Hansard 9 November 2000 - parliament.qld.gov.au · Residents Association (Inc.) 27 Bathurst Street ELLIOTT HEADS Q 4670 Dear Mrs Phillips I refer to your letter of 25 September 2000

9 Nov 2000 Legislative Assembly 4149

THURSDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2000

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

PRIVILEGEMember for Maroochydore

Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.30 a.m.): I rise ona point of privilege. On 4BC Radio this morningthe member for Maroochydore called medishonest in relation to ICU beds and fundingfor intensive care at the PA Hospital. She hasdone this on a regular basis. I have not tolduntruths. In fact, I believe the member forMaroochydore should lift her game andconcentrate on the issues for a change.

The issue in this case, as I haveexplained previously in the House and severaltimes in the media, is a nursing shortage thatis causing problems for Queensland, all otherAustralian health systems and indeedhospitals around the world. Under the BeattieLabor Government, the ICU bed capacity inQueensland has increased and will increasefurther with the completion of redevelopmentprojects at the Royal Brisbane Hospital and thePA Hospital. Also under the BeattieGovernment there have been record Healthbudgets, and the recent EB is fully funded andnot reliant on staff cuts to pay for it, as was thecase under the previous Government. It is nota funding problem. It is not a bed shortageproblem. It is a specialist nursing shortage,which we have been addressing with moresuccess than the other States and, I shouldadd, since I became Health Minister.

Rather than reducing bed numbers, thisweek the PA Hospital has opened twoadditional ICU beds but has had to ask nursesto work overtime to staff the unit. It has thefunding and the beds. It simply does not havethe specialist staff. It is unsafe for patients forstaff to be asked to work extended overtimeon a permanent basis just to keep themember for Maroochydore happy. Toemphasise the point that this problem is notunique in Queensland, I quote from the 30August 2000 Nursing Labour Force reportpublished by the Australian Institute of Healthand Welfare. It states—

"Findings include national shortagesin December 1999 in several specialistfields of nursing practice—operatingtheatre, critical and intensive care,accident and emergency, aged care,mental health and midwifery."

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will come tothe matter of privilege.

Mrs EDMOND: I understand that thenursing shortage in Victoria is so severe thathospitals were forced to cancel all electivesurgery for several weeks. That is somethingthat I would be very reluctant to undertake,although I am aware of the disappointment forpatients who have been affected by theseshortages. A recent edition of A Current Affairon the nursing shortage highlighted Victoria'stactics of poaching nurses from Queensland,but Queensland was highlighted as theleading State in implementing long-terminitiatives to address the shortage. Thecomments by the member opposite on radiothis morning were inappropriate. Her behaviouris unbecoming of a member of Parliament. Iwould hope that she has the sense toapologise to the people of Queensland.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Beaudesert Shire Council

From Mr Lingard (51 petitioners)requesting the House to have BeaudesertShire Council remove the unfair and unjustseparate rate charge for roads in theassessment of property rates as it is causingfinancial difficulties for many senior citizensand families.

Electro Group Training

From Miss Struthers (39 petitioners)requesting the House allow the awarding ofuser choice contracts to Electro GroupTraining, the preferred industry choice ofapprentice training.

Petitions received.

PAPERS

The Clerk informed the House of thetabling of the following documents—

MINISTERIAL RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

The following responses to petitions weretabled by The Clerk—

Response from the Minister for Communicationand Information, Local Government andPlanning and Minister for Sport (MrMackenroth) to a petition presented by MrMackenroth from 112 petitioners, regarding theBurnett Shire Council—

4150 Legislative Assembly 9 Nov 2000

11 OCT 2000Mr R DoyleThe Clerk of the ParliamentLegislative Assembly of QueenslandCENTRAL DOCUMENT EXCHANGE M29

Dear Mr Doyle

I am in receipt of a number of petitionsaddressed to the Parliament from theElliott Heads & District Ratepayers &Residents Association (Inc.), concerningissues relating to the Burnett ShireCouncil.

As the petitions appear to be the originalcopies, I have enclosed them for yourrecords together with my response to theprincipal petitioner.

Yours sincerely

(sgd)

TERRY MACKENROTH

11 OCT 2000

Mrs M J PhillipsSecretaryElliott Heads & District Ratepayers &Residents Association (Inc.)27 Bathurst StreetELLIOTT HEADS Q 4670

Dear Mrs Phillips

I refer to your letter of 25 September 2000attaching a copy of a petition addressedto the Legislative Assembly of Queenslandraising objections to the allocation ofCouncil funds for legal expenses relatingto the eligibility of an elected Councillor ofBurnett Shire Council.

The Local Government Act 1993 (the Act)provides local governments with a highlevel of autonomy and makes them directlyaccountable to their communities for thedecisions they take. The powers of theLocal Government Minister to intervene inlocal government decision-making arequite limited. In broad terms, the Actcontains reserve powers for the Governorin Council to revoke or suspend aresolution of Council or to dissolve a localgovernment on the recommendation of theLocal Government Minister, where a localgovernment has acted outside its powersor where it is unable to exercise itsjurisdiction.

The issue raised by the petitionconcerning expenditure on legal expensesover and above the election budget hasbeen examined by my Department. In thisregard, I would draw your attention toSection 519(3) of the Act which providesthat a local government may, byresolution, amend its budget at any timebefore the year ends. Decisions on thesematters are ones for the local governmentconcerned.

Whilst Section 164(1)(b) of the Actprovides for the dissolution of a localgovernment for the reasons set out in thepetition, the Department is of the opinionthere has been no evidence presentedwhich would support a case that theBurnett Shire Council cannot properlyexercise its jurisdiction of localgovernment. I therefore do not propose totake any action under the abovementionedprovisions of the Act.It must be stressed the dismissal of ademocratically elected Council is a seriousaction which would only be taken underthe gravest circumstances.

I regret I am unable to be of assistance onthis occasion.Yours sincerely

(sgd)TERRY MACKENROTH

Response from the Minister for Health (MrsEdmond) to a petition presented by Mr Turnerfrom 30 petitioners, regarding voluntaryeuthanasia—

7 OCT 2000Mr R D DoyleThe Clerk of the ParliamentLegislative Assembly OfficesParliament HouseAlice and George StreetsBRISBANE Q 4000

Dear Mr DoyleThank you for forwarding a copy of thepetition lodged by the VoluntaryEuthanasia Society of Queenslandconcerning voluntary euthanasia.

A copy of the response to the VoluntaryEuthanasia Society of Queensland on thismatter is attached.

Yours sincerely(sgd)

Wendy Edmond MLAMINISTER FOR HEALTH

24 OCT 2000

Voluntary Euthanasia Society ofQueensland Incorporated115 Clough StreetMT GRAVATT Q 4122Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for your petition laid upon thetable of the House on 5 October 2000regarding euthanasia.The Queensland Government does notsupport euthanasia and does not intend tochange the legislation with regard toeuthanasia at this time.

Recently enacted legislation enablesQueenslanders to advise on future healthcare. The Powers of Attorney Act 1999

9 Nov 2000 Ministerial Statement 4151

make provisions for an adult to make anAdvance Health Directive. This allows anadult to give instructions about futurehealth care which comes into effect if theadult is unable to make their own decision.However, an Advance Health Directivedoes not allow euthanasia, but does allowa person to give directions abouttreatments they do not want if they aresuffering from an incurable or terminalillness. More information regardingAdvance Health Directives can beobtained from The Adult Guardian bytelephoning (07) 3234 0870.

The Government has also expanded andimproved palliative care options forQueenslanders with an annual increase infunding of up to $5.1 million for non-government organisations.

Palliative care is the provision ofcoordinated nursing, medical, and alliedservices for people who are facingterminal illness and which enables peopleto die with dignity. Efforts are made toprovide palliative care in the environmentof the patient's choice, often with supportfrom family and friends.

This year a total of $26.3 million isallocated for palliative care servicesincluding community education andtraining. The recently announced Centrefor Research and Education in PalliativeCare will have a major role in advancingthe experience and skills in palliative care.The Centre will also include a 24 hourtelephone support line for carers andpatients.

Thank you for bringing this to my attentionand I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

(sgd)

Wendy Edmond MLA

MINISTER FOR HEALTH

MINISTERIAL PAPER TABLED BY THECLERK

The Clerk tabled the following ministerialpaper—

Minister for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Policy and Minister for Women's Policyand Minister for Fair Trading (Ms Spence)—

Report under section 56A(4) of theStatutory Instruments Act 1992

MINISTERIAL PAPERS

The following papers were tabled—

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts (Mr Foley)—

Annual Reports for 1999-2000—

Queensland Museum

Queensland Art Gallery.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTJob Creation

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: Unlikethe State coalition Government, whichabandoned all pretence of governing while theCarruthers inquiry was under way, myGovernment is continuing to deliver forQueensland. I promised we would be aGovernment that focused on jobs, and that isexactly what we are delivering. This weekalone we have announced three major jobsprojects. On Monday, the Deputy Premier andI announced that Budget Direct Insurancewould establish a call centre on the SunshineCoast, employing more than 160 people, andits Asia-Pacific headquarters in Brisbane, whichwould employ a further 33 people. We alsoannounced that computer software giantMicrosoft would establish a centre ofexcellence in Queensland to help generatejobs in the Smart State. Together with theMinister for Communication and Information,Local Government and Planning and the vice-president of Microsoft, we signed anagreement to that effect. On Tuesday, Iannounced that my Government had attractedanother 130 airline jobs to Queensland with adecision by Qantas to locate a state-of-the-artmeals preparation service in Logan.

Government members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: I can hear that localmembers are delighted, because it meansjobs in their regions. This decision by Qantasto locate its Snap Fresh Pty Ltd mealspreparation service at the QueenslandGovernment's Marsden Industrial Estate isanother result of the State Government'spolicy of establishing Brisbane as an aviationcentre. We are building on the fact that wehave Boeing's Asia-Pacific headquarters andVirgin Blue's headquarters in Brisbane. Jobswith this industry are likely to be long term, so itmakes sense to attract aviation companies toQueensland. This is our third major jobsannouncement this week, following Microsoftand Budget Direct. This Government is a can-do Government that is delivering.

Snap Fresh will produce about 20 millionmeals a year and could employ up to 230people by 2005. Qantas chose Logan as theideal site after also looking at sites in NewSouth Wales and Victoria. Both of thoseStates were beaten by Queensland. Onceagain, Queensland came out on top when itcame to a major company examining issuessuch as quality of life, work force abilities,economic forecasts and of course a supportiveState Government. Construction of the plant is

4152 Ministerial Statement 9 Nov 2000

due to start by the end of the year, withproduction due to start next year.

The State is vigorously marketing itssuitability as an aviation centre. The threelargest tertiary institutions in Brisbane—GriffithUniversity, the Queensland University ofTechnology and the University ofQueensland—offer bachelor degrees such asBachelor of Mechanical and SpaceEngineering, Bachelor of Engineering(Aerospace Avionics) and Bachelor of Aviation,which is sponsored by British Aerospace.Brisbane Airport has Australia's most modernterminals, with the international terminalcurrently servicing 23 international airlines. Theairport has developed the first fully integratedexport precinct to be established at an airportin Australia.

DHL International has established aglobal logistics centre and its shared servicecentre in Brisbane. Jet Care signed a contractworth millions of dollars to do Virgin Blue'smaintenance. Mincom won a contract formaintenance-tracking software. Seven morelocal Queensland IT companies have contractswith Virgin Blue that would not have existed ifthe Government had not intervened andconvinced Virgin that Queensland is a can-doState and the place to locate. Queensland'sclimate is conducive to maintenance work andthere is a base of engineering skills as a resultof local air force bases and a pool of ex-airforce personnel residing in the State.Queensland is also in a favourable geographiclocation in the Asia-Pacific to serve as a basefor aircraft maintenance.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Naturelink Gold Coast Cableway; AsiaPacific Masters Games

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.38 a.m.), by leave:Yesterday on behalf of the Government Iannounced that the Queensland Governmenthad rejected the Naturelink Gold Coastcableway proposal. The cableway was thesubject of many months of consultation andnegotiation involving proponents, localresidents, the Gold Coast City Council andother interested groups and organisations. Themain reason the project was rejected was thatit failed to meet my Government'senvironmental protection requirements.Criticisms were levelled against thedevelopment on the basis of wastemanagement, visual pollution, catchmentprotection, water quality and fire safety, tomention just a few.

It was also being scrutinised by theFederal Government under its EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.The information provided to me when I was inCanberra last week for the COAG meeting wasthat the Federal Government also would havehad serious reservations about its going aheadand that Senator Hill would have beenopposing it.

My Government said all along that theenvironmental bar would be set high for thisproject, and so it should. Our No. 1 priority wasto ensure the protection of natural resources inthe area. The proponents said that theirpreferred route, which would have seen thecableway running from Mudgeeraba toSpringbrook, was essential for a feasible andsustainable ecotourism project. However, fromour point of view the route was simply notacceptable because of the threat it posed tosensitive ecosystems contained in WorldHeritage listed national parklands. MyGovernment did all it could to assist NaturelinkPty Ltd, including asking the company to lookat alternative routes. The company rejectedconsideration of alternative routes. Thisoccurred in early 1999, and the companydecided that only its chosen route would beput forward for assessment.

Negotiation over the proposal went on forwell over a year, but in the end agreementcould not be reached. It was time to call anend to the negotiations in the interests of allparties concerned. In the end, we had nochoice. Approval for a chosen route wouldhave required amendments to the NatureConservation Act, and the Government wasnot prepared to do that. The cableway was anenvironmental risk my Government could notafford to take. The coordinator-generalrecommended against its approval.

We are serious about our responsibility toprotect natural areas. We gave the people ofQueensland a clear commitment prior to thelast State election that we would not allowcommercial developments in national parks.We have honoured that commitment. Unlikethose opposite, we do not support commercialdevelopments in national parks.

Stopping this sort of development in ournational parks is about protecting the valuesthat will ensure the future prosperity andwellbeing of our prime natural landscapes. It isalso about protecting the Queenslandenvironment for our children and futuregenerations. We will not allow the future to becompromised. This is not to say that futureproposals for projects such as Naturelink innatural areas away from our national parks will


not gain support. That is an opportunity that isavailable to this company. If they meet thenecessary environmental conditions, they maywell be supported. That is the consideration.

While I am talking about the Gold Coast, Iwill refer to some other matters. It was mypleasure to be part of the Sand 'n' Surf FunRun at Broadbeach on Sunday, in aid of SurfLife Saving Queensland. The Minister forTourism was there as well. The fun run—or"fun walk" if you prefer a slower pace, like Idid—was a great opportunity for people of allages to be part of the Asia Pacific MastersGames. The first Asia Pacific Masters Gamesin 1998 was a great success, with 9,500competitors in 33 sports from 41 countries.This year's games were even bigger andbetter. Over 11,000 athletes from 45 countriescompeted over 10 days on the Gold Coast.

The Gold Coast turned on its charm forthe exciting event, offering not only a greatcompetition but also a great tourist setting. Atthe closing ceremony on Sunday night,handled by the Minister for Tourism, gameschief executive Stan Perkins did a JuanAntonio Samaranch, declaring it the bestgames ever. A lot of good things happenunder this Government, now that I think aboutit. Indeed, all good things do. Stan and histeam, the sponsors and the volunteers shouldbe commended for ensuring that this year'sgames were in fact the best.

The masters competition is about fun andfitness. It is about competition andcamaraderie. It is about giving athletes of allages and all skill levels the chance to competein a major event. Along with the recent HondaIndy, the games have cemented the GoldCoast's reputation as a fantastic sportingvenue. It has also generated economicactivity, created jobs and boosted tourism,injecting around $15m into the Queenslandeconomy. My Government looks forward towelcoming athletes to the next Asia PacificMasters Games, to be held on the Gold Coastin 2002.

The games are another QueenslandEvents success story. For every $1 invested inevents, Queensland Events returns astaggering $24 to the State economy. Itcreates business and jobs for Queenslanders.In 2000, more than 104,000 interstate andinternational visitors will come to our beautifulState to attend an event secured or supportedby Queensland Events. Queensland Eventshas achieved remarkable results, capitalisingon the vast potential of sporting and othermajor events, with Queenslanders reaping thebenefits. At next year's Goodwill Games surf-

lifesaving will be a major event on the GoldCoast. That will provide an opportunity to takethose images from the Gold Coast to 450million homes around the world. The GoldCoast will have unprecedented exposure tothe world, which will mean tourism and jobs forthe Gold Coast.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTEcotourism Lodge, Mareeba Wetlands

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—ALP)(Deputy Premier and Minister for StateDevelopment and Minister for Trade)(9.44 a.m.), by leave: I rise to inform theHouse that last week this Government handedover a lease of 72 hectares of the Mareebawetland reserve, north of Mareeba, for whatwill be an ecotourism operation for the future.Professor David Bellamy, internationalenvironmental activist and chairman of thegovernors for the Wetland Foundation, flewfrom Britain to Cairns to accept the lease. Thisis an exciting development, not only forMareeba, the tablelands and the Cairns districtbut also for Australians generally.

From next year the Mareeba wetlandsreserve will be the home of a new ecotourismlodge which will enable people from aroundAustralia and overseas to visit this mostbeautiful part of the world. The money touristsspend to visit the lodge will be used tomanage the area. In other words, it will be anecotourism lodge that will fund themaintenance and the upgrading of thewetlands. This is a perfect example of howgreen groups and the Government can workhand in hand—how the goals of developmentand protection of the environment can both beachieved.

This decision has taken seven months ofhard work but, importantly, it has required aGovernment that is about a long-termcommitment to the future—the future for allQueenslanders—and we have ensured justthat with this project. The potential forconservation tourism is widely recognisedaround the world. This decision will putQueensland well and truly on the map forquality ecotourism ventures.

The 2,000 hectare reserve wasestablished in 1996 and is one of the greatbiodiversified regions in this State, with a widerange of flora and fauna species. It isrecognised as home to the rare cotton pygmygoose and the buff-breasted button quail,while the ecosystem includes unusualexamples of Melville Island bloodwoodwoodlands.


This Government is now in the process offinding a developer and manager for the site.Expressions of interest closed on 10 October. Iam pleased to inform the House that no fewerthan 10 groups, some very significant playersin the Queensland tourism industry, haveapplied to develop the site. Those expressionsof interest will now be short-listed by theWetland Foundation. We expect thatconstruction will commence by the middle ofnext year. If those opposite want to ask me aquestion on Naturelink, they can do so.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTDuties Bill

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: Afterconsiderable work and extensive consultation,the draft Duties Bill has been prepared. Thenew Duties Bill 2000 will provideQueenslanders with legislation that reflectsmodern commercial practices and minimisescompliance costs to taxpayers. It will replacethe 106 year old Stamp Act. The Duties Bill isnow available as an exposure draft, tocomplete the extensive public consultationprocess. We believe the new legislation is farsuperior to the outdated Stamp Act. While theDuties Bill represents wide-ranging reform ofthe Stamp Act, its impact on the Budget will berevenue neutral.

As members would be aware, stamp dutyis one of the cornerstones of Queensland'staxation system and represents around onethird of all revenue collected. The existinglegislation reflects outdated commercialpractices and has been continually amendedover the years on an ad hoc basis. It has longbeen recognised that the Stamp Act does notmeet business and community expectationsand is a hindrance to the efficientadministration of the tax. The new legislationaddresses these concerns by improving thecertainty and simplicity of stamp duty taxesand ensuring that it works efficiently on taxabletransactions.

The Queensland Government is doingeverything it can to ensure that tax legislationis relevant to all Queenslanders. In developingthe Bill there has been informal consultationon parts of the Bill with representatives ofprofessional organisations and with particularindustry groups. The Government is nowproviding the opportunity for full publicconsultation on the Bill prior to its introductionto Parliament.

The Queensland Government supportsthe Duties Bill as a major update of Statetaxes and is committed to the improvements

contained in it. It is our intention to introducethe Bill into the House next year, after thepublic consultation process has been finalised.I seek leave to table a copy of the Bill for theinformation and input of honourable members.

Leave granted.


Cultural Tourism

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (9.48 a.m.), by leave:This Sunday, 12 November, at Mary Ryan'sbook store I will launch a new publication toassist cultural tourism entitled Heritage Trails ofthe Great South East. This guide follows thepublication earlier this year of two culturaltourism guides initiated by Arts Queensland inconjunction with Tourism Queensland. Art,Culture and Heritage Motoring Guide to Cairnsand Cape York, a motoring guide to the farnorth, was launched in Cairns in March, andTownsville: Tropical North Queensland, Art,Culture & Heritage was launched in Townsvillein October.

In September, in conjunction with localFederal member, Ian McFarlane, I turned thefirst sod on the construction site for extensionsto the Cobb & Co. Museum in Toowoombaand announced local company F.K. Gardinerand Sons as the successful contractor for the$2m project. This is a major south-eastQueensland Heritage Trails Network initiativewhich will have a visitor centre featuring high-tech, multimedia displays and researchfacilities adjacent to the existing museum inLindsay Street.

The Cobb & Co. Museum has alreadydeveloped as a national research centre forthe history, technology and heritage tradesassociated with horse-drawn vehicles. Theseextensions will provide additional exhibitionspace for the nation's finest collection of horse-drawn coaches and for significant touringnational and international exhibitions.

The new public infrastructure will featureenvironmentally sustainable design and family-friendly facilities, including interactive programsand exhibitions with a focus on Darling Downshistory and cultural heritage. As well, anAboriginal keeping place and language centrewill be developed in partnership withToowoomba's Aboriginal community to presentimportant indigenous historical stories andperspectives.

Cobb & Co.'s co-location and partnershiparrangement with the Toowoomba TAFEcampus presents the opportunity for training


ventures now and into the future, with a focuson the skills and trades practised byblacksmiths, wheelwrights, saddlers andcoachbuilders. The museum and TAFE arecurrently conducting blacksmithing coursesand will be extending their heritage tradetraining programs to cater for the significantequine industry in the region.

The Cobb & Co Museum is one of 32Queensland Heritage Trails Network majorcapital works projects designed to revitaliserural and regional Queensland. Other projectsin Toowoomba and its surrounds are theJondaryan Woolshed, Glengallan Homesteadat Warwick and a heritage centre at Miles.

The arts and cultural tourism areimportant elements of this Government's plansto boost jobs and revenue in regionalQueensland. Cultural tourism allows regionaland rural economies to broaden and grow innew directions at a time when they need tomost. Cultural tourism means not justeconomic survival for small communities butrecognition of the unique character of theirhistories, their cultures, peoples and ways oflife.

This latest guide to the Heritage Trails ofthe Great South East published by theEnvironmental Protection Agency—and Iacknowledge the contribution of my ministerialcolleague the Honourable Rod Welford, withthe support of Channel 7 Brisbane and TheGreat South East Pty Ltd—extends thepromotion of Queensland's cultural tourismattractions to include almost 600 importantheritage sites in the State's south-east. Theregion covered extends from Coolangatta toCooloola and west to the Darling Downs. Eighthighway trails showcase the most interestingand accessible natural and cultural heritagesites of the region.

Premier Beattie and Federal Minister forthe Arts and the Centenary of Federation,Peter McGauran, launched the joint $110mState and Commonwealth funded QueenslandHeritage Trails Network in early October 1999.The State has committed $39m to the jointlyfunded Heritage Trails Network, which links 32cultural tourism and heritage sites around theState.

This new publication highlights some 600heritage sites in the State's south-east,including some of the region's most preciousnational parks and forests, all within easyreach of Brisbane. I congratulate theEnvironmental Protection Agency on aninitiative that will generate jobs and economicflow-on in Queensland's south-eastern regionaland rural communities through cultural tourism.

Queensland's cultural and tourism sectorsare the fastest growing employment sectors inthe State's economy. This guide is good forlocal government, good for Queenslandtourism and culture, good for jobs and localinvestment and good for rural and regionalQueensland. I table the document.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTCommonwealth States Grants (Primary and

Secondary Assistance) Bill

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP)(Minister for Education) (9.53 a.m.), by leave:As honourable members know, theCommonwealth States Grants (Primary andSecondary Assistance) Bill is currently beforethe Commonwealth Parliament. There issubstantial opposition to the Bill.

If it is passed and fully implemented,there will be two clear effects. Firstly, theCommonwealth Minister will have significantnew powers to interfere in Queenslandschools. These powers are designed toimplement narrow views on testing andbenchmarking and allow for State educationsystems, and therefore the students in thosesystems, to face financial penalties for non-compliance. Secondly, the relative fundingallocations provided by the Commonwealth toState and non-State schools across thiscountry will be fundamentally altered from2001 onwards.

While the Bill will increase the total fundsprovided by the Commonwealth to Australianschools, the share of funding going to non-government schools will increase dramaticallyrelative to the share going to State schools.My department estimates that in Queenslandalone the relativities will be altered to theextent that Queensland State schools will beshort-changed by approximately $52m perannum.

The State Government has a vision forpublic school education in this State—Queensland State Education 2010—whichwas released earlier this year. It complementsthe Queensland Government's Smart Stateinitiatives that are based on the view thateducation is a fundamental driver of futureeconomic growth in this State.

However, the States Grants Bill willseriously threaten the capability of Stateschools to progress these fundamentalreforms. Queensland students who choose theState system or who are unable to accessnon-State schools for financial reasons will besignificantly discriminated against by the newfunding arrangements. They will not have


equality of opportunity to achieve those skillsnecessary to participate in the futureknowledge economy.

The Government is committed to themaintenance and development of a strong,rich-textured and comprehensive publicschooling system in Queensland catering to adiverse student and parent body. Although therhetoric of the Commonwealth Government isthat the Bill will promote choice, geographiclocation and income levels clearly limit choicesfor many. Young people in some parts ofQueensland will be particularly disadvantagedwhere State schools are the backbone ofmany regional, rural and remote communities.

We will not simply stand by while theCommonwealth coalition Government seeks toreduce State schools to the role of safety-netproviders of schooling. The Premier hasactively campaigned against the Bill in nationalforums and we support the efforts of theFederal Opposition parties to amend the Bill tomake it more equitable. We will continue towork on behalf of all young Queenslanders inseeking to undo the damage that is beingdone by the Commonwealth coalitionGovernment.

This Bill is fundamentally divisive. Therelationships between the State, Catholic andindependent schooling sectors in Queenslandhave been harmonious and productive. TheBill threatens these relationships. Someindependent schools attract increasedproportions of Commonwealth funds relative toState schools. The Bill threatens to drive awedge between independent and Catholicschools, as some independent schools secureincreased growth funds comparative toCatholic schools.

