unconstrained. A royal commission can look at the entire spectrum—from resources available to systemic strengths and weaknesses in both the department and investigative or support organisations. These include the police department, the DPP and the Health Department. A royal commission can look at the strengths and weaknesses of current legislation. The Queensland Crime Commission, whose formation separate from the CJC I supported, was established and charged with a standing reference on paedophilia. It was identified that prior to the formation of the Crime Commission the CJC, which had paedophilia under its jurisdiction, had clearly focused on organised crime, corruption and misconduct. These are all very important; however, there needed to be a focus on our children and their safety. The QCC was intended to be proactive. When the Labor government, as was its right, dissolved the QCC, it also removed the obligation to notify and returned the CMC in its response to paedophilia to reference based. The new CMC was reactive rather than proactive in this area of protection of our children. With constantly emerging incidents of reported abuse which could include paedophilia not being responded to by the Department of Families, it appears that few of the government organisations charged with the protection of our children have fulfilled their responsibilities well. Mr Fouras: Why didn't you move this motion 10 years ago? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Because the allegations were not public. How many reported abuses were not investigated by the Department of Families during that period of case management? I know there are some, but how many? A royal commission has the powers, the protection and the resources to identify those cases overlooked. They may not have been in foster care situations—in fact, they are not all in the area of foster care. Those children left in abusive situations because of a lack of staff and resources must be identified, their current circumstances investigated and their safety assured. Indeed, Department of Families officers who were required to case manage deserve that action. These investigations must cover all children. As stated before, Dr Lara Wieland reported in detail on sexual abuse in remote Aboriginal communities involving five or six-year-old children who tested positive for sexually transmitted diseases. She has stated that she assumed that, when reporting a case of abuse to the department, it was automatically passed on to the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect team and the police Juvenile Aid Bureau. She stated— I now find that most cases I reported to DFS were never passed on to the JAB/SCAN teams and this has been the case in other communities also. She further stated— 20 Aug 2003 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 3087

I have seen children placed in a foster home more than once despite DFS being notified by me and others that community members suspected the father was a pedophile. Several children from that household have tested positive for STDs. What systems failed those children and continue to fail them? What support do the children, their families or communities need to ensure a safe home life for them? Yesterday I spoke of the soul-destroying experiences related by Boni Robertson. She has lived this abuse through the interviewing of women in abusive relationships and the stories of abuse of children in Aboriginal communities. This treatment, however, is not isolated to any one group. The referral to the CMC is insufficient. It is limited in its scope. It is limited in the protection that it can give to potential whistleblowers. In many instances, it is not seen as impartial and for some victims is viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. A royal commission will send a clear message that the government recognises the size of the problem uncovered over a long time and, until now, was not adequately responded to. A royal commission is a reflection of the political will necessary after a culmination of years of disclosures, revelations and inadequate or ineffectual action. A royal commission is the most serious response we can offer. It is what is needed and what our children deserve. I commend the motion to the House and I seek members' support. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (6.12 p.m.): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone and I commend her for the sensible way— A government member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: I am seconding the motion and I am supporting it. ... we are dealing with children here, and this is a matter that needs to be fully and properly investigated to protect our young people in this State. Innocent children need to be protected. Only through a royal commission can we get to the bottom of this matter, and only then will they be fully and properly protected. Mr Fouras: You could not find the money all the years your government was in power. You never looked after anybody. Mr SPRINGBORG: Those are not my words. They are the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beattie, on 21 August 1997 when he moved a motion in this parliament on this very issue. Part (b) of his motion states— ... acknowledges the report of the Queensland Children's Commissioner which reveals the inability of a range of Government agencies to deal effectively with allegations of paedophilia over two decades ... Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The issues that were evident and that were endemic at that time are the same issues that we are debating here today. It is about time that both sides of the parliament realised that enough is enough, and that it is time to have a royal commission to make sure that this issue is going to be cleared up once and for all. Quite clearly, in times past, the current Premier and other members who sit on the government side have held the view that there needs to be a royal commission. Failure to support the motion before the House, any attempts to water it down and any shying away from a full commission of inquiry will be, in effect, the turning of a blind eye. Once again, those are not my words; they are the words of the member for South Brisbane. They are the words of Ms Bligh on 21 August 1997 when she seconded the motion moved by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beattie. What hypocrisy to have a situation where they are prepared to— Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the chair. Mr SPRINGBORG: Mr Speaker, I will refer my comments to you. It is about time that we in this parliament recognise that we have made mistakes on this issue and that all sides have made mistakes on this issue. The processes that government has put in place include the establishment of the Children's Commissioner and the establishment of the CJC, which did not properly do the job. The Crime Commission was supposed to do the job and I think that it did not do too bad a job, although it could have done somewhat better. It had the charter and the responsibility, and it did start to do the job. The CMC is not the appropriate body to do the job. I admit that the motion should have been supported in 1997, but the reality is that today we in the parliament should be working in a bipartisan way to support the motion that has been 3088 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 20 Aug 2003 moved by the member for Gladstone to establish a royal commission that will get to the bottom of the issue once and for all. Obviously, the Premier had concerns about the systemic and endemic failure of the government departments at that time. I share those concerns. What the government of the day sought to do to address the problem did not necessarily address the problem. What the Premier is doing today will not address the problem either. He is going to push this issue aside. We are going to have a CMC inquiry that is so narrow in its scope of investigation through public hearings, the taking of evidence and the way it will attend to witnesses that the truth will never come out. It is so narrow in scope that it is isolated to the issue of foster-children in care. If any other issues arise, the CMC says that it will deal with those as it would deal with other allegations that are made to it. This matter has to be brought out once and for all. It has to be seen to be done in a public forum. A royal commission is the only way to do it. One does not have to disclose names. The only way that the community will have the confidence that this issue has been appropriately dealt with is if it is investigated with the full resources and the full authority of a royal commission in Queensland. Mr Fouras interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: All that those opposite are doing is covering up. I have a lot of respect for the honourable member for Ashgrove, but I cannot believe that he is witnessing this endemic cover-up of an issue that has gone— Time expired. Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (6.17 p.m.): I move the following amendment— Delete all words after 'House' and insert the following— 'recognises that the Crime and Misconduct Commission has the powers of a Standing Royal Commission to conduct investigations; welcomes the current CMC Inquiry into foster care in Queensland; and notes that the Government will co-operate fully with the CMC in this inquiry.' The government welcomes scrutiny and we have repeatedly welcomed the CMC's inquiry into foster care. There are now five investigations into issues surrounding foster carers: there is a police investigation of high-profile claims of abuse involving a particular foster family; secondly, there is an independent external review of the Families Department's handling of the case; thirdly, there is an ombudsman's report into the case; fourthly, there is an audit of foster carers; and fifthly, there is the CMC inquiry, which arose from a referral that I made to the commission on 28 July. The CMC is a standing royal commission with the powers to investigate crime or misconduct by any officer. Section 346(1) of the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 unequivocally states that the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1950 prevails over the act. Importantly, witnesses enjoy the same protection as witnesses in the Supreme Court. The CMC and its forerunner, the Criminal Justice Commission, have repeatedly demonstrated their independence. The CMC's terms of reference in the foster care inquiry are comprehensive. The CMC will inquire into and report on: (a) any systemic factors contributing to the incidence of any abuse of children in foster care; (b) the suitability of measures to protect children in foster care from abuse, in particular the adequacy of systems and procedures to prevent and detect abuse, and the adequacy of measures to respond to and deal with suspected abuse, including abuse reported by foster carers; (c) seek any recommendations as may be considered appropriate in relation to (a) and (b), including recommendations for any necessary changes to current policies, legislation and, importantly, practices. I am not in a position to know the cost of this inquiry, the terms of reference for which were announced last Friday. Let me talk about the costs of inquiries and royal commissions. Firstly, the Shepherdson inquiry cost $775,200. That was a CJC inquiry. The current indicative cost of the Families Department's involvement in all its reviews, inquiries and investigations is $306,000. We spent about $2.5 million on the Forde inquiry. That included legal fees and counselling costs for some of the victims. I ask members to compare this to the cost of recent royal commissions. Media reports put the cost of the Cole royal commission at $60 million, the HIH royal commission at $40 million, the Connolly-Ryan inquiry, which ran for 10 months, at a cost of $10 million and the Fitzgerald inquiry cost at around $24 million. 20 Aug 2003 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 3089

I would rather see that money being spent on helping children. I would rather see the money that would be eaten up by royal commissions invested in child protection. I am not prepared to see a feeding frenzy by lawyers simply to put money in their pockets when we want to put money into the pockets of foster carers and help children. We have made sweeping reforms to the Families portfolio, including committing in 2002 an additional $144 million over four years to help children and families in crisis. We are now spending more than $167 million a year on child protection. We are switching the focus of child protection to prevention and early intervention. We are more than doubling the budget for child protection. We are nearly doubling the number of child protection workers and increasing foster carers' allowances and support. There was a six per cent increase in the standard foster carer's allowance for children aged 11 and over from January 2003. We have also provided support, such as short-term respite and the foster carer card, which gives carers access to a range of government concessions and business documents. We are also investing $12 million over four years in IT to improve reporting and assessment procedures. We are changing this system and so we should. We introduced the Child Protection Act 1999, which is considered the world's best practice. Yesterday Judy Spence, the Families Minister, and I announced that the department would employ 25 new staff—15 full-time and 10 part-time—as Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect, SCAN, coordinators. This will be a $2 million recurrent annual investment and a $1 million investment for the rest of this financial year. I would rather spend the money on programs like SCAN, which protect children, than on a lawyers' picnic that is a royal commission. We have had more inquiries—we have had five inquiries—than we have ever had before into the Department of Families. In addition, as a government we are spending more money than any other government in the history of Queensland on the Department of Families. There are many historic problems, but we are moving to fix them. We are determined to fix them. If these inquiries make recommendations to improve, we will improve. Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors) (6.22 p.m.): I am pleased to second the amendments moved by the Premier tonight. I have to say that I thank the honourable member for Gladstone for the opportunity to place clearly on the public record this government's position concerning a royal commission. The fact of the matter is that both the Premier and I have supported an inquiry at a national level into child abuse, because we know that child abuse does not respect geographic boundaries. It does not stop at state borders and, frankly, there is a strong case for a national approach to child protection. The Productivity Commission report into government services has consistently pointed out that there are significant differences between the states in terms of policies, legislation and child protection frameworks and this makes any accurate comparison very difficult. There is something to be gained by national cooperation. The question posed by the member for Gladstone tonight was: do we need a royal commission? Calls for a royal commission are not new. Frankly, it surprises me that some people see them as a panacea for our child protection system and for many other areas of society. I sat down with Hetty Johnston recently and discussed her belief that a royal commission is necessary to look at child abuse in Queensland. I have listened to the member for Gladstone's contribution tonight, but I am not convinced that a royal commission is going to fix Queensland's child protection system for a number of reasons which I would like to outline. In recent times we have had an extensive inquiry into children in care in this state—the Forde inquiry. As a result of that inquiry, the Forde report is probably the greatest indictment of government inaction over decades that this state has seen. It came to light only because this government had the courage to establish it. It came to light only because this government was determined to reform the system and to change it for the better. We introduced new child protection legislation viewed as one of the best in the country. We took on board the recommendations of the Forde inquiry and we delivered on them. Over the past five years the Beattie government has given the Families Department unprecedented funding increases, but our child protection system should still be better. I think any fair analysis of the work that this government has done in the past five years would acknowledge that we have made significant improvements and that this government is committed to delivering long-term and substantial change. We know where the child protection system still needs significant structural change and we will continue to make those changes. 3090 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 20 Aug 2003