Let me also assure the House that theState Government strongly supports the non-State schooling system in Queensland andvalues the key role of Catholic andindependent schools in providing qualityeducational programs to students acrossQueensland. We welcome the increased fundsto the non-State schools. We demand that theState schools receive a proportional increase.

The inequities of this legislation should beaddressed by ensuring that theCommonwealth treats State schools equally.Equitable funding arrangements should berestored so that students in State schoolshave a fair go relative to opportunitiesavailable to students in other systems. I seekthe support of all members of this Parliamentto redress the many flaws in this legislation.

I have had many productive meetings ona number of subjects with the Commonwealth

Minister the Honourable David Kemp in thepast. The jointly funded Queensland Schoolfor Travelling Show Children was the product ofone such meeting. On this issue, however, hehas not only refused to see me, but he hasalso even refused to return calls.

This legislation is being rushed throughParliament by a Minister who does not fullyrealise the impact of this Bill on Queenslandschools, and who does not want to realise it. Itis an ideological drive to impose an economicrationalist market culture on our school systemdriven by a Minister who is choosing to beblind to the effects of his Bill on the futures ofour children.


Electronic CommerceHon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton—

ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister forHousing) (9.58 a.m.), by leave: I wish to advisehonourable members of a number of initiativestaken by the Department of Public Works todevelop electronic commerce and informationsystems. By the time all of these systems areoperational, State Government clients will haveaccess to a host of e-commerce servicesincluding procurement, tendering, onlinepayment and the ability to deliver a buildingproject from early design to final construction.

Development of these initiatives has thesupport of my colleagues, the Deputy Premierand Minister for State Development andMinister for Trade and the Minister forCommunication and Information. TheDepartment of Public Works is developingseveral e-business initiatives in conjunctionwith the Department of Communication,Information, Local Government, Planning andSport.

Already, one aspect of the electronicmarketplace has been adopted in the form ofQ-Fleet Online, which allows dealers and carbuyers to bid for former Government vehicleson the Internet. The site is starting to attract agreat deal of interest throughout the State.

This week, the Department of PublicWorks is calling for expressions of interest toset up an electronic Government marketplace.The e-market will provide participatingdepartments and agencies with online accessto supplier catalogues, which will eliminatecostly production and distribution costs forbusiness and industry. The systems allow allparticipating Government departments andagencies to do business and share informationwith clients via the Internet.

An Opposition member interjected.


Mr SCHWARTEN: We know that thehonourable member has the manners of arazorback pig, but, Mr Speaker, I would askyou to ask him to desist, if you wouldn't mind.

Not only will the new electronic commercesystem be beneficial to Government; it will alsoboost the IT & T industry in Queensland, whichwill handle the increased flow-on interest fromparticipating businesses.

Electronic commerce initiatives are alsobeing developed that will affect how thebuilding industry operates in the future. Inrecent years, the Department of Public Workshas introduced electronic funds transferpayments to contractors and electronic billingto its clients. Both of these initiatives havebeen successful and well accepted by allgroups involved.

Over the past two years, the departmenthas been developing e-project—a system tofully undertake building procurement projectselectronically. It has also been developing ane-plan room to store design documentationelectronically and publish it on the Internet toauthorised users. Clients and industry groupshave been consulted on these initiatives andsignificant milestones have been achievedrecently. Construction of the new YaraleeState School at Hervey Bay was used as a trialof the e-project concept.

The briefing, design and contractadministration for the school, which opened inJanuary this year, were all administeredelectronically. A trial is currently beingconducted of an electronic tender box as partof the e-project system. This electronictendering initiative is the first time buildingconstruction projects in Queensland havebeen tendered for, accepted and where theconstruction contract has been administeredelectronically.

The e-plan room is currently operating forEducation Queensland, with over 12,000drawings being published for use byauthorised clients and their representatives.These systems form an integral part of theBeattie Government's commitment toestablishing Queensland as the Smart State.

The use of cutting-edge technology willhave a significant impact upon thousands ofsmall and medium-sized business owners inQueensland who each year compete for aslice of the Government's $5 billion spent ongoods and services. For them, theGovernment's use of e-commerce will meanquicker and cheaper business practices andless red tape. They will also help deliver bettervalue for taxpayers' dollars.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTDomestic Violence Laws

Hon. A. M. BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP)(Minister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare and Minister for Disability Services)(10.03 a.m.), by leave: All too often we hearstories about the shocking physical abuse ofwomen, children and men by the peopleclosest to them—often the very person theyshould be able to turn to for love, affection andsupport, not a black eye or a broken arm. Upuntil 1989 there was no civil protection fromdomestic violence in Queensland.

Today women and men in spousalrelationships are able to obtain civil protectionunder the Domestic Violence (FamilyProtection) Act 1989. Unfortunately, abuseand exploitation are not limited to spousalrelationships. There are many intimate andfamily relationships in which people may bevulnerable to abuse. Older people and peoplewith disabilities are particularly vulnerable.

The Beattie Government recognises theneed to provide greater protection toQueenslanders. I am pleased to announcethat Cabinet recently decided to expand ourdomestic violence laws to provide protectionfor people who are abused in informal carerelationships, by relatives, or in other intimatepersonal relationships such as datingrelationships.

Extending protection to these members ofour community under the Domestic Violence(Family Protection) Act 1989 will bringQueensland into line with the majority of otherStates and Territories and ensure thatQueenslanders have the same level ofprotection against abuse as other Australians.The new laws will help address violence infamilies, particularly the alarming levels ofindigenous family violence.

It is not always a spouse that is violent; itcan be a father, mother, brother or uncle.Victims need protection from violence nomatter who is the perpetrator. People do nothave to live together to be abused; it canhappen in a range of relationships, even whenone is dating. This has been recognised inother jurisdictions. It is time that Queenslandalso faced this reality.

Perhaps the most vulnerable of all arepeople with disabilities and frail older peoplewho are dependent on the care of others fortheir most basic needs. We have a duty toprovide greater protection to those reliant oninformal carers.

The proposed expansion of the Act willfinally provide civil protection to these


vulnerable people. Some people may ask whyit is necessary to expand the domesticviolence legislation when people can makecomplaints under the Criminal Code. Theanswer is simple and is repeated by manysurvivors of domestic violence who say, "I justwant the violence to stop", and our experienceof the domestic violence legislation over thepast 10 years is that it has protected manypeople from further acts of violence.

The proposal to expand the legislationhas been the subject of extensive publicconsultation under this Government and theprevious Government. There is overwhelmingcommunity support for the laws to bechanged. The vulnerable in our societydepend upon us to ensure that this happens. Ilook forward to introducing the new laws to theParliament early next year.


Office of Women's Policy

Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt—ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Policy and Minister for Women'sPolicy and Minister for Fair Trading)(10.06 a.m.), by leave: Ten years ago thismonth, 11 women made history when theybegan working in Queensland's first StateGovernment Women's Policy Unit. Theirs wasa unique challenge—to help the GossGovernment transport Queensland out of theDark Ages of National Party rule by ensuringthat women and girls enjoyed a fair share ofthe benefits of a progressive LaborGovernment.


Ms SPENCE: I can understand theembarrassment of those opposite. I am gladthat the few women on the other side of theChamber are listening. I can understand theembarrassment of those members, becauseQueensland was the last State to gain awomen's policy unit and we had a lot ofground to make up.

Seared into the memories of fair-mindedwomen and men were the appalling rightsviolations of the 1970s and 1980s, including:arrests at an International Women's Daymarch, raids on abortion clinics, and a litany ofoffensive and patronising statements—manyof them made in this place against a Liberalmember, Rosemary Kyburz. It is little wonderthat then Senator Margaret Reynolds wasmoved to comment that Queensland had anadvisory board for poultry, but not for women.


Ms SPENCE: The members opposite arevery upset about hearing about women, aren'tthey?

The media colourfully interpreted this asthe senator saying that the State Governmenttreated chooks better than women. At the startof 1990, just weeks after the National Partydeparted the Treasury benches, Queenslandhad no women judges, no womenmagistrates, no women heads of StateGovernment departments, no State anti-discrimination legislation, no State funding forwomen's health centres and no State fundedwomen's sexual assault program.

An Opposition member: What aboutmen?

Ms SPENCE: That is a very sadinterjection, but I want it acknowledged inHansard.

Eleven months later, when the Women'sPolicy Unit started out, things were already ona roll. The Goss Government had appointed awoman to the magistracy, a woman Master ofthe Supreme Court, and yet another to head aGovernment department. In the wake of theunit's creation, the improvements favouringwomen came in thick and fast. The unit's earlysignificant actions included coordinating thefirst whole-of-Government policy on theprevention of violence against women,coordinating the first women's budgetstatement, establishing the Register ofWomen, promoting information and servicedelivery to women in rural and regional areasand beginning a tradition of official celebrationof International Women's Day.

By the end of 1991, we had theQueensland Anti-Discrimination Act, the ChildCare Act, the first female Supreme Courtjudge, the Women's Consultative Council—headed by the future Governor LeneenForde—and, finally, State funding for sexualassault and women's health services. Tonighta group of women and men who have beenassociated with women's policy and humanrights over the years will come together tocommemorate the anniversary in theParliamentary Annexe.

There is plenty to celebrate. For instance,we now have eight women judges and 12magistrates—many of them appointed by thecurrent Attorney-General and Minister forJustice—as well as three women heads ofdepartments. The female members of thejudiciary include the President of the Court ofAppeal, the Chief Judge of the District Courtand the Chief Stipendiary Magistrate.

The Government recently introduced araft of legislative reforms to make historic


improvements to the treatment of women inthe criminal justice system. The Governmenthas introduced maternity leave for casualworkers in the Public Service and it has beenillegal since 1992 for a woman to sufferdiscrimination because she is breastfeeding.This is something the Federal Government isnow only moving to introduce.

The Office of Women's Policy is workingwith other agencies on projects including thepromotion of family friendly workplaces,enhancing body image and preventing eatingdisorders among young women and girls, andimproving the treatment of women asconsumers. There have been huge changesto the culture of Queensland institutions.Heaven help any Government Minister todaywho said, as a Government Minister said in1985, that radical feminists have instilled intoyouth deviant lifestyles.

Some Queenslanders observe theimprovements and ask whether we still needan Office of Women's Policy. Indeed, I cansee honourable members at the back askingthat question. It is an ambition of mine—and Iam sure of many of my colleagues—that oneday this office will be unnecessary, but I do notsee that day as being just around the cornerand I think that we have evidenced that thismorning. Women are still underrepresented insenior positions in public and privateinstitutions. Women still earn less on averagethan men. Women are more likely to beemployed as casuals or part-timers in low-paying industries and are more likely to besubject to domestic violence, sexualharassment and workplace discrimination.

It is worth while celebrating the victories,but in the meantime we must keep working ina bipartisan fashion to further improve the livesof women and girls in this State.


Emergency Services

Hon. S. ROBERTSON (Sunnybank—ALP)(Minister for Emergency Services) (10.12 a.m.),by leave: The Beattie Labor Government waselected on a commitment to put EmergencyServices on a more secure financial footingand improve service delivery to the community.As part of our commitment to a saferQueensland, we have honoured our electionpromises by providing record funding toEmergency Services in each of Labor's threeBudgets to date.

Our achievements in Emergency Servicessince coming to office speak for themselves. In1997-98 under the coalition, the department's

budget was a total of $391.8m. This year, theBeattie Labor Government is providingEmergency Services with a budget of some$480m. Over the past two Budgets, theBeattie Government has also injected morethan $110m into capital works funding toimprove service delivery and response times.We are achieving these goals by providingover 400 new or replacement fire andambulance vehicles plus 36 new, replacementor refurbished fire and ambulance stationsthroughout Queensland.

Another election commitment wasdelivered in January 1999 with the provision offree ambulance services to all pensioners,Seniors Card holders and their dependants.Approximately 850,000 Queenslanders benefitfrom the scheme that gives olderQueenslanders peace of mind and lightenstheir financial load.

The Queensland Ambulance Service inparticular has benefited under thisGovernment with more money for ambulancestations, vehicles, equipment and officers. TheQAS budget has grown from $158m in 1997-98 under the coalition to a record $214.4m thisfinancial year under Labor. In recent weeks, Ihave had the pleasure of officially openingthree new ambulance stations that honourelection commitments to those localcommunities. The new $877,000 NorthgateAmbulance Station is a vast improvement onthe old Nundah station it replaces and willimprove service delivery and response times toBrisbane Airport and residents of northernsuburbs like Hendra, Hamilton, Eagle Farm,Clayfield, Wavell heights, Virginia, Banyo, andNudgee. The new $746,000 CentenaryAmbulance Station I opened last week willsignificantly improve emergency responsetimes to residents in Brisbane's south-westernsuburbs. Along with Kenmore and Oxleystations, it will cover suburbs including Oxley,Corinda, Sherwood, Sinnamon Park, Jindalee,Mount Ommaney, Middle Park, Darra andSeventeen Mile Rocks.

I also recently opened the new $686,000combined ambulance and fire station atRosewood, honouring an election commitmentby the former member for Ipswich West, MrDon Livingstone. Construction of this stationfollowed extensive community consultationand modification of the facility's original design,but the people of Rosewood now have a newcombined fire and ambulance station that willserve them well into the future. ThisGovernment is proud of its record inEmergency Services and we are delivering onall of our election commitments.

4160 Private Members' Statements 9 Nov 2000

PERSONAL EXPLANATION1986 Caboolture State Election Campaign

Hon. K. W. HAYWARD (Kallangur—ALP)(10.15 a.m.), by leave: Today's Courier-Mailmakes allegations concerning votingirregularities in the 1986 Caboolture Stateelection campaign over 14 years ago. Theconstant use of the words "scam" and "rort" inthe articles refer to the application of computeraided enrolment techniques using the thenState roll as a base document. Suchcampaign techniques, while innovative in1986, have been in commonplace use by allpolitical parties and candidates for many years.

A careful reading of the article does notsuggest that I as the candidate nor mycampaign manager, Ian Burgett, knewanything or participated in the allegedirregularities principally concerning duplicatevoting. Importantly, nor does the articlesuggest that the alleged irregularities wouldhave affected the result. There is a commentattributed to my then opponent that he had noknowledge of fraud and the comment by hiscampaign manager, who is now well known tome, I think is a reflection of the poor state ofthe rolls at the time.

I want to emphasise again that neither Inor my campaign manager had anyknowledge of or undertook the allegedirregularities. Surely any voting irregularitieswould be highlighted by a check of a list ofduplicate votes cast on election day, 1November 1986, which is, I understand,maintained by the Electoral Commission.

The campaign team, comprising me anda dedicated bank of supporters, spent manymonths concentrating our activities on amassive doorknocking and enrolment driveaided by now commonplace computerapplications and, as every member of thisHouse would understand, plain old shoeleather.

Again, for the record, the Courier-Mailstated that I am the member for Kurwongbah.That is not true. I am the member forKallangur.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Register of Members' InterestsMr GRICE (Broadwater—NPA)

(10.17 a.m.), by leave: Last week I pleadedguilty to smacking a disgraceful little grub. Ishould further plead guilty to at one timetreating the grub as a friend. This person hasprovided to the Courier-Mail informationdesigned to show that I may havecontravened the requirements of the Register

of Members' Interests. I have not. A listing—Allan Grice Watercraft—as a possible source ofincome in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999covers any boat transaction. That this persontook his 14-year-old son into licensed brothelpremises in breach of section 11A of theVictorian Prostitution Control Act 1994 issufficient for anyone to draw their ownconclusion.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge to the88 members here that, during the past days ofpersonal drama, not one word has beenmentioned in this House because it was of apersonal nature, and I thank them all for that. Iseek leave to table supporting documents.

Leave granted.

OVERSEAS VISIT

ReportMr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (10.18 a.m.): I

lay upon the table of the House a report toParliament on my visit to Singapore from 19October to 26 October.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Cooke Inquiry

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)(10.18 a.m.): I give notice that I will move—

"That this House calls on theGovernment to reinstate the Cookeinquiry recommendations contained in theprevious coalition Government'slegislation to stop the vote rorting inindustrial unions and electoral corruptionin their political arm, the Australian LaborParty."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Electoral Fraud

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.19 a.m.): As the history of the Laborelectoral corruption scandal starts to unveil, it isinteresting to look at the comments made bythe Premier in respect of these issues. On WINtelevision news in Townsville on Wednesday, 4December, he said—

"There's no internal partyinvestigation or any sort of thatnonsense."

On Radio 4TO on Wednesday, 4December 1996, the Premier stated—

"Basically what I've said is that we'vehad a couple of keen plebiscites andthat's healthy for the party. There's now

9 Nov 2000 Private Members' Statements 4161

an outcome, we've got two goodcandidates and we want to focus on theprovision of good Government when we'rere-elected."Then on 4 December 1996 the Premier

stated—

"I've had a chat with Karen as I havewith Mike and I've indicated to both ofthem that there's no point continuing torespond to a bit of bruises that havecome out of a couple of plebiscites." So right from day one, the Premier has

looked the other way. This morning, we seethe allegations about Caboolture. I make thisobservation—and it has been made by aLabor insider—the programs that Labor had inplace at that time would have been sufficientto enable Labor Party workers to identify whowas enrolled but not resident at an address.That claim has been made internally. Thehonourable member for Gregory is holding upa picture of some postboxes.

Mr Johnson: Would that be Caboolture?Would that beTownsville? Ipswich?

Mr BORBIDGE: Is that Mundingburra? Isthat Townsville? Or is that Caboolture?

The fact is that the history of this is that apolitical leader looked the other way from dayone when he was well aware that there wereinvestigations under way into serious mattersof electoral corruption that go far beyond—

Time expired.

Electoral Fraud

Mr SULLIVAN (Chermside—ALP)(10.21 a.m.): Yesterday in the House we heardcoalition members speaking about voting orenrolment irregularities in a number of Federalseats. Today I would like to contribute to thewidespread debate in the Chamber and referto the 1992 State election in my seat ofChermside and the Federal election in Lilley in1993. As well, I will table documents in relationto what I have to say. In 1992 the NationalParty selected a Mansfield builder, Mr DougFoggo, as its candidate. On the last daybefore the rolls closed, Mr Foggo enrolled inthe seat of Chermside at 32 CranbourneStreet, West Chermside. It was a crowdedhouse in Cranbourne Street, with three otheradults enrolled there: Warren Tierney, IverMaclurkin and an active National Party identityin the area Judith Humfress, who was a goodlocal member for the National Party. However,we later heard that Doug Foggo did not live atany time at Cranbourne Street. It appears that

all through the election and following it hecontinued to live at his family home atSandringham Street, Mansfield.

In 1993 Doug Foggo stood as theNational Party candidate in Lilley, where heenrolled at 32 Brickyard Road, Virginia. As Iwrote in my letter of 17 March 1993 to thereturning officer in Lilley, there were only twobuildings in Brickyard Road, both of themfactories, and yet the National Party candidateand his helper, Charles Edward Allsop, wereenrolled at the factory at number 32. Again, allthrough this period it is clear that Foggocontinued to live in his family home atMansfield.

In the 1992 State election we also sawthe Reid family enrolled at 692 Gympie Road,Chermside. As I pointed out in my letter of 17September 1992 to the Electoral Commissionof Queensland, this address whereconstituents lived was the Liberal campaignoffice for the 1992 campaign. It is interestingto note that this family who supposedly lived atthe office were business associates of theLiberal candidate. Before standing as acandidate in State and Federal elections onthe north side of Brisbane, Foggo and his wifewere enrolled at Sandringham Street,Mansfield. Today they are still enrolled atSandringham Street.

At the time I took steps to address theseconcerns by writing to the ElectoralCommission of Queensland and the AustralianElectoral Commission in 1992 and 1993. I willforward this material to the CJC and I table thisinformation.

Time expired.

Racing Industry

Mr HEALY (Toowoomba North—NPA)(10.23 a.m.): The cat is finally out of the bagwhen it comes to this Government's futuredirection of the thoroughbred racing industry.Media reports have stated that theGovernment has given in-principle approval fora new body to oversee racing inQueensland—in other words, a racingcommission, another statutory body to be filledby Labor mates and Labor cronies; it will bemore nepotism and more cronyism. Thisdiscredited Labor Government cannot helpitself.

Who made this ground-breakingannouncement? Was it the Premier or theRacing Minister? No, it was a policy adviser!Let me quote from the Daily Telegraph onOctober 29—

4162 Private Members' Statements 9 Nov 2000

"Michael Duff, racing adviser toTourism, Sport and Racing Minister MerriRose, said that State Cabinet hadrecently discussed a submission onnational competition policy issues relatingto the Queensland racing industry.

Duff said the submission included aproposal for a new government-appointedstatutory body to oversee racing in aprivatised environment. Cabinet hadapproved the concept in principle ... hesaid."

The most sensitive and controversial issueaffecting the State's fourth largest industry andemployer of more than 14,000 people hasbeen announced by a policy adviser whoapparently now makes public announcementsabout Cabinet deliberations. Nevertheless, theGovernment has now nailed its colours to themast and, not surprisingly, the industry is inuproar.

The Queensland Racehorse TrainersAssociation, in a letter to the Premier dated 30October, said—

"As a united body we would fightvigorously until this proposal is quashed,or industrial action of a grand scale woulddefinitely take place ...

The Queensland Principal Club, whowere democratically elected by all sectionswithin the industry, have our full support inmaintaining the role of administration, andwe do not accept government appointeestaking over this body.

We are now seeing once again,blatant political interference coming fromthe Racing Minister's office. We as anindustry have had enough of all thepolitical interference and are adamantlyopposed to any government takeover."

The coalition is opposed to a racingcommission. We will vigorously oppose anymoves to take the decision-making processaway from the industry and in Government wewill not set up a racing commission.

Immigration Detention Centre, BrisbaneMr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP)

(10.25 a.m.): The Commonwealth Governmenthas recently announced a plan to establish anew immigration detention centre in Brisbaneunder its long-term strategy for the provision ofimmigration detention facilities to address theexpected detention needs arising fromunauthorised arrivals and the detection ofoverstayers and those who breach visaconditions. A 200-bed low-risk detention centreconstructed in the proximity of the Brisbane

Airport is expected to be operational in 2002-03. Plans will include capacity for expansion infuture years. Very little is known about theplans concerning the Brisbane IDC. However,informal talks with the Federal Department ofImmigration and Multicultural Affairs revealsthat DIMA does not yet have a site near theBrisbane Airport and was planning to release apublic tender in order to obtain such a site.

It is envisaged that boat people will not beaccommodated at the facility; however, thishas not been confirmed. Brisbane has a majorinternational airport with an increasing numberof unauthorised arrivals. Currently there is alimited detention capacity in Queensland. Asmall number can be detained at the ArthurGorrie correctional facility in Brisbane, but themajority of detainees have to be flown, atconsiderable expense, to centres in otherStates. The Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre,which incarcerates criminals, is not a suitabledetention facility for people who fleepersecution in their own countries and mayhave genuine protection claims. There remainsa question whether the centre offers facilitiesappropriate to meet the needs of refugees.

In light of the recent events at theWoomera Detention Centre, there areconcerns regarding Federal policies on thehandling of illegal immigrants, includingsecurity measures, and the provision ofhumane accommodation facilities which wouldsatisfy the physical and psychological needs ofrefugees. It is difficult at this stage to ascertainpotential benefits and/or disadvantages to theState. Some advantages may include thepossible construction—

Time expired.

Health Service

Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)(10.27 a.m.): The current Queensland HealthCode of Conduct 2000 reads like an absolutetyrant's handbook. I would like to quote partsof it. No. 8 reads—

"Communication with members ofparliament on matters relating to officialduties or affairs of the department mustbe restricted to established, formalchannels." No. 14 states—

"Employees must not deliberatelyaccess, store or forward informationelectronically in breach of legislation,departmental policy or provisions of thiscode."

Over the last few months many storieshave come out of the Department of Health

9 Nov 2000 Questions Without Notice 4163

regarding inadequate service being supplied tohospitals, inadequate operation times andpeople being prepped for surgery and thenbeing sent home. As we heard from themember for Maroochydore this morning, theDepartment of Health is in an absolute state. Acode of conduct like this one, which stopspeople from addressing very importantconcerns that they have with their workplaceand serious concerns about what is going onin hospitals in our State, tells employees toshut up and tells them further that they cannoteven go to their members of Parliament. Thisreads like Hitler's bloody handbook on theissue of health.

Health is the most important public servicewe have in this State. When people get sickthey sometimes need to go to hospital. Whendoctors are working in inadequate conditionsand they need help, who can they turn to inareas like the Atherton Tablelands or theDiamantina? They should be able to turn totheir local member for help. When they arestopped from being able to do that, that is justutter fascism, that is tyranny of the highestorder. When they cannot even take a bit ofinformation to their local member when theyknow something is wrong, that is an admissionof guilt.

The Queensland Health Code of Conductfor 2000 is an admission of guilt. The Ministerknows it because she has had a heap ofpressure put on her by me and other membersdown here. She knows she has done wrong;that is why she has put out this absolutegarbage. Trust me, it will cause a revolt insideher department.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for PrivateMembers' Statements has expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Election Campaigns

Mr BORBIDGE (10.30 a.m.): I ask thePremier: does he agree with the member forWoodridge that the State Secretary of theAustralian Labor Party in Queensland holdsthe primary responsibility on behalf of the partyfor all State and Federal election campaignsconducted in Queensland?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of theOpposition for his question. Just for therecord—and I have a funny feeling we willcome back to it—we should just note that theLeader of the National Party in 1992 was RobBorbidge, the now Leader of the Opposition. Ithink the member for Chermside has madesome very relevant points today which Ibelieve should be drawn to the attention of the

CJC, but I have a feeling we will come back tothat a bit later on. In the interest of fairness,we would expect the CJC to treat thesematters fairly and for there to be appropriateaction taken, but we will come back to that.

The party secretary in the Labor Party hasa very key role to play. Yes, the party secretarydoes run the election campaigns in a broadumbrella role. It is a several tiered structure.The party secretary sets guidelines inconjunction with the campaign committee, andthen they are run locally by local campaigns.

Let me deal with a number of issues. I amdeeply concerned about a number of matters.For example, I notice in today's Gold CoastBulletin and, indeed, in the Courier-Mailyesterday that the Federal Police are nowinvestigating some matters. The Courier-Mailarticle states—

"Federal police probe fraud in threeseats.