The focus is not just on the resourcing level; it is also on how we spend the dollar—how effective we are in managing our partnerships with the non-government sector and how keen we are to examine new methods, new practices and new technology. These reforms are critical, as a continuation of past practice, and even the provision of additional resources and staff will not deliver better results. Transformational change is needed in culture, practice, processes and systems. There are no quick fixes. There are no easy solutions. What we have to do—and what I am personally committed to doing—is to make sure that this system has the capability and the flexibility to adapt to changing community expectations and demands. I believe that all of us here want the same objective. We want a system that works far better than it has in the past. As the Premier has outlined, we have an independent external review under way into one foster care case and an independent external audit of our existing foster carers is under way. The Children's Commissioner and the police are actively involved in both of those inquiries. I established those inquiries because I am determined to ensure that our child protection system is as open and transparent as possible and because I believe that will help us improve the system. I am also happy to assist and appear before the CMC inquiry because I believe that the inquiry will be useful in offering any Queenslander who has an interest or knowledge in alternative care policies the opportunity to have an informed debate and propose solutions. I do not believe that all knowledge rests with the government. Although we know much about what needs to be done to improve our child protection system, I believe that the recommendations that will come from the CMC will assist us with further reforms. For these reasons, I think it is important that the government and I appear before the CMC inquiry. We have heard a lot of politics tonight about this issue. I think we should all remember that the only thing that really matters is the protection of our children. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (6.27 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of a call for a royal commission into the situation of child abuse in Queensland. As a father of six kids, there is no other situation I can think of that is more distressing and depressing than the thought of children being robbed of their innocence by the predatory behaviour of people who are entrusted with their care. Whenever I pick up a newspaper or switch on the TV and hear about the latest case of child abuse by people who seem to lack the basic milk of human kindness, I feel a profound sense of anger for this deep injustice perpetrated against little ones who are powerless to defend themselves. At the same time I recognise that often these tragic people were themselves the victims of abuse in their early years. The abused often go on to become abusers themselves. Children are the true innocents of our society and they have a right to expect nothing less than absolute vigilance in terms of their protection and support, especially when they find themselves facing the tragedy of the breakdown of the traditional family unit. I pay tribute to the many wonderful parents and foster-parents throughout Queensland who would lay their life on the line to protect their children. I am saddened that in some cases when people chose to use innocents to satisfy their sick and twisted desires the reputation of the role of foster-parenting is tarnished. Some mud sticks. It is critical that good, honest foster-parents are available to nurture children who have endured the tragedy of being separated from their birth parents and who have often been abused themselves. In rising to support this motion, I am sure that both sides of this House care deeply about getting it right when it comes to administering a regime of care for children in our state. I do not wish to call into question the motive of ministers from either sides of the House who have laboured hard to bring equity and justice to this very difficult portfolio. This is an issue that is far bigger than politics. If a royal commission can find failings in the system and recommendations for change that save one Queensland kid from the indignity and horror of child abuse, it will be money well spent. One only has to look at the outpouring of hostility that emanated from the bashing of a young father in Sydney this week which resulted in a skull fracture of his four-week- old daughter whom he was carrying to know that community support is squarely behind the absolute protection of children in our society. We need to pull out all stops to speak up for the little ones who have no voice. A royal commission will provide an independent and fair assessment of the efficiency of the department. If there are things that need changing to enhance the safety of children in our state, this should take a greater priority than political point scoring from either side of the House. I call on members from both sides of the House to be open and honest about the efficiencies of the Families Department so that we can deliver the best possible outcome for the protection of Queensland 20 Aug 2003 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 3091 kids. I noted that Minister Spence mentioned Hetty Johnston, and I also want to acknowledge Hetty Johnston from Bravehearts and her tireless care for the children of Queensland and her constant calls for a royal commission. To this end, I lend my support to the call for a royal commission by my parliamentary colleague the member for Gladstone. Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeerongpilly—ALP) (Minister for Employment, Training and Youth and Minister for the Arts) (6.31 p.m.): The welfare of children must be the paramount consideration in this debate. No higher duty falls on the members of this parliament than the duty to protect the children of Queensland. The question is whether the interests of children would be best served by acceding to the motion of the member for Gladstone to set up a royal commission, by which I assume her to mean a commission of inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act. The government believes that it would not be in the best interests of children to take that course for three principal reasons: firstly, it is unnecessary in that there are already a number of significant inquiries; secondly, it would be costly in circumstances where financial resources should be best applied for the welfare of children rather than on a lawyers' picnic; thirdly, it would be counterproductive because the establishment of a commission of inquiry would, of necessity, collide with the jurisdiction of the Crime and Misconduct Commission in the two inquiries which it announced on 15 August. Let me deal with each of those three arguments in turn. It is unnecessary because the Crime and Misconduct Commission has undertaken these inquiries. It has not been suggested by any party that the Crime and Misconduct Commission does not have jurisdiction, so the arguments appear to rest on two limbs. Firstly, it is said by the Leader of the Opposition that there is a lack of breadth in the scope of the terms of reference. This is plainly false because it is clear from the announcement of the terms of reference on 15 August that the CMC terms of reference are extremely broad and include an inquiry into and public report on a number of terms of reference—namely, any systemic factors contributing to the incidence of any abuse of children in foster care and the suitability of measures to protect children in foster care from abuse, in particular the adequacy of systems and procedures to prevent and detect abuse, to respond and deal with suspected abuse and recommendations arising out of it. As the Premier pointed out, there is now an investigation by the police, an independent audit commissioned by the minister, an independent review into the particular case commissioned by the minister, an investigation by the Ombudsman and two inquiries announced by the CMC on 15 August—one into the systemic issues and one investigation and public report on the allegations of abuse of foster-children in a family. If the argument is that it is necessary because the royal commission has greater powers, that is plainly a false argument, because the Crime and Misconduct Act 2001 gives very broad powers indeed in chapter 3 to the Crime and Misconduct Commission to carry out its duties, in particular power to subpoena documents, power to summons witnesses and power to compel answers to questions even if self-incriminating. Moreover, I should say that there is a certain advantage in the Crime and Misconduct Commission in that it reports not to the executive but to this parliament. The last time that the opposition sought to set up a royal commission also collided with a Criminal Justice Commission inquiry. It is important to place on record the tremendous contribution that this government has made, and I salute the work of the Hon. Anna Bligh in introducing the Child Protection Act 1999 which replaced the Children's Services Act 1965, which indeed was the act in operation when I served as a child welfare officer, as it then was, in that department in 1970. This government has a proud record and has been well served in this portfolio. Time expired. Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—NPA) (6.36 p.m.): I certainly support the motion moved by the member for Gladstone in which she calls for a royal commission into failures of the government to adequately provide protection for children. Quite obviously, this is a failure of governments and everyone in this House must admit that governments have failed—and I use the word 'governments'—and therefore a royal commission is necessary. I was disappointed tonight to hear the Premier's comments when he said that a royal commission costs so much and therefore we will not have it because of the cost. That is completely wrong, especially when we are dealing with children and with the fact that successive governments have failed to be able to resolve the problem. I note the recent July report of Families News which carries an article with the heading 'Break the silence for our kid's sake' which mentions Project Axis, which was a joint inquiry. It states that the project's findings are distressing and that child sex offenders are most often known to the victim. It talks about the fact that up to 45 per cent of females and 19 per cent of males may 3092 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 20 Aug 2003 have been victims of sexual abuse. It talks about the fact that half the victims of child sex abuse never report the abuse to another person. Clearly, there are problems; there are still problems even after the Forde inquiry. One of the statements in the Forde inquiry report was that— Some responsibility must be taken by those to whom the abuses were reported and who did not act. The Forde inquiry was a commission of inquiry into abuse of children in Queensland institutions. It looked at abuse. It looked at mistreatment and it looked at neglect. Obviously it asked why this happened. It asked how we could repair the damage. It asked how these violations could be prevented from happening again. Every one of us who has had anything to do with the Department of Families knows that this is an ongoing problem and will continue to be an ongoing problem, and we will continually need inquiries and outside inquiries which have the power to report on all of these things, especially how these violations can be prevented from happening again. That report asked for a $103 million increase to be provided in the Queensland budget and it had 42 recommendations. It shocked us all and it led to the closure of several institutions that many of us thought were doing an excellent job at the time. I say that because quite obviously we need to change our attitudes and we need to be continually challenged, because what I have noticed from being a minister for families and within the education system is that these departments can become severely bureaucratic and set in their ways. They are extremely hard to change and extremely hard for a minister to change. Certainly, an outside report such as the Forde report is able to take that significant step. Some people used the inquiry at that time to be vindictive by implying that something occurred when it did not. I feel sorry for some of the institutions that were forced to change; some of the reports were never checked. Some people had their reputations destroyed. However, we still have to have this if we are to overcome the problem of child abuse. Unfortunately, organisations and departments such as the Department of Families become very set in their ways. We find front-line workers involved in looking into very demanding complaints. We need very experienced people. These people must have an education, experience and an ability to deal with people. However, the problem of day-to-day, hour-to-hour demands on a front-line worker are massive. People who perform in an excellent manner generally are upwardly mobile and find it a welcome relief to go to a higher-level job. Workers obviously need an increasing salary, job satisfaction and less pressure. In a demanding department that is expanding rapidly there is always a need for more experienced staff. However, as I have said, I think departments have become set in their ways. I find it disappointing to see ministers standing back and saying, 'I will have nothing to do with the department. The department must do its job.' As politicians we bring to this job an experience of dealing with the public and understanding what it wants. I believe it is completely wrong, even if the separation of powers says so, for a minister to sit back and say, 'I will have absolutely nothing to do with the department. It is the director-general's job and the director-general will make the decision.' Time expired. Mr NEIL ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) (6.41 p.m.): I am pleased to support the amended motion and want to raise a few issues in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Families and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy and Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Seniors, Judy Spence. It is an honour to be able to serve the government and the people of Queensland in areas facing enormous challenge but also enormous reform. I thank Minister Spence for the steps she is taking in welcoming me to the portfolio and for the support she has provided to me and my staff. I am pleased to be appointed to this portfolio, because in the short period that I have been here it has become clear to me that the government is committed to improving the lives of Queensland families and of children in the care of the state. This is a complex and difficult area of government responsibility where no matter what action we take we will always upset someone. If we take a child from a family, the government is often accused of being heavy-handed. However, if we do not intervene and abuse occurs, the government is accused of being uncaring, incompetent or negligent. This is a very thin tightrope that Department of Families' staff have to tread every day of their working lives. When the recent allegations involving a foster care family arose, Minister Spence acted quickly and unequivocally to have the claims investigated. Even though these allegations stretched back some 20 years, the department was instructed to leave no stone unturned in its 20 Aug 2003 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 3093 efforts to uncover the truth and the police were called in to carry out a parallel investigation. In the course of these audits and investigations, crucial material has been revealed and the opposition has tried to use the material for base political purposes over the past two days in this House. A significant question in this debate is whether the government has ever tried to hide this material. The answer, of course, is no. In fact, as soon as it came to light the Premier sent it all to the relevant authorities and to the media. The Premier and the minister then asked the CMC to carry out a thorough and far-ranging inquiry into foster care in this state. To demonstrate further the minister's commitment to openness in this process she has publicly stated her intention to appear before this inquiry. The claims that have been made about the children in the care of the foster family in question are shocking and no-one can help feeling for the children in these circumstances and wondering what types of experiences they have had to endure. While these claims have yet to be fully investigated and proven, the amount of circumstantial evidence certainly points to a breakdown in the child protection system. That is the key point. The government has not tried to cover up or deny that there have been problems and that in the past the system has failed children in the care of the state. The minister has acknowledged this on several occasions well before the latest allegations were made. That is why Judy Spence and her predecessor, Anna Bligh, initiated major reviews and improvements in the structures, programs and resources of this department. The work of these reforms started well before the current issues made headlines on the evening news. The opposition's role in tackling child protection issues whilst it was in government is an important element of this debate. Let us compare a few instances of how the Beattie government has handled Families issues and how the coalition has performed in the same area. Last year the government pledged an extra $148 million over four years for the Families Department, an average increase of $37 million per year. In the 2001 election campaign, the coalition promised $79.4 million over four years for parenting, child protection and the family. This commitment was not just for the Families Department but for all programs to do with parenting and child protection, some of which reside in the Departments of Health and Education. Even if we were generous and said that it was all going to the Families Department, it still amounts to only half the amount the Beattie government has committed to and is delivering for the Families Department. The coalition's response reflects the chronic underfunding and neglect that was a feature of 32 years of National and Liberal Party governments in this state. The opposition has also made much of its commitment to a further 30 family support staff over a three-year period. Last year alone the Beattie government trebled that commitment by employing 90 officers, and this week it has committed to a further 25 positions for SCAN teams. Improving child protection is about much more than devoting more resources and staff to improve our responses. That is why the government has overhauled the Child Protection Act—legislation that advocacy groups have hailed as the best in the country. What was the coalition's commitment— Time expired. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (6.46 p.m.): Although I and all who rise to speak to and support this motion tonight wish that it was not necessary to have to participate in this fight to have the government do the right thing, it is very damning that with continual revelations being splashed across the front pages of papers and television screens the government has not had the foresight to initiate a royal commission in the interests of these abused children, not just foster-children as the CMC investigation is covering but all children who have suffered abuse. This government is selfishly putting itself first at the expense of the state's children. All the Premier's statements about being an honest and accountable government have flown out the window. The Premier should initiate a royal commission himself, but it is obvious the government does not have the courage to bare this issue's questionable history to the Queensland people for fear of what might be revealed. Child abuse is not an easy subject to deal with, nor is it an easy one to resolve. However, it does appear that it is a very easy one to hide. It is so easy to hide because the government numbers in this House will ensure that a royal commission does not take place and that the neglect and past failures of all governments to protect and support those most vulnerable is never revealed. What this government must realise is that the more the facts and figures are disguised or the deeper information is buried the more the public will perceive the government is being deceptive and the harder they will dig. A local case was raised by a mother and several members of the community—a local doctor, a senior registrar of Queensland Health and the Child and Youth Mental Health Service. 3094 Child Abuse, Royal Commission 20 Aug 2003

Allegedly, they have supplied affidavits outlining their concerns. Affidavits were also procured from two nurses and a highly respected Kingaroy community health nurse. To my knowledge, none of these people has been contacted after raising concerns. Every one of my approaches to the minister and the various departmental heads I was passed to was largely met with the statement 'Due to confidentiality we can't discuss this with you.' I accept that and acknowledge it as essential. But even sending documentation of these concerns raised with me did not, to my knowledge, result in any of these people's affidavits being checked. The question is: why? It was the innocent face of three-year old Brooke Brennan who was murdered in July being splashed across the front page of all the media that brought home to everyone that something was drastically wrong with the system. The police had assessed the situation as a priority 1 suspected child abuse case. Ten days later, Brooke had been kicked to death. After the minister had received an internal report that had found that Brooke's case had been handled correctly she said there was an obvious problem and asked the DG to review the regulations and protocols associated with child abuse. However, the Ombudsman reported negatively on the issues surrounding the death of Brooke Brennan and, to my knowledge, the issues raised remain unaddressed. This minister cannot be blamed for cases that were neglected in the past, but she can be blamed if she does not take measures that will ensure the situation does not continue, and that can only be done by making sure that all practices followed by departmental staff are reviewed, all who were involved are questioned, all grievances are heard and all questionable instances are thoroughly investigated. I acknowledge that the minister stated at the time that the Queensland Families Department would change the way it investigated suspected child abuse as a result of the inquiry into Brooke's death, but Brooke was only the tip of a very large iceberg of entrenched procedural and systemic problems. We who are asking for this royal commission do not expect the problems to be resolved overnight, but a royal commission will at the very least highlight all areas in need of attention. We are not expecting miracles; we are just expecting the minister responsible to do her duty and do that duty without fear or favour regardless of who may be cast with the shadow that such cases throw. Every child of whom the department may be notified as a possible subject of abuse or whom the department in the past has held in its care deserves to have their case reviewed. Circumstances change very rapidly and the staff demand required to do such a thorough job is beyond the current staffing levels. This royal commission is essential not only for those with grievances outside the department but also for the wellbeing of the staff who need to have the cloud that lingers over them lifted. Cost should not be a consideration in preserving the welfare of what is our greatest responsibility: our children. We found money for Lang Park. Why not for these children? Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (6.51 p.m.): The motion deserves to be defeated. Why should we spend millions more on yet another inquiry when we have a standing royal commission called the CMC conducting a public inquiry into the department? Our friend the Leader of the Opposition has an inquiring mind, which is why he supports an inquiry when we already have an inquiry. It is the Borbidge government years revisited. The Goss government and the Beattie government have been criticised in the past by National Party politicians and the Independents, including the one who has just spoken, for spending too much money on welfare, and why? What draws them to this conclusion? It is simply this: during the Bjelke-Petersen years spending on child welfare was the lowest in Australia. For example, in 1988-89 it was $30.18 per capita. As one carer said to me, they were given $32 a year to buy clothes and food for the kids in their care under Bjelke-Petersen. $32 a year! Members might also like to reflect on the National Party's other piece of social engineering, that of lumping all the housing commission homes into Labor electorates. That is, they placed people who were at great disadvantage in the one suburb and never adequately resourced them. We have already had a royal commission into those years. It was called the Fitzgerald inquiry. Bjelke-Petersen and the Nationals stand condemned for their years of indifference. The genesis for the underfunding occurred in those 32 wasted years of neglect and corruption. For over a decade now Labor governments have set up programs in our electorates in community renewal giving families a bit of hope, pride, more services, better housing, the blue card system, the Forde inquiry, the Positive Parenting Program—a program, I might say, that the member for Maroochydore opposed. She said she would abolish it if they came to government. When the Families staff in Logan City were crying out for extra resources because of the stress 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3095 from their workload we set up under this government a new office in Browns Plains. I will be as pleased as Punch the day that we do not need that service anymore. The day they have to vacate it and leave it and we can put another service in there will be a great day. I will be delighted when people who make the sacred decision to be parents take the responsibility to care for those children in a loving and caring environment. I am afraid to report to the House tonight that between the member for Woodridge, the member for Waterford and me we have 500 kids on court orders to be taken from families. That reveals the extent of the dysfunction. When members opposite say we are trying to hide things, I ask: how do you hide 500 kids? You do not. It is a great effort to try to place those kids. You do not hide them. There is criticism of the department. Of course there is. Any system has its weaknesses. Do the department officials get it right every time? In Logan City, with 500 kids, do you think they get it right every time? Of course they do not. I doubt if any of us could. The line between keeping a child in the family and removing them can be quite marginal. There are never enough carers, especially late on Friday afternoons when the calls come in from carers who want to hand the kids back. The Department of Families had an office next to mine. I saw and I know the trail of human misery—kids in tears, babies suffering brain damage from abuse. It is hard not to know about it when they are right next door and right outside your door. Can any member imagine a job when every single day you are confronted with some of the worst aspects of human nature, where you make judgments about the degrees of abuse—not about abuse? That is the lot of the Families field workers. These people are not John Howard's white picket fence families. I know from the educating children and young people in care state inquiry that Minister Bligh set up that even in the worst cases of abuse those children want to be reunited with their families. I am appalled when I hear people like the member for Tablelands call it Stalinist Russia when kids are removed. They are removed as a last resort. I hear her nodding there; I could hear that little rattle in her head. The point is she was critical of the department for taking kids and we have a motion tonight criticising the government for not looking after them. How do you reconcile that? On the one hand, it is Stalinist Russia; on the other hand, we are criticised because we are trying to look after kids. The member for Gladstone says that she has met with Bravehearts. I call on the member for Gladstone to come and visit a Families office in Logan City. She should come to the West Logan Community Centre and see the extraordinary job that ordinary people are doing to protect kids. Time expired. Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put; and the House divided— AYES, 57—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, M. Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Reeves, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Purcell NOES, 21—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, C. Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, E. Roberts, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson Resolved in the affirmative. Motion, as amended, agreed to. Sitting suspended from 7.02 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

PRE-ELECTION BUDGET HONESTY BILL Second Reading Resumed from 2 April (see p. 1104). Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Sport) (8.30 p.m.): The government will oppose the Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The bill reflects the fact that Mr Springborg has ignored the Queensland government's strong commitment to transparent and accountable government, as demonstrated in its Charter of Social and Fiscal Responsibility. The charter outlines the government's fiscal commitments for the current term and contains a comprehensive reporting framework whereby the government sets out its service delivery objectives, reports annually on its performance through the Priorities in Progress report and reports on the financial position of the 3096 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003 state. The government also introduced Queensland's first mid-year review in the 1999-2000 financial year. In fact, the government now presents the community with high-quality and robust financial statements twice yearly through the annual budget and the mid-year review. These documents are prepared over a matter of months and reflect extensive consultation with agencies and comprehensive decision-making processes. These lay the basis for public debate and enhanced government accountability. The government also releases an end-of-year outcomes report and an audited consolidated financial report, produced in accordance with Australian accounting standards. Regardless, the opposition's Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill proposes another financial document—a pre- election fiscal and economic outlook report. Unfortunately, unlike the budget and mid-year review, the pre-election fiscal and economic outlook report would be prepared in a matter of days based on limited information. It would be prepared by public servants without the benefit of extensive consultation with agencies and the decision-making process which underlie the budget and mid- year review. The pre-election fiscal and economic outlook report would be an inferior product. Rather than providing robust financial data, the pre-election economic and fiscal report risks providing less reliable information at the time of an election. A recent example of this can be seen in the controversy that arose from the Commonwealth's pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report and the assumptions used to cost Australia's military commitment to Afghanistan in 2001- 02. Despite it being apparent at the time of the outlook report's release that Australia would be militarily involved in Afghanistan, the report made no significant allowance for this in its estimates and projected a budget cash surplus for 2001-02. Subsequently it was estimated that the cost of Australian deployment was $2.1 billion, resulting in a cash deficit in 2001-02 of $1.3 billion. The bill seems to replicate aspects of the legislation of other jurisdictions without the benefit of any assessment of the actual experience of other jurisdictions with pre-election budget updates. The government offers a better solution. If the opposition were to agree to fixed four- year terms, the date for the election or the mid-year review could be set to ensure that the latest thorough update on the budget and economic position was available a month or so before the election. It would deliver the benefits of fixed four-year terms while providing the community with high-quality and robust financial statements as the basis for election debate. Four-year terms were recommended by the Queensland Constitutional Review Commission in 2000. Fixed four-year terms are important for good government because the time frame gives greater certainty and stability to allow governments to concentrate on delivering services and infrastructure. This is essentially the model adopted by New South Wales. Its half-yearly budget review is released a relatively short time before the fixed date of its four-yearly elections. This removes the need for the preparation of a pre-election budget update while providing the most reliable financial data for election debate. This is a prescription for better government. I would ask members to cast their minds back to the last state election. Just prior to the election being announced the then Treasurer, David Hamill, released a mid-year review, which is a far better document than would be produced by what the opposition is asking for here—something put together in 10 days. The mid-year review is a far better document. It was released a matter of only a week, I think, before the election was announced. That meant that the opposition had the most up-to-date data available to it. Yet it totally disregarded that in putting together its election promises and its election costings. In terms of talking about honesty, it got the estimates in that mid-year review and actually changed them to suit the amount of money it was promising it would spend. Opposition members come in here and talk about honesty. It was a complete and absolute farce. Then they went and got an accounting firm to sign off, and it got a one-page letter which said, 'Based on their assumptions it is true.' They actually changed the data to get the result they wanted. Now they want to talk about positive politics and honesty! There was no honesty in the way the opposition put together its costings at the last election or in the promises it made, nor will there be next year at next year's election. We will release the mid-year review before there is an election next year. There will be a mid- year review before then. I am sure that we will see the same farce. What we will hear for the next two hours will simply go right out the door. There will be absolutely no honesty in what they tell the people of Queensland—no honesty at all. They will simply apply the same mathematics they did last time. If they had won government they simply would have blown the state's finances right out the door. 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3097

We do not accept this bill. We will not support it. As I have just stated, before the next election there will be a mid-year review, which will produce a far more robust document than the one the opposition is proposing we should waste our time on preparing with this bill. Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (8.38 p.m.): I rise to support the Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. If the Commonwealth and other state governments can have this sort of legislation, which requires governments to provide financial information 10 days after an election is called, Queensland ought not be lagging behind the standard set by other states. It is quite apparent that this type of legislation is needed in Queensland as we move into an election phase. There are three very good reasons for it. In the financial year 2000-01 the government forecast a budget surplus of $28 million. The actual deficit 12 months later was $858 million—a turnaround of almost $900 million in a financial year. That is the first good reason. The second good reason is that in the next financial year, 2001-02, again there was a budgeted surplus of $24 million. Twelve months later, there was an actual deficit of $894 million. Again, there was a $900 million turnaround. That is the second good reason, and again it happened under this Treasurer. What happened in 2002-03? There was a budgeted surplus of $23 million and an actual deficit of $350 million in the budget papers. That is a turnaround of some $373 million. Those are three very good reasons why we ought to pass this legislation tonight. One simply cannot trust what this Labor government does with the money. That is the reason why we want this legislation. They forecast surpluses and they deliver massive deficits. When going into an election campaign, this side of the House can have no confidence that the figures that the budget portrays will be on track by the time the election is called. Those are the reasons why we need this legislation. As the member for Southern Downs indicated, who could ever forget 1995 when a blow-out in the Workers Compensation Fund was hidden in the run-up to an election through the estimates committee process? We did not find out until after the election that there was a black hole in the Workers Compensation Fund. That is the fourth very good reason why we need this legislation. Mr Springborg: How big was that? Was that about $350 million? Mr QUINN: Yes, that was an enormous amount of money hidden at that time. It is all very well to talk about budget dishonesty from the Treasurer. One cannot get any more dishonest than hiding a black hole in the Workers Compensation Fund in the run-up to an election campaign. One cannot get any more dishonest than forecasting small surpluses and delivering whopping deficits in a 12-month period, not once, not twice, but three times. Mr Springborg: Is that a Demtel budget? Mr QUINN: I do not know what it is. Perhaps the best description of it is a funny money budget. If the other states and the Commonwealth can do it, why cannot Queensland? There might be an occasion when something is not forecast correctly, but at the end of the day one has to have confidence in the figures that Treasury puts out. By asking Treasury to do this 10 days after an election is called, we will have a much stronger chance that all political parties will make sure that their costings are accurate and the public of Queensland will have a better idea of whether or not the election material put out by both sides is feasible and financially responsible. That is why we need this legislation. We do not want to hide things in budget papers. We do not want to hide whopping great deficits and black holes in workers compensation funds. We want to ensure that the public of Queensland can make a fair choice at the election campaign based on the latest financial details provided independently by Treasury. We do not want to rely on figures that are hidden in budget documents that forecast small surpluses but deliver whopping deficits. I support this bill. It is a sensible proposition. If other states and the Commonwealth can do it, surely Queensland can. Dr WATSON (Moggill—Lib) (8.43 p.m.): I also rise to support the bill that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. It is unfortunate, of course, that a bill like this is even necessary in a parliament. One would hope that every document that came before the parliament showed that the government was fair, transparent and accountable in every aspect of its financial transactions. Unfortunately, the history of Labor tells us that that is simply not true. This issue arose following the federal election of 1996. During that election campaign it became quite apparent that what was proposed in the Keating budget of 1995-96 was less than honest. When John 3098 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003

Howard was elected Prime Minister and Peter Costello became the Treasurer, what did they find? The week after they were elected to govern this country, they found out that the real situation was a $10 billion deficit. That deficit not only had an impact on Australia as a whole but, importantly, it affected every state in Australia as the Commonwealth government attempted to hone in that deficit. Of course we had just formed the government in Queensland and we were also subjected to significant constraints simply because of an unfunded and undisclosed $10 billion deficit by the Keating-Beazley duo. That is why the federal National-Liberal government introduced the Budget Honesty Bill. However, Labor's funny money and funny budgets do not simply stop with the federal government. We could go through a litany of issues that arose here in Queensland. I recall what happened in 1995. I notice that the member for Yeronga is in the chamber. What were we left with in the Workers Compensation Fund? A $400 million black hole, which was not disclosed. Of course, when we got into government— Mr Springborg interjected. Dr WATSON: Yes. Members will notice one thing: when the member became the minister for employment or unemployment—whatever it was—one thing that the Premier was smart enough not to do was to put him back in charge of the Workers Compensation Fund. Because Jim Kennedy—and no-one can argue about the honesty, the transparency and the integrity of Jim Kennedy—did a review of the Workers Compensation Fund, we know about the $400 million black hole. What happened? We had to change aspects of the workers compensation scheme to bring it back into fiscal surplus in the longer term. In addition, unknown to us when we ran for election, we had to find in the budget $35 million a year for three years, that is, $105 million, to prop up the Workers Compensation Fund and to compensate for the mess that was left to us by the Goss Labor government and the former minister, the member for Yeronga. Those are the kinds of issues that the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition attempts to rectify. When an election campaign is run and won, those are the sorts of things that one should not be surprised by. However, it does not stop there. The 1995 election campaign and the Mundingburra by-election in 1996 also tell us a few things. Another problem that the Goss Labor government left us related to third-party insurance. The government should have dealt with that issue over the January-February period. However, the government postponed it and then sent it back for more information. It squibbed on making a $66 increase in the third-party insurance premium. That was simply not honest. That was dishonest. It left the new government with a problem with the third-party insurance funds which had to be fixed up as soon as we got into government. It did not finish there. Mr Springborg: There's more. Dr WATSON: Yes, there is more. I recall that it also squibbed on another important decision at the time. In the final days of the Goss government, the current Treasurer was sitting in cabinet, as was the member for Yeronga. Suncorp representatives went to the government and said, 'We need a $750 million capital injection if we are going to keep Suncorp competitive. Not only that, but we need to not pay any dividends to you'—which has a major budget impact—'for three years.' What did the Labor Party do? Did it disclose before Mundingburra that there needed to be a $750 million contribution to make Suncorp competitive? Did it disclose the fact that it requested that no dividends be paid to the government over the next three years? No way! What did the Labor Party do? What did the then Treasurer do, the member for Cairns, Mr Keith De Lacy? He took a private document to cabinet. He did not take a Treasury cabinet submission, but he took one done in the Treasurer's office so that cabinet could reject it. So then we were faced with the problem of how to capitalise Suncorp and how to handle the fact that there was going to be a reduction in dividends coming in to the government. We were left with the problem of what to do. The amount of money that was required to capitalise Suncorp was going to affect the budget figures for the next three years. But we did fix it. We did not get a lot of support from the other side—although, of course, they now claim the credit for selling off the final part of it and the money that went into the Gold Coast Highway. We dealt with Suncorp in a courageous fashion. We combined it with Metway. We made a major Queensland financial institution from which the taxpayers of Queensland have benefited and also, of course, a lot of shareholders in Queensland have also benefited. That was not end. I remember the 1998 election. Every member on the opposition side remembers the Beattie promise to make every senior receive free ambulance coverage. It was 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3099 costed at $20 million. A moment ago the Treasurer talked about a piece of paper. If the Treasurer recalls, KPMG gave the Treasurer a piece of paper that said 'Based upon the assumptions that you have made, it is okay'. It was not the KPMG office in Queensland, it was not even the accounting and auditing people of KPMG; it was the finance section of KPMG in Sydney. They had to go down to Sydney with people who were not expert in the auditing area to give them a piece of paper saying that, based on the assumptions that Labor had put forward, it was able to be funded. The Treasurer gets up here and says, 'Oh, you made some assumptions.' The last time as shadow Treasurer I put forward the figures and we had a reputable firm, Ernst & Young, here in Queensland give the appropriate audit report. Finally, we should remember Lang Park. When the Treasurer put forward the figures for Lang Park before the last election, he did not even try to fund the $280 million for Lang Park. The way he was going to fund it was not honest. He was going to fund it by putting a special tax on hoteliers— Mr Mackenroth: A levy. Dr WATSON: Sorry: a special levy, a tax. He had a secret tax plan which he kept in his back pocket and did not disclose the amount of money it was going to collect. That is honesty? Come off it! This bill is about trying to correct those kinds of things. That is why I support the Leader of the Opposition's bill. Time expired. Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (8.53 p.m.): I rise to support the Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 2003. I believe that this private member's bill, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, is an essential bill that tackles the problems associated with the promises made at election time. How can the opposition in any electorate realistically cost the platform that they are putting forward and know that they can meet their commitments when they cannot discover the true financial position that the state is in? How can the general public know what is the truth? The general public are too often treated like idiots and are asked to make a decision on what many perceive are hollow promises based on a litany of lies. It is a damning indictment of political history when very few members of the public can say that they trust their politician. Very few believe that politicians are capable of the truth and, sadly, they expect nothing more than lies from them. Too many times we ask the public to go to the polls based on a stack of promises from both sides of government and it is impossible for those making the promises to always know if it is even possible to fund them. They go to the polls hoping that the person who wins does not immediately renege on promises made due to the figures having been of the rubbery kind. When governments after elections start to divide their promises into core and non-core promises and renege on those promises, members cannot blame anyone for being forever sceptical. I am surprised that this government did not bring forward such a bill itself after Steve Bracks's Victorian government introduced similar legislation. The Opposition Leader quoted the very words that Mr Bracks uttered in his second reading speech. It would not hurt to hear them again. They were— No longer can governments or oppositions hide behind the excuse that they cannot be specific on policies because they do not know the financial position of the state at the time of an election. If Labor governments in other states can see the value in such legislation, why cannot the Beattie government? I recognise the intent of this Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill and I support it for there is no real reason to oppose it. However, there are real reasons to support it and they are that it gives us all the opportunity to enhance the voters' belief in us, their representatives. This bill allows for budget transparency and accountability. Both of those qualities are things that the Beattie government is forever telling the general public that it is about. It is the government's real agenda. Now that the government is asked to put into action the very thing that will put meaning and power behind their words, they begin to quake. The question is: why? Other states have done it. The feds support it. Why does this open and accountable government not support it? I support and commend the bill before the House. Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.56 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the bill before the House that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Southern Downs. It is a bill that is about accountability, it is a bill that is about transparency and it is a bill that is about honesty—all of these things that the state Labor government under Premier Beattie has turned into a mantra. This is the sort of rhetoric that we hear from the government all the time, but once again when the rhetoric is put to the test they fail, they fail and they fail again. 3100 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003

Tonight, we see another case of this failure. This bill has been introduced to test the rhetoric of the Beattie Labor government and they have failed that test yet again. The Treasurer came into the House tonight and, on behalf of the government, indicated that they were not prepared to support this bill. They were not prepared to support this bill because of the financial documents that the government already provides to this House. Obviously, they are the budget documents and the other document, which the Treasurer made great play of, was the half-yearly budget review, which he seemed to argue to the parliament fulfilled the need that this bill identified for budget honesty and for information in the run-up to an election. It is worth noting again that this approach has been taken by other Labor governments in other states. By their actions, they certainly have not seen fit to support the arguments that the Treasurer put in the House tonight. Through the actions of the other states in introducing such legislation, they have put forward exactly the same arguments that were put by the Leader of the Opposition—the member for Southern Downs—the shadow Treasurer and other members on this side of the House. Those arguments were put forward by the colleagues of the Treasurer and the members of the government who have spoken to this bill. They are in direct contradiction of their colleagues in other states. The need for this sort of legislation has been recognised by those colleagues and it should be recognised by this parliament tonight. There is no single thing that better identifies the need for this legislation than this government's record, and it is a record that is recorded in the financial documents of this parliament that is undeniable and a record which was quoted by the shadow Treasurer in the contribution that he made to the debate tonight. It is a record of financial dishonesty. It is a record of budget dishonesty which should cause every member on the government benches to hang their heads in shame. This is a government that has promised a surplus every year. Every year it has promised a surplus and every year it has delivered a deficit. It is worth, once again, revisiting those figures that the shadow Treasurer went through when he made his contribution to this debate. In 2000-01 the budgeted surplus was $28 million. The Treasurer came into the House and predicted a surplus of $28 million. In fact, he delivered a deficit of $858 million. How is that for budget honesty? What better example of budget dishonesty could there be than that sort of a performance from a Treasurer who comes in here tonight and says that we do not need this legislation because there are already documents in place to provide it? In 2001-02 the budgeted surplus was $24 million. The Treasurer predicted a surplus of $24 million. The actual deficit was $894 million—even further away from the prediction! Once again, that is a great example of budget dishonesty. In 2002-03 the budgeted surplus was $23 million. In actual fact, the deficit that was delivered was $350 million. In 2003-04, the current financial year, we have seen a budgeted surplus of $153 million. How many people really believe that this government is going to deliver a budgeted surplus of $153 million? Based on the record of the last three years, how could anyone be expected to believe that that is a real indication of the financial state of Queensland? Yet those are the documents that we in the opposition have to use in preparing our alternatives for the people at an election campaign and those are the documents that the people of Queensland have to use in making their judgment, as they must, about who they are going to vote for and how they decide who will be the best financial managers of the state. These documents really have become a farce. Like everything else that the Beattie government does, it is more about grabbing a headline—it is more about achieving a media story—than actually representing the true facts of the situation. What this bill before the House tonight seeks to do is to make sure that the people of Queensland are properly informed before they make a judgment on election day. It seeks to ensure that the people of Queensland have the information upon which they can base a decision. Whatever the decision it is theirs to make, but it is an obligation of this parliament to make sure that they have the information. Whether they seek to use it or not, the people of Queensland should have the information upon which they can make a judgment about the actual financial management skills of the government and the actual financial performance of the state under the current government and the potential for the various proposals that are being put forward to be delivered by an incoming government. There is no way that the people of Queensland can make that judgment reliably given the current situation. There is no way that it can be properly or legitimately argued that that information is available. It simply is not available under the current reporting mechanisms. That, as I said at the beginning of this contribution, has been recognised by governments in various jurisdictions. It has been recognised by governments right across the political spectrum in 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3101