The Australian Federal Policeyesterday confirmed an investigation hadbeen launched into suspected electoralfraud in three federal seats in south-eastQueensland."

What are they? The three Federal electoratesinvolved are Ryan, held by the Liberal Party;Moncrieff, held by the Liberal Party; andBowman, which is held by the Labor Party.

It appears to me that there has been avery tangled web. We have all heard of thethree-cornered contest. What we are seeing inRyan and Moncrieff could well be the result ofthe three-cornered contest. No-one wouldseriously suggest that the Labor Party is goingto win Ryan. Does anyone here think that theLabor Party is going to win Ryan? Doesanyone think that the Labor Party is going towin Moncrieff? The Leader of the Oppositionwanted to be the member for Moncrieff.Maybe the Leader of the Opposition shouldtell us what he knows about Moncrieff. It is hisarea. What does he know about the reports inMoncrieff? He comes in here and throwsaround all sorts of wild allegations. What doeshe know?

Mr Welford: What isn't he telling us?Mr BEATTIE: What isn't he telling us?

What does he know about Moncrieff that he isnot telling us? I have some relevant issueshere from the Gold Coast Bulletin. The articlestates—

"The Australian Electoral Commissionwill investigate whether electoral fraud isoccurring in the federal seat of Moncrieffon the Gold Coast.

...

4164 Questions Without Notice 9 Nov 2000

Mrs Sullivan, who is retiring from herMoncrieff seat, told The Bulletin she wasaware of fraudulent enrolments in thepast.

...

Mrs Sullivan said her experience ofthe problem involved the property next toher home where she found a letteraddressed to someone who obviouslyhad their name on the electoral roll.

'It was a horse paddock. The letterwas one from me welcoming them to theelectorate.' "

So she wrote to a horse paddock. That is theway the Liberal Party behaves on the GoldCoast.

I have written a letter to John Howardabout these matters, which I table for theinformation of the House. In that letter to thePrime Minister I suggested that he establish anational Criminal Justice Commission. Why dowe want a national Criminal JusticeCommission? To look at a number of thesethings! I suggested that he should look at fivethings: the defeat of the former Statepresident, Bob Tucker, in a re-run of a ballot inRyan; claims by the former preselectioncandidate for Hinkler and former ALP member,Brian Courtice, that he was rorted by theNationals out of his seat. I table that letter forthe information of the House.

Time expired.

Electoral Fraud

Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a further questionto the obviously increasingly desperatePremier.

Mr Beattie: We're only warming up.

Mr BORBIDGE: It sounds like MerriRose's campaign organiser has been busydown in Moncrieff.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Ask the question.

Mr Beattie: Is that the question, MrSpeaker? I am happy to respond if that is thequestion.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will continue.

Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier toallegations today that votes weresystematically rorted by Labor in the State seatof Caboolture in the 1996 State election,during his tenure as State secretary, and thatthis was achieved with the help of computergenerated street-by-street rolls, and I ask: isthis what he was referring to in his best sellingbook In the Arena in which he refers to his

pride in the role of computers in that particularelection campaign?

Mr BEATTIE: I have to thank the Leaderof the Opposition. I have never known aperson who has helped me publicise my bookso much. It will get another run. I will have totalk to the publishers; we are going to needanother run on this book. I could not havedone it without him and the Leader of theLiberal Party. I will send them a Christmas cardthis year; I owe them one. I thank them verymuch for their support. I will even come aroundand read it to them, because clearly they couldnot read it themselves.

Dr Watson: It wasn't a best seller.Mr BEATTIE: Okay, I will send the

member another one and I will go around andread it to him.

Mr Hamill: At least it has a happy ending.Mr BEATTIE: Mine does have a happy

ending, unlike the member's ending, which willnot be that happy.

As I was saying, in that letter I just tabled,the other things the Prime Minister should lookat include Liberal Party membershipirregularities in South Australia; the recentLiberal preselection in Queensland of SenatorBrandis; and the Peter Reith phone card affair.I table a letter for the information of the House,along with the other two documents.

The bottom line in all of these matters issimply this: some unnamed person has beenmaking allegations to the Courier-Mail. I readthe article this morning. It seemed to me thatthere is the possibility that it was just anenrolment drive. The member for Caboolturegot up and gave a detailed explanation. Thebottom line with all this is—

An honourable member interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: No, he gave a detailedexplanation.

Mr FELDMAN: I rise to a point of order. Ihave not given a detailed explanation ofanything.

Mr BEATTIE: Nor are you capable of it. Iwithdraw it immediately.

Mr FELDMAN: I find that remark offensiveand I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member hasasked that it be withdrawn.

Mr BEATTIE: I withdraw. He could notgive a sensible explanation if his life dependedon it. I immediately withdraw.

Mr FELDMAN: I rise to a point of order. Ifind that remark offensive as well and I ask it tobe withdrawn.


Mr BEATTIE: I withdraw. The bottom line with all these things is

very simple: the Courier-Mail has someunnamed shadowy figure who is makingallegations. The person has not come forwardto be interviewed. The Courier-Mail has notnamed the person. Three suggestions havebeen made to me as to who the person is.One is that they are a genuine person.Another suggestion is that they are somebodywho is a front for the Liberal Party. The thirdpossibility is that it is someone who has amental illness. I do not know which one ofthese is true and, frankly, I am not going toshadow-box with the Courier-Mail. If it is notprepared to name the person then, frankly, Iam not prepared to take it seriously. It is thatsimple.

Mr Hamill: The last two categories aren'tmutually exclusive.

Mr BEATTIE: The last two categories arenot mutually exclusive; that is true.

The Courier-Mail is quite entitled topublish these things, but we have no ideawhether the person is credible or not. Theperson is not able to be tested. They are notcoming forward; they are not beinginterviewed. I challenge them today to comeforward, to be publicly named, to express theirviews publicly and to let people make ajudgment on it.

When we come to these issues,honourable members should remember whowas the Leader of the National Party in 1992,because that is the relevant issue which will bedrawn to everyone's attention very shortly; it isvery relevant to a matter that will be going tothe CJC.

I made some reference yesterday—this isindicative of the Liberal Party's problems—tothis vacant lot in South Australia. In it thecouple listed under the Rostrevoraddress—166 Stradbroke Road—are among132 members who joined Minister Brindal'sKings Park sub-branch in a single week andwhose credentials are being investigated bythe party. Other newcomers include 11 peoplelisted at a single post office box. That is whatthe Liberal Party does.

Time expired.

Electoral FraudMr SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to

continuing allegations of voting irregularitiesand to a private member's statement I madein the House this morning, and I ask: is heaware of any other voting irregularities?

Mr BEATTIE: Let us deal with this issuevery seriously. What the member forChermside has told this House today is thatDoug Foggo, the National Party candidate whoran against him in the 1992 State election,was living in Mansfield but enrolled on the lastday in Chermside. He lived in Mansfield andfalsely enrolled in Chermside. Membersopposite should have no trouble checking thisout because I understand he lives right next toFrank Carroll. All they have to do is get on thephone and ring him up because, I am told, helives right next door to Frank Carroll. Then in1993 in the Federal election he was living atMansfield and he enrolled at a factory atGeebung.

Here are the how-to-vote cards from theNational Party. Let me make it very clear,these are very serious issues that go to theheart of the electoral system. I call on the CJCtoday to immediately begin an investigationinto this electoral fraud. If we are going to befair and have some balance, the CJC shouldimmediately establish an inquiry into theNational Party. One of the first witnesses itshould call is the Leader of the National Partyat the time—1992—Rob Borbidge. He shouldgo out and explain what he knew about DougFoggo. He should go out and explain exactlywhat he knew about his enrolment. As I said,all he has to do is ring Frank Carroll. TheLeader of the Liberal Party can give Frank acall. He can say, "Frank, listen mate. Who livesnext door? Is Doug at home? Is Doug there?"That is all he has to do.

Mr Foley: Peter Reith can give him acard.

Mr BEATTIE: Peter Reith can give themember opposite some advice. All he has tosay is, "Frank, is Doug at home?" That is all hehas to do.

These issues go to the heart of electoralfraud. If each party is to be treated fairly in thisState, the CJC should immediately establishan inquiry, none less than a public inquiry, intothese matters involving the National Party. Ihave a challenge for the 1992 Leader of theNational Party. The Attorney-General referredthese matters to the CJC via the ElectoralCommission. My challenge to the Leader ofthe National Party is this: is he prepared tohave the same high standards that I had? Ishe prepared to send these matters to the CJChimself today? That is my challenge to him. Ishe prepared to do what I did? Is he preparedto lead on this issue and send these mattersto the CJC? Is he prepared to do that? Theanswer is yes or no. Is he prepared to send


these down? Yes or no. Is he prepared tosend these to the CJC? Yes or no.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Iwould reply to the Premier. However, if hetables the response from the ElectoralCommission, we will be able to know the fullstory.

Mr BEATTIE: That is very good. That is avery pertinent point. However, do membersknow what the answer is? These matters havenever been fully or properly investigatedbefore.

Mr Borbidge: I thought he said hereferred it.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, he did, but they werenot fully and properly investigated. That is whythe Leader of the Opposition should send thematerial to the CJC today.

Electoral Fraud

Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Premier tohis position as State Secretary of the ALP from1981 to 1988, which included the 1987Federal election campaign in Queensland forwhich he was primarily responsible, accordingto the member for Woodridge. I refer also tothe reference in his book In the Arena in whichhe takes particular pride in the campaign forthe targeted seat of Fisher in that year, whichhas recently been the subject of moredamning allegations of electoral corruptionwithin the Labor Party, and I ask: does heaccept primary responsibility for the conduct ofthat campaign?

Mr BEATTIE: As I said before, I havealready dealt with this issue openly and frankly.These matters go back to prehistoric times.These matters have been dealt with in theresponse by the member this morning. Whatwas pursued in the Courier-Mail this morningwas simply an enrolment drive—an enrolmentdrive that is pursued by every political party inexactly the same way. The National Party doesit. The Liberal Party does it. Everybody does it.Let me tell the House what everybody doesnot do. They do not do what Doug Foggo did.He was living in Mansfield and enrolled himselfin Chermside. Did he do this once? No, he didit twice. He did it in a Federal campaign and hedid it in a State campaign. Frank Carroll will beparticularly helpful with regard to this issuebecause I am told that Frank Carroll used tobe a National Party person before he becamea Liberal Party person. He will be able to giveboth sides of the story. He will be able to tell usthat Doug was not only living next door butthat he was a National Party person living nextdoor.

Opposition members interjected.Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. They can talk

over the fence about this rort.

Mr Sullivan: He was always living nextdoor.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, he was always livingnext door; he did not move. The only thingthat moved was Frank Carroll, who movedbetween the National Party and the LiberalParty. Today is a test for the Leader of theOpposition. Is he prepared to get in the whitelimousine and go down to the CJC to handover this material? He said no. He has notbeen prepared to do it. Oh, no, he will not setthe standards. He will try to cover it up. I havepromised a clean-up. We will see a cover-upfrom him. In 1992 Doug Foggo—he cannotget out of this—was a National Partycandidate. He was living in Mansfield. Heenrolled on the last day in Chermside. Domembers know what that is? That is a rort—aNational Party rort.

Let that be fully investigated by the CJC.Let the CJC establish an independent inquiry,because I do not think Doug Foggo is alone. Ithink Doug has a lot of friends in the NationalParty. This is not just a problem confined toQueensland. That is why we need a nationalCJC. A gentleman in Western Australia by thename of Getgood indicated that he wasprepared to support a gentleman by the nameof Collier in his political aspirations in theLiberal Party. What did he do? He found outthat he was enrolled as a member of theLiberal Party. That is the way those oppositeoperate. I will table that material for theinformation of the House. There is only onequestion today: what is Rob Borbidge going todo about Doug Foggo? There is one questiontoday. We have a National Party rort inChermside. When is the member oppositegoing to do something about it?

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier torecently announced cuts to the ABC, and Iask: is the State Government concerned aboutthe impact these cuts will have on localservices to regional and rural Queensland?

Mr BEATTIE: Before I answer thequestion in relation to the ABC, let me pointout that in the Federal election in 1993 DougFoggo was enrolled at a factory in Geebung.The CJC has to treat all political parties fairly. Itshould initiate an immediate public inquiry intothis matter, and it should be started today. Icongratulate the member for Chermside forhaving the courage to send that issue to the


CJC. I urged him to do it today so we canfinally get a full investigation into the behaviourof the National Party in these seats.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not likeit. When Doug Foggo gets caught out, they donot like it. This is a National Party rort.

Our ABC, our public broadcaster, isrenowned for providing a full and consideredreliable news service. This does not mean thatI always like what it reports, but I accept that inits role as the national broadcaster the ABCplays an essential role in a democratic society.Queensland is already a little short on varietyfor State-based news. We have only oneStatewide newspaper and many of thecommercial stations carry little news and evenless current affairs, even though they reportthem very well. It is fair enough for them tomake that commercial decision, but that isexactly why it is essential that there are no cutsto the ABC's news and current affairs servicesin Queensland.

The ABC's news and current affairsprograms are vital to rural and regionalQueenslanders, who rely on these programsfor local news and information. I fear that therecently announced ABC budget cuts will resultin the reduction of the current ABC service toQueensland and to Queenslanders. Any cutsto the news and current affairs department inQueensland and plans to network programsout of Sydney in order to cut costs will be adisaster for Queensland. The ABC plays amajor role in holding politicians accountable fortheir actions. Perhaps they would like to followup today's story on Doug Foggo. If we do nothave a quality broadcaster, then we cannothave a level of accountability and publicdebate. Think of what Queensland would havebeen like in the past 20 years if there had notbeen the 7.30 Report, and Queensland haslost its State-based 7.30 Report.

My Government and I will continue to putpressure on the Federal Government toensure that the ABC is properly funded. Wherehas the Opposition been amidst this? TheLeader of the Opposition has mouthed a fewplatitudes as to what should or should nothappen to ABC services—all talk and noaction. Where has that led? Nowhere! NationalParty senators have done nothing. They havenot stood up for Queensland. If we take theOpposition Leader's previous performance inrelation to the sell off of Telstra and fuel prices,this will go nowhere as well. Rob Borbidge andthe National Party have again betrayed theirconstituency—the bush. This is anotherbetrayal of the bush. We saw it with Telstra,

then petrol and now we see it with the ABC. Ifthis National Party had any influence with theCommonwealth Government, it would havestopped it. Judging by the recent comments ofthe Deputy Prime Minister, nothing will bedone about it because the CommonwealthGovernment treats the Queensland Nationalswith contempt.

State Secretary, Australian Labor PartyMr HORAN: I ask the Premier: does he

agree with the member for Woodridge that theState Secretary of the Australian Labor Partyis, in effect, the chief executive officer of theLabor Party and thus the person with whomthe buck stops on all activities and conduct ofthe party throughout their tenure?

Mr BEATTIE: I have already answeredthese questions. Everything I have done hasalways been done honestly and with integrity. Ihave made it clear that if anybody in the LaborParty is found to have breached the law theyshould feel the full force of the law and theywill be expelled.

Let me talk about the National Party andthe Liberal Party. Did those opposite go outand campaign for Doug Foggo—a NationalParty rorter—in 1992? Did Liberal Partymembers go out and campaign for DougFoggo? Did National Party members go outand campaign for Doug Foggo?

In the 1992 State election—we have notfinished—we also saw the Reid family enrol at692 Gympie Road, Chermside, as the memberfor Chermside pointed out in his letter of 17September 1992 to the ElectoralCommissioner in Queensland. This address atwhich constituents lived was the Liberalcampaign office for the 1992 campaign. Thewarmth in the Liberal Party is so strong thatthey will live together in a campaign office.That is a warmth one has to admire. It is thesort of togetherness we do not see in Ryanand that we do not see anywhere else in theLiberal Party.

A Government member: You do not seeit on the State executive.

Mr BEATTIE: We do not see it on theirState executive but in these days, in 1992,they lived together in a campaign office forwarmth and bonding. It is interesting to notethat this family, who supposedly lived at theGympie Road office, were business associatesof the Liberal candidate. They all livedtogether. Before standing as a candidate—

Opposition members interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Those opposite do not like

it. Hear them squeal. We have a rort—a


National Party rort, a Liberal Party rort. It is offto the CJC and those opposite are all going tohave to explain themselves. Do those oppositelike it? No, they do not like it.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Is the Leader of theOpposition going to send it off? Oh, no. Hewould not send it off. He would not do what wedid. Those opposite would not do that. Wehave to rely on the honest, hardworking,devoted member for Chermside—the onlyhonest man around.

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, I rise to apoint of order. The Premier is misleading theHouse. He did not send it to the CJC. TheElectoral Commissioner did.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point oforder.

Mr BEATTIE: Here is his chance. He cansend the matter down to the CJC. He cansend Doug Foggo down to the CJC. Is hegoing to do that?

Dr Watson interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Are you going to do it?Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Are you going to do it? An Opposition member interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: He is not going to do it. Dohonourable members know why? Hecampaigned for Doug Foggo. He was hisleader in 1992. Poor old Doug did not win.

Mr Horan interjected.Mr BEATTIE: Did the member for

Toowoomba South say he campaigned forhim? Yes, he campaigned for him. What wasthe Leader of the Liberal Party doing? Was heout there campaigning for all these rorters aswell? What does he know about the Reidfamily enrolling at 692 Gympie Road,Chermside? What does he know about it?

Dr Watson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: He does not know anything

about it! Joan Sheldon was the leader. Whatdoes she know about it? No, she does notknow anything about it! This will go to the CJC.I say to the CJC today: in the interests ofpolitical fairness there needs to be a publicinquiry into the National Party and the LiberalParty, starting today.

Fuel PricesMs NELSON-CARR: I refer the Deputy

Premier and Minister for State Developmentand Minister for Trade to recent reports thatPrime Minister John Howard remains unmoved

on reducing excise on fuel, and I ask: will theState Government continue to pursue theHoward Government for a better deal forQueensland motorists?

Mr ELDER: We will. Just before I addressthe petrol issue, I think I need to talk a littleabout Chermside. When the member forChermside broke this, we saw those oppositestart to scuttle and talk. Do honourablemembers wonder why? It is because DougFoggo is not alone, is he? The Leader of theOpposition has been nice and quiet on this.The allegation is that the Premier never sentALP material to the CJC. My challenge to theOpposition Leader is to send this. I will tell theHouse the difference. He will not send it, but itwill get there. Doug Foggo is not alone, is he?He is not by himself. So it will be an interestinginquiry from the CJC when it comes into theactions of the National Party and how it movedpeople into seats and how it distorted the roll.Those opposite have their own time in thedock coming.

I return to the two issues that are reallyhurting those opposite out in the bush—that is,GST and fuel prices. They know that theseissues are hurting them out in the bush. Fuelprices impact more than any other issue ontheir constituency. The reason Howard will notmove on the excise is simply that he is puttingtogether a billion-dollar war chest for the nextelection. That is the only reason he will not doit. He knows that with the likely 3c rise in excisethat will come in February, just at the timesmall businesses are about to submit theirsecond business activity statements, will givehim 50c in every litre pumped into everycar—in the bush, in the city, from everyagricultural vehicle that is used and from everybusiness vehicle that is used. He knows that50c of that will go in tax. That will give himbetween $1.7 billion and $2 billion in revenue.That is what this has all been about. It is abouthis war chest. The following are not my words,but I would like to repeat them—

"The Federal Government is hordingthe extra revenue being generated fromGST on petrol to use for porkbarelling."

They are not my words. They are thewords of the chief executive of the VictorianAutomobile Chamber of Commerce, DavidPurchase. Every motoring organisation andindustry group out there knows exactly whatHoward is up to in terms of this. He will notmove because he is pork-barrelling. He will notmove because he is building an election warchest. But the people he hurts are the peoplethose opposite supposedly represent—thosein the bush, those in industry and those in the


small business sector. They are the ones whoare being hurt by this, as are average familiesin this State and this country. If those oppositedo not think fuel will be an issue in the nextelection, they are kidding themselves.

Optometrists

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My question isdirected to the Minister for Health. In theSeptember/October 2000 issue of the Comet,Greg Johnson, Executive Director of theOptometrists Association of Australia,Queensland Branch, had a letter to the editorprinted. I table a copy. In the letter he outlinesone of the proposed amendments to theOptometrists Act 1974 and advises of thelikelihood of a decline in service under thespectacle supply scheme to pensioners andother beneficiaries. He advises that thisreduction in supply could occur as big businessmoves in to take over practices afterderegulation of ownership. What diminution inthe free supply of spectacles to pensionersand other beneficiaries will there be as a resultof proposed changes?

Mrs EDMOND: Mr Speaker, I seek yourguidance. This relates to legislation before theHouse. Are you happy for me to answer thequestion?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will seek advicefrom the Clerk. If the Minister wishes to reply tothe question, she may. Otherwise she maytake the option of not answering, as it is a Billbefore the House.

Mrs EDMOND: I am happy to answer thequestion. Optometrists have raised thequestion of ownership of optometry practicesas being essential for the provision of services.It is something that is disputed and was notfound to be the case under the NCP review ofoptometrists. In fact, it is rather a surprisingclaim. The optometrists are claiming they canbe stood over by other owners of optometrypractices.

I actually find it really surprising that acouple of members of the optometryassociation are making this claim. I have tosay: it is tantamount to saying thatoptometrists alone, of all the professions, needprotection from other influences in terms oftheir professional integrity. I find that anabsolutely amazing thing to contemplate. Noprofession other than pharmacies hasrestrictions on ownership—not medicine, notdental practices, not physiotherapists. Theycan be owned by anyone. All the otherprofessions recognise that their professionalstandards are such that they do not need to

be owned by a physiotherapist to practicegood physiotherapy, for example.

I think the claim by the optometrists iserroneous. It was not supported in thehearings of the NCP review. I understand thatthere is a lobbying campaign going on now tothe effect that it will impact on services. Noevidence of that was presented to the NCP.This is part and parcel, as I said, of theregistration Acts before the House.

Exports

Mrs LAVARCH: I refer the Treasurer toQueensland's important export industries andtheir significance to the State's economicperformance. Can he please inform the Houseof any opportunities or threats which mayimpact on the ability of Queensland exportersto access overseas markets?

Mr HAMILL: As honourable memberswould be aware, Queensland relies veryheavily on its exporters for the generaleconomic welfare of the State. It is a matter ofrecord that over the last three years netexports have not contributed to gross Stateproduct in a positive fashion. That has reallybeen the impact of the Asian economic crisisupon a number of our key overseas markets,particularly obviously in Asia.

In fact, it is worth while noting that lastyear Japan alone contributed almost 30% ofour total merchandise exports market and,whilst we saw growth in that market, it is onlythis year that we will actually see our exportsmake a net positive contribution to gross Stateproduct. That is very important for Queenslandbecause what we are experiencing not only inQueensland but across Australia is aneconomic downturn as a result of rising interestrates, interest rates which have been spurredfurther by the GST and its inflationary impact.So exports will be very important forQueensland and for the State's economy overthe months ahead.

It is also a fact that the parlous exchangerate for the Australian dollar does offersomething of a silver lining for Queenslandgiven the reliance—

Dr Watson: It is a very big silver lining.

Mr HAMILL: The Leader of the LiberalParty says that it is a very big silver lining. It isalso a fact that a number of our exportershave hedged their prices, so that the impactmay not be as great as some would wish. It isalso the case that for a number of our majorexport industries that rely upon importedcapital the exchange rate will have a significantdetrimental effect on them when they come to


import machinery. That is a matter ofconsiderable concern.

The other matter which I mention in thiscontext, given the importance of Asia, is thedifficulty which the Howard Government seemsto have in engaging in a constructive andcollaborative arrangement with our Asianneighbours. In fact, it is a matter of graveconcern to Queensland that Australia, whichstarted so well in negotiating the APECarrangements, now looks like being frozen outof the Asia/Europe summit meetings. That issomething that ought to be seen as a matterof grave concern for all Queenslanders,particularly those involved in export industries,because it is vital for Queensland that Australiacan maintain a constructive dialogue with ourAsian neighbours. I urge the FederalGovernment to review its Australia-centricpolicy and start engaging with our nearneighbours in a constructive fashion in theinterests of all Australian exporters, particularlythose here in Queensland.

Electoral Fraud

Dr WATSON: In asking the Premier aquestion, I refer him to his limp excuseyesterday that he does not always know whichof his ALP colleagues has been named at theShepherdson inquiry because he sometimestakes several days to read the officialtranscript, and I ask: given that theShepherdson inquiry has now been in recessfor two weeks, can he inform the House if hehas now caught up with his homework? If so,can he also inform the House what action hehas taken in relation to his ALP colleague inthis Chamber who has been accused ofsigning at least two fraudulent electoralenrolment applications and of running anotorious AWU safe house for Laborparachutists?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the Premieranswers this question, I repeat my warningfrom yesterday that we do not reflect onmatters before the Shepherdson inquiry.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, because I amdetermined to be helpful, and because I amopen and honest, as we all know, I can answerat least 60% of the question. The rest wouldbe covered by your ruling, Mr Speaker, but Iam happy to try to assist the Leader of theLiberal Party; he needs all the help he can get,he really does.

Dr WATSON: To assist the Premier, Ihave been quite explicit. I have not canvassedthe evidence. I just asked what his actions are.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, can my threeminutes start now? I do not want to waste anyof my time because I really want the Leader ofthe Liberal Party to be well informed. He needsto be educated. By the way, just so it is clear, Iwant to table the material I referred to beforein relation to Western Australia, because Ithink it is important that it be drawn to theattention of the House that the campaigndirector there was Senator Chris Ellison.

Let us come back to the issues involved.Yes, I have from time to time read thetranscript. I have to say, though, that myprimary function is to keep Queenslandrunning effectively and efficiently—which thisGovernment is doing. We are performing. Thisis a can-do Government. Things arehappening. I do not always sit and read everypart of the transcript, that is true, but I do skimthrough it all, which is what I indicated I woulddo. I cannot give an assurance that I haveread every word on every page. Frankly, I havebetter things to do. But, yes, I generally skimthrough it. When I said that I read it, I meanthat I generally skim through it. I am aware ofissues that have been raised at the inquiry. AsI have said to the Leader of the Liberal Partyon previous occasions, if a stage is reachedwhere I need to take action—and I did saythey would have to be serious allegations—and I have already talked to him about the sortof criteria—

Mr Connor: That's not serious! Mr BEATTIE: They have to be credible

ones. If they were made by the member forNerang, no-one would take them seriously.Under those circumstances, I will takeappropriate action. At this point, it has notreached that stage. But let me make it clearthat if I believe that appropriate action needsto be taken against anybody, that action willbe taken.

The Government, through the Attorney-General and after consultation with me, didsend the material—the Ehrmann affidavit andother material—to the Electoral Commissionwith a broad reference which enabled it to besent to the CJC. We have been open about allthis. We established this inquiry by our actionand we will continue to act in the samemanner. I do not see, though, from the Leaderof the Liberal Party or from the Leader of theNational Party anything similar. The Leader ofthe Liberal Party had an opportunity in relationto Doug Foggo today and he has not doneanything.

Dr Watson:I have sent a number ofthings.


Mr BEATTIE: What about Doug Foggo?The Leader of the Liberal Party wants me to,but he will not. All right, we will.


Mr BEATTIE: We will. But will he do it?No, no. He will not; we will. We will send it therebecause I think if we are to have somefairness, today the CJC should examine thismaterial and it should do exactly what it hasdone in relation to the Labor Party—which Isupport. There should be a full, open andpublic inquiry into National Party and LiberalParty rorts. All we want to do is to be treatedfairly and equally. Labor Party rorters shouldgo to jail, National Party rorters should go to jailand Liberal Party rorters should go to jail. Letus clean it up once and for all.

Building Industry

Mr MUSGROVE: In asking a question ofthe Minister for Employment, Training andIndustrial Relations, I refer him to the Breakingthe Unemployment Cycle initiative and theGovernment's expansion of employmentopportunities in the building and constructionindustry, particularly amongst youngQueenslanders working on Governmentprojects, and I ask: how is this policy providingmuch-needed trained workers in theQueensland construction industry?

Mr BRADDY: I thank the honourablemember for the question. Of course, it isabsolutely vital that the Beattie LaborGovernment continues with the policies that ithas implemented in relation to apprenticeshipsand traineeships in the building andconstruction industry. They have never beenmore important.

Because of the impact of the GST that iscausing the extraordinary depression in thebuilding industry right across this country andthe failure of coalition Governments inCanberra and in the non-Labor States to doanything about encouraging apprenticeshipsand traineeships in the industry, it is importantthat Queensland continues to lead the way, aswe do with the Beattie Labor Government'sprograms.

One of the most important programs hasbeen for the first time really making sure thatthe 10% training policy works. That is the policythat requires that all people doing constructionwork for the Government of Queensland andGovernment owned corporations ensure that10% of the workable hours are worked byapprentices and trainees. In fact, that policy isworking very well.

We saw an example the other day. LastTuesday I attended a function at theWoodford Correctional Centre with myministerial colleagues Tom Barton, the Ministerfor Police and Corrective Services, and RobertSchwarten, the Minister for Public Works andMinister for Housing. We were there to inspecta new building at the centre which is to beused as a gymnasium and hall. The buildingwas constructed entirely by apprentices. A totalof 70,000 hours of student training has beendelivered during the expansion of theWoodford Correctional Centre. Theapprenticeship honour board on site at theWoodford function told the story. More than300 apprentices had worked at the centre, withabout 50 apprentices and trainees on the siteat the time that we were there. This is what agood Labor Government can deliver; it is apolicy, of course, that will be abandoned if thecoalition is ever returned to power.

In addition to that, of course, we alsoimplemented the Building and ConstructionIndustry Training Fund. Since that fund waslaunched in January last year, it hasencouraged private industry firms in thebuilding and construction industry in this Stateto employ nearly 1,100 additional apprenticesand trainees. The target this year is a further980, and we are well on the way to achievingthat goal. We are talking in terms of thousandsof young men and women gettingopportunities in the building and constructionindustry only as long as the Beattie LaborGovernment is in power. These are not policiesthat have ever been followed by the coalitionparties. In addition, of course, we also paycash bonuses to the building industry, whichhave also been successful in creating newtraining positions.

Electoral Fraud

Mr QUINN: I refer the Premier to theanswer given by the Minister for Tourism andRacing yesterday when she confirmed thatunion organisers were allocated to Laborcandidates during election campaigns, and Iask—

Government members: Party organisers.

Mr QUINN: The question is: who pays thesalaries of these organisers while they work onAustralian Labor Party election campaigns, towhom are these organisers responsible, howare they allocated and have their servicesbeen declared in the relevant ElectoralCommission returns?

Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer thisquestion. By the way, did the member forMerrimac campaign for Doug Foggo at any


time? I just want to know that. I thought thatthe member for Toowoomba Southcampaigned for him.

By the way, I was intrigued to hear themember for Toowoomba South ask a questionconcerning this Government doing somethingabout petrol prices, yet it is the Prime Minister'sdecision and the member for ToowoombaSouth will not do anything about it. I have tosay that that is a beauty. Why doesn't themember for Toowoomba South ring up JohnHoward and tell him to do something about it?

Let us come back to the question. ThisGovernment has acted openly and honestly inall these matters. Those opposite regularly putin FOI applications looking for material. Iunderstand that one was put in to mydepartment. I never interfere with those things.My department provides honourable memberswith whatever they want. I understand that theOpposition will be getting certain details today.I was sent a copy of the material after it wasprovided to the Opposition. I am flickingthrough the material now to see whatdecisions have been made. I will table a copyof this material for the information of theHouse in order to show how open thisGovernment is. We have nothing to hide. Wehave behaved properly right from thebeginning.

As I understood what the Minister forTourism said yesterday, she said that, ashappens in the National Party, the LiberalParty and every other party, there areorganisers—


Mr BEATTIE: Oh, I see, you don't haveorganisers. Who organised your electioncampaign—the Phantom and the missingdog? The Phantom and the missing dog runthe Opposition's campaign.

Mr Mulherin interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: As the member for Mackaysaid, there was an organiser in Dawson.National Party organisers are everywhere.

Those opposite attack my experience asa party secretary. Let me say that in myexperience as a party secretary I have seenNational Party and Liberal Party organisers allover the State, so they need not try to tell meporkies about it.

An Opposition member: Who pays?

Mr BEATTIE: I don't know who pays.Anybody could pay. They are not unionorganisers; they are party organisers. Thehonourable member was wrong in thatassertion. They are paid by the Labor

Party—the organisation—just as is anyoneelse.

There is only one relevant question thatarose in question time today, and that is howmany members opposite campaigned forDoug Foggo? The Leader of the Oppositioncannot say that he did not campaign for him,because he was one of the team. Was this acase of see no evil, hear no evil, do no evil?The Leader of the Opposition should tell uswhat he knew. He is not going to do the oldthree monkeys trick, is he? He is not going totell me that he did not know anything aboutthis, is he? Is he going to do the threemonkeys trick? That is what I want to know. Itis a case of see no evil, hear no evil.

The Leader of the Opposition has beenaround for how long—20 years? Does hemean to say that he has never seen any ofthis? I have heard this line before, haven't I?He has been here for 20 years and he knewnothing of this! We will send it off, because allwe want is to be treated fairly. We want to betreated equally. If the CJC is going to treat thisGovernment fairly and equally, there will be apublic inquiry into National Party and LiberalParty rorts.

Electoral FraudMr MULHERIN: My question is directed to

the Premier. This morning, the House heardthat in 1992 a Liberal Party campaign office insuburban Brisbane was the home of fourLiberal Party supporters. I ask: is the Premieraware of any action taken by the then LiberalLeader, Joan Sheldon, to rectify this enrolmentanomaly, and could there have been othersuch irregularities at Liberal Party campaignoffices?

Mr BEATTIE: I think one of the otherrelevant questions is: what did Mrs Sheldondo? Here is the how-to-vote card. Have a look.There are a couple of photographs on thisone. One of the photographs is of KeithSchafferius, the Liberal candidate forChermside. There is also a really charmingphotograph of Joan Sheldon, who was theLiberal Party Leader. It is a nice photograph.Do honourable members like it? Joanobviously likes it, because she approved it.Joan, we agree: it is a lovely photograph.

But what did the member for Caloundrado about these things? How many peoplevisited the Liberal campaign office? Did theymove beds around so that people could typethings? Did they move beds around so thatthey could actually get some letters out? Canhonourable members imagine going into thisLiberal Party campaign office with a bundle of


mail? You would be stumbling over beds.There would be pillows all over the place. Whatdid the member for Caloundra do forconveniences?


Mr BEATTIE: Rorts are not desperatestuff. Rorts are something we are going to dosomething about. Whether these rorts are inthe Labor Party, the National Party or theLiberal Party, we will do something aboutthem.


Mr BEATTIE: The National Partymembers do not like it. I say to Queenslandersthat the real test is this: when these matterscame to my attention, they ended up in aninquiry. When they came to the attention ofthe Leader of the National Party and theLeader of the Liberal Party, what happened?There was a cover-up. This Government wantsa clean-up; those opposite want a cover-up.


Mr BEATTIE: Did the member for Moggillcampaign for Keith Schafferius? Did he knowhim? Did he campaign for him? Did he? Themember should tell the world what he did.

Dr Watson interjected. Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. What I want to

know is this: did the current Leader of theLiberal Party visit the campaign office? Did hetrip over one of the beds on the way to thetypewriter? How many people were crammedinto this office? Honourable members canimagine what it would have been like ifsomeone wanted to go to the loo. It wouldhave been a nightmare.

Mr Schwarten: Where did they shower?Mr BEATTIE: Yes, where did they

shower? Where did they shower in thiscampaign office?

Mr Hamill: It was the "slumber" party.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, the "slumber" party. Mr Foley: Specialising in sleeper issues.

Mr BEATTIE: Sleeper issues, right. Thetruth is that this occurred under JoanSheldon's leadership. It was also under RobBorbidge's leadership. What did he do? He didnothing! It is now a matter for the CJC to dosomething about it. Here are people whororted the system. This is an opportunity forthose opposite to do the fair thing, the honestthing and the open thing.

Keith Schafferius is a private investigator.I reckon he could get to the bottom of this. Letus call in Keith from the Liberal Party, theprivate investigator. He will get to the bottom of

this. He will find out who was in whose bed. Hewill find out who was doing what letterdistributions and who was rorting what.

The member for Surfers Paradise and themember for Moggill have been caught out.They have to adopt the same standards asthis Government has adopted. They havebeen exposed in black and white rorts—National Party rorts and Liberal Party rorts.

Electoral Fraud

Mrs SHELDON: Would the Premierconfirm that at the last State election PaulJoseph Braddy was registered at the address70 Richmond Street, Gordon Park, and thatRobert James Gibbs had his permanentregistration at the Commercial Hotel, BrisbaneRoad, Redbank at the date of the last Stateelection?

Mr BEATTIE: The member for Caloundraknows that, under the existing law, membersof Parliament can nominate on the electoralroll where they live. Every honourable membercan do that. Does the member for Caloundraknow what they did? They complied with thelaw, because that is what the law allows.

The people I referred to earlier were notmembers of Parliament. These were peoplewho were rorting. Under the law—


Mr BEATTIE: Members opposite knowthe rules; they know the law. They know whatmembers of Parliament can do.

Mr Hobbs interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forWarrego will cease interjecting.

Mr BEATTIE: We did not want to raisethese things with the member, but he knowsthat he is in exactly the same position as BobGibbs and Paul Braddy. The member forCaloundra just dobbed him in.

Mr BORBIDGE: The question is: was BobGibbs living at Redbank and was the Ministerfor Employment, Training and IndustrialRelations living at the address?

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?The Leader of the Opposition will resume hisseat.

Mr BEATTIE: Paul Braddy has a houseand he lives there. These guys were not livingin a house, they were living in a factory. Andwhen they were not living in a factory, theywere living at the Liberal campaign office. Herewe go. The Leader of the Opposition againdoes not like it.


Mr BORBIDGE: Minister Braddy was livingupstairs, because when we became theGovernment he asked for further time to movehis gear out.

Mr BEATTIE: If the Leader of theOpposition wants us to go through every oneof his members, we are happy to. However, heknows what the Electoral Act provides.

Mr BRADDY: I rise to a point of order. Ihad a house at 17 Richmond Street. I livedthere. I also sometimes stayed here. I couldstay in both places, and I did. I now have ahouse at 110 Swan Street, Gordon Park. I stillhave a room upstairs and I stay theresometimes, too.

Mr BEATTIE: More to the point, so doesthe Leader of the Opposition. Today,everybody saw him in the lift. I think that if theLeader of the Opposition is going to take thatview, he should not stay here; he should gohome every night. I know a couple of peoplesaw him in the lift today. They saw him in thelift twice. He did exactly what the Ministerdid—the terrible man! And that terrible younglady did exactly what the Minister did as well.The member for Caloundra should not stayhere. They are not going to cover this up. Thisis a rort, it is a rort, it is a rort, it is a rort, it is arort.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.Can the Premier tell us whether his TradeCommissioner in North America was apermanent resident at the hotel at which hewas registered on the roll at the last election?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point oforder.

Mr BEATTIE: I have to tell the Leader ofthe Opposition that at least we know where heis at night, which is not what we can say aboutsome of those guys opposite. This is aNational Party rort and a Liberal Partyrort—every one of them.

Mrs SHELDON: I rise to a point of order. Ifind the comment by the Premier that I livedhere at Parliament House offensive. It isuntrue. I ask him to withdraw it. Just so that hecan see that justice is done in this State, Iwould like to table the relevant roll so that hecan send it down to the Shepherdson inquiry.

Mr BEATTIE: Did the member stay herelast night?

Mrs SHELDON: I stayed here last night,because Parliament was sitting. I did not livehere the way Minister Braddy and Bob Gibbsdid month after month, year after year.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not adebate.

Mr BEATTIE: Let us be clear. All of thesediversions do not detract from the fact that thisis a rort, a rort, a rort, a rort, a National Partyrort, a National Party rort, a rort, a rort, a rortand a rort. That is what it is. They got caughtout and they do not like any bit of it. Let us beclear: it is a rort, a rort, a rort, a rort and a rort.That is what it is. It is a National Party rort anda Liberal Party rort. Who was the leader? RobBorbidge was the leader and Joan Sheldonwas the Leader of the Liberal Party. They havebeen caught. They have had every one oftheir sticky fingers all over it, and they havebeen caught, every one of them.

ProstitutionMr MICKEL: I ask the Minister for Police

and Corrective Services: can he inform theHouse whether the City Country Alliance haschanged its stance on the new ProstitutionAct?

Mr BARTON: Certainly, the most stridentopponents of the Government's prostitutionlegislation, when it was debated in thisParliament last year, were the City CountryAlliance members. Of course, at the time ofthe debate on the legislation they were stillOne Nation and launched into a spirited attackon the legislation. According to them, theprostitution legislation would lead to thedestruction of the family and the end of theworld as we know it.

I would like to refer to the remarks madeby the member for Caboolture when he spokeagainst the legislation on 1 December 1999.He stated—

"It is clear that the passage of this Billis not in the best interests of our society. Itwill not achieve anything. It will notstrengthen the family unit. It will not makeour streets safer and more secure and itwill not create a happy, harmonioussociety which requires a strong functionalfamily unit.

What this country needs is strong,moral, upstanding Governments which willresist the evil diatribe which is contained inthis Bill. This legislation does not washwith every other moral, decent,upstanding person in our society." That was one of the more memorable

sermons from the member for Caboolture onthe grassy knoll. Therefore, it came as quite asurprise for me to find out that CCA hasendorsed Peter Schuback as its candidate forRockhampton. In order to keep it in the family,it has also endorsed Mrs Schuback as theCCA candidate for Fitzroy.


Mr FELDMAN: I rise to a point of order.We have not endorsed Peter Schuback.

Mr BARTON: That is the advice that wehave. When I saw Peter Schuback—

Mr FELDMAN: I rise to a point of order.Obviously it is wrong and perhaps the Ministershould withdraw it.

Mr BARTON: I am not going to withdrawit, because my advice is that they haveendorsed Mr Schuback. The same MrSchuback wanted to set up a chain of brothelsin central Queensland.

However, Mr Schuback was not only outthere supporting what the Government'sbrothel legislation entailed; he wanted to takeit even further. Mr Schuback, who has certainlyassociated himself with the CCA—and there islots of evidence to indicate that they haveassociated themselves with him—has beenout there indicating that he wants to set up achain of brothels all over the State. He wantedto set up one in the old Rockhampton PostOffice in the middle of town and wanted it tobe also a male brothel. That is the sameperson who associates himself with the CCA. Itwould be very interesting to find out where hewould fit if, in fact, he were to be elected on aCCA platform.

I notice the CCA members bleating, butthey have been linked to him. They now wantto deny it, but it is very clear that they haveone standard when it comes to standing up inhere and quite something else when they areout there scouting around trawling for anybodywho is prepared to stand up and put theirname on the CCA ticket. We will be veryinterested to see what happens in the future.

Burdekin BypassMr KNUTH: My question is to the Minister

for Transport and Minister for Main Roads. TheMinister indicated to the people of theBurdekin that a decision and recommendationwould be announced publicly in September2000 as to which Burdekin bypass route wouldbe selected. Considering that those peoplewho might be directly affected by the chosenroute have now patiently suffered waiting for afurther two months, I ask: is the Minister goingto make a decision this month or is the wholeBurdekin bypass issue too politically sensitivefor the Beattie Government to announcebefore an election date?

Mr BREDHAUER: The answer to the latterpart of the honourable member's question isno. It will not be delayed until after theelection, as has been asserted by the AyrAdvocate and by the member for Dawson, De-Anne Kelly.

As the honourable member would know—or would have appreciated, I should havethought—a considerable number ofsubmissions have been made to theDepartment of Main Roads in respect of theBurdekin bypass. When I went to Ayr and hada look at the Burdekin bypass proposals andalso met publicly with representatives of arange of organisations with an interest in theBurdekin bypass, I gave a commitment that Iwould take into account all the submissionsthat they made and that I would make surethat my department considered in detail all theissues that were raised with us in submissionsand in the community consultation phase.

Mr Knuth: When?

Mr BREDHAUER: The member shouldjust calm down, take a pill and let me answerhis question. The problem that we have had allthe way along through this is the duplicity ofthe member for Dawson and, dare I say also,the member for Burdekin. The member forDawson started the Burdekin bypass proposal.When the member for Gregory was TransportMinister, she stood up and announced,unbeknownst to anybody, that the people ofBurdekin deserved a new bridge across theriver—the bridge that the member wanted topaint pink. That is the one, the pink bridge.Then another day the member for Dawsonwoke up and said, "If we are going to have abridge, we had better have a road to it." Shethought, "That is not a bad idea." So then wehad not just a new bridge; we had a bypassstudy to go with it.

Mr Knuth: I don't want it.

Mr BREDHAUER: I know that the memberwants the old pink bridge. We can tart it upwith a bit of paint for him if he likes. Then themember for Dawson said, "Let us put it all onhold", because the heat got a little bit toomuch for her. She did not like the pressurethat she was getting from the canegrowers inthe Burdekin area.

About six weeks ago, after two and a halfyears of study, the member for Dawson saidpublicly that we should stop the wholeprocess—just abandon it, leave the lines onthe map, give the community no certainty. Iwrote to John Anderson and he said: ignorethe member for Dawson; get on with the studyand finish it. That is what I am doing.

The announcement will be made as soonas due consideration has been given to all ofthe submissions that have been made fromthe people in the member's electorate, as Igave them a personal commitment, as it wouldhappen, when I went to Ayr about threemonths ago. The Department of Main Roads

4176 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 9 Nov 2000

is in the process of finalising the study and thefinal decision will be announced before theend of this year—well before any election. Themember, the editor of the local Ayr Advocateand everybody else who is running this linethat we are not going to make a decisionbefore the State election can just rest easy. Ican assure them that the decision will bemade well before Christmas and well beforethe next State election. So the member shouldjust stand by. Notwithstanding his interferenceand that of the member for Dawson, thepeople of the Burdekin will get the answer thatthey want and they will get certainty deliveredto them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras):Order! The time for questions has expired.

PRIVILEGE

Electoral Fraud

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(11.31 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilegesuddenly arising. Earlier today the Premiertabled documents which he said were inresponse to an FOI request from my office.The Premier was correct in that assertion, inthat I had requested access to alldocumentation and briefing notes held by hisdepartment in regard to electoral rorting. Whatthe Premier did not tell the House is that thereare 165 pages of exemptions which he will notrelease, including correspondence from CrownLaw—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Fouras):Order!

Mr BORBIDGE:—to the Premier and fromthe Crown Solicitor to the Premier.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am onmy feet.

Mr BORBIDGE: That is 165 pagesexempted to cover up—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am onmy feet. I suggest that this is not a matter ofprivilege suddenly arising; it is a debatingpoint. The Leader of the Opposition has nowmade his point. I call the honourable Attorney-General.

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order.What the Leader of the Opposition says isuntrue. These are not decisions made by me. Ifind them offensive and I ask that they bewithdrawn. I did not make these decisions.They are made by the due officer within thedepartment. That is offensive. I ask that thestatement be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We arenow in the time to deal with Governmentbusiness. I have ruled it is not a matter ofprivilege. I call the Attorney-General.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise on a matter ofprivilege suddenly arising. In view of thecomments made by the Premier, I table—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Resumeyour seat. I now warn you. I am now going towarn you. You are impossible.

Mr BORBIDGE: The Premier has 165pages of secret documents he will not release.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You areimpossible. You have no respect for the Chair.I warn you on under Standing Order 124. It isunbelievable. The Leader of the Oppositionhas no respect for the Chair. I now call on theAttorney-General.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (11.35 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)

(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (11.35 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

The main purpose of this Bill is to enactnew racial and religious vilification laws. ThisBill honours a promise made by me on behalfof the Labor Party at a major public meetingprior to the 1998 election, when racialvilification was a live issue.

Today I wear a tie presented to me by aChinese community leader, Sister Linda Yuen,which includes the classic circular image ofbalance and harmony embracing the differingelements of yin and yang. It is a fitting symbolfor the goal of a diverse but harmonioussociety in which the incitement of racial hatredhas no place.

The Bill outlaws public Acts which incitehatred towards, serious contempt for, or

9 Nov 2000 Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 4177

severe ridicule of a person or group on thebasis of race or religion. It is a clear statementthat this type of damaging behaviour has noplace in our community. It will target not justhate-speech, but all forms of communicationsto the public, including writing, displays, signs,gestures and other conduct, andcommunications by electronic means.

Until now, the Anti-Discrimination Act hasproscribed only racial or religious vilificationwhich incites unlawful discrimination or anotherbreach of the Act. The Anti-DiscriminationCommissioner and affected groups have beencalling for stronger laws for some time.

The Bill will repeal the existing vilificationprovision and enact new laws modelled onNew South Wales legislation. It will provideboth civil remedies and criminal sanctions foracts of vilification. Victims will now have anaccessible and inexpensive means of redress.Complaints will be able to be made to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland wherethey will be dealt with in accordance with theexisting dispute resolution and enforcementmechanisms established under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

The emphasis, as with all complaints tothe commission, will be on conciliation. Wherea matter cannot be resolved by conciliation itmay ultimately be referred to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for hearing anddecision. The criminal sanctions will apply onlyto the new offence of serious racial or religiousvilification. This offence requires the additionalelement of threatening, or inciting others tothreaten, physical harm towards the person orgroup, or any property of the person or group.It is punishable, in the case of an individual, bya fine of more than $5,000 or six months'imprisonment, and in the case of acorporation, by a fine of more than $26,000.

As with other offences in the Anti-Discrimination Act, a prosecution will be by wayof summary proceeding on the complaint ofthe commissioner. In introducing these newlaws, the Government has taken particularcare with regard to the implications for freespeech. The Bill contains a number ofsafeguards to strike a balance between thisfundamental right and the right to an existencefree from racial and religious vilification. Inparticular, the new laws will apply only topublic, not private communications. The civilprovision—the new section 124A—alsoprovides for a number of exceptions to thegeneral prohibition. In essence, these aremodelled on the traditional defences that

apply in defamation law and are designed toprotect the right to free speech.

The publication of fair reports, thepublication of material in circumstances whichwould be subject to a defence of qualifiedprivilege in defamation law and Acts donereasonably, and in good faith, for academic,artistic, scientific or research purposes or otherpurposes in the public interest will be exempt.However, none of these exclusions will apply tothe offence of serious racial or religiousvilification. This is because the new section126 requires that the incitement be doneknowingly and recklessly. This sets it apartfrom section 124A where intent will beirrelevant. This approach is appropriate giventhat a conviction for the offence may lead to aterm of imprisonment.

These laws will not stifle legitimate debateon matters of public interest. They prohibit onlythe type of communication that, by its nature,undermines social stability and cohesion.

In addition to these measures, the Billcontains a number of amendments which arenot related to the anti-vilification objectives.These are mainly minor amendments aimed atimproving the operational efficiency of the Act,but two are of particular significance. Firstly,the Bill provides for extra-territorial operation ofthe Act so that it will apply to conduct on shipsconnected with Queensland. At present, incases of alleged unlawful discrimination orsexual harassment which occur on a ship, theonly avenue of redress for a complainant maylie in Commonwealth legislation. This isunacceptable as, when the Human Rights andEqual Opportunity Commission withdrew fromQueensland, there was a communityexpectation that the Anti-DiscriminationCommission Queensland would fill the gap.

The Bill will also correct an anomaly inrelation to work and work-relateddiscrimination. At present, the Act providesonly limited protection in situations where workis done, or proposed to be done, under anarrangement between a principal and a personother than the worker. Unlike other Australianjurisdictions, the Act does not expresslyprohibit discrimination by the principal againsta worker in such situations. This means that itwould be open to a principal to setdiscriminatory workplace conditions with noliability attaching to the principal under the Act.The Bill will ensure this loophole is closed.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg,adjourned.

4178 Electronic Transactions (Queensland) Bill 9 Nov 2000

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS(QUEENSLAND) BILL

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (11.40 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to facilitate electronictransactions, and for other purposes."Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Foley, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)

(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (11.40 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."In the face of significantly increased

business activity and stronger market forcescreated by electronic commerce,Governments, corporations and individuals canno longer plod along historical tracks or seekthe preservation of the status quo.Governments and businesses are discoveringthat old solutions do not work with newproblems. The parameters of deliveringGovernment and non-Government goods andservices in our economy have changed. Inorder to provide appropriate public policyresponses in the economic, legal and socialareas in the wake of this technologically drivenprocess called electronic commerce,Governments need to understand why, whereand when electronic commerce is important.