Australia that there needs to be that budget honesty so that people in a vibrant democracy can make the decisions that are so important for that democracy to work properly. This bill seeks to give the people of Queensland that opportunity to make that decision in an informed way. It is particularly disappointing to see this effort be rejected so flippantly by this government in the House tonight. It is particularly disappointing to see that effort rejected so flippantly by a government that has a record of budget dishonesty second to none. This government's record of honest reporting to this parliament in terms of the financial positions of the state is illustrated in those figures. It cannot be denied. It is part of the record of the parliament, and it is a record that is building year after year after year. That record is building and it is a part of the public record that cannot be hidden, cannot be taken away and will always be there to illustrate the extent to which this government is fair dinkum about that rhetoric that we hear so often about accountability and honesty and transparency. But there is no accountability, there is no honesty and there is no transparency unless there is a genuine willingness to make this information available to the people of Queensland—the people whom this government or any government that comes into this place is answerable to. There has to be a willingness for that government to make available to those people all of the information that they need to make that decision. That certainly is not happening at the moment. This bill seeks to rectify that. In that regard, this bill should be supported by every member of this parliament. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (9.06 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the Pre- Election Budget Honesty Bill because I believe that fundamentally people have a right to expect honesty out of politicians. After my election I participated in an ABC debate with De-Anne Kelly and the mayor of Mackay on the notion that the public expected politicians to lie. My philosophy is that if you do not tell lies you do not need a good memory. If other states and the federal government are prepared to be transparent, why can't we as a government in Queensland do exactly the same? I contend that we need to get very serious about the public perception of politics and politicians. I note with some degree of pride in this parliament that the Premier of Queensland has issued a guideline in parliament this sitting requiring an openness and honesty which will give the general public some degree of confidence that aspiring parliamentarians will be in a position to deliver what they have promised. It is always better to underpromise and overdeliver and not the other way around. I find this bill to be entirely in keeping with the philosophy of the guideline issued by the Premier this week, so I ask the government to support this bill. For the government not to support the bill is bordering on political schizophrenia. Let us pick up our game as a parliament and support this bill, which I commend to the House. Mr CUMMINS (Kawana—ALP) (9.07 p.m.): I rise tonight to speak against the bill before us introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. While we probably all agree that budget transparency must be a cornerstone of good government, I think earlier today we witnessed a very transparent process of budget scrutiny in its final stages—something that was introduced by a Labor state government and what we now refer to as budget estimates. After more than three decades of corruption and mismanagement under state conservative rule highlighted by favours reliant on brown paper bags, cronyism and police corruption, it was a Labor government that brought to Queensland accountability and transparency. The Leader of the National Party opposition in his second reading speech said that this bill is part of his positive politics agenda. Sadly, in the few months under the leadership of the member for Southern Downs, Queensland has seen no positive politics come from his side but simplistic, old-style, conservative politics. Tonight I hope the present leader of the state opposition will clearly state if he agrees with the Beattie Labor government and his Liberal coalition partners in supporting a four-year term for this state—a four-year state term for the Queensland parliament. Does the state opposition support four-year terms to be put to Queenslanders by a state referendum? Tonight I trust the member for Southern Downs will set the record straight— An opposition member interjected. Mr CUMMINS: I am glad the member asks that, because twice in his second reading speech on this bill he referred to it. Mr Quinn: Who did? Mr CUMMINS: Your leader. Haven't you read his second reading speech? Does the state opposition support four-year terms for the Queensland parliament? Tonight it is up to the member for Southern Downs to set the record straight on his and his coalition's present position. Tonight 3102 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003 we have heard what a marvellous state government the open and accountable Borbidge years provided. Well, Queenslanders en masse disagreed. Queenslanders expected better when the opposition coalition was re-formed. Tonight this bill deserves to be defeated. Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (9.10 p.m.): Amazingly, the previous speaker carried on about brown paper bags and corruption. I remind him that he is sitting with a government that was kept in place by the vote of Mr D'Arcy. They kept him sitting there for as long as they liked, because they needed his vote. If that was not a cynical, underhanded and unethical move I do not know what was. I will never forget that move. Nor will I forget the move by the current Premier when he was Minister for Health before they lost government in the six months before the Mundingburra by-election. He shifted $34 million out of the capital works Health budget into recurrent funding to cover up the black hole that he created in the short period he was Minister for Health. Nor will I forget when the current Premier as Minister for Health in the last couple of weeks before they lost government—when he knew they were going to go and he new that Mundingburra was going to deliver a loss—travelled up and down the coastal towns and promised about twice as much for every hospital as there was money in the kitty for capital works. That was one of the most cynical exercises in politics that I had ever seen and it made me think, 'That is why people don't trust politicians and don't believe them.' He would go to different towns and promise them $80 million when he had $42 million. He would go to another place and promise them $60 million when he had $30 million. That is the sort of smart alec cynical political manoeuvre that someone without any decency who was involved in politics would do. That is the sort of thing we are trying to eliminate through this bill. I cite also the episode that we had in 1995 when the then minister, Matt Foley, quietly slipped through the election campaign with a $120 million unfunded liability in the Workers Compensation Fund. That represented about a $200 million turnaround in the funding position of that scheme. It was an absolute disgrace when it came to financial mismanagement. They slipped away and never said a thing about that. Can members imagine what would have happened if the public had been told during the 1995 election about the financial mess that Minister Foley had gotten workers compensation into? We would not have had a Mundingburra by-election; we would have picked up another two or three seats and we would have won the election fair and square, because their incompetence and financial mismanagement would have been exposed. The minister is in the chamber. He went on to another couple of iconic successes after that in terms of what he did to the justice system of Queensland and his delivery of 32 months of the worst unemployment figures in mainland Australia. However, it was the funding of workers compensation and financial mismanagement that goes to the heart of this bill. That is the sort of thing that the public should know about and should have known about at that election. It was only when we got into government that we discovered the financial mess, and it was left to us to undertake the painful and difficult process of trying to fix up the Workers Compensation Fund, which by then had slipped even further into disarray. The federal government currently has a Charter of Budget Honesty that requires the incumbent government to provide within 10 days prior to issuing a writ for a general election a report updating the fiscal and economic position of the government. Victoria and Western Australia also have a similar requirement. The South Australian government currently has a bill before its House with a similar effect. I heard the Treasurer speaking earlier about public servants having to prepare these figures and how difficult it would be; that they would not be able to go to the other agencies. However, if he is running the Treasury properly he will surely have on a month-by-month basis the figures for how the state is going and know exactly what the position is. Anyone running a $21 billion budget should have his finger on the financial pulse and be able to produce those sorts of figures in the 10 days required. The bill addresses the problems of government and oppositions being specific on issues of policy, particularly policy initiatives leading up to an election, due to a lack of knowledge of the true budgetary state of the incumbent government. That is what we need to know. We have had three budget deficits in a row. We had a massive deficit in the first year of this term, an even bigger deficit in the next year, a huge loss by the government owned corporations, and again this financial year we are facing another deficit. The public deserves to know the extent of the deficits, what is happening, and what promises have been made. Let us look at what happened with the promise of the free Ambulance Service—the $17 million. It was obviously an unfunded and uncosted promise—a promise made not knowing how much money was available or what it would cost. It blew out to some $120 million. Now we 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3103 have a new ambulance levy where small business is being hit many times over just to pay for the financial incompetence and mismanagement of the government and the rash election promise it made while not knowing exactly how much it would cost. All they cared about was trying to pick up some votes and then slipping on a tax a bit later on. The bill will require the Chief Executive of the Treasury to publicly release within 10 days of the issue of a writ for a general election a summary of the key financial aggregates for the general government and the public trading enterprise budget sector. The report must show the updated fiscal estimates for the current financial year for the general government and public trading sectors to the level of detail that is currently provided in the Mid Year Fiscal and Economic Review. The bill will require that an updated summary of the key financial assumptions underpinning the current budget be included in a report. The bill requires the government to include an updated assessment of the effects on the financial position of the state of any announced government commitments or yet to be finalised negotiations or continued liabilities. That is the very least that it could provide to the public. As the previous speaker, the member for Maryborough, put it so well, the public today expect to know and be told honestly and not just get bland promises that are not backed up by any figures or financial workings. In making an honest assessment and accurate judgment of who they want to vote in or out, the public should be able to look at the financial position of the state. The report will also have to take into account all government decisions that have been made or are in existence before the issue of the writ for the general election and all other circumstances that may have a material effect on the fiscal and economic outlook of the state. Why is such legislation needed in this state? The Borbidge government was left with a legacy of six years of Labor mismanagement. It was tough on the incoming government to deliver on its commitments to the electorate while not knowing what the true financial position was. For example, we later discovered the government's massive mismanagement of workers compensation. The Borbidge-Sheldon government engaged a full commission of audit under the direction of Dr Vince FitzGerald, which was necessary at the time to try to find out the true position—how much of a cover-up there had been and how much financial mess there was. Early findings of the Borbidge government revealed that the state's financial shape in 1996 was not rosy, with huge cost overruns in the health services and, as I mentioned earlier, that scurrilous transfer of $34 million from Health capital works by then Health Minister Beattie. One-off capital works funding was transferred out of the Capital Works Budget, money that was earmarked to build hospitals—probably the hospitals that he was running up and down the coast of Queensland promising in the week or two before the changeover of government. $34 million was taken out of that fund for one-off capital payments and used to cover up the huge black hole that was building up under his ministerial direction and to try to reduce the amount of the deficit and save him from total and complete embarrassment and exposure for his financial incompetence. There was a similar situation with respect to a Labor commitment from the previous election. Do members remember the $29 million school uniform allowance that caused expenditure to outweigh receipts in the Education budget in that financial year by $10 million? Do members remember the false costings undertaken by the Labor Party? Do members remember that Labor used the resources of the State Treasury to produce a $7 billion sum which it then claimed was the cost of the coalition election promises? An independent audit undertaken by the coalition revealed that an election promise was costed at $1.6 billion over three years and that it could be funded—and it was—from within existing budget parameters. But let us look at some other examples of the Labor government's mismanagement. What about the 1993 Auditor-General's report which revealed scandalous financial mismanagement and included a serious breakdown of financial controls in the Ambulance Service; an absence of accurate values for inventories, property, plant, equipment and infrastructure; and the manner in which the borrowings of Queensland Railways were disclosed? One hundred and seventy-five million dollars of debt for the Brisbane suburban passenger systems appeared on the Transport Department's books even though the railways were supposed to run the show. There was $704 million of indebtedness from Queensland Railways which was not recorded anywhere in the railway accounts. Fifty-four million dollars was spent by the government on consultancies, and the HOME scheme ran into trouble when the lowering of interest rates was not envisaged. In 1994, there was a loss of more than $3 million from dubious entrepreneurial activities in the Golden Casket Art Union office. In 1994, there was financial mismanagement in the DPI. I have mentioned that 3104 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003

$200 million turnaround in one year in the workers compensation scheme—the legacy left by Mr Foley to the then incoming Minister for Employment and Training, Wendy Edmond, who was there for only a few months before we took over. There is every reason to have this. The public demand it. It is about time we had the honesty and the courage to stand up and give this to the people of Queensland. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN (Stafford—ALP) (9.20 p.m.): The whole point of this bill relates to honesty—who can or cannot be trusted. We have heard from the opposition that the public deserve to know; they need to be properly informed. I am happy to look at the record and see which side of the House actually holds that record of holding the public's trust. Dr Watson referred to the 1996 federal budget and made some reference to issues. I would like to refer to aspects of the 1995-96 state fiscal year which had both the Goss Labor government and the Borbidge-Sheldon government at the helm. On the north side of Brisbane the Nundah bottleneck, which had been a problem for 40 years, had been allocated in a cabinet decision—I am sorry if the member for Toowoomba South is leaving, because I wanted to refer to some of his comments. If he could wait for a couple of minutes that would be good. I would like to refer to some of the things that he did when he was Health Minister. He was prepared to talk about what the Premier did when he was Health Minister. I would like to refer to some of the things that the member opposite did. I hope that he can hang around for a minute. Coming back to what they did on the north side, the Roads Implementation Program, as everyone knows, outlays the road projects. There is an update approximately halfway through the year showing the changes. The cabinet decision was to build the Nundah cut and cover to solve a problem that had existed for 40 years. When the Borbidge-Sheldon government came to office in February 1996, it hived off that $40 million and put the money out west. It just shifted $40 million from the RIP update for a 40-year-old problem on which public consultation had already been conducted. Where is their public honesty? There was absolutely none! It was absolutely dishonest! There was the dishonesty of the Borbidge-Sheldon leadership and of the Santoro- Horan link, and Mr Quinn and Mr Watson were part of that government that reneged on what was to happen to the people of the north side of Brisbane. If they cannot understand how the basic budget process works in Main Roads with the RIP and the RIP update, how can they ask anyone to trust them with honesty in the whole of the budget? Turning to the Liberal Party, we have two of the three Liberal Party members in the chamber. They belong to the truth overboard party; it is the kids overboard party; it is the weapons of mass destruction overboard party; it is the illegal immigrants overboard party. Let us have a look at the honesty of where they stand. One woman recently escaped from detention as an illegal immigrant and Phillip Ruddock said, 'That's why we need the detention centre.' When he was asked why she could not be put in a watch-house, he said, 'The watch-house is no place to put a woman.' This is the gentleman who is prepared to put women and children in the middle of the Australian desert behind barbed wire for years and says, 'We can't hold someone in a Brisbane watch-house overnight.' That is the dishonesty. They are the lies that we have from the Liberal Party, which is becoming more and more the tail of the National Party. We all remember the National coalition times with Joh's balanced budget—the budget honesty of the coalition. Remember how it was balanced? There was just one little line item down the bottom, 'Borrowings to cover deficit—$460 million'. So he balanced the budget simply by saying, 'We have one line item that says we are borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars.' That is the honesty that we have from the Liberal-National Party. That is their record. Let us stick with the same year that Dr Watson asked us about—1995-96—the time of the Mundingburra by-election, and he referred to it. Let us talk about the other aspects of their honesty—the secret MOU with the Police Union signed by Rob Borbidge and Russell Cooper. Where was the honesty that had to be shown to the Queensland people? The honest approach from the Liberal-National coalition was, 'We will sign a secret deal so that the police actually have a power of veto over the Police Commissioner and senior commissioned officers'! The Police Union was to be in control of the Police Service in Queensland. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I suggest that the member return to the substance of the bill. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: Absolutely. I am addressing absolutely their honesty—or dishonesty—which is the basis of their argument. We had the same corruption from the Wilkinsons and the Bainbridges then, and some are continuing today. We saw the secret deal and the lack of public accountability. They want to replace the old joke with the new joke. They want the old corruption to be replaced by the new corruption. 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3105

Do members remember the sort of statements that Joh made to the people of Mount Isa in the 1977 state election? 'If you don't vote for me, I won't give you one cent towards your dam.' That is the sort of history that they had. The former leader of the coalition, Mr Horan, wanted to refer to history. Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mr Springborg interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition! The member for Stafford is losing his train of thought. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: No, not at all. The former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Horan, wanted to talk about the honesty or dishonesty of people on this side. This is the same member who, when he became Health Minister in 1996, did a most dishonest act. I will remind people of what it was. In about 1993-94 the metropolitan hospitals program was developed throughout Queensland by health professionals and it was agreed upon as to what needed to be done to address the changing population demands. The Logan Hospital and the Redlands Hospital were built and some services were supposed to be moved from Herston out to the Prince Charles Hospital where there was one of the highest percentages of over 60s, a huge number of returned service personnel, war widows and veterans. What did Mr Horan do? Mr Horan changed $120 million for general hospital services to specialist services, thereby excluding the general public. Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that you are engaging in conversation with the members opposite and they want to engage in other conversations because they do not want to hear this. They know that they did not want to tell the people of the north side of Brisbane—returned service personnel and war widows—that they were not going to give them general hospital services, which were in the metropolitan hospitals plan, and that they were going to make them travel across to Greenslopes year after year for their treatment. That is the dishonesty that Mike Horan enforced on the people of the north side of Brisbane—on returned service personnel, on the war widows of the northern suburbs of Brisbane. He lied. Some members who were here were co- conspirators in that lie, and they know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The word 'lie' is unparliamentary. Mr TERRY SULLIVAN: He did not lie; he told a great untruth. I invited the member for Toowoomba South to stay, but in his typical dingo way he snuck out. He was not prepared to face the truth and nor are his colleagues who have stayed behind. I am talking about $120 million of redevelopment that they knew they were going to change. There was no paperwork, no consultation and no honesty. Now I will take the interjection from the member for Callide. Do we need honesty? Yes, we do. Those opposite have argued that their program and their history will provide a better form of honesty. Their track record has proven them to be dishonest. They had a corrupt Police Service and they actually participated in it. They had corruption of the tendering process, of the Roads Implementation Program and of the budget process. Their record says that they cannot be trusted. This bill should be defeated. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (9.30 p.m.): I rise to speak to the Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 2003. I think in most election campaigns there is banter, between the major parties in particular, about the affordability of election promises. Those in the community, as they go to the polls, are usually left in a vortex in terms of knowing whether either side is actually giving them the facts about what they can expect after the election. Over time I think people have become very sceptical about what occurs around election time. All members of this chamber suffer as a result of that scepticism. I found it interesting to hear the member for Stafford quote Joh Bjelke-Petersen and a threat in Mount Isa many years ago. I think the member for Stafford said that Joh Bjelke-Petersen said to the people at Mount Isa, 'If you don't vote for me, you won't get a cent for your dam.' In my electorate I have had Labor candidates running against me and senior Labor Party members who have actually campaigned along the same line. Mr McGrady: There is difference between a Premier and a candidate. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Senior elected Labor Party officials backing the candidate that is running against me have been saying, 'If you don't vote for Labor, if you don't vote for this candidate, you will not get anything for your electorate.' 3106 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003