Electronic commerce is now critical to thedelivery of all Government and private sectorservices. The Government's first instalment inproviding a sound legal infrastructure uponwhich electronic commerce can flourish in thisState is the Electronic Transactions(Queensland) Bill 2000, which aims to removeany existing legal impediments to the use ofelectronic transactions. The Bill is designed toensure that a transaction is not invalid simplybecause it took place by means of anelectronic form of communication. It isintended that the Act will provide a frameworkat the State level which will—

facilitate the use of electronictransactions;promote business and communityconfidence in the use of electronictransactions; and

enable business and the community touse electronic communications in theirdealings with Government.

In October 1998, all Attorneys-General ata meeting of the Standing Committee ofAttorneys-General agreed in principle to theCommonwealth's proposal for a nationaluniform legislative regime and to enact modelelectronic commerce legislation based on therecommendations of the electronic commerceexpert group report and relevant articles of theUnited Nations Commission on InternationalTrade Law Model Law on ElectronicCommerce. The Bill removes legalimpediments to electronic commerce based onthe principles of media and technologyneutrality. This means that the law does notdiscriminate between different forms oftechnology and it treats paper-basedcommerce and electronic commerce equally.

The Commonwealth's ElectronicTransactions Act 1999 received royal assenton 10 December 1999 and commenced on 15March 2000. The States of Victoria and NewSouth Wales have already had the opportunityto pass the uniform State and TerritoryElectronic Transactions Bill. This Uniform Bill isnot identical to the Commonwealth Act butsimilar to the extent that it closely mirrors thesubstantive provisions of the Commonwealth'sAct. When enacted by the States andTerritories, the uniform Bill will differ in twoimportant aspects from the Commonwealth'sAct. Firstly, the Commonwealth's Act has atwo-stage implementation process which hasnot been adopted in the uniform Bill.Secondly, it will apply to contract law.

All contracts in Australia are based in thelaws of the States and Territories. Enactmentof the uniform Bill will mean that, for the firsttime in Australia, the law will make absolutelyclear the general principle that a person canenter into contracts electronically. The Bill firstestablishes the general rule that, for thepurposes of a law of Queensland, atransaction is not invalid because it took placewholly or partly by means of one or moreelectronic communications. It then provides forspecific provisions stating that a requirement orpermission under a law of Queensland for aperson to provide information in writing, to signa document, to produce a document, to recordinformation or to retain a document can besatisfied by electronic communication, subjectto minimum criteria being satisfied. Thosecriteria establish objective tests that are basedon criteria of reliability and reasonableness.

The Bill also makes clear that conduct ofelectronic transactions will require the prior

9 Nov 2000 Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment Bill 4179

consent of parties. That consent may beinferred from conduct or given subject tocertain conditions. The Bill also containsprovisions for determining the time and placeof dispatch and receipt, and the attribution, ofelectronic communications. Finally, the Billauthorises the Governor in Council to makeregulations.

Electronic commerce is also a catalyst formany dramatic changes such as internalorganisational functioning, as evidenced bythe rapid proliferation of intranets. It is alsofacilitating a change in how Governmentsdeliver their public products, that is, theirservices. An impact of this Bill will be the needfor the Queensland Government to review itslaws to ensure that they are consistent with theunderlying policy principles contained in the Billand where necessary to adjust those laws toavoid arguments over statutory interpretationand conflicts of laws. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Debate, on motion of Mr Springborg,adjourned.

POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIESAND ANOTHER ACT AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(11.45 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Police Powersand Responsibilities Act 2000 and theWeapons Act 1990."

Motion agreed to.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mr Barton, read a first time.

Second ReadingHon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)

(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(11.45 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."In 1996, this country was shaken by an

act of wanton, senseless violence at PortArthur in Tasmania. The shooting deaths of somany innocent people at that historical touristattraction provoked an unparalleled outpouringof public feeling and, with it, an unmatcheddetermination for change. That determinationwas to ensure Australian Governments actedresponsibly to take all reasonable steps to

prevent such an event occurring again. To thecredit of all involved, Australian Governmentsdid act responsibly at the time. A nationalweapons scheme was agreed to by allGovernments in Australia.

All Governments, and all parties then inAustralian Parliaments, bore some pain but,despite that, we supported the legislationnecessary to establish that national weaponsscheme. Out of those dreadful events at PortArthur, an important spirit of cooperation andmaturity evolved in terms of intergovernmentalrelations and cooperation on the issue of gunslaws. I for one am pleased that, by and large,that spirit remains in place today.

The Bill aims to refine the legislation whichwas developed in response to the events atPort Arthur. It significantly strengthens thatlegislation and deals with an issue that was notforeseen in 1996. The Bill will amend theWeapons Act 1990 to require the licensing ofcategory H weapons rendered permanentlyinoperable. The Bill also will place greatercontrols on weapons rendered temporarilyinoperable.

In Queensland, a category H weapon isdefined to include a concealable firearm if ithas not been rendered permanentlyinoperable. A "replica" is defined under theWeapons Act to include a category H weaponrendered permanently inoperable. Such aweapon does not require licensing, registrationor any record of disposal. The amendmentswe seek to the Weapons Act are required as amatter of public safety.

Opportunistic and unscrupulous gunsdealers allegedly have been restoring categoryH weapons, which previously were renderedinoperable, to full working order. These dealershave allegedly utilised this loophole toproliferate the sale of supposedly permanentlyinoperable semiautomatic pistols. Theseactions have allowed the dealers to dispose ofallegedly "replica" pistols without any record ofthe purchasers. As a result—and a veryconcerning result it is to Governments andpolice services around the country—a numberof these weapons, fully restored to workingorder, have been found in the hands ofcriminals in Queensland, New South Wales,Victoria and Western Australia.

In response to this situation, anamendment was made to the CommonwealthCustoms (Prohibited Imports) Regulation,effective from 18 August this year, to reducethe opportunity for licensed dealers to importlarge quantities of category H weapons.However, this action alone will not preventunscrupulous dealers or armourers continuing

4180 Police Powers and Responsibilities and Another Act Amendment Bill 9 Nov 2000

this type of activity with category H weaponsalready in Australia or which may be smuggledinto Australia. Very real concerns are held forpublic safety if this activity continues.

The Beattie Labor Government wants toensure the safety of persons in Queensland byamending the Weapons Act to close thisloophole. This amendment is sought toremove the reference to category H weaponsrendered permanently inoperable from thedefinition of "replica" under the Weapons Act.To give effect to the proposed licensingrequirement for these weapons, anamendment is required to the provisiongoverning collectors' licenses to includecategory H weapons rendered permanentlyinoperable. Additional amendments arerequired.

Firstly, to limit the licences issued forweapons rendered temporarily inoperable, it isproposed to make these provisions only applyto those weapons which have an obvious andsignificant commemorative, historic, thematicor investment value. Secondly, an amendmentis sought to change the definition of a"collector" under the Act which will mean theweapon would need to be of commemorative,historic, thematic or investment value. Theseamendments would be consistent withresolutions of the Australasian Police MinistersCouncil meeting held on 7 July 1996. A three-month amnesty will be allowed for personswho have possession of category H weaponsrendered permanently inoperable before thecommencement of the new provisions. This willgive time for those persons to obtain a licencefor their weapon. The amnesty will not apply topersons acquiring category H weaponsrendered permanently inoperable after thecommencement of the amendment.

I now move to the second majorcomponent of this legislation. Earlier this year,this House passed two pieces of legislationwhich had a fundamental impact on policing inQueensland. The Police Powers andResponsibilities Act 2000 and the amendmentAct consolidated all police powers under oneAct in an Australian and possibly world first.However, the most important aspect of thePolice Powers and Responsibilities Act is that itgives our police officers the powers they needto effectively combat crime. The powerscontained in that legislation are helping tomake our communities safer through acommonsense approach to police powers andresponsibilities in a modern policingenvironment.

These powers include DNA testing powersto allow the police to test suspects and all

prisoners in order to build a DNA database;powers covering covert operations which willprotect undercover police and provide stringentprocedures for those operations; move-onpowers allowing police to move-on people fromwar memorials, malls, race tracks and placeswhere street prostitution takes place; andblood and urine testing powers which willenable victims of crime to know if they havecontracted a disease. In addition, thelegislation contains provisions allowing for thediversion of people caught with smallquantities of cannabis to treatment programsand discretion to divert drunks to treatmentfacilities or safe havens. There are a range ofother powers and responsibilities contained inthat groundbreaking legislation. However, allmembers here should be familiar with those bynow.

Today I introduce an amendment Bill toovercome what might be a drafting defect inthe Police Powers and Responsibilities Act2000. The potential defect arises from theinclusion of a reference to the use of force insection 144(d) of the Act. This section allowsfor the use of a tracking device. Primarily, it isfocused on providing magistrates with thepower to issue this limited type of surveillancedevice warrant. On the other hand, section131 of the Act, which permits a Supreme Courtjudge to issue a surveillance device warrant forthe use of more intrusive devices, contains noreference to the use of force to install,maintain, replace or remove these devices. Asa result, an argument has arisen that theabsence of a reference to the use of force insection 131 relating to Supreme Courtwarrants and, conversely, its mention insection 144 relating to magistrates' warrantsmay indicate that the Parliament only intendedto allow force to be used by police wheninstalling, maintaining, replacing or removing asurveillance device under a magistrate'swarrant. I am certain that all honourablemembers will agree that nothing is further fromthe truth.

While I am loath to take up Parliament'stime on an issue of this nature, I will use thisopportunity to clear up any doubt that mightexist. Let me say clearly that it was, and still is,the intention of this Parliament that the use offorce in this case to accompany the exercise ofany power under the Police Powers andResponsibilities Act 2000 or any other Act becentrally located in section 375 of the Act.Indeed, the use of any type of force by apolice officer, whether against a thing animateor inanimate or against an individual, iscentralised within that part of the Actcontaining section 375. Clearly, the

9 Nov 2000 Appropriation Bill (No. 2); Appropriation (Parliament) Bill (No. 2) 4181

consolidation of the use of force powers withina central part of the 2000 Act is done for avery good purpose. It allows a centralreference point for clear understanding ofthose powers and it overcomes the need toconstantly repeat provisions relating to the useof force in individual sections of the Act.

There should be no question as towhether a police officer is entitled to use forcewhen exercising a power under the PolicePowers and Responsibilities Act 2000 or underany other Act. However, if the question arises,the answer is simply to be, yes, they may,because that is the intention of Parliament.Furthermore, honourable members will agree itis the intention of the Parliament that a personhelping a police officer may use reasonableforce under section 375. This includes anyperson assisting in the exercise of any relevantpower under the 2000 Act or any other Act.However, so that an argument does not ariseover a legalistic play on words, section 375 isto be taken to include a person assisting apolice officer to install, maintain, replace orremove a surveillance device, as well as aperson helping a police officer to exercise anyother power. Without the inclusion of the words"it is the intention of Parliament" as apreliminary to each and every section of thePolice Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, Ido not know how to make this any clearer.

Honourable members will note that thisBill has retrospective operation to thecommencement of the Police Powers andResponsibilities Act 2000. I acknowledgeParliament generally exercises great cautionwith Bills that contain retrospective provisions.However, in this case retrospectivity isnecessary to ensure the original intention ofParliament leaves no room for ambiguity. I willmake the point, and I make it as strongly aspossible, that this amendment does not arisefrom any interpretation of the law resultingfrom an appeal lodged with the Court ofAppeal or, for that matter, any legal challengesthat I am aware of. It is a proactiveamendment resulting from legal advice fromthe Solicitor-General that a problem withstatutory interpretation may—and I repeat,only may—arise at some time in the future.Indeed, the problem may never arise or theissue may be resolved in the favour of theprosecution by Appeal Court judges.

Nevertheless, it would be highlyrepugnant to all Queenslanders to think acriminal who has committed an extremelyserious offence could escape justice becauseof a potential misinterpretation of the originalintention of Parliament. I am certainly not

prepared to place myself in the position wherea potential drafting defect in an Act could allowthe likes of a murderer or drug dealer toescape the punishment they deserve. I amsure honourable members will agree with mystance. The amendments to the Police Powersand Responsibilities Act 2000 and theWeapons Act 1990 contained in this legislationare important and necessary for effectivepolicing in Queensland. I urge all members tosupport this legislation. I commend the Bill tothe House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan,adjourned.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2)APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)Resumed from 8 November (see

p. 4141).

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA)(12 p.m.): In my contribution to the debate onthe Appropriation Bills I will speak about anumber of local issues and a number of issuesthat relate to my shadow portfolio. I will speakfirst about my electorate of ToowoombaSouth. There are a number of very importantissues.

In the Toowoomba area at the momentthere is a window of opportunity for some ofthe greatest economic development that thisState has ever seen. I refer particularly to theproposal to pump recycled water from south-eastern Queensland to provide secureirrigation supplies in the Lockyer Valley and onthe Darling Downs. That will have animmediate $200m a year economic benefit.Work is proceeding on an engineering studythat will identify the infrastructure costs of thatproject.

There has been good support from theFederal Government, through Deputy PrimeMinister John Anderson. There has also beensupport from the Brisbane City Council. TheState Government, through an interagencycommittee, has provided funding for one ofthe feasibility studies—of course, the firstfeasibility study was funded by the coalitionGovernment—and for the current engineeringstudy of infrastructure costs. It looks to be agreat proposal that will provide for economicbenefit to the Darling Downs and for a majorincrease in exports. It will solve theenvironmental problems of Moreton Bay andthe Brisbane River. It will also provide a partsolution to the environmental problems in theMurray-Darling system further down in thisState and in other States.

4182 Appropriation Bill (No. 2); Appropriation (Parliament) Bill (No. 2) 9 Nov 2000

Associated with this proposal for water isthe exciting proposal by Everald Compton andthe Australian Transport and Energy Corridorto provide a four foot eight and a half inch linefrom Melbourne right through western NewSouth Wales to Toowoomba, from there toFisherman Islands and now, after a meeting inToowoomba yesterday—with support againfrom Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson toundertake a further feasibility study—up toEmerald and from there to the port ofGladstone. This is a visionary project thatwould make use of substantial amounts of thestandard gauge railway line that is already inplace. Importantly, it will enable peopleproducing exports and people who areimporting to run very long trains and to double-stack the containers on those particulartrains—to really bring about a transportrevolution for many States in Australia.

Associated with these two proposals is theplan for a second range crossing on thenorthern edge of Toowoomba, to be fundedby the Commonwealth Government. Anamount in the order of $24.5m has alreadybeen provided. A substantial amount of thathas been used in purchasing properties in theidentified corridor. It is important that thatproject comes forward as quickly as possible.

The Warrego Highway throughToowoomba carries the largest volume offreight in Australia. It is the route for transportsemitrailers and B-doubles going fromBrisbane to Darwin and from Brisbane toMelbourne. Anyone who sees the volume ofsemitrailers going through the main east-weststreet of Toowoomba, James Street, and theproblems that causes at every intersectioncontrolled by traffic lights—they have to gothrough 14 or 15 of these intersections and oneither side of the lights there will be six orseven B-doubles—knows that this secondrange crossing is very important. Moreimportantly for the transport industry, thatrange crossing would take half an hour, three-quarters of an hour or maybe more off thetravelling time from Brisbane to Melbourne. Itwould allow the trucks to access the range atabout 80 kilometres an hour.

Associated with these three proposals isthe proposal for a major transport andwarehouse hub just to the western side ofToowoomba. This, together with the excitingdevelopment by Everald Compton to look atthe feasibility of taking that four foot, eight inchline up to Emerald and across to the east toGladstone, means that this area just west ofToowoomba could become the major regionaltransport and warehousing hub and collectioncentre for Australia. It could bring about the

economic development, employment, growthand development that is so necessary in ruralparts of Australia. Geographically it is ideallylocated. With its association with these otherexciting projects—the second range crossing,making the crossing of the range far easier,and the water proposal, which will make theDarling Downs one of the greatest food andagriculture producers in the world—and withaccess to export opportunities it will be quiteamazing.

There are two proposals. One is byEDROC for a transport and warehouse hub atCharlton. The other is by a private company,Wagners, which is a very successful transportand quarrying company in Toowoomba, to notonly develop their property at Wellcamp Downsinto a major transport and warehouse hub butalso have bunded industrial sites that canprovide for a whole range of industrialactivities.

I liken these four proposals to the sort ofdevelopment that happened in centralQueensland back in the 1970s and 1980swhen coalmines were opened, rail lines werebuilt and ports were developed on the eastcoast. It provided a major boost to centralQueensland. It is the sort of thing that regionalQueensland has been looking for. With goodcooperation in these four projects by localgovernments, the State Government, theFederal Government and private enterprise,this will certainly be a major boost toQueensland. It is what Queensland needs, it iswhat the Darling Downs needs and it is whatToowoomba needs. I urge the StateGovernment—through the various Ministersinvolved in the water proposal, those involvedin assisting Everald Compton in his work, thoseinvolved in transport, in urging the ongoingconstruction of this second range crossing,and those involved in the EDROC processeswith the Charlton warehouse and transportconcept—to support these projects for thebetterment of our State.

I will speak briefly about the developmentof the hospice in Toowoomba by a communitycommittee. Toowoomba being a majorregional centre, it is essential that there be ahospice for the dying in our city. The peopleinvolved in the committee, under theleadership of Graham Barron and others,particularly Sister Flint, have done anenormous amount of work in developing theplans. They have been to look at the verysuccessful community hospice at Ipswich. Todate they have raised somewhere in the orderof a quarter of a million dollars towards theconstruction of the hospice. They still have along way to go. They have to raise somewhere


in the order of $500,000 or $600,000. Theyhave received a lot of gifts in kind as well. TheToowoomba City Council has provided theland for the hospice. The hospice is planned toprovide in the order of six beds. It will be agreat boost to those families who would like tosee their loved ones who are suffering from aterminal illness have access to the comfort of ahospice, which is like a home but which stillhas the highly professional and committedcare that is necessary.

Once this hospice is developed and paidfor by the community, I think it will be importantfor the Queensland Government to step in andprovide some form of assistance in the area ofrecurrent budget. I know it has been done inother instances. As a member of the previousGovernment I had some involvement with theIpswich hospice, as did the Health Ministerwho preceded me. It is difficult for communitygroups to cover the ongoing costs. In relationto hospices being developed in variousregional areas, if Government can providesomething like the cost of one nurse 24 hoursa day, then the balance of the nursing care,personal care, administration and everythingelse can be funded by that community throughtheir annual fundraising and the volunteersystems they put in place.

What has happened to the ToowoombaBase Hospital during the term of this LaborGovernment has been an absolute tragedy.There have been reductions in the number ofbeds and in the number of staff. The morale atthe hospital has become such that it is verydifficult to replace specialists who have left thathospital. Today I will give one example of thetragic reduction in services.

On the first weekend of the schoolholidays a father came in an ambulance fromChinchilla with his daughter, who had a badlybroken arm. That happened to be the day theToowoomba hospital was on bypass. Canhonourable members imagine a hospital thesize of Toowoomba being on bypass to theambulance? The ambulance officers were toldto take this child, who had a badly broken arm,either to one of the private hospitals inToowoomba—that is, St Vincents Hospital,which now thankfully has an accident andemergency unit for those people who haveprivate health cover—or to Ipswich or Brisbane.

I do not think it has happened before inour history that the accident and emergencycentre at Toowoomba has had to be bypassedby ambulances in favour of Ipswich orBrisbane. Toowoomba is a city of 90,000people and it has a surrounding immediatepopulation of some 40,000 or 50,000. It is the

major regional centre for all of the south-westof Queensland. We are a city like Townsville.That there was an instruction issued to anambulance that it had to bypass the hospital isan absolute disgrace. It shows the level towhich the service has dropped at this hospitaland the drastic need for an improvement inthe direction of and the management andpolicy that exists at regional hospitals inQueensland, but particularly at theToowoomba Base Hospital.

What is needed at Toowoomba is ameasure of truth and a measure ofcommunication. We need to get together withthe senior specialists, staff and senior nurseswho are committed to the hospital. Somepeople have worked there for 25 years. Eventhough they are private practitioners, theyhave given their valuable and committedservice as specialists to the hospital for 25years, yet they have been totally left out of theloop in terms of changes that have beenmade in the past couple of years. I certainlyhope that the change of administration bringsabout a better understanding of theimportance of the Toowoomba Base Hospitalso that things like Accident and Emergencycan be open 24 hours a day and there is nodirection for ambulances to drive 100kilometres or more down the road to Ipswich.

I also want to speak about the policestation at Toowoomba. It is very important thatit be redeveloped as a major new watch-houseand police station. That project has been onthe books for some time and, as the localmember, I certainly appreciate the fact that Inegotiated with three members of the LaborGovernment on a proposal for a majorredevelopment in the inner city that may haveinvolved the police station property. Wereceived assistance on that; that may haveheld up the construction of the police stationfor 12 to 18 months. In the meantime, somegood accommodation has been found forpolice—for the traffic branch in premisesnearby the police station and for the districtoffice in other facilities nearby. An amount of$100,000 has been provided in this Budget forthe police station and it is important that thatproject continues and that a date is set for thecommencement of construction in the newfinancial year, because it will take 18 monthsto two years to complete the new watch-house, which is desperately needed, and thepolice station. I have asked a question onnotice of the Police Minister but he has beennon-committal on a commencement date. Icertainly ask that that construction commencesin the next financial year.


I also quickly mention that we have beenable to obtain some funding for newgymnastics and indoor facilities at theHarristown State High School. It is one of thegreat high schools of Queensland now; it isabout the second biggest high school in theState. It enjoys a fantastic reputation for itsacademic, cultural and sporting activities.

As patron of the Police Citizens YouthClub, I am also pushing very hard to get somefunding to extend the club. It has almost 3,000members. It does a fantastic job for thechildren of the inner city part of Toowoomba indeveloping young leaders and providing thosechildren with all sorts of gymnastics, judo andother activities. The proposal for the PoliceCitizens Youth Club means that it will have anInternet cafe-type arrangement in the newbuilding. The location of the facility in themiddle part of the city will encourage youngpeople to come through the doors of thePCYC and, once they have come through thedoors, they will see the various activities thatare available. I believe that the activitiesprovided by the Police Citizens Youth Clubprovide our greatest opportunities to preventcrime. The Toowoomba City Council isproviding the PCYC with up to $400,000towards this project. So it is the case that thepeople of our community are prepared to puttheir hands in their pockets and fund thisproject; we are seeking a similar amount fromthe State Government.

I want to touch on a comment that thePremier made this morning regarding thequestion I placed on notice yesterday aboutfuel prices. The Premier has plenty to sayabout fuel prices but not much in the way ofanswers. I have asked Minister Spence aquestion on notice about the price differentialof 9c that exists on the price of fuel at petrolstations that are only about 10 to 50kilometres from Toowoomba on the WarregoHighway. I understand that perhaps somepetrol stations have a bigger volume ofthroughput than others, but a 9c differentialjust does not make sense at all. I hope thatthe Minister for Fair Trading can tell me whataction can be taken so that Toowoombamotorists can have the advantage of thecheap prices that are available 10 to 50kilometres down the road on the eastern sideof the city.

In the time that remains, I turn to mattersrelating to my shadow portfolio of Police andCorrective Services. In the area of CorrectiveServices some serious financial problems nodoubt emanate from this Budget. There havealready been moves to cut eight staff fromcommunity corrections—one of the most

important aspects of Corrective Services—andmoves to increase that number to 31. This willaffect community corrections people inregional areas of Queensland in particular. Thearea managers have discussed what isrequired of them. I have my theory on this; Ireckon that this is because of the equity return.No matter how the Treasury Department andthe various Ministers try to cover up the equityreturn, they have to find that amount ofmoney. The Treasurer can say that he isproviding the money for them to pay it back;that is a lot of rubbish and hoo-ha. Thedepartments have to find this equity returnmoney out of their existing budgets and it isstarting to bite, and bite deep.

Just last week we saw a fire in a laundryat one of the jails here in Brisbane. That firespread to the extent that it burnt out wires,which meant that the maximum security unitcould not be used. Then it got into B Blockand half of B Block was gutted. The prisonerswho were locked in their cells could not beremoved from them because the officers incharge of that block did not have thequalifications to use breathing apparatus; theyhad to bring officers from a block about 70metres away. That is another example of theshortage of money in Corrective Services. Thedepartment just does not have the funds forenough staff; there are not enough funds toensure officers attain suitable qualifications.We can see the dangers present incircumstances as the fire I have justmentioned.

Look at some of the problems that haveoccurred at Woodford: prisoners were bashedso savagely that they were put into thePrincess Alexandra Hospital suffering fromhead injuries; warders have been injured in thebashings. That is another prime example ofthe result of the lack of funds and the lack ofadequate staffing to provide staff security inthose various very dangerous positions.

When it comes to police numbers, thecoalition Government can hold its head highand take great pride in the way it introducedthe second police academy, at Townsville. Itdid that despite the opposition of the thenshadow Police Minister, Mr Barton. As a resultof that massive recruitment program anddoubling in the number of police academies,there has been a huge increase in policenumbers, which has been a wonderful legacywe left to the Labor Government.

Compare that with the legacy that it leftthe coalition. When we attained Government,Queensland had some of the worst police-to-population ratios in Australia. The police


recruitment system was actually delivering anet loss of numbers to the Police Service. Wehad to pick up the pieces; we had to puttogether a new academy and put in placeincreased courses to provide these extranumbers. We hear the Police Minister makingdishonest and hypocritical statements that theincrease in police numbers under the BeattieGovernment is greater than that under thecoalition Government. That is the sort ofhypocrisy the people are getting sick of. Theyare sick of politicians twisting the truth. He onlyhas to say that there was a great system put inplace that started to deliver these massivenumbers and that within a matter of about 18months it delivered the targeted increase ofsomething like 320 to 350 extra police peryear. Queenslanders can thank the coalitionGovernment for the system we put in placeand what it is delivering.

But if we travel around the State and askpolice, particularly in country and rural areas,what they think, they will say, "Where are thepolice? Where are these numbers? We're notseeing them." Have a look at the vacancies inIpswich. There are 23 vacancies there. Thereare five vacancies at Warwick. The departmentcannot fill vacancies at major towns likeIpswich and Warwick. That is indicative of theadministration under this Minister; he cannotfix the problem of vacancies. Despite themassive increase in police numbers thatoccurred under the coalition Government,many parts of rural Queensland do not haverelief pools to provide relief to rural policestations.

Let us look at crime figures. There hasbeen a 7.6% increase in property crime, eventhough we have had this large increase inpolice numbers.

I would like to talk about the MetropolitanNorth area of Brisbane, that region of thePolice Service where the cluster systembrought in by the Labor Government has beena total failure. If elected to office, we in thecoalition Government will get rid of the clustersystem. We will give back to the people of thenorth side of Brisbane police stations andpolice officers based in the suburbs and theareas of Brisbane North where they live so thatthey can have confidence in a police sergeantand a senior constable they know and so thatthey can approach these officers and theirstaff who will know where the villains and themischief-makers are, who will have a bit oflocal knowledge and will be able to bring downthe rate of crime, particularly the break andenters and property crime that is escalating ata rate of 7.6% across the State.

We are already seeing the LaborGovernment repeating the mistakes ofclustering. It is going to centralise a largenumber of CIBs on the north side of Brisbane.For example, Boondall, Hendra, Sandgate andPetrie will be grouped together. All the staff willbe concentrated in one station to cover thatlarge area. It will bring together Indooroopillyand Ferny Grove and station the detectives atFerny Grove. Imagine detectives stationed atFerny Grove going out to investigatesomething at Bellbowrie, which is about half aday's drive away!

Once again, we see the Labor Partycentralising police functions, which means thatpeople in the suburbs do not have contact withtheir police officers and that police officers donot have the intimate local knowledge theyneed to increase their clear-up rates and toprevent crime.

I would also like to congratulate themembers of the coalition on the SunshineCoast who have been fighting a major battlefor justice to get enough police—

Time expired.

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(12.20 p.m.): In addressing the AppropriationBills, I want to detail to the House the hoax ofthis Government's Smart State policy. As withso much that this Premier has engaged in, it isinherently dishonest and it is inherentlydeceitful. We have heard a great deal ofpolitical capital made by this Premier and thisGovernment about how he is transforming theeconomy of Queensland into the neweconomy, and how we are now one of theleading new economies, not just in Australiabut pretty well anywhere around the world as aresult of his commitment and his policies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Infact, some very real figures and statistics arecoming through to indicate that, despite thebest efforts of many homegrownentrepreneurs and companies that have cometo Queensland over a long time, we are notgetting the direction that we should be gettingin relation to IT & C.

I recently addressed a question onnotice—No. 1092—to the Premier in relation tothe amount of State Government grants forresearch into biotechnology actually paid overa period of time. The answer is worth detailingto the House. The Premier said—

"The Queensland Government iscommitted to supporting and expandingbiotechnology research in both the publicand private sectors."


I am talking now specifically of biotech. ThePremier continued—

"To this end, the Government hasmade grants totalling approximately$198,925 in 1998/99, $7,481,260 in1999/00 and $4,806,200 up to 30/9/00."

Let us examine the financial year 1999-2000. This is the Premier who says,"Biotechnology is the future of this State. I amleading this charge. I am transforming theQueensland economy." In the financial year1999-2000, the Premier stated that thefollowing funds were paid by the StateGovernment—

"$932,141 to the University ofQueensland, representing the first twopayments of a $15m grant for building theInstitute for Molecular Bioscience at the StLucia campus."

That was an initiative of the previous coalitionGovernment. In fact, I negotiated Centenary ofFederation funding with the Prime Minister sothat the Institute of Molecular Bioscience atthe University of Queensland could haveaccess to Commonwealth funds. The Premiercannot claim that as his.

Let us go down the list. The Premiercontinued—

"$6m representing the first paymentof a $20m grant towards the completionof a comprehensive Cancer ResearchCentre, which will host research teamsfrom various universities (Griffith,University of Queensland)."

This is an admirable project, and we support it.Why do we support it? We support it becauseit was an initiative of the previous coalitionGovernment. The honourable member forToowoomba South, who was then Minister forHealth, took the submission and thearguments to the then Cabinet Budget ReviewCommittee so that the previous coalitionGovernment could make the commitment forthat funding. So $7m of the $7.4m that thisGovernment is spending in regard tobiotechnology in Queensland comes frominitiatives of the previous National/LiberalGovernment.

Let us look at what the Premier has doneand what he can call his own. We see $3,000towards expenses incurred by a leadingscientist from James Cook University to speakat Bio 2000 in the United States, $15,000 tothe North Queensland Cardiac VascularInstitute, $15,000 to prepare a report for thedevelopment of a north Queenslandbiotechnology industry cluster, $5,000 tosponsor a delegation of United States

commercial experts to travel to Townsville andconduct workshops, $24,490 to the Universityof Queensland, $175,000 to separateorganisations associated with the University ofQueensland and $12,500 to the CentralQueensland University for research intoadvanced waste water treatment.

I do not quibble with that, but what I amsaying is that if the Premier is backing hisbiotech record on this, it is a pretty pitiful effort.The University of Southern Queensland isdoing some exciting things in the entire area ofresearch and development across a wholesphere of applications, but has it receivedanything in this brave new world of PremierBeattie? I certainly cannot find it in thePremier's response.

Mr Horan: Australia's and the world'sNo. 1 university.

Mr BORBIDGE: Australia and the world'sNo. 1 university, as the honourable memberreminds me. In 1999-2000, we find that $7mof the $7.4m in respect of biotechnologyfunding and initiatives for universities and formajor institutes in this State was committed bythe previous coalition Government. ThePremier has found about $400,000 and hehas the Al Gore syndrome. We have heardthis story about how the Vice President, whostill might be President, invented the Internet.The current Premier thinks that he inventedbiotechnology. The reality is that, of that$7.4m, $7m was set aside for initiatives of theprevious coalition Government.

I want to speak more widely aboutinformation technology and communications,and I want to talk about the key performanceindicators because they are a very real causefor concern and expose the chasm betweenthe Premier's rhetoric and the Premier'sactions. I want to talk about theunemployment rate, average weekly earnings,business bankruptcies, the number of venturecapital investments, the value of venturecapital investments and the preparedness ofthe State of Queensland for e-commerce.

I am advised that the unemployment ratehas drifted up on this morning's figures and itis now 7.6%. But let us look at lastmonth—7.5% in Queensland and 6.4% inAustralia. We have the third highest figure inAustralia. We are level-pegging SouthAustralia. We are managing, under PremierBeattie, to beat Tasmania. I guess the Premierstill has not managed to undermine us to theextent of that unfortunately economicallycrippled State.

I refer to performance indicator No. 2. Letus have a look at average weekly earnings.


Male weekly earnings in August 1998—justafter Premier Beattie came to office—were$711. In August 2000, male weekly earningswere $705. Male weekly earnings havedropped under the Labor Government inQueensland. At the same time, the Australianaverage increased from $721 to $727.

Let us have a look at performanceindicator No. 3—business bankruptcies. In1997-98, there were 1,352 bankruptcies andthe Australian average was 691. In 1998-99,there were 1,678 and the Australian averagewas 844. In 1999-2000, on the latest figuresavailable to us, Queensland is accounting for28% of Australia's bankruptcies.

Let us look now more specifically at thehigh-tech sector. I refer to the number ofventure capital investments for the Decemberquarter 1999: New South Wales and Victoria,89; Queensland, Western Australia and SouthAustralia, 34; Queensland's contribution, nine.In terms of the number of new venture capitalinvestments, the total for 1999: New SouthWales and Victoria, 269; Queensland,Western Australia and South Australia, 102;Queensland's contribution, 31. Yet the Premierwould have us believe that we are leading notonly Australia but also the Pacific Rim—we areleading; we are leaving everyone else behindin our dust. It is simply not true. We areslipping further and further behind.

I turn now to performance indicator No. 5,venture capital investment for the Decemberquarter 1999: Queensland, $18m; New SouthWales and Victoria, $192m; Queensland,Western Australia and South Australia, $51m;Queensland's contribution, $18m. The total for1999 in venture capital investment:Queensland, $65m; New South Wales andVictoria, $573m; Queensland, WesternAustralia and South Australia combined,$147m. So the total for 1999: New SouthWales and Victoria, $573m; Queensland,$65m.

I refer now to Queensland's preparednessfor e-commerce. We hear a lot about thepotential for e-commerce and how important itis in terms of this new economy that PremierBeattie and his colleagues insist that theyhave created in this State over the past twoyears—as though nothing ever happenedbefore. According to the Allen PreparednessIndex, the consumption BtoC E-com andsupply cluster BtoB e-com/Governmentinitiatives, Queensland ranks second last withTasmania just ahead of the Northern Territory.So under this high-tech guru, the Premier ofQueensland, who claims that he inventedbiotechnology, who claims that he is

positioning Queensland across-the-board to bethe modern, new-age economy in Australia,Queensland rates second last with Tasmania,just ahead of the Northern Territory, in respectof the Allen Preparedness Index for e-commerce.

I believe that those figures are alarming. Ibelieve that those figures indicate firmly thatthe Smart State is nothing more than a publicrelations gimmick by a smart political operator.The reality is that, under those figures,compared to other parts of Australia MrBeattie's Smart State does not exist. It is apolicy hoax. It is a policy vacuum. It is emptyrhetoric that is simply not based on appropriateaction or the appropriate implementation ofpolicies.

In the time that is available to me, I wantto talk about one of our older industries. I wantto talk about the total betrayal of the GoldCoast and the tourism industry by the memberfor Currumbin, who currently pretends to bethe Minister for Tourism in this State. We haveseen a number of major decisions made bythis Government that send a shiver down thespines of investors. I just want to talk abouttwo. I want to talk firstly about the Brisbanelight rail project—and we know that theBrisbane light rail project was effectivelysabotaged by the Minister for families, youthand other such matters, Ms Bligh.

Mr Horan: It would have done greatthings for West End.

Mr BORBIDGE: It would have done greatthings for her electorate. But we know that shemanaged to convince the Minister forTransport and her Cabinet colleagues that theproject should not proceed.

The damage that was done was that theGovernment actively encouraged a number ofkey consortia to spend money and to developproposals based on their stated acceptance ofa particular course of action. Then, of course,we had the reversal and collectively thosecompanies ended up being out of pocket bymillions and millions and millions of dollars. Iwould not have had a problem if, on coming toGovernment, Premier Beattie had said, "Wedon't support the light rail project. It is thepolicy of the Labor Party to discontinue it." Atleast then the private sector would have knownthe rules and they would not have continuedto plough millions and millions of dollars into aprocess—

Mr Horan: Leads them up the gardenpath, like he did with the RNA. He leads themup the garden path, but he knows what he isgoing to do with it.


Mr BORBIDGE: He leads them up thegarden path and, millions and millions ofdollars later, they are out of pocket. Thosecompanies will not say much, because theyhave to work, live and operate with thisGovernment and with the Brisbane CityCouncil. However, the simple fact is that thenext time the Government wants to dosomething, there will be a lot of major playersaround Australia asking, "How can you believeanything that the Queensland Governmentsays? They are just as likely to do a backflip.We are just as likely to spend a few milliondollars and we are just as likely to do ourdough. We will go somewhere else. We will goto New South Wales. We will go to Victoria.We will go to South Australia. We will go toWestern Australia."

That is precisely what this Governmenthas done in regard to Naturelink. ThePremier's justification for scrapping Naturelinkyesterday was that it was an election promisethat there would be no commercialdevelopment in national parks. Why did thePremier not tell the proponents then?

Mr Horan: Week one.

Mr BORBIDGE: Why didn't the Premiertell them that on week one or on day one?Why did his own Government have this projectdescribed as a project of major Statesignificance as recently as last December andhave Ministers like the Minister for StateDevelopment actively encouraging theproponents to go ahead and spendmoney—some $3m?

Again, I say to members opposite: I wouldnot have such a difficulty with what they havedone—although I do; but I would not have adifficulty to the same extent—if, when theybecame the Government, they had said, "Thisis our policy. Don't spend any more money onit. We have made a commitment that there willbe no commercial development in nationalparks. We can't see how you can get aroundthat. So forget about it. Sorry, fellas." But theydid not do that. The members oppositeencouraged the proponents of this particularproject to spend $3m, under the auspices oftheir Government, under the guidance of theirGovernment, only at the 11th hour to make adecision not based on good Government butbased on political expediency and the fact thatthe discredited Minister for Tourism is going toneed green preferences and green support ifshe is going to have any hope at all of holdingher marginal seat of Currumbin at the nextState election. Once again, we see adeliberate pandering to the environmentallobby so that come the next election the

members opposite can maximise theirchances of receiving green preferences notonly in Currumbin but in other seats as well.

I believe that the members opposite havetreated the proponents of Naturelink in ashabby, disgraceful and disgusting manner.They encouraged them, just like theyencouraged the people who came forward inthe expressions of interest process in regard tothe Brisbane light rail project. The membersopposite wonder why private sector investmentis falling away. They are wondering why theycannot get the big projects up. They wonderwhy they cannot achieve the Premier's 5%unemployment election promise. They wonderwhy job creation in Queensland is running athalf the level it was when they came to officein 1998.

The fact is that this Government has donea dingo act so many times on the corporatesector and on the investment community thatthey do not trust them and they do not want todo business in Queensland anymore. Theyhave undermined the business investmentclimate in this State. I say that this Premier hasundermined the business investment climatein this State in a manner in which his Laborpredecessor, the former member for Logan,would never have contemplated. I can onlyassume that the former Premier had betteradvice.

This Government has done enormousdamage. Despite being the Smart State, it hasfailed to deliver in terms of IT and T. It hasfailed to deliver much at all over and above theprevious coalition's commitments in respect ofbiotechnology. In regard to the investmentcommunity in this State, it has shown not onlyto the investment community in this State butalso the investment community elsewhere thatit is a Government that cannot be trusted, thatits word will not necessarily be honoured.

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—CCAQ)(12.39 p.m.): I rise to take part in this debateon the Appropriation Bill and, in doing so, I,too, want to refer to some of the performancesof the Beattie Labor Government and itscommitment to jobs, especially in highunemployment areas. Of course, myelectorate of Caboolture is certainly one ofthose.

I know that, as the previous speaker said,the push is on for Queensland to become theSmart State. There is a big push to keep ourchildren in school and to actually push themon to achieve in higher education. I take onboard that there is this real push to makeQueensland the Smart State. I hope that it isnot just a ploy to hide the real unemployment


statistics but a genuine push to spur on ourchildren to indeed achieve in the highereducation area, especially at university andTAFE. But then again, we always wonder.

This cannot be done without thecommitment—and real commitment—from thisGovernment to support higher education andthe concept to its fullest. There is aproposal—and I want to highlight this—in myelectorate of Caboolture for a universitycampus. That proposal is for a partnershipbetween TAFE, the QUT and local and Federalgovernments. That needs highlightingconstantly. It certainly needs support fromevery level of Government to ensure that thisproject gets the success that it deserves. Thisproject needs real support, real initiatives fromthis Government and perhaps a little bit ofincentive and money to push it on.

I want to highlight that students from theCaboolture Shire either have to travel toBrisbane or to the Sunshine Coast to receivetheir tertiary education. I do not have toexplain to this Government the direcircumstances of the Caboolture electorate interms of unemployment and job security.Caboolture always seems to end up being thepoorer cousin of most other places. Certainlythere is that umbrella aspect when we considersome of the things that have been given.However, this time Caboolture needs to beable to cut down on those transport costs thatare a burden on most of the families of thatelectorate. Those transport costs areinextricably tied to the ability of students togain those tertiary qualifications.

I certainly do not need those financialburdens explained to me, as my daughter is inthe last days of her double arts degree at theUniversity of Queensland where she will alsograduate with a Bachelor of Education. Thishas been a hard four-year slog for her, and ithas certainly been a real drain on the pursestrings of the Feldman family just to get her toand from the university. A lot of the lecturetimes do not correlate with public transport toand from Caboolture, especially trying to meetbuses if my daughter goes by train. Also, thecurrent cost of petrol has added to thefinancial burden not just of my family, but mostother people whose children are travelling toand from Brisbane or to and from theSunshine Coast to enable their children to gaina tertiary qualification.

My daughter has also had to tie herselfdown with part-time employment. It is the onlyway she is going to be able to save somemoney to put behind her as she approachesbeing in full-time employment. This ties her to

Caboolture, so she is not able to live inBrisbane or take some other job down here,and she sorely needs the income from thatpart-time job to get her through.

Our children in Caboolture need that part-time work to assist with family budgets.However, it restricts the time available to ourchildren to actually educate themselves. Mostof them opt for a longer period of educationrather than trying to get it all done in the shortterm. They actually stretch their degree outover a longer period and try to work their waythrough it. The families in the Cabooltureelectorate—as is the case in your electorate,Mr Deputy Speaker—are not very well off. Thechildren need to try to better themselves, andtheir parents support them in doing that.Throughout their time at university, of course,they are also building up a HECS debt. Thatwill downgrade their eventual pay packet asthe tax man takes his extra cut—that is, if theydo in fact get the job that they dreamt of forthe four years or so that they toiled hard atuniversity.

That brings me to another small matterthat is connected with appropriation, and thatis the money that has been allocated to thenorthern bypass of Caboolture. Theresumption process has begun. It is good tosee that this project has finally been givenapproval and the money has been allocated.However, the people of Caboolture andWamuran are still looking to see when thiswork will actually commence. The Minister forTransport, the Honourable Steve Bredhauer,made a promise earlier this year in regard tothe Moodlu Bridge. It is a very dangerous littlebridge. It actually has a curved entrance andexit which makes passing, especially passingof heavy vehicles, very dangerous. Heavytransport travelling between Caboolture,Woodford and Kilcoy out to the BrisbaneValley and then on to areas such as Kingaroyuses that particular route. Buses also have totravel along that route. Several vehicles havecollided on the Moodlu Bridge. It is a verycommon occurrence for trucks and buses tolose their mirrors as they pass each other onthat very dangerous little bridge, which goesover the old Wamuran railway spur.

The promise made by the Minister forTransport was that this bridge would be goneby Christmas, but I do not think that will occur.I do not think the residents and the children ofCaboolture and Wamuran will get thatChristmas present, and I think they will bedisappointed when Santa does not deliver it. Ihope that there are not more serious incidentson that bridge which result in devastation overthe Christmas period.


That leads me to a couple of negativecomments that I must make in regard to whatis happening in Caboolture at the moment. Inote that the Honourable Leader of theOpposition touched on the issue ofbankruptcy, and this seems to be a realpossibility for the people I am about to speakof. I want to tell the House about the plight ofa Caboolture small business operator. He is anauto-electrician, a car air-conditioner repairerand fitter. He lives with his wife and fourchildren. These two people, who are the realsalt of the earth dad and mum, kicked off theirsmall business in Caboolture some 16 yearsago.

I am talking of Steve and Annette Ross.Steve served this country with distinction in theRoyal Australian Navy, and after six years hetook his option to retire. With his wife Annetteand their children, he returned to his hometown of Caboolture and they set up this smallbusiness. They took advantage of the homeloan available to ex-servicemen to purchase amodest dwelling on Pumicestone Road atCaboolture, which was a rural and residentialarea at that time.

Like most people, Steve sought to betterhimself, and a bank loan later theycommenced the operation of their smallbusiness called Cab-Air. Steve worked fromhome with his truck. He put in long hours; heworked his tail off to make his business viable,and it certainly was viable. Steve has alwaysworked hard and supported the communitythrough various clubs and charities. Heassisted the Caboolture Cricket Club, theCaboolture Soccer Club and the Grant RoadSports Centre where his children engaged intheir love of recreational activity. Steve andAnnette also supported the naval cadets atBribie Island. He is an instructor and his wife,Annette, is a member of the committee.

Steve's hard work enabled his business toexpand and he moved into small premises offMorayfield Road. He then began to employand train job seekers from the Caboolture andMorayfield areas. At one time Steve employedfive people, but he currently employs three inhis small workshop at Morayfield Road. He stillmaintains his on-road service to his customersfrom his vehicles. As I have said, Steve alwaysgave back to the community that he did notwant to leave. He built extensions onto hishome, which he turned into a five-bedroom,two-bathroom highset with a large doublelockup garage in the backyard. Security wasalso installed in the garage, because hehouses all of his work equipment in his truck.The lifeblood of his business is in that shed. As

he is an auto-electrician, he is often called outto do on-road work after hours.

Annette has always worked alongsideSteve in the business and provided the clericalsupport that a struggling small businessneeds. However, this year has seen a doubleblow dealt to this hardworking Aussie battlerand his family. The GST hit his business with athud and he has seen a downturn in hisnormal trade of over 20%. He only said to methe other day that he knows this is a sign ofthe hard economic times that all families arefacing, and he reflected on how hard it mustbe for other families as well. Of course, Steveis a bit like that; he thinks of others a lot morethan he thinks of himself. He reflected on howthese people are now probably driving aroundin unroadworthy vehicles because they cannotafford to have them fixed.

It was the Liberal coalition Governmentthat dealt that blow to Steve with theintroduction of the GST. But now the trifecta ofbad luck has descended on him in the form ofthe Beattie Labor Government and the MainRoads Department as they set about toresume his house and land on PumicestoneRoad for the construction of the northernbypass of Caboolture. In the original plans forthe bypass, Steve's house was not to betouched but, because of an oversight inrelation to the duplication of the railway linebetween Caboolture and Landsborough, theon and off ramps had to be relocated andthere was a need to resume the Rosshomestead. Of course, this resumptionprocess of Steve's and Annette's place is theend result.

Steve and Annette do not want to standin the way of the betterment of Caboolture, butthey expect just compensation for their houseand land. There is no denying that the areawhere Steve bought his home is apredominantly lower socioeconomic area andthat there are predominantly high-set, threebedroom homes. The compensation that hasbeen set is probably reflective of those three-bedroom dwellings, not of the place that hepossesses which he built himself. He made hishouse a home and he does not really want tosell it or move out, but he is being forced to dojust that. He wants just compensation or to becompensated on just terms, as they say in thatwell-known movie The Castle.

I had a meeting in my office with threerepresentatives of the Main RoadsDepartment, Annette Ross and her legaladviser. Annette pleaded her case, in tears attimes, but that appears to have fallen on somedeaf bureaucratic ears. It appears that even


though our home is our castle, it can bestripped away from us with no considerationgiven to the way we have extended it, built itup or dreamt of maintaining it over, as in thiscase, 16 years.

Annette even pleaded with them to find asimilar home with the same amenities in thesame area that they could move straight intobut, alas, they could not. Annette herself hadspent the last 12 months since the notificationof the bypass changes trying to find one inthat affordable price range that the MainRoads Department advised her that theywould probably be offering her ascompensation. As Annette has said, realestate agents have just laughed at her whenshe has tried to find a place similar to hers inthat price range. She does not seem to beable to get some recompense from MainRoads in relation to the compensation for herhome in its current state. It is no wonder MainRoads did not take up the challenge to go upand have a look, because they, too, knew thatit would probably be virtually impossible to findone for that price where she currently is or inthe Caboolture area.

I say to the Minister that it is not goodenough by a long shot to offer the smallcompensation that they have been offered. Ifa home is not located for them straight awaythat they can move into, they cannot swapover that defence services home loan. So theywill lose that cheap home loan that theycurrently have and it will be gone forever.Considering the way the banks are lending atthe moment and the rates, they know thatthey have lost the ability to own a home suchas the one they own now. Of course, theyhave already borrowed on the equity in thehome for the business, so the business will begone as well.

So in one stroke of a bureaucrat's penanother five people have been added to theunemployment queues at the Caboolture CESand four more children will suffer needlessly.Struggling sports clubs and organisations thatSteve and Annette supported over time aregoing to be the other losers in the community.They know all about those possibilities. All thiscould be changed with the extra few thousanddollars that they have asked for as just and faircompensation, and which should be paid tothem.

Steve and Annette are totally disgustedwith the process and so are their many friendsand supporters, most previous Laborsupporters, too, I might add until this action toresume their home and not truly compensatethem for it. I believe the Minister might have

one more opportunity to act fair, reasonablyand justly when Steve and Annette meetagain with him and his representatives. I praythat, with a bit more action, a more beneficialoutcome for them and the Caboolturecommunity might result.

Speaking of the resumption process, Ishould say that the people of Ningi are alsolooking to more fruitful and beneficialdiscussions with the Main Roads Departmentand the representatives of Cardno MBK andAssociates who are doing the study out thereat the moment with respect to the proposedbypass of Ningi. This, I know, is under way.They would like me to highlight here thatconsideration should be rightfully given to thetwo options that they have written to theMinister for Transport about, and those twooptions have received the majority ofcommunity support at Ningi.

The two options are the pink option andthe alternative blue corridor that has beenhighlighted. The alternative blue corridor optionruns through land owned by Southern PacificSands. Southern Pacific Sands has turned outto be a reasonably community-mindedcompany that is willing to work with thecommunity and give it a better outcome inrelation to the upgrade of Bribie road. TheBestman Road estate, which contains a largegroup of concerned residents, valued the inputof Mr Ian Harrison from Southern PacificSands in putting forward this fifth option, thealternative blue corridor, that will take away the90-odd trucks a day that rattle past theresidents' doors on Bestman Road betweenBribie road and the front gate of SouthernPacific Sands. The community wins out withthis option, with no forced resumptions and awilling company sharing the use of its land, ora company that is at least willing to be part ofthe resumption process of the land that isrequired.

Bribie Island and Ningi residents havealso asked about the blow-out in the cost ofthe upgrade of the footpath on the BribieIsland bridge. They want to know from theMinister what that cost is now. It started out asa $350,000 upgrade of that path for a rail andsome lighting. Now they are cutting throughbridge girders of concrete and steel andbuilding outward extensions, or passing bays.People are wondering about the final cost ofthe new work taking place on the bridge. Atthe outset, the cost of an external 2.5 metrewalkway that was going to hang off the side ofthe bridge was estimated to be somewherebetween $800,000 and $1m. At the time thatwas considered to be too expensive, althoughit was a far better option. The Bribie Island


Chamber of Commerce and the people atNingi and Pebble Beach want to know the costof this poor alternative that is now beingproposed for the bridge in placing passingbays on the 870 millimetre wide narrow strip ofconcrete that acts as a walkway. They alsowant to know what effect the cuts in the girdersand the bridge will have on the bridge'sstrength. They wonder whether this option isbeing pursued because of a political single-mindedness; it was raised by the hopefulLabor aspirant, the previous member's wife, forthe new electorate of Pumicestone. Is this thereason for the reluctance of the Minister tomeet with the Bribie Island Chamber ofCommerce and the Ningi District CommunityAssociation, which want to raise this matterwith him?