Mr Mackenroth interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: I am saying that it has been said in the election campaign. I have not said that Gladstone has missed out. I have said that it has been stated in the election campaign. The member for Stafford was citing this instance in Mount Isa, but both sides do it. Those in the community want to hear truth at election time. They want to know what people are offering them. That is what this bill is about, specifically in the area of budgets. The bill will require statements signed by each minister—that is, for each portfolio—that the budget disclosures are accurate and that the requirements have been complied with. It will require a signed statement by the chief executive officer to the effect that, to the fullest extent possible, the information in the report reflects the best professional judgment of officers of the chief executive's department, takes into account all fiscal and economic information available and incorporates the fiscal and economic implications of government decisions and circumstances disclosed by the minister. In other words, to the best of the minister's and the chief executive officer's ability, the information in relation to the status of the budget of those portfolios is true and correct. The people of the electorate deserve no less. I do not think I can stand here and say that one side of politics is any better than the other side because history, as the member for Stafford and others have said, can show that both sides have been guilty of twisting the financial situation of the government of the day to give the incumbent government the best chance of being re-elected and to give the challenging bodies the worst possible opportunity to understand the status of government funds and the fiscal position. This bill is asking that 10 days after the election is called not only the opposition parties know the situation with regard to the government budget but also the community knows and they can tailor their vote and their choice accordingly. I do not believe it is something that is unreasonable to expect. A number of aspersions have been cast in this chamber tonight about the honesty or otherwise of various members of parliament. It was stated in the second reading speech—I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to confirm the accuracy of the contents of his speech—that when Commonwealth and interstate legislation similar to this was put in place it was supported by the Labor state government. The speech states— Indeed, when Victoria introduced similar legislation, Labor's Steve Bracks was a strong champion, proclaiming, 'No longer can governments, or oppositions, hide behind the excuse that they cannot be specific on policies because they do not know the financial position of the state at the time of an election'. From that, I take it that this type of legislation has been adopted in Victoria. I seek the confirmation of the Leader of the Opposition on that. Mr Springborg: As far as I know. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Okay. When governments are in power they make certain election promises and, one would hope, can fund those promises on the basis that they know accurately the fiscal position. Those not in government are in a position of disadvantage in that, unless legislation such as this is in place, they have to make their policy statements and election promises in a vacuum, not really knowing whether those election promises can be funded. The community is jaded in that, particularly after state and federal elections, when there is a change of government, the new government comes in and then has to renege on a number of promises, usually with the excuse that the outgoing government left the financial situation in a worse position than was envisaged. It might be fun political games, but the losers are those in the community. Whilst this legislation may have political overtones, the greatest beneficiary will be the voting public and the public who have placed their trust in either the incumbent government or a new government. They deserve to be allowed to see the government's position at the time of the election. The opposition deserves to have a solid platform on which to base its election promises. Then if they take government and fail to deliver on their election promises, the community can rightly hold the new government accountable because they have failed to be honest in their election promises. I think for both government and non-government members this bill represents a win-win situation. Mr Lawlor: What about the Independents? Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: And for Independents. Mr Lawlor: How do they deliver? 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3107

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: We make promises that we can deliver on. We do not make promises that we cannot deliver on. They are different promises from the ones party politicians make. I believe that this legislation is sound. I believe that it does deliver some certainty, particularly to the community but also to both sides of parliament in terms of their aspirations to occupy the Treasury benches. I believe it does deserve support and I look forward to the passage of the bill. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (9.38 p.m.), in reply: I will make it very simple for the member for Southport. The Independents are able to make promises as they see necessary in their electorates and the electorates can judge that accordingly. The opposition, which is made up of members of a political party or parties, has to be in a position to bring proper costings forward so that it is able to make particular policy announcements and promises. We are the alternative government. That is the reality. That is probably as simple as I can make it. If the member for Southport has a couple of weeks, I am sure that the honourable member for Gladstone and I can explain the rest to him. Mr Lawlor: I'm none the wiser. Mr SPRINGBORG: One can acquire knowledge but wisdom is a lot more difficult for some people. I am disappointed but not surprised that the government has made a terribly predictable decision, which is to oppose yet another private member's bill brought into the parliament by the opposition. It has decided to oppose this bill as it has opposed other bills introduced by the opposition and independent members. The government has given no indication that, at some time in the future, it will adopt the principles of the bill. With most other private members' bills that I have introduced into the parliament, the government has topped and tailed them and brought them back as its own. It is a little rich that earlier on the Premier castigated the opposition about seeming inconsistencies in the transparency argument, and how he and his government, both now and in the previous term, were totally transparent. He said that they had a great degree of integrity and honesty in the way that they put forward their figures. During the course of the debate tonight, many members have pointed out quite clearly how that is not the case. I would have thought that the Treasurer's raids on the GOCs in this state, particularly the electricity entities, were not the most transparent things that went on in the state. They may have been among the most straightforward, and there is a difference. Mr Lawlor interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: Once again, there is nothing wrong with the GOCs or the electricity entities paying dividends to the government. The problem that the member for Southport could reflect on, and he may agree with me after a considerable period of time spent thinking about it, is what happens when one forces an entity to overvalue itself in order to pay a dividend to the government and decapitalise itself. That is what the government has done which is different from what any other government has done. Even the Auditor-General reflected on that when he brought down his report into the matter some time ago. The Treasurer indicated that if this bill was passed, it would be extremely difficult for Treasury to present an up-to-date and proper set of figures to the opposition and the public within 10 days of the writs being issued for a state election because of this, that, something else, et cetera. This government is always talking about its capacity to build on its intellectual capital and its capacity to use technology. I would have thought that, in this Smart State, much of that information would be kept in real time by government departments anyway. I would have thought that a lot of that information would have been consolidated and reported to the central agencies during the course of the month or during the course of the year. As a part of the tax reform package, the commonwealth is expecting businesses to be in tune with the financial state of their business on a monthly basis. Surely governments should be able to keep up with what they expect of business. As the honourable member for Robina has already said tonight, of course there may be matters that are not quite nailed down, but the government will have a pretty good handle on the financial situation of the state. It will have a far greater handle than the opposition, any other member of parliament or the media. It is the keeper of the financial records and the budgetary situation of the state. It should know fairly approximately what the financial situation of the state is, and that information should be able to be made available. 3108 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 20 Aug 2003

When an election is called, the departments have 10 days to come forward and consolidate that information. I do not see anything overtly difficult in that. As the honourable member for Gladstone reflected in her contribution, all we are doing is asking the CEOs and the departments to provide the best figures so far as that is logistically possible. That is all we are asking. We understand that some practical issues might arise and we have tried to consider those in the drafting of the bill. I find it quite extraordinary that whilst this government does not support it, Steve Bracks in Victoria supports it and the Commonwealth government supports it. Certainly, statements from other Labor Treasurers and governments around Australia show that they support the principle of budget honesty so that people know what is going on. The Deputy Premier waxed lyrical about this government's absolutely unbelievably exemplary record when it comes to telling the truth and getting the figures out there. Many members tonight have talked about the WorkCover cover-up—what a scam that was under a Labor government—and the ambulance tax issue, at a cost to the Labor Party in 1998 of $21 million a year and $116 million a year. Can we believe this government on its figures? In the last few days the Education Minister released an election promise for education if the government is elected in the future. On the surface, some of it looks okay. It is basically commonsense and one would not hear too much disagreement from this side of the House, but the figures are rubbery. One cannot trust this Labor government, just as one cannot trust most Labor governments around Australia when it comes to figures. The history books of Australia are littered with a litany of economic meltdown and mismanagement by Labor governments. I cannot think of too many conservative governments in that position, but one cannot trust Labor governments with the bickie tin. Let us look at Cain, Bannon, Kirner, Lawrence in Western Australia. Those are the sorts of things that we find. An interesting point was raised yesterday by the honourable member for Cunningham when he talked about the Maryborough by-election, when the Minister for Education said that the cost of reducing classes sizes by just one student— A government member interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: That is why it is completely wrong. I know that the member is mathematically challenged, but I will come to that. It would cost $183 million to reduce classes by one student. The other day, the minister said that in six or seven grades they will reduce class sizes by two students at a cost of $38 million. That does not add up. We are dealing with the same number of students if not more, so it just does not add up. How can we have one set of figures in Maryborough and another set of figures when a promise was made recently? The number of teachers do not add up when divided into the number of oversized classrooms. The objective is fine, but the figures are rubbery. What about the cost of Lang Park? The Deputy Premier promised that it would cost $280 million, and he put a levy on it. He would not call it a tax; it is a levy, as is his wont. What about the hidden costs? What about the costs that even the likes of the Courier-Mail refer to which have been hidden and pushed into areas that we have also pursued through the parliament and through FOI in the last 18 months to two years? Those costs have been pushed into other government or semi-government entities such as Queensland Rail. One cannot trust this Labor government to tell the truth. The Deputy Leader of the Coalition, Mr Quinn, gave a good potted history of Labor governments and their economic and budgetary mismanagement. That is exactly why we need this Budget Honesty Bill. The member for Moggill has significant experience and respect in economics. He was able to highlight many of the issues that I have also touched on. Mr Terry Sullivan: He concentrated on the federal budget and said nothing about the state when they were stuffing-up, and you know it. Mr SPRINGBORG: He talked about the issue of WorkCover and third-party insurance, and the shambles that the member's government left that in. He talked about the recapitalisation of Suncorp. Maybe they are federal government issues, but I did not think so. At least he talked about the bill. The member got close to it once. He was only working around the outside. He is like the keen sheep dog. He ran very wide. He almost ran in and nipped at the heels once, but he worked very wide. It was a very entertaining contribution, but totally irrelevant. 20 Aug 2003 Pre-Election Budget Honesty Bill 3109

When it came into power the Borbidge-Sheldon government was faced with WorkCover issues, the unfunded liability within third-party insurance necessitating the $66 increase in the premiums and also the Suncorp recapitalisation issue. I thought it was quite interesting that the member opposite came into this parliament on that recapitalisation when we created Suncorp Metway—and, of course, opposed it, as is his wont. But I know that quite a few of the members opposite were talking out the back about what a great investment this was to buy shares in, and they did. They ran out and bought shares in it because they knew what a great investment it was. The honourable member for Nanango— Mr Lawlor: It was a give away, that's why. Mr SPRINGBORG: It was a great investment for Queensland. The state government was able to make a financial advantage out of it and we were able to create for this state a Queensland based and focused major financial institution. I know the member for Southport is very proud of that fact. The member for Nanango talked about the commonsense elements of the bill and also the need for figures to be able to properly cost promises. The Deputy Leader of the National Party, the member for Callide, mentioned once again the issue of the government's previous dishonesty in many areas and also the interesting and predictable contrast that we see between this government's rhetoric on accountability and honesty and its actions, which do not necessarily reflect that. He also reinforced the point, as did other members, about the need for proper figures to enable opposition members and others to properly look at and cost and analyse the promises which are made by the various political parties and candidates during the course of a campaign. As I am sure the honourable member for Callide would agree, it is typical of this government that we get a lot of propaganda and not very much performance. The member for Kawana talked about how it was the Goss government that reformed the administrative processes of this state. Basically, I thought he was going to claim through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the formation of the Fitzgerald inquiry, but it was not a Labor government; it was a National Party government. The CJC— Mr Cummins interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG:—was established by the then National Party government as the EARC process was actually gone through. The member opposite cannot claim any credit for that whatsoever. The member opposite can try to bask in the reflected glory of the Fitzgerald process, but I point out to him that if our government had adopted the same process in regard to Fitzgerald as this government is adopting to the issue of child abuse, the Fitzgerald inquiry would not have happened. The honourable member also talks about the issue of honesty and integrity regarding one's dealings. There are a few little contrasts in some of his political— Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: The honourable member for Logan is again interjecting from the wrong seat, but he is entertaining and one day he will actually talk about his electorate instead of the Liberal Party. The honourable member for Kawana has been doing some rather interesting backflips with considerable levels of difficulty in his own electorate in the last few weeks. I had the pleasure of going up to the electorate of Kawana to properly represent those people in recent times, because there is an enormous safety issue. There is a sand bar across the mouth of the Mooloolah River which is causing enormous safety concerns. A little girl almost lost her life. Vessels are being damaged. The whole east coast tuna fleet is looking at leaving the area, as is the fishing fleet in general. But the member for Kawana, when he was being pushed about this by his constituents, said, 'Hey, look, you know, let nature take its course'. Mr Cummins: Who said that? I never said that. Mr SPRINGBORG: The member was quite happy to kowtow to the views of the Transport Department and could not be seen when the constituents turned up there. It is quite interesting that we were able to put the focus in a positive way on the need to do something about dredging this bar. All of a sudden he was backflipping around his office all over the place and he agreed that it needed to be done. The member probably needs an electorate honesty bill; it would assist him enormously. The member for Toowoomba— Mr Mickel: Tell us about the Goondiwindi Argus. 3110 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 20 Aug 2003

Mr SPRINGBORG: I note that the honourable member for Logan was paying one of his regular visits to my electorate last Friday when I was out there as well. Our paths did not cross, but I know that he would have enjoyed it. Mr Mickel interjected. Mr SPRINGBORG: They were certainly educating the member, and they think that the member is a reasonable student of some of their issues. Mr Mickel: Did Tommy Woods tell you I fixed it all up? Mr SPRINGBORG: At least I will give the member some credit for being prepared to be educated about various issues. The member for Toowoomba South once again talked about the issue of Labor's record with regard to economic management and the need to find out what goes on. As I said, the member for Chermside gave a totally entertaining performance and almost touched on the bill once. Mr Terry Sullivan: It is the member for Stafford, thankyou. Mr SPRINGBORG: I apologise if the honourable member is mortally wounded by that. The member for Gladstone had a good understanding of the need for the bill. She pointed out the fact that the bill does address the practical realities of trying to get totally accurate figures but, nevertheless, conceded that this would give us a pretty good idea of what was going on. The member for Gladstone said that the electorate had a right to know, and they do have a right to know. That is what this bill is all about. We have the accountability because it is based on good figures. Unfortunately, the member for Kawana and the others on the opposite side of the House are suffering from what becomes an endemic problem in governments with huge margins. That is, they see themselves as infallible; they see themselves as unchallengeable; and they see themselves as being invincible. It is amazing that the perception of invincibility is related to the size of the margin that the government has. We know that the members opposite did not feel quite this invincible last time, but they are certainly feeling invincible now. I say that there is a lot of merit in this bill. When we are elected in Queensland, under a Springborg led government this bill will be introduced into this House and it will be passed. That is reality. That is the commitment that we give. The people of Queensland have a right to expect no less from this parliament. I encourage all members to support the bill. Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put; and the House divided— AYES, 20—Bell, Copeland, E. Cunningham, C. Foley, Hobbs, Hopper, Horan, Johnson, Lee Long, Lingard, Malone, Pratt, Quinn, Rowell, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Springborg. Tellers: Lester, Watson NOES, 56—Attwood, Barry, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Bredhauer, Briskey, Choi, E. Clark, L. Clark, Croft, Cummins, J. Cunningham, Edmond, English, Fenlon, M. Foley, Fouras, Hayward, Jarratt, Keech, Lavarch, Lawlor, Lee, Livingstone, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, McNamara, Mickel, Molloy, Mulherin, Nelson-Carr, Nolan, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Phillips, Pitt, Poole, Purcell, N. Roberts, Robertson, Rodgers, Rose, Schwarten, C. Scott, D. Scott, Shine, Smith, Spence, Stone, Strong, Struthers, C. Sullivan. Tellers: T. Sullivan, Reeves Resolved in the negative.