The Bribie Island Chamber of Commerceis also looking for a deputation with theMinister for Police to discuss 24-hour policingon Bribie Island, because it is a rising issuethere as well. I asked a question on notice ofthe Minister, who replied that 24-hour policingat Bribie Island was not an issue at this pointbut that down the track it might be considered.The people on Bribie Island consider that nowis a more appropriate time to be discussing it,because there has been a rise in the rate ofcrime, traffic complaints, hoon complaints,teenage drunkenness and drugs. Bribieresidents feel that the police response times tothese complaints is not being dealt withadequately. The predominantly agedpopulation on this idyllic paradise need to feelsafe and secure in their homes. Having morepolice officers stationed over there and a 24-hour police presence on the island issomething that they feel would be morebeneficial to their needs and to the needs ofthe community in general. Surely thecommunity feeling the strain of a distinct lackof police numbers should have some sort ofsay with respect to those—

Time expired.Sitting suspended from 12.59 p.m. to

2.30 p.m.

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(2.30 p.m.): In rising to speak to theAppropriation Bills, I want to touch briefly ontwo or three issues. First of all, I refer to thereport of the Commission of Inquiry into theAbuse of Children in Queensland Institutions,otherwise known as the Forde inquiry. Thatwas an important inquiry which had majorramifications. In establishing the inquiry theGovernment built up many expectations.Raising expectations creates a demand thatthose expectations be met. This side of the

Chamber cautioned about building up toomany expectations, because one has to treadcarefully in relation to this issue.

Appropriate support services need to beput in place to ensure that once issues arebrought up—in many cases, they arenightmares for many former residents—thereare appropriate support services to meet thoserequirements. Expectations regarding theForde inquiry were built up, but unfortunatelyaccording to many former residents ofinstitutions those expectations have not beenmet. Sufficient support services have not beenput in place. It needs to be stressed that onehas to exercise a great deal of care whenreawakening the abuse people have suffered.People live day to day knowing whathappened to them, but once they begin to talkopenly about their experiences before aninquiry there needs to be an appropriatesupport structure.

The Government indicated that it wouldaccept all but one of the 42 recommendationsof the Forde inquiry. However, that has notoccurred. In fact, the Government has not metthe recommendation in relation to funding theinquiry recommendations. Far from it. I turn tothe report to the Parliament by the FordeImplementation Monitoring Committee datedSeptember this year. The committee madevery scathing comments in that report. Weneed to remember that this is theGovernment's own committee. It was not acommittee set up by anybody other than theGovernment, yet the Government's owncommittee has been most scathing in relationto funding. The report states—

"Current projections indicate thateven after the full flow through of the'Progressing Forde' funds in 2002-03,Queensland will only be funding at 52% ofthe standardised expenditure. On currentprojections an extra $32.53 per capitawould be required to bring Queenslandexpenditure on family and child welfare inline with the costs to deliver a nationallycomparable standard level of service. Thisis now equivalent to $113 million."

The Government is a long way short ofthat amount indeed. Whilst the Governmentmight say it has met all but onerecommendation—the one it has not metdeals with placing juveniles in justice detentioncentres—it is quite obvious that theimplementation committee says that thiscommitment has not been met by theGovernment. It has not met thisrecommendation at all. Here is yet another


recommendation not met by the Governmentin relation to this inquiry.

Page 16 of the report refers torecommendations 18, 24, 34 and 35. I turnfirst to recommendation 18. It is worth notingthat under that recommendation thedepartment has a legislatively imposedresponsibility to collect information relating tothe abuse of children and young people inresidential care facilities and juvenile detentioncentres. Again, progress to date is veryabysmal indeed. The report mentions thecollecting and publishing, or helping collectand publish, information and statistics aboutharm to children. Whilst that is contained withinthe Child Protection Act 1999, the reportstates—

"The Committee considers thissection to be a general power andbelieves that it does not meet the intentof the recommendation for FYCCQ to belegislatively mandated to collectinformation regarding the abuse ofchildren and young people in residentialcare facilities and juvenile detentioncentres and out-of-home care."It goes on at length in this regard. It

states further—

"The Committee believes that theinformation should be published in eachannual report of FYCCQ."We again see that a recommendation

has not been met by the Government, eventhough it has been well over 12 months sincethe Government indicated it would support allbut one recommendation. This report is datedSeptember of this year.

I will move to another section of thereport, because every section of this report isscathing in its attack. It quite clearly highlightsthe fact that the Government has a lack ofbasic information, amongst other things, inrelation to the implementation of this report.Without knowledge and information, it isobvious that there will be great difficulty inimplementing the report itself. TheGovernment should appreciate, as the FordeImplementation Monitoring Committee does,that this is a basic requirement of therecommendations. Recommendation 24 isthat the department develop and implementan information system that records individualcomplaints and trends and institutional abuse.The report states—

"The Committee regards theimplementation of this recommendationas a priority. It recommends that FYCCQand the Children's Commission provide tothe Committee by the end of 2000 a

comprehensive framework that willarticulate the manner in which complaintsare recorded, investigated, responded toand trends reported. The Committee willcontinue to monitor the implementation ofchanges to give effect to thisrecommendation."I will have more to say shortly about the

way in which the department handlescomplaints it receives about child abuse. Iraised that matter during the Estimatescommittee and there has been more mediaattention given to the issue in recent times.

Continuing with the issue of complaintsand grievances, the Minister was givenanother hurry up in yet another section of thereport. Recommendation 34 covers a range ofmatters requiring the department to developand implement policies which ensure a rangeof easily accessible, confidential complaintsmechanisms for children and a range of otherissues of a like manner. The report states—

"The Committee believes that thecreation of a comprehensive and flexibleframework for complaints and grievancesavailable to children and young people isa core recommendation of the FordeInquiry and believes that implementationmust occur this year. It will continue tomonitor the implementation of changes togive effect to this recommendation."

Again, whilst there are things in the pipeline,that is some distance away. Whether theymeet the requirements of therecommendations, only time will tell.

Out of the 42 recommendations, it is fairto say that the committee is scathing of a largenumber of them. I again stress that this is theGovernment's own committee. It is not acommittee of the Parliament. It is not acommittee set up by the Opposition. Thiscommittee was set up by the Governmentitself to monitor the implementation of theForde inquiry recommendations. There are awhole range of matters in relation torecommendation 35 to be put in place byDecember 2000. This has not occurred todate. The report states—

"Again the Committee is of theopinion that the implementation of thisrecommendation is of crucial importanceto ensure prevention of the problemsdocumented in the Forde inquiry. TheCommittee believes that theimplementation of this recommendation inthe near future (by the end of 2000 at thelatest) must be given priority. TheCommittee will continue to monitor theimplementation of strategies to fulfil this


recommendation and has requested thatcopies of policies or procedures beprovided to the Committee as they aredeveloped."

And so it goes on.

Recommendation 23 is covered on page29 of the report. This recommendation is thatthe department establish a short-termresidential facility to enable proper andcomprehensive assessments when childrenare first admitted to care. The report states—

"The Committee strongly believe thatevery child or young person admitted tocare has the need for an individual caseplan and ongoing assessment of thatcase plan. The Committee will continue tomonitor the activities to implement thisrecommendation."

That is yet another recommendation that hasnot been implemented at all.

I raise these matter because I have beengetting more and more calls and letters frompeople who are concerned because therecommendations are simply not beingimplemented. The Government may say thatthey are, but as we know it is all aboutperceptions with the Government. This can'tdo Government has not implemented theserecommendations. Far from it! The more timethe Government spends looking at theseissues the less likely it is to put in practicemany of the recommendations. It hopes thattime will dim the memory in relation to thesematters.

There are more pages ofrecommendations. Recommendation 41states—

"That the Department developtransitional programs to prepare youngpeople in the care of the State forindependent living and help them tomake the transition by providingassistance to gain employment,education and housing."

The committee report states—

"The Committee recognises this asan important area and will continue tomonitor the effectiveness of the strategiesand provide a detailed evaluation of themin its second report."We see these scathing comments being

made time and time again, and so the reportgoes on. It deals with issues of funding. Therewas grave criticism in relation to the setting upof the trust fund to provide support servicesand counselling services for many of theseformer wards—people who had been in theseinstitutions.

Whilst the Government talks about thesematters, the recommendations are simply notbeing implemented according to theGovernment's own implementation unit. Thechronicle of the Government's incompetenceseems endless. Individually, these issuesshould embarrass the Government. It seemsto want to make so much out of this. This can'tdo Government, a Government of perceptionsand rhetoric, is certainly a Government of non-delivery.

Even worse are the personal tragediesbeing lived out by people who were given falsehope by the Government when it set up theForde inquiry and made promises aboutsetting things right. These people get on thephone, crying—that is understandable—because the counselling and support servicesthey need are not available. Many of thesepeople have become desperate. There arereports of people taking their own lives.

The situation is becoming more desperateby the day, and there is a need for theGovernment to address some of these issuesif it is serious. Issues were raised in this reportand the Government made certaincommitments. The report of the Commissionof Inquiry into Abuse of Children inQueensland Institutions was presented to thisParliament in August 1999. More than 12months later the Implementation MonitoringCommittee highlighted the fact that many ofthese strategies have not been put in placeand that commitments have not beenhonoured. Many people faced abhorrentabuse over time in these institutions, and theybelieved in the rhetoric of the Government.Now they find that promises have not beenfulfilled. Many of the comments they aremaking are most scathing indeed.

A matter that flows from this is the childprotection reform strategy. I will refer to someof the issues we have seen in the media oflate. During the Estimates committee hearingsI raised the issue of reports of suspected childabuse and neglect. In relation to complaintsthat were being phoned in, I asked whetherthere was follow-up and exactly what wasoccurring. Certain assurances were given bythe Minister at that time. Yet it now quiteclearly appears that many of the priority 1cases and certainly well over 200 priority 2cases in this State have been simply written offby the Government and by the departmentand swept under the carpet.

It has been reported that some priority 1cases and some 97 priority 2 cases at Ipswichwere written off. These are cases with a highpriority because they involve assessments that


there is the prospect of real damage beingdone by people about whom complaints arebeing made—people who are allegedlycommitting abuse of these young people.Cases that are categorised as priority 2 involvea high risk of future significant harm. Priority 1cases involve a high risk of immediate danger.Priority 3 cases involve a low risk of immediatedanger or low risk of future significant harm.

Surely priority 1 and 2 cases must beinvestigated. Yet the Government is simplywiping its hands of these matters, and theMinister simply says, "An error was made", andblames the department. All too often in thisarea the department gets the blame for awhole range of matters that crop up from timeto time. If the department is to blame for theseissues, then it is up to the Minister, as theresponsible person, to put in place processesand programs to deal with these situationswhen they arise, to ensure that they areproperly followed through. That is theresponsibility of the Minister.

In the September quarter alone some 97priority 2 cases were written off in Ipswich, outof a total of over 200 priority 2 cases aroundthe State. Clearly, one of the reasons is thatdepartmental officers are having trouble withthe heavy workload involved in these matters.If the Government does not put in place theresources it said it would to meet theserequirements, then departmental officers findthat they have to move on to other issues thatcome in. Certain cases are slipping betweenthe cracks and are being written off.

That does not send the right message topeople who are committing child abuse in thecommunity—far from it. It says to those peoplethat there is a chance that, even though acomplaint has been made, their case will notbe followed up and they will get away with ittime and time again. That simply is not goodenough. Abuse cases cannot beshelved—that simply cannot bedefended—because it just sends the wrongmessage and, of course, real cases areslipping between the cracks.

The Government talks about fulfillingmany of these commitments in three or fouryears' time. In three or four years, much moredamage will have been done to Queensland'syoung people. The way this Governmentmeets its commitments, those commitmentswill not have been met in three or four years'time anyway.

I refer to the issue of noise barriers on theWestern Freeway in my electorate. This is anissue which has not yet been resolved. Whilstsome work has been done in relation to noise

barriers, the situation is that, unlike in manyother areas of the city, these noise barriers arenot high enough to combat noise. Noise is stilla major concern and is a major problem forthose trying to get some sleep in the weehours of the morning, particularly in the hoursbetween 4 and 6, when noise from heavyvehicles travelling along the freeway travelsconsiderable distances because of the lack ofbackground noise.

Whilst the Government has engineerslooking at this problem from time to time,many of the people affected by noise livedthere long before the freeway was upgraded.In fact, some of them lived there prior to thefreeway even being built. There are someresidents of very long standing in the area.Little has been done in recent times to resolvethe noise issues. I again ask the Governmentto give further consideration to this problem ofnoise.

The noise levels currently are in the mid60s. Unfortunately, it always seems that thethreshold noise level is never met at whatevertime of the day the tests are carried out. Butnoise levels coming from the freeway in themiddle of the day, with the great deal ofbackground noise, are vastly different fromthose experienced in the wee hours of themorning, when there is no background noiseand noise travels a far greater distance.

There is a need to upgrade the noisebarriers, to increase the height of the barriers.It is an issue that concerns a large number ofmy constituents living along the edge of thefreeway—more so in recent times with theupgrading that has occurred and even with theupgrading of the bikeway. The placement of abikeway along the edge of the freeway hasmeant that some of the vegetation has beenremoved and other changes have occurredwhich have aggravated the noise levels thatemanate from the freeway.

Finally, I refer to the lack of will on the partof the Government to get on with the job ofcleaning up graffiti on Government propertyaround the city. It is quite apparent that graffitibeing put on these facilities is simply not beingcleaned off. I know that the railways aresupposed to have a program of regularly goingaround cleaning graffiti, but that simply is notoccurring. The same applies to otherGovernment instrumentalities. When thegraffiti is finally taken off, after many weeks, itis not long before it is back again, unless thepolice have been fortunate enough toapprehend the offenders in the particularinstance. I do think that there is a greater will


needed, because one needs to ensure thatgraffiti is not allowed to run rampant—

Time expired.

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA)(2.50 p.m.): One of the concerns that I have,and I am very genuine about it, is the spreadof noxious weeds in Queensland and indeedAustralia. I am not necessarily blaming thisGovernment. I can recall when partheniumweed first started to spread, and that waswhen Ken Tomkins was the Minister for Lands.While some action was taken at that time, I dobelieve stronger action could have been takenand we might have eliminated this weed,which is indeed a curse.

Since then, there have been many otherweeds introduced from various other countries.We are very much becoming a globalcommunity. We have seen the giant rat's tailgrass introduced into central Queensland, inparticular. On this occasion I have to say thatthis Government and the Federal Governmenthave to do more to really grapple with theseproblems, because the more these veryserious noxious weeds spread, the less abilitywe will have to produce, and it is as simple asthat.

We talk a lot about conservation, but thebasic ways of conserving our land are toindeed deal with the issue of weeds thatspread throughout our State rendering muchland useless. A property north of Marlboroughthat I recently inspected had a carryingcapacity of 1,800 head of cattle. That capacityis now down to 600 and all the evidence is thatthis weed will totally choke out this propertyand render it useless. That means, of course,properties nearby are being affected as well.

So my real message is that we have todeal with this problem. It is extremely serious.We need to not only implement biologicalcontrol and employ additional scientists, butwhere a lot of these weeds can be attackedmanually I believe we should use the bettertype of prisoner or, if possible, use the Army tobring the problem under control. We reallymust get serious and attack it in a very bigway.

Imported weeds tend to grow better inAustralia than they do in their own country, asis the case with some of our gums inCalifornia; they grow much better there thanthey do here.

Mr Schwarten: And in South Africa, theblue gums.

Mr LESTER: Yes, that is right. Of course,in South Africa they have this giant rat's tailgrass.

Mr Schwarten interjected.Mr LESTER: We have got it in Yeppoon

all right.

I also make another call for furtherfunding for national parks. A lot of work hasbeen done in trying to provide funding fornational parks, but more is needed. I do notthink it is unreasonable of me to say thatFraser Island is degenerating as a tourist areabecause of a lack of maintenance. People likeGeorge Done have contacted me in recentdays again calling on me to visit that park tomake the appropriate comments about thelack of maintenance there. It is a great pitythat there is a lack of maintenance there.

I move now to comment on some parts ofthe Keppel electorate. I appreciate the workthat has been done on the road between EmuPark and Rockhampton. There has been, inrecent years, a lot of permanent wideningdone. A temporary widening of that road hasalso been completed. Temporary wideningsare what I say they are. They have beenuseful, but we are at a point where furtherpermanent widening works need to be doneon the Rockhampton-Emu Park Road. I signalthat issue at this point.

While the Main Roads statisticians tell methat there is not sufficient traffic on theRockhampton-Yeppoon road for a double lanehighway, I ask these people to look to thefuture and just recognise the huge growth ofthat area. It is the eighth fastest growing areain Australia at present and the third fastestgrowing area in Queensland. I believe wemight even do better than that as time goeson. We do need double lane highways onbusy roads like that. There has, unfortunately,been a couple of very bad head-ons in recenttimes resulting in very serious injury and death.

The police station that I have been talkingabout which is to be situated at Cawarral is avery necessary addition to the fine servicesthat we have in the area. The district includesKeppel Sands, Cawarral, Mount Chalmers andCoowoonga. The existence of removabletemporary police stations at Emu Park and, Iunderstand, Gracemere means that the time isright for the placing of a police station there. Iknow that the Police Minister will tell me thatthis is an operational matter and it is to bedecided by the police department's seniorofficers. It is, however, my role to signal inParliament that the police station is neededthere. These areas are all growing at a veryfast rate and obviously a single officer stationthere would be very appropriate. There is noreason that it cannot be done and I would liketo see it done along the lines of community


policing that has been trialled by the CriminalJustice Commission where the officer gets toknow everybody in the community. They canactually prevent a lot of crime because theyknow what is going on. We need to bepreventive rather than responsive. While I thinkthe world of all of the people in Cawarral,Coowoonga, Keppel Sands and MountChalmers, it is a simple fact of life that as thepopulation grows we will have more crime.

The Minister for Public Works is looking atme. I want to thank him for coming to Cawarralto inspect the addition of the preschool there.That was very good work done by the PublicWorks Department. It was a top project—thevery latest in the area. Where possible, localcontractors were employed and generally itwas a very good effort.

Mr Schwarten: We had a good day.Mr LESTER: It was a good day. We

made it a totally non-political day, just givingcredit to the people.

Mr Schwarten: Being good neighbours.Mr LESTER: Yes, and it was good to see.

The people of Cawarral appreciated it. Ofcourse, every time we get an addition like thispeople contact me about the need foradditional services such as a police station andso on.

Before I finish what I had intended tosay—which was approximately 10 minutes'worth—I need to signal the great concern thatexists in Yeppoon at present. There is a moveto take away permanent fire officer surveillancein that area. That is unbelievable when anarea is growing at such a fast rate. We havealways had a permanent officer available 24hours a day in case of a fire. Those fourofficers are now going to be placed on daytimeduties. This means that during the night, whensome of the worst fires occur, we will not havethe services of permanent officers. The fireauthorities tell me that they could be contactedif the fire is really serious, but this has causedconcern in the Yeppoon area.

I raised this matter with Merri Rose whenshe was the Minister for Emergency Servicesand she gave me a commitment that nothingwould happen with the fire officers. Well, it didnot happen while she was Minister, and that isfine, but it is starting to happen now that she isnot the Minister responsible for that portfolio.The appropriate people will hear from me. Ishall be doing what Vince Lester does best inno uncertain terms.

Mr Kaiser: Make cream buns.

Mr LESTER: I will do more than that. I amconcerned that a person in the Labor Party as

senior as the member would make such aremark over such a serious issue. The membershould be fighting for me and taking to taskthose people in authority who are trying to takeaway my permanent fire officers. I look forwardto the member's support and not his ridicule. Iam having a meeting in a few days' time and Iwould hate to have to tell those people thatthe member was ridiculing my efforts in theParliament. If the member behaves himselffrom now on, I will save him thatembarrassment. I have every right to raise theissue and fight for it with every ounce ofenergy that I possess. I will do that.

I have distributed various news itemsabout the way in which I am going to deal withthis matter. I will deal with it very fairly. I willmake sure that people in authority at the fireservice have an opportunity to explain to thepublic why these things are being done. It willbe left for the public to judge this matter.

The ball is in the Government's court. Iawait further developments. This matter will behandled fairly and justly by me, but it will alsobe handled in the interests of my constituents.The 10 minutes that I promised to take is up,and I thank the Parliament for its forbearancein listening to me.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) (3 p.m.): Ihave always been of the belief that aGovernment's success and integrity is judgedby the citizens of the State. We would like tothink that our Governments would fulfil allcommitments they made during the electionprocess.

Being elected to this Parliament as amember of the Government is a great honour.I have always been of the view that it would benice when one leaves the Parliament, or whenone's term in Government is finalised, to walkaway and leave a legacy to the people ofQueensland. That is something that allGovernments should aim for.

I believe that in the two and a half yearsthat the Labor Party has been in Governmentwe have proved to be a very goodGovernment for the people of Queensland.The Government has been able to achieve anumber of things that past Governments havewalked away from because they wereperceived as being too difficult. Whilst themedia perhaps believes that this is a difficulttime for the Government, we have continuedto focus on the work that needs to be done. Itis a time for us to reflect on what we haveachieved as a Government. We should alsogive some thought as to what we would like toachieve in the future.


I believe this Government has achieved agreat result in the area of native title. Nativetitle has always been a complex issue sincethe Mabo and Wik decisions were handeddown. This has not been an easy issue for anyGovernment to tackle. Over time, throughvarious pieces of legislation, the Governmenthas been able to arrive at an outcome webelieve is workable. Each side has had to beara little pain, but eventually it will be for thebenefit of the people of Queensland. I amparticularly pleased about the native titlelegislation that we were able to pass throughthis Parliament.

Recently in this House we passed theWorkplace Health and Safety Amendment Bill.As a former unionist, I am particularly proud ofthis piece of legislation. This Government hasalso introduced amendments and changes tothe Industrial Relations Act. I do not believethat we always get it right, but this has been alistening Government. We have tried to work ina cooperative manner with the trade unionmovement. We have worked our way throughthe issues which affect the unions and theirmembership. We have been true to the causeof Labor in terms of being a good LaborGovernment that cares for the workers of thisState, and in particular our trade unionists.

This House recently passed theVegetation Management Bill and the WaterBill. We have been able to achieve significantreforms in those areas. I have been fortunateenough to attend several Community Cabinetmeetings throughout the State where wefaced a hostile reception, particularly in relationto vegetation management. On a number ofoccasions, the protesters were misinformedand did not have the correct information. In myview, they were badly represented byorganisations which represented farmers,graziers and people who live on the land.

The Premier sat through those meetingsand took a lot of abuse from people. A lot ofus in this House would not subject ourselves tosuch treatment. However, the Premier wasprepared to sit there, listen to people and triedto find a solution to the problem. Anyone whohas attended these forums would agree withme that he is a Premier who is greatlyrespected by the people of this State. He isvery much a people person. I am very proud tobe a member of a Government that hasworked very hard at taking Government to thepeople.

We have made great advances in thearea of fisheries. The Minister for PrimaryIndustries has worked very hard to ensure thatwe have long-term, sustainable stocks of fish.

This will be of benefit to both commercial andrecreational fishermen. The Government hashad to work very hard in this area but hasbeen quite successful.

The Government has achieved manythings in the area of the Queensland PoliceService. We have improved police numbersand police facilities throughout the State. Ibelieve that most honourable members wouldagree that we have increased police numbersin our electorates. The matter of police powershas been addressed and we have been ableto find the balance between civil liberties andgiving police sufficient powers to enable themto do their job.

I take this opportunity to put on the publicrecord my deep appreciation and thanks to ournow retired Police Commissioner, JimO'Sullivan. I have known Jim for quite sometime. We became very close acquaintances. Ihold Jim O'Sullivan in very high regard in termsof his ability as leader of the QueenslandPolice Service. As he said, he has left theQueensland Police Service in very goodshape.

I wish to refer to transport. In the south-east corner of the State we have the hugebusway program. When it is finished it will be agood legacy for this Government. The peopleof Queensland will say, "I remember the LaborGovernment that put in this busway." In termsof what we have achieved in relation to roadsafety, I certainly do not think that thisGovernment alone can take the credit for that.Over the past five or six years in particular,Queensland Governments have done very wellin terms of reducing the number of fatalities onour roads. At one stage, that figure was veryhigh. We have managed to bring it down.Unfortunately, over the past couple of yearsthat figure has climbed a bit. However, we areforever vigilant and we have to work very hardto reduce that figure.

In terms of the tilt train project, we areextending it all the way to Cairns. The tilt trainhas been enormously popular and, as aGovernment, it is something of which weshould be particularly proud. I understand thattoday the Minister for Transport and Ministerfor Main Roads will announce major roadbuilding programs to take place over the nextfive years. Again, that is something of which aState as decentralised as Queensland shouldbe particularly proud.

We have had the success of having VirginBlue establish its headquarters in Queensland.That certainly will open up competition. VirginBlue has indicated that it will be flying to citieswith a population of 50,000 or more. So towns


such as Townsville, Cairns and even Darwin willbenefit greatly from that.

In terms of Education, I believe that wehave done particularly well with the SecondarySchools Renewal Program. That program wasbadly needed. Most of us who represent solidLabor seats would recall the lack of spendingon schools in Labor electorates before wecame to Government in 1989. We have had tocome from a long way behind to build upfacilities and resources in our schools.However, we have continued to work away atthat and I think that we have done a job ofwhich we should be proud. We have also triedto improve facilities in primary schools. Theyhave been of enormous benefit to thoseschools. I know that, from my representationsto the Education Minister over the past coupleof years in particular, he has been veryunderstanding of the needs of young peopleand teachers in my electorate and we havebeen able to achieve a number of things.

Child-care services and disabilityservices—and particularly disability services—were ignored for a long time. We have comefrom a very low base. We have madecommitments to spend more money andallocate more resources to disability services.Although we still have a long way to go—andthat has been acknowledged by the Ministerand the Government—we have done quite abit.

In terms of the multicultural area in which Iwork, I refer to the implementation of theMulticultural Queensland Policy. Onlyyesterday, the Premier tabled a report on theprogress of that policy. It is an area I amparticularly proud to have worked in. I take thisopportunity to thank my staff for the enormousamount of work that they have put into thisGovernment's multiculturalism policy.