SUGAR INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 3 April (see p. 1217). Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.06 p.m.): I rise to speak against the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill. Before I go into the context of what I intend to say, I have before me a press release from the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lawrence Springborg, titled 'Springborg offers to help resolve sugar impasse'. After having written to the Premier he has offered to act as an honest broker between the government and the canefarmers. The press release states that if we cannot get our act together here in Queensland the assistance—that is, the $120 million from the federal government and $30 million from the state government—may well evaporate. Well, could I say this: if the Leader of the Opposition intends to be the honest broker to try to come to a resolution, why in heaven's name are we here debating this crazy bill brought in by those opposite? Why? If those opposite want to broker peace between the government and the sugar industry for our bill, why is this bill being debated here this evening? Why? Because this is a political stunt and nothing else but a political stunt. 20 Aug 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3111

Let us get back to the contents of this proposed bill. This bill, as far as I am concerned, sums up very well the Queensland National Party's approach to the sugar industry. As far as I am concerned, it is largely counterproductive, it ignores the real issues in the industry and it seeks to use the industry as a political football. Opposition members interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: Because there is an election coming on. That is why. The Queensland Nationals have opted out of meaningful debate on reform of the sugar industry and neither growers nor millers are happy with its proposals—any of its proposals. Indeed, very few people, if any, in the industry have actually referred to this bill. In terms of comments made by the opposition's spokesperson on ABC Radio yesterday, he was calling for the sugar industry reforms the government is advocating to be finalised. He was calling for our reforms to be finalised, not for his bill to be passed! As far as I am concerned, this bill appears to have been cobbled together by the opposition in a desperate attempt to prove its relevance to the industry. I appreciate the fact that the Queensland Nationals are caught between a rock and a hard place on sugar. They are incapable of accepting that reform is needed because of their outdated view of the industry and because they depend on the head office of the agri-political bodies representing the industry for guidance. And what better way to illustrate that point than to read the last paragraph of the Leader of the Opposition's press release titled 'Springborg offers to help resolve sugar impasse', which states— But first we need to come up with a deal that is at least acceptable to the growers representative body itself. Opposition members interjected. Mr PALASZCZUK: My word! The sugar industry is not growers: it is growers, it is millers, it is workers, it is the harvesters, it is all of the rural communities. We have to look at the whole spectrum of the sugar industry and not be captives of one particular facet of that industry. Those in the industry who favour reform and who want to move ahead to a commercial and prosperous future will not support those opposite. The Nationals are being attacked by others who deserted the National Party for One Nation and other offshoots. On the one hand, the progressive people in the industry are deserting the Queensland Nationals and, on the other hand, the ultra conservatives are also leaving the industry. Regrettably, this bill will not satisfy either side or get the National Party out of the mess that it is in now. I will now turn to this bill and explain to honourable members why it is so deficient. This bills deals with four issues: the first, mill closures; the second, security of payment to growers; the third, ministerial direction on export parity pricing; and the fourth, exemptions from vesting for raw sugar. I will deal with the four in turn. The bill would prevent the owner of a mill closing the mill during a crushing season and without notifying growers before the beginning of the season, that is, 1 May. The explanatory notes state that this is designed to give growers time to make a reasonable management decision in terms of the assets of the cane farm if a mill closure takes place. We all know that this is squarely aimed at Bundaberg Sugar's decision to close Moreton Mill at Nambour. It is worth noting that Bundaberg Sugar has actually given notice to growers in Moreton that it would comply with the provisions of this bill. This purports to provide growers with a charge on the proceeds of the sale of raw sugar for the amount owing to them under the collective agreement. This, of course, is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction affecting the commercial operations of financial institutions and may have unintended consequences. I doubt that the opposition has considered the potential consequences of this bill for the financial viability of other mills, particularly cooperative mills. Altering the order of priority of creditors is a significant step. I see no evidence of consultation with mills or the banking sector on this point. Have they consulted with them? N-O, no! In addition, it is worth noting that the government's bill, through the use of the supplier concept, actually overcomes the issue that the National Party seeks to address—but without the risks. It will be possible for a party other than a mill to have legal ownership of sugar at a point immediately prior to vesting and be entitled to payment. Next, the bill would remove the export price direction and the power of the minister to give such direction. It is worth noting that this direction was first issued by who? The party of members opposite back in 1997. It was introduced when the member for Hinchinbrook was the minister. Did he remove the direction when he was minister? N-O, no! Why not? He knows why not. The reason to remove is not quite that simple. The member for Hinchinbrook knows that as long as QSL has a monopoly on raw sugar sales on 3112 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 20 Aug 2003 the domestic market the direction just cannot be removed. If it is, Queensland will face severe financial penalties under the national competition policy. The opposition purports to create some freedom for vesting, but this is not enough to remove the QSL monopoly. Therefore, the direction cannot be removed. The member for Hinchinbrook knows this. However, I believe he is trying to pander to a small group in the sugar industry who demand removal of that direction at all costs. Of course, our government's proposals will allow competition for raw sugar on the domestic market and hence will allow the removal of the direction. The bill purports that the single desk market at QSL should be able to grant exceptions from compulsory vesting to growers and millers who want to use raw sugar for any purpose. This may on the face of it seem reasonable, but the bill is flawed in many respects. This bill is a nonsense. This bill will not help the sugar industry in any way. I really believed that the opposition, in the spirit of trying to improve the sugar industry, would not have attempted to debate this legislation before the House, but unfortunately it has. As minister, I feel obliged to say that, at the end of the day, the opposition members who purport to represent the sugar industry will stand condemned because they do not believe that the sugar industry is in crisis and that it needs help. The only way through is with the government's legislation. Mr SPRINGBORG (Southern Downs—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (10.14 p.m.): I rise to support the Sugar Industry Amendment Bill, which was introduced into the parliament by the honourable member for Hinchinbrook. In doing so, I have an enormous amount of respect for his ability and knowledge of the industry, as I do for the member for Mirani, who understands the practicalities of many of the issues facing not only sugarcane growers but also those involved in milling, harvesting and ancillary areas important to the sugar industry in Queensland. Importantly, notwithstanding our differences, I think we all recognise, including the minister, that it is not going to be easy to fix this. There are a whole range of different views in the communities reliant on the sugar industry about the way to go. Recently, I took a trip through north Queensland. I had the opportunity to visit the honourable members for Hinchinbrook and Mirani and travel into other seats that we do not hold. I observed that the great majority of sugarcane producers themselves are extremely concerned about what the government proposes. Despite what the government proposed in its bill regarding the regulatory framework—not the BSES framework—they see this as an arbitrary approach from the government where there has not been an appropriate amount of consultation. The producers are not opposed to reform with regard to innovative approaches to the disposal of sugar on the domestic market for other types of purposes—for example, ethanol and bioplastics. They concede that the current regulatory environment is an impediment to that. They also concede that there are other issues that need to be looked at and addressed. We know that one of the big concerns in those communities is that in any approach towards deregulation—and probably the approach in the government's bill causes them concern—we have to be very careful that the power does not shift disproportionately from growers towards millers and others down the track. I do not think that would be fair. That is a major concern. As I understand it, there are about 6,000 sugarcane producers in Queensland and their families. Obviously, there are a lot of people who work in mills as well and others who provide support in the sugar industry. This bill was a genuine attempt by the member for Hinchinbrook to try to address some of those regulatory impediment issues that were stifling the innovative growth of the industry—trying to preserve what, in effect, has been a regulatory regime which has been in place by and large for over 100 years, was put in place by a Labor government, but which recognises that there has been a change in the contemporary environment. All I would say to the minister when he says that the government's approach is right is that that is quite arguable based on the concerns. No doubt there are people who support that. I came across some people who support it. I came across a lot more people who had concerns about it. Even the Commonwealth government, which is a partner in terms of reform moneys with the state government, has some concerns about the letter of the legislation and has been— Mr Palaszczuk: Do you support the MOU? Mr SPRINGBORG: I support a process where the state and the Commonwealth work cooperatively together. I do not support the deregulation of the sugar industry in Queensland. I do not support the wholesale deregulation of the sugar industry. I say to the minister that even the Commonwealth government, by virtue of its actions and its correspondence with the Minister for State Development and the Minister for Primary Industries, 20 Aug 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3113 has certain issues with regard to the interpretation of the MOU and the spirit of its implementation. If it were as simple as the Primary Industries Minister was saying, it would have been legislated, but obviously the Commonwealth government has some issues and difficulties with regard to what the state is proposing in its legislation. I think that there are some reasonable things coming forward from the Commonwealth government that move towards providing the security issues and addressing the concerns of sugarcane producers that may very well be able to be incorporated in the bill. One issue which is important is ensuring that sugarcane producers have a guaranteed share and involvement in, and some degree of control over, the profit which may come from downstream innovative products. If that particular angle can be enshrined, I think it is very important. This bill has tried to create an innovative environment that addresses some of those particular concerns. The honourable shadow minister has gone through many of those issues. It is designed to ensure that industries such as ethanol and bioplastics can be encouraged and can actually be promoted. I happen to believe, as other members on my side believe and probably many on the opposite side, that the future of the Queensland sugar industry does not necessarily reside in being a crystal sugar industry. I think many of us agree with that. Certainly the current regulatory environment does constrain it; it generally tends to keep it in that area. There are other issues, of course. There is the sorbitol and a whole range of things. Mr Palaszczuk: Ethanol is very, very important to our reforms. Mr SPRINGBORG: It is very, very important to our private member's bill as well. One of the fundamental tenets is to actually promote and have an environment which encourages the growth of that industry. Having a regulatory environment which encourages ethanol, bioplastics and all those sorts of things and recognises that the current regulations are restricted and constrictive to that is only one part of the equation. The other part of the equation is what the government does more broadly in ensuring that the fuel industry is actually compelled to do something about ethanol as well because they will not do it voluntarily. We had a trial recently in Cairns, and the Minister for Environment waxed lyrical in the estimates committee about how good it was. It was good. It was okay. We supported it. It was really good. But what are we going to have? We are going to have more trials. The thing is that you have a trial and then another trial when you do not want to make an ultimate decision. We have actually established the bona fides of ethanol, so we have to go to the next stage. Once you set up these sorts of environments, the next stage is to actually move towards the mandating of it. The Premier said in parliament this morning that this cannot be done on a state level, but it can. They did it in the United States at a state level because that is the only way that those sorts of things can be done. Queensland could lead the way in a whole range of areas—not only on this issue but also on the mandating of ethanol. I also found it very interesting this morning when the Premier stood up and said that we needed to have the excise arrangements that the Commonwealth had put in place extended. We support the excise. We support the extension. We have actually established that recently. However, it is somewhat hypocritical of the Premier, whose very own federal party is torpedoing the industry through Bob McMullan. We know that it has a future. While it is very hard to quantify how many dollars are going to go in sugarcane producers' or farmers' pockets—nobody knows that—this is all about getting another industry, getting another opportunity for sugarcane. We can produce cane in this state very, very well and I think quite efficiently. If you applied the same parameters that we have across Brazil, or whatever, I think we would come up quite well. That is what it is all about. It is another opportunity, and this is about establishing— Mr Palaszczuk: You spoke about the government's bill for nine minutes and you've spoken about your bill for one minute. So the answer is through our bill. Mr SPRINGBORG: No. I am talking about some of the difficulties. That is why our bill came about. Mr Palaszczuk: Nine minutes. Mr SPRINGBORG: The minister talked about other things for a considerable period. The whole thing is interrelated. That was the reason. You said, 'It is a knee-jerk reaction.' But it has been in parliament for four months and two weeks. Mr Palaszczuk: Supported. 3114 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 20 Aug 2003

Mr SPRINGBORG: This one has been in parliament for four months and two weeks. It is not a reactionary bill. It was introduced because we genuinely wanted to make an attempt. Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) (Minister for State Development) (10.25 p.m.): I rise to oppose this bill. This bill is all about maintaining the status quo in this industry. If it continues to be maintained the way it is, it will lead to the destruction of most of the sugar industry in this state, as detailed by the economic studies that all of us have variously funded at this point—Hildebrand by the federal government, CIE by the Queensland state government, Boston Consulting by Queensland Canegrowers. They have all reached the same conclusion, that is, that this industry is in very real threat if it does not undergo very significant reform and most of the industry is in threat within the short time frame of the next five years without significant reform. All of those reports agree on a fundamental issue. They agree on the fact that the barriers to reform are the existing cane production areas, the existing statutory bargaining and also the domestic single desk arrangements. They agree that reform—radical reform—is needed, and it is needed fast. This bill adds some other issues that the Minister for Primary Industries has spoken about that really do not help. I would suggest that they may be well intentioned but misguided initiatives to try to assist farmers that will really have the unintended consequences that my colleague has spoken about and be real barriers to the survival of mills, particularly the cooperative mills. I am sure that is not their intention, but that would be the ultimate effect if this bill were to be passed by this parliament and put into effect. The bill also fails to effectively address the issue of ethanol. I do not think there is any credit to either side of the federal parliament for the very destructive debate that we are having about ethanol in this nation. Neither side is really coming to grips with what needs to be done. I have said that publicly and I am prepared to say it again here in this House. This bill tries to put in place what I consider to be impossible options. It also ignores the fact that when we started this process at about this time last year—and it was in September of last year that the Minister for Primary Industries and I signed the memorandum of understanding with the federal Minister for Agriculture, Warren Truss, down in Canberra following very extensive consultations up to that point—the expectation for the cane price was $280 per tonne. The expectation for this season is that it will fall somewhere between $220 and $250 a tonne. So the crisis that the industry was experiencing a year ago is now much, much worse and yet we still have people wanting to maintain the status quo, failing to understand that unless we do something and do something very fast we will not have an industry to debate. We will lose most of the industry, apart from the Lower Burdekin—the area that I come from and where I started my working life in the sugar industry. Herbert River may also survive, but very little else of the industry will remain in as short a time frame as five years unless there is significant reform to this industry. This bill also pretends, sadly, that the only people who are in the sugar industry, the only people who matter, are canegrowers. Canegrowers are clearly very important people in the industry, but they are not the industry. The industry is not just the canegrowers; it is also the millers, whether they be proprietary companies or whether they be cooperatives or some variation on cooperatives that are owned by growers in some form or a family company like the Heck group down near my patch. It also includes the harvesting contractors. Very few people think about the harvesting contractors. They are an equally important part of this industry. It includes the employees of all of those three groups—the cane farmers, the millers and the harvesters. Then there are the communities themselves and the businesses that are suppliers—the businesses that depend on the people who work in the industry to sell them their products, whether they be the pie maker or a retail outlet in a sugar community. It also includes the people who work in the sugar experiment stations, those who work in the bulk terminals and those who work for the fertiliser suppliers. They all have an equal stake with the cane farmers to make sure this industry survives and prospers. Sadly, this opposition bill is only about canegrowers. It does not address the problems for all of those other people. In the brief time that is available to me I will talk briefly about an experience I have had in recent weeks. As I think most people in this House are aware—certainly the opposition members in the House are aware because I invited them to come with me; I appreciate that for various reasons they could not—in recent weeks I have been in Brazil having a good look at their industry. Anybody from the industry who has had a good look at the Brazilian industry should have a shiver up their spines right now about precisely what they are facing in terms of this industry sector in Brazil. 20 Aug 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3115

Our producers have to face up to a simple fact. They used to be the best on earth but they no longer are, because the Brazilian industry really has leapfrogged over the top of our Australian industry. They have adapted the best of our technology. They have used it, they have improved it and they have gone on to develop their own home-grown technologies, based on a troika of sugar production, ethanol production and co-generation. The three work hand in hand. They are all part of the key reasons for the efficiency of the Brazilian industry because this allows them to produce higher quality sugar at far lower cost. They do only two boils for their sugar, not three. They are utilising approximately only half of the energy in the back end of their sugar mills. They do no third boil, which is half the pan stage. They use no crystallisers and no C centrifuges. They produce only A and B pans. They then allow the B molasses to go straight to the distillery within most mills—between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of the direct express juices. But they do not fiddle around to extract the final drop from the massacuite. They send it off to the distillery. That means that they produce a higher quality sugar because of only the two boils. It means that, with the energy they save, they have the energy to produce the ethanol and they have the energy to produce electricity that goes into the grid that helps to pay for the running of the entire plant. What do they do with the waste material? Here, because we only make ethanol from molasses we have a particularly nasty final waste product from our distilleries that needs to be reprocessed before it can even be put on a field. Over there it is so clear that they pump it to a high point in the sugar plantations and use it as a fertiliser. They also then use their mud from their filter presses in a process that lasts approximately 45 days to turn it into high-quality compost that they put on their plant cane. The other myth that we keep hearing about Brazil is that it is not sustainable. This is nonsense. Members need to go and have a look. They are far better than us at looking after their soil quality. They have typically far better soils than us to begin with. They are not crashing rainforest; this is open savanna. We tried to get a handle on the height of the topsoil. It is typically about 15 metres deep. They do not understand the concept of topsoil as we understand it. They are getting up to five ratoons of their sugar crop in rainfall areas only. Even where they are not irrigating they are getting 95 tonnes to the hectare, even with fifth ratoons. So the people who think they are unsustainable are absolutely kidding themselves. Brazil currently has 310 mills in production. We are down in the low 20s, with several more at risk even as we speak this very season. It has 25 more confirmed. It is planning another 100. Brazil is growing its industry at more than the size of our industry every year. If that is what we face, we cannot ignore it. If our people want to sit there and pretend that we can just let it all go past us and times will come good again without addressing their efficiencies, they are kidding themselves. This government is not prepared to do that. That is why our bill is the way it is. That is why we oppose this bill. We are continuing to consult with them. I met with canegrowers and sugar millers as recently as yesterday. We are talking to the federal government every day to say, 'Let's do something about this,' but it is falling on deaf ears. Mr MALONE (Mirani—NPA) (10.35 p.m.): I was really impressed with the minister's speech because it really set out a vision that we as a sugar industry have been looking at for quite some time. At the outset I should put on record my history in the sugar industry. I was born on a cane farm. I still live on that same farm, which now produces 10 times more than it did when I was a young person. I later became interested in an industry organisation, the Australian Sugar Producers Association. I attended nearly 20 conferences of that organisation. The minister would understand that that was a peak organisation that included both the farmers and the millers. It was taken out of existence in 1987. It would probably be helpful if we still had an organisation such as the Australian Sugar Producers Association. When the millers pulled out of that, the farmers continued with an organisation called the Australian Cane Farmers Association. I was a board member of that association for quite some time and was president for three years before entering parliament. I owned and ran a contracting harvesting operation for just on 30 years and developed many innovative modifications to harvesters over that period of time. We started out with a cane harvester that was actually bolted onto the side of a tractor and there were innovations before that with whole stick harvesting. I have been in the industry for a long time. My family continues to be in the industry. My two daughters are married to cane farmers. They have recently invested in more cane farms. Nobody can actually say— 3116 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 20 Aug 2003

Mr Pearce interjected. Mr MALONE: I declare my interest. That is fine. I have a lot of interest in cane farming with a lot of other people. Right from the start I have to say that I believe that I have a pretty good knowledge of the industry. In all of this debate I fail to see how any complex legislation is actually going to increase the price of cane, or sugar for that matter. At the end of the day, all of the sugar that is produced in Queensland—in Australia, for that matter, except probably New South Wales to a certain extent—is based on world market price. How can we change legislation to increase the world market price so that farmers are encouraged to continue to plant, grow and fertilise cane? At the end of the day, unless farmers do that there is no industry—no millers, no people working in the industry and no contractors. Mr Barton: There will be no farmers when the mill closes, either. Mr MALONE: That is true. At the very beginning of it, before there is the mill there has to be the growth of cane. I refer to the division of sugar money. I assume that what the minister is saying is that if that is not the case the government's bill would actually change the division of sugar moneys. At the end of the day, if the minister is saying that the basis of all of this is that the mills are going to fall out of the equation— Mr Barton interjected. Mr MALONE: I am not debating this. We faced a price of $220 a tonne in March last year. By the end of the year the price had increased to close on $290 a tonne. It may not happen again and probably will not in this year, but the fact is that the price of sugar has gone up and down over a long period of time. I know that the industry is facing a crisis, because— Mr Mulherin interjected. Mr MALONE: Talking about the Mackay district alone, the crisis that we face is that there is no water left in the dams. Many farmers I know are considering not planting this year because they have no irrigation water. A black frost has damaged more than 650,000 tonnes of cane in the Mackay region. Now the farmers are desperately trying to harvest that cane. One of the big problems is that probably one-third of the crop was immature cane—about two-feet high with a foot of cane on it. The black frost killed it. In a lot of cases, that cane would have been stood over to the next year. Now, in an emergency situation, it has to be harvested. If we get rain on that cane, it will be destroyed completely. We have had six years of disastrous weather. From a farmer's point of view and from a miller's point of view—and Plane Creek Mill is probably experiencing the worst situation of all the Mackay mills in terms of weather—if we get another such year it will not matter what the price of sugar is. It will not matter what happens, because a lot of the farmers will drop out of the industry. If we look at some of the confidential figures from Mackay Sugar, we see that 75 growers in Mackay Sugar owe more than $2 million each. I suggest that that is more than a lot of those farms are worth. In actual fact, that debt is probably more than Mackay Sugar owes. When we talk about the cooperatives falling out of the equation, I can assure the House that the farmers are in a more difficult situation than the cooperatives that they are shareholders in. Tonight our argument is that we need some changes in the legislation. We do not need to take away the confidence, if there is any left, in the industry on the part of the farmers, the millers or the contractors. We need to approach this very steadily, because if we are heavy-handed with legislation, many farmers will throw up their hands and walk away from the industry. That is the problem we face. I was interested to hear what the minister said about the Brazilian sugar industry. The vision of using the back end of the mill to boil off the first express juice and make high-quality sugar and then put the rest into ethanol is a vision that most farmers have had for a long time. Our problem is that, under the regulations we currently have, farmers do not gain one red cent from the by- products of a sugar mill. The molasses and the bagasse that is used in the heating and the running of the mills for co-generation are all part of the process and are owned by the mill. The legislation we are proposing tonight will free that process up to some extent to allow the farmers to share in an income stream with the mill. This certainly needs to be promoted and thought through. We do not need to push it strongly at this stage. There will be a reluctance by both the millers and the growers to invest in new infrastructure to make it happen. However, we really need a mechanism to allow both the miller and the grower to look at new technologies that are emerging so that they can be participants in this new income stream. 20 Aug 2003 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 3117

The vision for the sugar industry has to be as an energy industry. It is not a sugar industry; it is an energy industry. The sugarcane plant is the most efficient on earth for converting sunlight into energy. We have to manage that and exploit it. Brazil provides a model for us to work on. The problem is that in Brazil one can employ a person for US$100 a month. The minister will probably know the correct figure. They can grow cane with very little inputs. Basically, they have no irrigation. The soil is good and it is deep. Even though they are growing only 60 to 80 tonnes a hectare, they are making money. Of course, at 3.4 reals to one US dollar, the currency is in their favour. There is no doubt that if we are going to compete head-to-head with Brazil, we are going to lose every time. There is no way that our industry, under the constraints that it has—whether it is access to irrigation water, the Vegetation Management Act, you name it—can compete with the Brazilian industry. We have to carve out a niche for ourselves, and it has to be in the energy field. We need to be in that field where we produce ethanol and biodegradable plastics, and that is becoming very real. We have to have an industry that can do those things. The legislation before the House tonight takes one step towards achieving that vision. It will need to be modified as we go along, but it gives the opportunity for farmers to be involved in the new area. Even though the bill is simple— Time expired. Mr MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (10.45 p.m.): I rise to speak against the opposition's Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 2003. I will focus on three issues pertaining to the bill. Firstly, I will refer to some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Mirani. While I respect the member's viewpoint, I find some of his logic a bit hard to understand. The member talked about the need to value add in the industry and to move away from a sugar industry to a cane industry that looks at downstream value adding. To a certain extent, there is a bit of a cargo cult mentality going on here. If Manildra sought the cheapest way of producing ethanol, it would be with its cane producers in northern New South Wales, rather than its grain producers in New South Wales. I believe that there is a great future for the industry, but it requires major structural reform. One needs to nurture industries and regulation helps to do that. However, it is like being brought up in a family. Eventually, one grows up and leaves home. Likewise with an industry, one needs to unshackle the regulations that control an industry so that it can move forward. The member for Mirani said that canegrowers need more return for their cane payments. At the other end of the equation, he spoke about the need to value add. The two things do not add up. I suppose that there is a risk involved if a canegrower puts more cane under production so that he can supply a mill or a factory that will value add a cane product, but the risk is also with the miller. The miller puts up the money for the plant and equipment. If he goes into a joint venture arrangement with someone who wants to do further downstream value adding, both parties need security. With mills or cooperative mills, 65 per cent of the net return goes back to the grower and 35 per cent remains with the miller. Therefore, while I acknowledge that canefarmers face a desperate situation and that the opposition is trying to do its bit for the industry, we need to set aside some of the agrarian socialist principles of this proposed legislation. At the end of the day, market forces will dictate whether or not an industry should survive. For example, let us look at Bundaberg. Why is horticulture producing a greater return on investment than cane growing? We hear the whinge about the price of water and the fact that horticulturalists can afford water and canefarmers cannot. While we have a Sugar Act, the focus is on sugar. It is not about value adding any other product. The complete focus is on sugar. Whilst we think of sugar, we have to move beyond that because if we do not move beyond that we are not going to have an industry at all. I think we have to look at the cane industry. The member for Mirani spoke about ethanol and a whole range of other things, but there are other things like eco-pulp and turning bagasse into paper. Do we use natural gas to power the sugar mill? Do we look at neutraceuticals? There are a whole range of things, but to get those industries going there needs to be investment and investment is the key to the whole thing. Confidence is also a key. It is more than just six seasons of bad crop. It is about farm size. There is no textbook that says what is the perfect farm size. We have to look at effective use of capital. We have to look at hidden costs and identify all that to get your unit cost of production. The real concern I have is that with an industry that has had poor seasons and limited investment in new plant and technology, when we do get a bumper crop, do we have the 3118 Sugar Industry Amendment Bill 20 Aug 2003 capacity to take it off and do we have the capacity to mill it? I think we have to increase the throughput. I agree with the member for Mirani that we have to get away from the New York number 11, the spot market, and away from raw sugar. I think that whilst we have a sugar act we are focusing on raw sugar alone when we need to look beyond those parameters. I want to comment on a couple of issues pertaining to that bill as well. The three issues that I would like to focus on for the rest of my speech are security of cane payments, how this bill will jeopardise the financial stability of the mills and how the government proposes that it will address the issues. I think that the retrospective commencement of the proposed new section, 182A, the cane payment charges provision, would have an adverse effect on any party that has entered into a contract, assuming that it will have a priority in the ranking of creditors. I think that is crucial to the whole financial market that we operate under. Such an individual could suffer significant adverse financial consequences should growers be retrospectively ranked ahead of them in the list of creditors. The opposition appears to believe that the grower co-owns the sugar—that sugar is vested for them as well as for the mill and that the grower should share entitlements to QSL payments. There is no legal basis for this belief. Clause 8 would provide growers with a charge on the proceeds of the sale of the raw sugar for the amount owing to them under the collective agreement. The proposed new section is declared to be a corporations legislation displacement provision for the Corporations Act under section 5G. In accordance with the corporations agreement to which the Commonwealth, the federal coalition government and all states are party, a state proposing to make such a displacement provision is first required to notify all other jurisdictions of the proposal and to consider any objections raised. I wonder if the member for Hinchinbrook has raised that with his federal colleagues. I think they would find this legislation to be la la land. This is an attempt to provide growers with certainty about receiving access to cane payments in the event of a mill being placed in receivership where the relevant bank plans to exercise its legal right to those funds. However, it would have unintended consequences because it would effectively change the ranking of all creditors to such a mill. This would include the financial institutions, transport companies and other services to the mill which secure the creditors. Changing the order of security would affect the confidence of lenders to the sugar industry. Indeed, in the current depressed industry situation it could jeopardise the borrowing position of most mills, particularly where a bank is already heavily exposed to the industry. This is because by ordering the creditors ranking there would be considerably fewer assets available to cover the bank's loan. Consequently it would at least cause the bank to provide loans on terms less favourable to mills. At worst a bank may call in a receiver in order to recover its loans. That is, it could threaten the financial viability of a number of mills. Mr Rowell interjected. Mr MULHERIN: Yes, but at the end of the day it is a commercial operation. This is one of the problems with the co-ops, I suppose. My family has a great history in this area. My great uncle, Tom Mulherin, formed the first cooperative sugar mill in Australia. He borrowed 350,000 pounds from the Queensland National Bank without any government guarantee. What did he do? He went and closed mills down and got the efficiencies into milling and on land. A lot of farmers walked off the land. My grandfather was one of them. Mr Rowell: Did they get paid? Mr MULHERIN: No, a lot of them did not. There was nothing like that in those days; they just walked. Farleigh was a great cooperative. The old primary industries cooperation legislation had the Farleigh model rules within the old co-op legislation. It was Farleigh, Cattle Creek, Eaton, North Eaton and Race Course that formed the Mackay Sugar Cooperative. But banks are a bit wary of cooperatives. If they have a leadership that is sort of agrarian socialist in view, they will not lend money and money is needed for a mill to operate. Time expired. Mr CHRIS FOLEY (Maryborough—Ind) (10.55 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of the bill. I note that one of the primary policy objectives of this bill is to require a mill owner to provide reasonable notice in the event of a mill closure to allow growers and millers to make other arrangements for the processing of the crop. 20 Aug 2003 Adjournment 3119

There is a tremendous win-win situation where our area can work well with Moreton with the closure of their mill to bring their sugar cane up to be milled in Maryborough. That will help increase the efficiency and sustainability of our region and help both regions together. Moreton needs to replace their haul-out fleet to suit transport cane trailers which are approximately 4.6 metres in height as existing haul-out equipment is limited to 4 metres. That is the only option if cane is to be milled in Maryborough, which is one of the primary objectives of the bill—to allow that cane to be milled in another area and those arrangements to be made. It would be great to see B-double approvals for cane haulage on side roads. An example of this is the roads between Coolum and Yandina. This will increase the cost feasibility of transport and milling. I also call for increasing water allocations for the Lower Mary irrigation area at reasonable pricing. One of the areas that could be very helpful is the approval of flood harvest into off-stream water storage at an acceptably low cost. Whilst acknowledging the environmental need of the rivers to be flushed out properly in flood times, in its primary objective this bill talks about the fact that if a mill like Moreton is closing down, if we can get that across to another mill then that is a win-win situation for both. The Hon. Tom Barton mentioned co-generation. We would like to see government support for infrastructure for a co-generation plant at Maryborough sugar mill as well. Industry needs commitment to environmental sustainability and support in terms of farming practice from state and federal governments. Debate, on motion of Mr Chris Foley, adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Rural Communities) (10.58 p.m.): I move— That the House do now adjourn.

South East Queensland Water Corporation Mrs PRATT (Nanango—Ind) (10.58 p.m.): I rise to address the House over the actions of the South East Queensland Water Corporation, of which the state government is a major shareholder. The South East Queensland Water Corporation has informed one of my constituents that the sale of land, which is part of a combined freehold leasehold agreement, will not be permissible unless changes to the current conditions of the lease are agreed to. The property concerned is at Wivenhoe Dam, but it can be fairly assumed that the jackboot tactics by the corporation do not apply to this isolated parcel of land, but will apply to all properties that come under its jurisdiction. The owners of a freehold property have held the lease of an adjacent parcel of land for some time and have complied with every condition of that lease. The lease states that the leasehold block may be sold and a contract of sale has been signed as far back as early March this year. Their lease upon this land does not expire until 2052—a lease which stipulates very clearly what can and cannot be done under the agreement. Like any lease, this is a binding contract. The terms and conditions of that lease cannot be changed at the whim of a bureaucratic decision. It is a legally binding document. The owners have appealed to the minister to intervene, but without any response. The owners now face the possibility of losing the sale due to the ongoing legal debate between their representatives and those of the corporation. The corporation is claiming that the leased land part of the sale cannot go ahead unless new strict conditions are met. The owner's long-term lease gives them the right to either transfer, sublet or assign all or part of the lease if certain conditions are met, which they have been. But SEQWC is demanding that the lease time be shortened, payment of a higher rental and an additional management agreement be signed in respect of the adjoining lease land. The current lessees have been unable to get any response from either the minister or bureaucrats over defending their legal right to sell. So far the only stated response is a letter from SEQWC's legal representatives stating that its client does not consider that compliance with their request for consent is consistent with the purposes and objectives of the corporation. As such, it states— We have been instructed that no further steps will be taken by it (the Corporation) in relation to your request. After nearly five months and despite the lessees meeting all of the requirements under the long- term contract, no resolution has been found. It appears that SEQWC feels that it can move the 3120 Adjournment 20 Aug 2003 goalposts by imposing new conditions that are outside the terms and conditions of the existing lease. An agreement is an agreement, and I call on SEQWC to honour its contractual obligations. This case brings to light the power bureaucrats try to exercise over land-holders by having the final say on whether or not properties can be sold in the future. SEQWC already has adequate powers under the terms and conditions of the existing long-term leases to manage grazing practices and water-quality issues, but it now seeks to impose new conditions for greater commercial gain and control over land-holders. With all the other legislation restricting farming practices, it virtually means that primary producers are losing their rights and their viability. It is no wonder that so many people are leaving the land. I call on the minister to address this problem with urgency as the decision by his department not to respond other than through legal channels is not the community consultation— Time expired.

Business Women's Coaching Program Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP) (11.01 p.m.): A few weeks ago I was invited to officially launch the Business Women's Coaching program at Indooroopilly. It was great to see so many women so highly motivated to learn the skills of business development to assist them in their chosen career. As the patron of the Centenary and Districts Chamber of Commerce, I regularly hear about how small businesses have succeeded and, more importantly, survived over many years. A common theme for success is the focus on quality customer service. I believe this is absolutely essential to everyday business. If people cannot capture the market, then they are no longer in business. Word of mouth advertising is the most successful and the most economical. Two of the workshop topics in this program are valuing people and how to have sensational customer service. I regard these as the most important, but there are many other aspects to business. The women on the course realise that if they do not plan ahead, it does not happen. Every astute businesswoman must know where she wants to be in five years time. Compiling a strategic plan from the outset is the best way of identifying goals and aspirations and, most importantly, stating how to achieve those goals. This involves documenting one's strategy and making a concerted effort to carry it out. This program was put together to provide women in business with all of those helpful hints which they can explore to their own advantage. Women have the advantage in business. They can sense when things are not quite right, they know when people are not entirely happy and they endeavour to get right to the heart of the problem and try to resolve the matter. It is a very competitive world today and there are still some prejudices which exist that are anti women in business. The member for Barron River, Dr Lesley Clark, was influential in instigating the concept of the coaching program. The coaching concept was advanced in light of substantial research indicating increased potential for more effective and long-term outcomes vis-a-vis traditional mentoring programs. The course that they are participating in is a pilot course and there will be four in Queensland. If this course is successful, they will be run yearly. The Department of State Development has contributed a 30 per cent subsidy towards the program, enabling it to be run at a more reasonable cost to participants. The program has been specifically designed for women business owners/managers who have survived the first two years in small business, but who are dealing with all the challenges and issues of a maturing business. This is a practical, action-based learning program. It means that they will be able to reflect on the information that they are given and be given the opportunity to apply it to their specific circumstances in business. It focuses on networking, learning new skills and gaining knowledge and friendships by working with peers and specialists from a wide range of industries. The Department of State Development, through the Smart Women—Smart State initiative, together with The Hub, has supported this project. The coaching will provide assistance over a period of six months with regard to the development of the participant's business, supporting assessments of business management decisions and motivational support and counselling on issues related to the business. The organisers chose a great venue in which they could relax and take in the skills and knowledge gained during the program. Whether the program is successful or not will depend on what the participants will get out of it. I think that the participants of this course should be congratulated on taking the step towards self-development, learning new ideas and skills and 20 Aug 2003 Adjournment 3121 becoming a great success in business in the near future. I am proud to be part of a government that supports such initiatives.

Water Recycling Project; Red Cross Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (11.04 p.m.): The people of the Darling Downs and the Lockyer were devastated recently to hear that the Beattie Labor government will no longer proceed with the recycled water project to pump water from Brisbane to the Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs. This project would have involved 120,000 megalitres of water. It would have kept that water out of the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay, where it is contributing to nutrients which are growing blue-green algae, and it also would have helped the environment at the other end in the Condamine-Balonne system by taking the pressure off that system. It is a great project. It is a far-sighted project. It is what visionary nations should be undertaking. This project is achievable and it is practical. With combined funding from the state and federal governments and financial institutions and the irrigators themselves, this project could get off the ground, particularly if we start to listen to the practical and commonsense approach of the irrigators who are behind this scheme, Vision 2000, and the City to Soil project. Any project that can deliver such benefits for the environment, such security of water supply, such reuse of a precious commodity like water, such opportunity for jobs, particularly in the area of export, and any project that can deliver almost immediately $150 million in increased farm gate sales and, at two for one, something like $450 million per annum of immediate economic value has to be good for our nation, good for our state and good for this part of Queensland. I have pushed this project for years and years. I will continue to push it because I believe in it. I believe in the people behind it. They are sound people who have funded major projects throughout their lives and would enter into something like this only if they knew that it was sensible and practical. It is something we must do, and the National-Liberal coalition is committed to it. The other issue that I want to touch on tonight is the Red Cross. I recently attended the annual general meeting of the Red Cross in Toowoomba. I am always amazed at the work it does, particularly at our hospital, in helping people in need in providing accommodation and various other visiting services. I was most impressed by one of the speakers who talked about what they actually had done for Bali. I seek leave to table the chairman's statement from the Australian Red Cross and a summary of the funds that the Red Cross put into the Bali campaign and a story from the media by the chairman of the Australian Red Cross. Leave granted. Mr HORAN: I think this will provide a very honest account on the parliamentary record of what the Red Cross has done. There has been some criticism of it, but the facts and figures will show how the Red Cross set out to provide what it said it would provide not only for the victims but also in Bali itself and in terms of the funding it provided for research such as skin research. When one sees the small amount that has gone into administration, it absolutely restores one's faith in what the Red Cross has always done—that is, help people in times of need.

Operation Baby Basket Mr LEE (Indooroopilly—ALP) (11.07 p.m.): I want to speak tonight in the House about a wonderful project that operates in my local area. Operation Baby Basket is an initiative of St John's Lutheran Church in Corinda on the south-west side of Brisbane. Baby Basket is a small gesture of help to needy mothers and expectant mothers including those, and I think quite importantly, who are faced with the possibility of a choice between abortion and having to care for their babies without a support network. Since 1992 Operation Baby Basket has been supplying starter kits of clothes and necessary items for babies. These kits contain bassinette sheets, a bunny rug, some nappies, a shawl, singlets, dresses for girls or romper suits for boys, matinee jackets, socks and booties, Gro suits, a hat, baby soap, a rattle, a soft toy and nappy pins—all incredibly important things for women who have a young baby. Operation Baby Basket is an agency of Lutheran Community Care Queensland and is a registered charitable organisation. Requests for assistance come from medical and social welfare professionals who are involved with hospitals, crisis centres and women's refuges. There are three collection bins where donated clothing can be received. They are at St Peter's junior school in Indooroopilly, the Good News Lutheran complex at Middle Park and also at St John's Lutheran Church in Corinda, where this initiative is based. 3122 Adjournment 20 Aug 2003

I commend Bev Corney for the outstanding work that she has done as the coordinator of Operation Baby Basket for a significant period. Bev organises this project. All of the people involved in the initiative are volunteers. The entire project is funded from donations from church members, church groups and the wider community. I encourage other honourable members and also members of the community who would like to make a donation to Operation Baby Basket to either get in touch with me and I can put them in touch with the initiative or to contact St John's Lutheran Church in Corinda. This is an incredibly important initiative that provides a significant service for families at a time when money is often tight. I commend their work to the House tonight.

Public Hospital System; Double Jeopardy Laws Mr QUINN (Robina—Lib) (11.10 p.m.): Under the previous five-year health care agreement with the Commonwealth Queensland received a total of $5.1 billion. Now the Commonwealth government is offering Queensland $8 billion in funding for the public hospital system over the next five years under a new agreement. This is an additional $2.1 billion in funding and equates to an increase of over 35 per cent in gross terms, or a 20 per cent increase in funding over and above inflation. The state government has known the specific details of the Commonwealth's offer since as early as April this year, yet it is now demanding an extension of time for further negotiation. The deadline has always been 31 August 2003, yet incredibly neither the Premier nor the Minister for Health have been able to reach an agreement with the Commonwealth over the past five months. The people of far-north Queensland are growing sick and tired of the Premier participating in orchestrated Labor Party stunts on behalf of his hapless federal colleagues. This level of dissatisfaction is evidenced by over 4,000 signed letters that have been collected by the federal member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, along with the Liberal candidates for Barron River, Stephen Welsh, and Cairns, Bob Manning. I now table these letters, along with a covering letter addressed to the Premier from Warren Entsch. These letters demand that the Premier stop playing childish political games and get on with securing the much-needed increase in health funding being offered by the Commonwealth government. These letters are in addition to over 6,000 similar letters collected by Peter Lindsay, the federal member for Herbert, and are already forwarded to the Premier. As I said before, it is about time the Premier started listening to the people of Queensland and stopped participating in orchestrated Labor Party stunts on behalf of his hapless federal colleagues. Tonight I take this opportunity also to table an additional 3,359 signatures that form the non- conforming part of a petition tabled in this House yesterday. The petition requested a review of double jeopardy laws in the state of Queensland, the passing of legislation providing discretionary power to the Attorney-General to set aside double jeopardy provisions in exceptional circumstances, recognition of the fact that the double jeopardy principle is outdated, and ensure that public confidence in the integrity of the legal system is restored.

Neighbourhood Watch, Turkey Beach Mr STRONG (Burnett—ALP) (11.13 p.m.): I take this opportunity to inform honourable members of a day I had at Turkey Beach on 12 July, when I launched the community Neighbourhood Watch program. Turkey Beach is about 30 kilometres off the Bruce Highway just north of Bororen. It is a small fishing community. As with most coastal communities, it has a lot of holiday homes. A certain number of people live there permanently, but most people go there during holiday periods. A lot of people from western Queensland and the mining communities from around that area use it as their holiday destination. Recently, an unusual situation arose—they had a crime. As I said, Turkey Beach is a deadend spot 30 kilometres off the main road. Someone came in to Turkey Beach and stole a boat on a trailer. As honourable members know, every house has a boat, a trailer and a tractor. One of the community members identified the numberplate. Sergeant Owen Harms followed it up, and they retrieved the boat and trailer within a matter of weeks, undamaged, and returned it to the owner. That was a great result for that community. That initiated the community getting together, going to the next stage and forming a Neighbourhood Watch. In attendance were Pam Rieck, who started the program; John Bell, the mayor of Miriam Vale; and a few police officers, who took the community through the program. Constable Jeremy 20 Aug 2003 Adjournment 3123

Lloyd-Jones, the new police officer at Miriam Vale, is going to be the liaison for the group. Acting Senior Sergeant Mike Dixon from the Gladstone Police Station and Constable Colleen Dines went through the mechanics of the whole process. It was a wonderful day. Most of the community was there. There would have been about 40 people. It was good to see Pam Rieck and people such as Doug Price, Marilyn, Ian Campbell, Cheryl Beazley and Joe Schofield organising that community. All positions were filled. In a small community such as that that is an outstanding effort. There was a lot of community camaraderie, with all of the people getting involved. There was enthusiasm from the community to make their town a little safer and to be a little more aware of strangers in the region. A great day was had by all. I commend those people on their organisational skills.

Sapphire Miners, Emerald Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) (11.16 p.m.): I wish to bring to the attention of the parliament the unsatisfactory situation confronting Queensland sapphire producers on the gemfields west of Emerald. This industry is important to tourism, and many people gain their livelihood from the gemfields. The situation has dragged on for so long now that some tend to forget that these people exist and have rights. A couple of public meetings have been held over the native title and lease issues. However, the problem seems to keep dragging on and on. A month or so ago, representatives from the government department went out there to speak on native title issues. Whilst they were there not one piece of mining machinery was in operation. The whole industry is in shutdown mode, because leases are not being processed. This is a sad indictment on the whole region. This is a very important tourist region. More importantly, many people derive their living from this industry. The real issue, as I see it, is that it appears our sapphire mining industry has been ignored by the government. We are seeking the government's support to expedite this process so these people can get back to doing what they do best—mining gemstones for the international trade as well as the tourist trade so that they can earn a reliable and comfortable livelihood. Now that we have the indigenous land use agreements, or ILUAs—the negotiations for which have been going on for some time—government representatives have committed to have the ILUAs submitted for preregistration by the end of August 2003, which is only a few days away. I call on the bureaucrats within these government departments, the Premier and the Minister for Natural Resources, Stephen Robertson, to show leadership on this issue. The situation has become so prolonged that a lot of these people are in a desperate position. I do not say this lightly tonight. Sapphire miners do not want grants, government handouts or welfare assistance; they want to be left to their own devices so that they can get on with doing the job of mining sapphires and generating their business interests within the community where they love to live and work. I urge the Premier, the minister and other government members to show leadership and expedite this process so that these people can get back to making this a very viable industry.

Meals on Wheels, Hervey Bay Mr McNAMARA (Hervey Bay—ALP) (11.19 p.m.): I wish to inform the House of the extraordinary contribution made to my community of Hervey Bay by the outgoing president of Meals on Wheels, Hervey Bay, the Reverend Bill White. On 12 August 2003 I was honoured to attend the AGM of Meals on Wheels, Hervey Bay. Like Meals on Wheels organisations everywhere, it is a wonderful group, and it served its 400,000th meal to Mrs Alice Bradley in July this year. In the last financial year, Meals on Wheels, Hervey Bay, served 30,256 meals, meeting the needs of between 130 and 140 residents per day. At the AGM Reverend White stood down as president after 33 years at the helm. He was treasurer for two years before that, and even after 35 years of continuous service and now at the age of 96 he has agreed to stay on the committee as a committee member for the 2003-04 year. Surely no-one could have made a greater commitment to volunteer service after retirement than Bill White. When you think about it, 35 years is like having an entire second career. He retired after he finished working in the church and then put in 35 years of full-time work with Meals on Wheels. 3124 Adjournment 20 Aug 2003

Reverend White was quite properly honoured with a Centenary Medal for voluntary service to Meals on Wheels and the community, as were three other Meals on Wheels stalwarts, Mrs Nina Wilson, Mrs Isabella Christensen and Mr Ralph Waldock. Indeed, such is the scale of Reverend White's contribution that it would be possible to miss the extraordinary efforts which other executive members have put in. Mrs Nina Wilson stood down from the committee as treasurer after 18 years of continuous service, and Mr Ralph Waldock is this year embarking on his 16th year as secretary. These enormous contributions in their own right were properly recognised on the day of the AGM. I wish to place on record in this place my thanks and the thanks of my whole community to Reverend White and his fellow Meals on Wheels volunteers for their collective decades of service. Between them, Reverend White, Nina Wilson and Ralph Waldock have contributed 68 years of service to Meals on Wheels in Hervey Bay. With Reverend White and Ralph Waldock staying on the committee this year, it will be 70 years by next year. Mr Johnson interjected. Mr McNAMARA: Indeed. I cannot overestimate the value of that contribution. The organisation has been exceptionally well run. Back in May 1980 Meals on Wheels built and opened its own kitchens free of debt and has continued to improve the facilities ever since. A new coldroom was installed this year to keep the facilities modern and safe. I was privileged to accompany volunteers delivering Meals on Wheels earlier this year and can certainly attest to the real need and value of this service in my community.

Mrs G. Tappenden Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—Ind) (11.22 p.m.): I rise to pay tribute to a wonderful lady in our community, Mrs Grace Tappenden, who recently celebrated her 103rd birthday. This is Mrs Tappenden in this article. There is not a thing that gets her down and nothing holds her down. She celebrated her birthday looking back at a life that spanned an era of modern history punctuated by some of the world's most significant events. Grace, as she is fondly called, celebrated her 103rd birthday surrounded by her 23 grandchildren, her 37 great-grandchildren and 11 great-great-grandchildren. I had the privilege of attending the party. It was a wonderful atmosphere, a great time of celebration. But Grace did not miss a beat. The chair of the party was her son Ken. Ken often tells anecdotes about Grace. Mr Bredhauer: He would be a young fellow of 80 or something. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Not quite. He was one of the youngest children. He would tell anecdotes about Grace. I was sitting next to Grace and she would mutter things like, 'I wish he'd keep his trap shut.' She never missed a beat. She was wonderful. She was born in 1900, the youngest of George and Sarah Jane Young's eight children and spent her childhood on a small farm in Bouldercombe—the gold country—helping her mother in the orchard as her father worked the goldfields. Her life spanned so many great events: the death of King George V in 1952, the crowning of the new Queen in 1953, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and Neil Armstrong's first steps on the moon in 1969. Her comment on that was, 'We sat at home and did not believe it could possibly happen because how could they get out there?' She has these wonderful anecdotes. As I said, nothing escapes her attention. Her family was touched by war, both the First and the Second World Wars. She was able to recount those incidents as well. As I said, the celebration was very bright and very happy. She had some celebrating to catch up on because she had a broken arm and a broken hip a couple of weeks before her 101st and 102nd birthdays. She missed having the party for those birthdays so she reckoned she was going to invest all of her energies in her 103rd. I left at about 9 o'clock and I think she partied on well into the night. Mr Bredhauer interjected. Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: She is a really wonderful lady, somebody whom it is a joy to meet. I am expecting that we will celebrate her 104th birthday with just as much life and effervescence. I commend the family for their support for her and the fact that they allow her that independence and freedom to continue to enjoy her senior years. She does not always see well, but she hears well and she does not miss too much. I commend Grace. I wish her a happy birthday and look forward to her enjoying another 12 months of health, wealth and happiness in the year ahead. 20 Aug 2003 Adjournment 3125

Station Road Upgrade, Logan Mrs DESLEY SCOTT (Woodridge—ALP) (11.25 p.m.): The doorway to a locality is important to make a positive first impression. In Logan this has occurred for road travellers at various points as you enter the city. However, over the past 18 months the Woodridge Railway Station precinct along Station Road has been undergoing a transformation as a joint community renewal project. Our community wanted rail travellers to alight to a pleasant scene of colourful gardens, shady trees, street banners, a designated bus interchange, seating areas and a pleasant environment also for those who use the area for shopping, banking and the like. The Community Renewal Reference Group identified this project as high on their list of priorities. On Wednesday, 6 August we gathered to celebrate and launch stage 2, the final stage of the project. The partners involved in this multi-million dollar project can be justly proud of the result. May I first pay tribute to the Minister for Housing, the Hon. Robert Schwarten, who has shown tremendous commitment to areas such as Woodridge and Kingston through the community and urban renewal processes. My constituents say a heartfelt thankyou for understanding what a helping hand can do to struggling communities—and what a helping hand it has been. I thank him. Queensland Rail set the pace by installing a lift as access to the platform and carried out a major upgrade of the railway station, complete with security cameras. Logan City Council played a leading role in planning and implementing the street upgrade. I should acknowledge Cr John Freeman, Cr Russell Lutton, Cr John Grant, CEO Gary Kellar, Oliver Simon, Peter Way and Kay Franks and all those who carried out the work on the project with colourful gardens, trees, drainage, a new road surface, street furniture and safety cameras. Martin Cooper from Ridgemill has given valuable advice and supervision. In the final stage, the roadway was reopened from Wembley Road and additional parking provided. That is a brief overview. However, the real story behind Station Road is the involvement of Woodridge State High School students in a project called Making Places. In 2002, Principal Helen Jamieson saw an opportunity to get her students involved in the project and explored ideas with representatives of Logan City Council. A total of 109 students took part with enthusiastic direction and support from Carmen Stewart of Futurewell, teachers Fran Barker, Anke Willems, Tony Cupitt, Leigh Hansen and others joining as the project moved towards completion. The students designed and crafted beautiful mosaic tiles which have now been placed in two tiled walls. One is used for seating and the other is a garden feature. The tiles depict messages of peace, unity, love and reconciliation. Large banners were also designed with stunning results which now line the length of the commercial area. The effect on these students has been amazing. Their work will bring a sense of pride in our community spirit and resourcefulness for many years to come. Others to be recognised are the members of our Station Road steering committee; local business operators; our faithful community renewal volunteers; community renewal staff and staff of the area office of the Department of Housing; our Regional Managers Forum; Cane Zipinkowski, who donated black tiles for the walls; L. J. Hooker; Logan police; the Regional Arts Development Fund; the departments of Local Government and Planning, State Development, Employment and Training; and Gerda and her staff from the entertainment centre in Logan for their great catering for the launch. I have no doubt I could list more. A project of this magnitude, which is a collaboration of many people, many departments and involves so many in a community, has a lasting impact. The gardens, the trees and the grass will grow and continue to become more beautiful in time. It will add much to my community. I say thankyou to all who played a part in this great project. Logan City can do it and do it so well. Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.