The Department of State Developmenthas been a great success for the Government.It has been able to make achievements in themeat industry in terms of being able torestructure that industry and keep a number ofjobs. In terms of the regional forestagreements—the RFAs—I think that we werethe only State that was able to reach a broadagreement with all the groups. That has beenan outstanding success for us as aGovernment in terms of being able to bringpeople together—the timberworkers and thegreenies—and find a way through thedifficulties to ensure that small regional townssurvive. It was not easy. The Oppositionroundly criticised us. However, those regionalforest agreements have stood the test of timeand have been a great success. New

industries have also been attracted to thisState by the Department of StateDevelopment. In that regard, the departmenthas done a great deal of work and is to becongratulated. Earlier I mentioned Virgin Blue,but the Department of State Development isalso working hard in the aerospace industry toensure that it is a growth industry for this State.

We have also had improved resources forour emergency services. Our rural fire brigadesand the Queensland Ambulance Service havereceived new facilities such as ambulancestations, improved facilities in fire stations andimproved equipment for rural firefighters. Ithink that the Minister should be particularlypleased with the progress that we made in thatarea.

In terms of public housing, I think thatmost tenants in older public housing haveparticularly welcomed the refurbishment workthat has been undertaken. I know that in myelectorate there are a number of seniors units.A large amount of refurbishment work hasbeen done on those units. Several new publichousing units have also been constructed. Thelast two that have been built have won designawards. Of course, we would like to see more.However, the Minister has spoken about thedifficulty that he is experiencing with theFederal Government in terms of funding forpublic housing, but we have managed to dowhat we can. I think that we should beparticularly pleased with what we have done.

Previously I have spoken about the futuredirection that I would like to see us as aGovernment take. As a Government, I do notbelieve that as yet we have worked hardenough to utilise existing educational facilitiesin this State. Although in some areas it ispleasing to see that those facilities are usedafter hours, it is my great concern and hasalways been my great concern that schoolsand TAFE colleges—but particularly schools—are locked up after 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock. It isone thing to say that the Internet is a goodlearning tool for students. However, a numberof students simply do not have computers athome and, therefore, do not have access tothe Internet or do not have a studyenvironment at home. We should be doingmore so that our schools are open to ensurethat students have access to the school library,have access to computers and to the Internetand to ensure that students have a goodlearning environment so that, if they want tostudy in peace and quiet, they have theopportunity to do so.

Also, in terms of the sporting facilities thatare available at those schools, we need to do


far more with our schools on weekends. In myview, we are only tinkering at the edges; a lotmore can be done. We need to continue towork on building links between universities,TAFE colleges and schools. In my electorateand in the northern corridor, the QUTCarseldine campus, the North Point TAFE andall of the high schools in that area are startingto forge links. I think that we will see more ofthat occurring in this State. I believe that will beof great benefit to students throughoutQueensland.

Earlier in the debate today I heard thehonourable member for Toowoomba Southtalking about treated water being pumped upthrough the Brisbane Valley and intoToowoomba and how that would be a greatasset for the Darling Downs region. I agreewith that. We should look forward to thathappening. However, I say this: a large sum ofmoney is being spent on costings, onengineering programs and all of the things thatgo with it to see how it would work. However, atthe end of the day, the costs may be too greatfor any one State Government. That is why Ibelieve this State Government—and for thatmatter any State Government in thefuture—will need to engage the private sectora lot more in projects. We cannot continue torely on the public purse for major infrastructureprograms, because the public purse simplydoes not have the money. As a member of aGovernment, my view is that our coreresponsibility is the provision of services in theareas of health, education and law and order.It is easy for members of the Opposition to saythat we should build a pipeline to the DarlingDowns. Some people have indicated to methat that pipeline might cost as much as $1billion. Where does the State Government—any State Government—find $1 billion?

Members should not get me wrong: Ithink that it is a very worthwhile project. Ibelieve that water is the key to the success ofQueensland in the future. We need to getwater to all of that inland area. I do not havethe answer myself, but it is a legacy I wouldlove to leave to the people of Queensland, toall those farmers out there. We have growingindustries like the wine industry and the cottonindustry; as all of those types of industriescontinue to grow, they will need more andmore water. Yet, we just do not have it. Weneed to find the programs. We need toengage the private sector in a far greater waythan ever before if we are going to besuccessful and have an economy thatcontinues to grow. The future of those ruraland regional towns depends on water morethan any other thing in this world. We need to

do more. We need to engage the privatesector. It cannot be expected that StateGovernments simply have a bottomless pit ofmoney to be able to fund that. I sincerely hopethat in the next term of a Labor Governmentthis issue is something that will be looked at ina very meaningful way.

I believe there are other things we can do.I recently heard Jim Soorley speak abouttunnels under the river. I do not have aproblem with that, but it is going to have tocome from the private sector. Again, we simplydo not have a bottomless pit of money. TheState Budget is in the vicinity of $18 billion.That $18 billion is spent. It gets spent onservices and facilities that are needed for thisState. Putting in underground tunnels is fine,but the private sector is going to have to cometo the party—

Time expired.Mr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP) (3.22 p.m.):

In speaking to these Bills, I will be running oversome of the aspects that have been broughtto my attention. I will not try to run through thewhole smorgasbord of departments and wastethe time of the House.

For a place like the Sunshine Coast, ofcourse, I will be speaking mainly aboutinfrastructure expenditure rather than recurrentexpenditure, because in a place that isgrowing as quickly as the Sunshine Coast it isvery important to have infrastructure in placefor all the things that are needed there. Usuallyrecurrent expenditure—hopefully—follows theprovision of infrastructure to provide services.

Infrastructure is important. I am sure it isthe same in other growth areas. I cannotspeak for them, but I am sure areas like Cairnsand the Gold Coast also have growing painsand are always playing catch-up football andsaying, "We have this growth rate and wedon't have this and we don't have that." I donot know whether any Government at anylevel in any State has really been able toanticipate growth rates in some of theseplaces and actually have the infrastructure inplace to accommodate the growth.

One of the most difficult things is not justputting the infrastructure in place, butanticipating where it can be put withoutcausing problems. That is why it is veryimportant to plan ahead. I will speak a littlelater on such things as the proposed railway tothe Sunshine Coast. It is critically important todecide whether that is going to happen, whatsort of infrastructure that will be and where itwill be, because the earlier it is planned for thefewer people are disadvantaged. If thedecision is put off, the opposite happens. One


could say the same thing with thestraightening of the north coast rail line tonorth Queensland and putting in the extra line.The decisions that have to be made arewhether to have an extra line and whether tofollow the existing track or straighten it out atthe same time. I have seen aerial photographsof the route; some of the decisions that peoplein this place are going to have to make in thenear future are somewhat frightening. Therewill be huge ramifications of straightening outthe north coast line, because it runs throughsome very nice agricultural land—pineapplefarms and that sort of thing. That is going tobe a decision that Governments will have toface. That is just an example of why we haveto foresee to the best of our ability what isgoing to be needed in the future and plan for itso that people know it is coming and canmake their lifestyle choices and so thatcouncils can plan around that.

One of the issues that I have promotedand followed in this place and elsewhere ispolicing. I will not go into a lot of detail on thedebate on police numbers in the north coastregion. I have gone through that on a numberof occasions and I will not do so again. One ofthe reasons this aspect keeps being broughtup is that we have a particular problem at themoment commonly known as hoons and hoondrivers. It seems to be one of the prices thatpeople pay for living in places that people liketo come to visit. We have a lot of peoplecoming to the Sunshine Coast. I am notsaying there are no locals amongst the hoons;that would be incorrect, but a lot of peoplecome from other places to places like theSunshine Coast and the Gold Coast for theweekend and they actually terrorise theneighbourhood, whether they be localresidents or people there on holidays, by theway in which they drive their vehicles, which isboth unsafe for other people on the roads andthemselves and, of course, very disturbing. It isamazing how many people can be woken upat 2 o'clock in the morning by noise from twoor three vehicles within two or three kilometresof where they are trying to get to sleep. So it isquite a serious issue.

I have had a number of discussions withpolice officers about how to address this andwith Queensland Transport people aboutaddressing the problems of these vehicles, thenoise they emit and their roadworthiness. I amconfident that we can get on top of thatproblem. I see problems like this aschallenges.

As the Sunshine Coast area is one of thebusiest maritime areas in Queensland,particularly for recreational fishing, there is a

requirement for water police. We have acouple of very good officers at Mooloolaba.Although I say "at Mooloolaba," unfortunatelythey are not there any more. They haverecently shifted away from the water down toKawana, which is most unfortunate. Thetemporary office they were in was quitecramped and not suitable for their purposes,but at least it was near the water where theiractivities are. And it was where they could talkwith people and observe what was going on inand around the harbour, where they could talkto the boating and fisheries people andQueensland Transport Maritime Divisionpeople about areas of common concern andinterest. Now that they have moved down toKawana Police Station, they are away from theculture of the waterside.

This needs to be addressed. I havebrought it up in the House before and I havespoken to people about it. I believe theSunshine Coast deserves to have the samesort of facility that we find at the Gold Coastand Cairns—and I have visited both of thoseplaces—where the Maritime Division ofQueensland Transport, the DPI Fisheries andthe water police are in the same building. A lotof people do not know which department theyneed to talk to, but somebody who goes to theone in Cairns can be redirected elsewhere inthe building to have concerns addressed. Thatis something that is going to require thecooperation of the Police Department,Queensland Transport and DPI Fisheries.What often happens is that one departmentmay see it as an urgent thing, whereas one orother of the other departments do not have itat the top of their priority list and therefore itdoes not happen.

I would like to make a multiple request ofthe three relevant Ministers that this be lookedat with the idea of some cooperation. The landis there at the spit at Mooloolaba. There arealready existing buildings being used by non-maritime users. What would be most suitableis a building with space for the three servicesand the boats. The Department ofEnvironment should also be included, becausealthough its officers do not currently have thefacility they do have the need to get on thewater from time to time. The departmentscould then work very closely together. That is avery important issue for the future.

In relation to policing, it is now time for apolice station in or around Buderim. I talked tosenior police officers years ago and theyidentified Beerwah as having a higher priority.In the spirit of looking at things from a regionalperspective, I said, "That's fine. Let's go for theBeerwah one." We do have a police station at


Beerwah now and it is now time, I believe, forone at Buderim. It should be next in line for apolice station because of the huge growth ratenot only in Buderim but also in the ChancellorPark area. It is also very close to the BruceHighway, which would be advantageousconsidering that police conduct variousactivities on the Bruce Highway. That is a veryimportant consideration.

I said earlier that we have a fine policestation at Kawana. I am very pleased to havebeen involved in the Police for Kawana WatersCommittee before I came into this place. Iremember making representations to the thenMinister, Mr Mackenroth. We did get thatpolice station. It is a very nice police station,but unfortunately it is open only in daylighthours. As that station is situated right on theNicklin Way where a lot of people travel—bothlocals and visitors to the coast—a lot of peoplehave need to call in to a visible, large andmodern police station only to find that it isopen only during office hours. Senior SergeantPaul Sarquis did a trial some time ago openinguntil about 11 o'clock at night. It was clear fromthat trial that it was appreciated and used bynot only locals but also visitors to the area.

I turn now to emergency services.Recently, in the House we had a debate inrelation to the Kawana Fire Station. I believethat, once again, we have a very good stationthere. It is manned by the auxiliaries, who doan excellent job. There is no doubt about that.However, I believe that fire services for theKawana and surrounding areas would beenhanced if we had a supplement of full-timeofficers there to do some of the things that full-time officers can do best. I would like to onceagain request that that be given seriousconsideration. In relation to ambulanceservices, we have fine ambulance stationsboth at Buderim and Kawana and great staffwho do a great job. In the time I have been inthis job I have not had any complaints aboutambulance services in and around myelectorate, and that is great. I would like tocompliment them on that.

The new station that has opened atMaroochydore on the Sunshine Motorway is ajoint facility for fire and ambulance. I have hadthe opportunity to visit it only once, but Iunderstand there are some activities onSaturday, and I hope to call in and see thatgreat station again. The location of this state-of-the-art station should enhance both fire andambulance services to the central SunshineCoast area.

Education is obviously one of theimportant issues on the Sunshine Coast. I

compliment all recent Governments of bothpolitical persuasions because I think theprovision of schools on the Sunshine Coasthas been excellent. We have some wonderfulschools. I think four or five have been openedin my electorate since I have been in this job.That is possibly something of a record. Theyinclude the Mountain Creek State School, theMountain Creek State High School, theChancellor Primary School and the university. Ibelieve there are another couple in thepipeline, including a primary school atGlenfields and also a high school out near theuniversity.

They do a wonderful job. The MountainCreek State High School competes quiteopenly with the very good private schools thatwe have in the area. As I understand it, theKawana Waters State High School has thehighest proportion of overseas fee-payingstudents of any school in Queensland. Theyare very proud of that record. They have a lotof students from China. This adds quite adimension to the schooling activities at thatschool. They are very pleased with that. Weneed to make sure that the provision ofeducation continues. It is very important to getthe schools, as I mentioned, out at ChancellorPark and the high school and the primaryschool at Glenfields moving along.

Talking of moving along, I should talkabout roadworks. If I had to select one sectionof infrastructure that is most important on theSunshine Coast, I would have to sayroadworks, because it affects almosteverybody every day. We do have a goodmain road through the Sunshine Coast—theSunshine Motorway. That is now so busy thatthe two lane sections of it on the central coastneed to be upgraded urgently. Once again, Iwould strongly suggest to the Minister forTransport that the four laning betweenBuderim-Mooloolaba Road and MaroochydoreRoad and the section of the motorway fromMooloolaba out to the Bruce Highway bebrought forward. That is desperately in need ofwork, as is the intersection of the SunshineMotorway with Buderim-Mooloolaba Road. It isa very awkward interchange and the trafficflows very slowly. A lot of people are held up intraffic at that interchange. Although it will be afairly complex task and not inexpensive, it issomething that really has to be done.

The intersection of the SunshineMotorway and the Bruce Highway is anotherone that causes concern. People travellingnorth to Nambour departing the highway haveto cross traffic intending to travel north on thehighway. I would suggest without much fear ofcontradiction that that is the most dangerous


intersection on the Sunshine Coast. Therehave been fatalities at that intersection. Iwould ask that, when the intersection is beingdesigned, it be done in such a way so that thatpart of the intersection can be completed firstwithout compromising the overall planning.

I have mentioned the Kawana arterial inthis place before. It is the new proposed roadwhich is west of the Nicklin Way, joiningCaloundra Road with Mooloolaba. It is plannedto be on the multimodal corridor. The land isthere. When the Briztram project was dropped,I had no hesitation in suggesting in this placeand to the Federal Parliament that that moneybe put towards constructing that road, and itcould be called the "Federation Way". I believeit would be one of the best alternatives forusing those funds. It would certainly go a longway towards easing the problems of the NicklinWay, which has almost got to the stage whereit cannot be redeveloped any further. I think itis carrying almost 40,000 vehicles a day. Thatreally needs to be addressed. It is now sixlanes at the northern end and it cannot beredeveloped any further. So that needs to bebrought forward.

Rail to the Sunshine Coast is a very bigissue. I have talked about the necessity forplanning early for such things. We now havethe corridor notionally in place. I think weshould be very seriously thinking about exactlywhat mode of transport we should be usingthere and keep that firmly on the planningagenda.

In the area of sport, we now have asynthetic track at the Sunshine CoastUniversity, which saw a lot of internationalteams training before the Olympic Games. Wealso have nearing completion a synthetichockey track at Ballinger Park. I am pleased tohave had some involvement in both of theseprojects. To make that hockey track really fire,a clubhouse is needed where people cancome and go, get changed and showered,and all those sorts of things. I will be lookingforward to making a submission for somefunding to finish off that job. We can produceOlympic standard hockey players on theSunshine Coast, but at the moment they haveto go elsewhere to train and to play onsynthetic fields. We are very keen to get thathappening on the Sunshine Coast.

A new Olympic-sized pool is needed nearthe university. I understand that the universityis keen to have the pool on its property. Itwould service three adjacent schools—theSiena Catholic College, the proposed Statehigh school and the existing primary school, aswell as the Chancellor Park community. That is

a very important project. I will be talking withthe Department of Tourism, Sport and Racingand the Minister in relation to that.

There is also the issue of skate bowls. Afew years ago people would not know what askate bowl was. They are popping upeverywhere. They seem to serve a very realpurpose in the community with young people.They love them. However, there are someproblems attached to them if they are not runproperly. That needs to be dealt with. Puttingthem near a pool with management to lookafter them to ensure that children do not cometo any harm is better than plonking them in apaddock somewhere and hoping the kids lookafter themselves. We know that kids cannotlook after themselves, particularly when thereare people who tend to prey on them.

I will not get through all the infrastructure Iwanted to mention today. It is obvious that theSunshine Coast needs a lot, because I cannotget through the list of things it needs in 20minutes. I noticed in the Sunshine Coast Dailythis week that consideration is being given toclosing the detox unit at Nambour Hospital.That issue needs to be looked at, becausethere is a significant problem with peoplerequiring that service as a result of alcohol ordrug abuse. Whatever happens in that regard,I hope the need for that unit is consideredbefore there is any cost cutting. It provides avery good service in the area. The MooloolahRiver National Park requires fencing and amanagement plan. That issue needs to be onthe list as well.

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA)(3.40 p.m.): In rising to join the debate on theAppropriation Bills, I say at the outset that it isof concern that there is a drop in the growthrate of the Queensland economy. It has beenpredicted to fall from 4.25% to 3.75%, despiteimprovements in the Asian economies withwhich we trade.

My electorate is quite large. It coversabout 300 kilometres of the Queenslandcoast, extending between Townsville andCairns. It grows well over 20% of the State'ssugar crop. The sugar industry has recentlyexperienced low world prices. However, it ispleasing to note that things are improving.Some six to eight months ago, sugar wasbeing sold for US5c a pound. It is nowimproving by US10c to US11c a pound. Thegreatest proportion of the crop—some 85%—isexported. Therefore, it is necessary for us tobe competitive on world markets.

The Federal Government gave theindustry a great deal of support when thenecessity arose. The past two or three years


have been very bad years. My electorate wasdifferent to many other areas of the State,which are currently experiencing drought. Infact, the area from Laidley to Roma andWarwick, and out towards Emerald, has had avery rough trot. I visited that area recently andI realise the difficulties that have beenexperienced because of the dry weather.However, that is very much in contrast to theexperience in the northern part of the State. Irecall that for 17 days in November last yearmy electorate received something like 32inches of rain. One would have to go back tothe records of 1894 to register similar rainfall inNovember. That was detrimental. Crops hadjust been harvested. The young plant caneand the ratoons coming out of the groundsuffered severely to the extent that the HerbertRiver district and many districts in the northernregion only harvested half the normal crop.

That situation was not just as a result ofwet conditions. The destruction of crops by ratswas a significant problem. There were alsoproblems with orange rust, which is unique toone particular variety, Q124. This was the mainreason the crop was reduced in size and sugarcontent. Sugar farmers and millers do not getpaid for the volume of crop but the volume ofsugar content. Therefore, a major reduction insugar content knocked the industry aroundvery badly. There were also problems withgreyback cane grubs. This variety of grub isvery difficult to combat. Chemicals that wereused 15 or 20 years ago to combat the grubare no longer able to be used because of theiringredients. There is a worldwide move awayfrom using such chemicals. There was somethreat that the chemicals may have beenpicked up in beef being sent to countries suchas the United States. Therefore, farmers hadto stop using those chemicals, but nothing wehave used since has been really successful incombating cane grubs. As a result, crops havesuffered very badly in some areas. TheInnisfail district, with its sandy and volcanicsoils, has had major problems for the past 10years.

In relation to rodenticides, zinc phosphatehas come onto the market. It is proving to besuccessful. It has undergone many trials, andthat chemical will be distributed. However, amajor problem is that rodenticides that are veryeffective can linger so long in the species theyare meant to eradicate that owls and hawks,which prey on rats, can suffer ill effects fromthem. Of course, these can be verydetrimental. One reason we had to stop usinga particularly successful chemical was that ithad too long a residual effect and it adverselyaffected bird life.

Another major concern relates to theneed for the Herbert River drainage scheme. Itwas funded in 1993 by both the State andFederal Governments to the tune of $19meach. There was an industry component inrelation to drainage relating to drains, rail linesand a whole host of infrastructure important toindustry. One of the few drainage systems leftbehind at present is the Herbert River districtdrainage. There are a few drainage boards—infact, five altogether—that are very active. Theyhave been in place for a long time and theyhave been effective in providing farm drainagein the Wet Tropics of north Queensland.

A major problem with drainage in thenorth is that, in many cases, there is no accessto the sea. The coastal strip is a majormangrove area with prolific mangrove growthand, at times, silts up. As a consequence, thenatural drainage system used in the past is nolonger accessible. I believe that revocations willbe necessary in relation to these areas to allowthose drainage systems to be put in place.They are particularly necessary after extendedperiods of rain. Often during the wet seasonthere are major floods, and there is nothingmuch we can do about that. However, as thefloodwaters subside, it is important to be ableto drain the water within a reasonable time toallow crops to dry out. Generally the growing ofcrops in these areas has been very successfulbut, at the end of the day, it is essential thatwe get these drainage schemes up andrunning. Good drainage is necessary to enableus to cope with inundation over a long period.

A draft coastal management plan hasbeen put out. There is a lot of concern that thecommittee does not include a large number ofstakeholders. In fact, it is considered one ofthe deficiencies of the scheme that thelegislation did not give sufficient capacity tothose people directly involved in coastalmanagement—that is, the rural communityand those people who live close by—to berepresented on the committee.

As I have indicated, a deal of concern hasbeen expressed by many people that we willnot be doing the types of things that areprobably in the best interests of theenvironment. I have to be very mindful—I amsure all of the people who live in those areasare very mindful—of the need to maintaingood environment credentials. There is noquestion about that. Also, there are things thathave to be done. If the committee does nothave a clear determination to providesubstantial assistance to all of the people thatare involved in these regions, we will find—wehave found this to be the case to date—thatnecessary work will not be done. Money has


been provided over seven years and nothinghas happened.

I mention the group of people whoprovide harvesting of the cane crop. Theyhave had a very rough time. They have veryexpensive equipment—worth something like$750,000, if not up to $1m. With very smallcrops or crops being cut under adverseconditions, it becomes very costly. Theirviability can certainly be put at risk. Last year'swas a very poor crop. They virtually had tocover the area for a crop double the size.Because they are paid on a tonnage basisthey did not receive reasonable remunerationfor their efforts. Some of them will findthemselves in a very difficult position, becausethey buy some of these machines on leaseagreements, on time payment, with loans andso on. If people base their finances on the factthat they have X number of tonnes to cut eachyear and for some reason or other, throughadverse seasons or through a range of issuesI described previously, the level of cropanticipated is not reached, then they suffervery badly. The other issue is the price of fuel,which is dramatically affecting their costs.

I will now deal with bananas. The areahas crops valued at somewhere around$200m. From time to time there are pricevariations. Presently they are worth areasonable amount of money. Growers aremaking a fair thing out of them. The majorproblem they have at present is the threat ofimports from the Philippines. An applicationhas been made to AQIS by the PhilippinesGovernment to bring bananas in to Australia.That partly came about as a result of the factthat we were exporting live cattle to thePhilippines. It was quite a good trade but,unfortunately, the Philippines has now gottento the point that it is saying, "If we are going tocontinue on with this trade, we wantconsideration for the crops we grow, such asbananas, to be able to send them toAustralia." The Philippines has a distinctadvantage in terms of cheap labour. A lot ofthese organisations in countries such as thePhilippines and Ecuador are run and backedby American businesses and they are usingsome of the best technology in the world.

Disease is a major problem in thePhilippines, and it has diseases we do nothave. Where black sigatoka has been pickedup throughout the cape, the industry itself hasbeen particularly vigilant. It has had thecapacity to plant resistant varieties— probablynot totally acceptable commercial varieties butvarieties that allowed those areas to growbananas without the threat of attracting thisblack sigatoka. There are a few other very

detrimental pests and diseases in thePhilippines that could be of majordisadvantage to our clean, green image.

Maybe one day the industry will be able tosay, "We will reduce our chemicals to such alevel that we can export bananas that are to alarge extent or even totally free of anychemical usage." That organic-type product ishighly sought after around the world. In fact,during the time the papaya fruit fly was in northQueensland, there was a group north of theDaintree producing bananas and exportingthem to Japan. That gives some indicationthat some of these areas have the capacity todo that sort of thing now. Of course, if theindustry works even harder, it may be able toprovide a large proportion of organic product.

All of this has affected investmentconfidence. It is not particularly high atpresent. Today a group of people came to seeme. It was a bipartisan arrangement. I askedthe Minister and his departmental people toattend. The Minister could not make time tocome in, but he sent along some of thedepartmental people—policy advisers and soon—and people from DPI. The group thatcame to see me outlined an initiative wherebythe stems of bananas could be made into apaper-type product. Tom Johnston, from Tully,has been very active in this area. We heardfrom people representing Visy Board andKomatsu.

Komatsu, in conjunction with TomJohnston, has made a machine that is able topick bananas. It is on a little Komatsuexcavator. It has the capacity to do away withthis backbreaking labour of carrying bunchesof bananas around in very wet conditions. Ofcourse, there is a condition with Weil's diseasein our part of the world, which is attributed torats.

I think this is a worthwhile initiative. Weare following it through. I hope that, with theassistance of DPI, we can get to the point ofputting together a new concept for the bananaindustry—that is, picking by machine. Thisgroup is also involved in making a paperproduct, which could be useful for cartons. Ithas a lot of good qualities—it is almost agreaseproof material—so I think it would bevery beneficial.

All too often we see concepts such as thislost to Australia and lost to Queensland.Governments have to put their best footforward to ensure that when a concept comesalong they assist it to be brought to fruition.There are other forms of involvement—commercial-in-confidence arrangements andso on—and they are not easy to work through.


But I think that is really the challenge forGovernment. How does it go about assistingthese types of industries to get to a pointwhere they generate jobs, activities andcertainly income for the State of Queensland?

I will very briefly mention the tourismindustry. The Hinchinbrook electorate hasexcellent prospects for tourism. It has therainforests and the reef. It is unique. In manyinstances they are only a few kilometres apart.There is a project at Port Hinchinbrook puttogether and pretty much funded, Iunderstand, by an Australian—Keith Williams.Some ridiculous situations are starting todevelop in relation to the coastal managementplan. I understand that he is allowed only 50days a year on which to conduct boat trips upand down the Hinchinbrook Channel and thatboats can be no longer than 20 metres. Butthe fact that there are something like only 50days a year to do this type of thing isridiculous. We saw sugar ships that wereprobably as much as 100 times bigger thanthe 20 metre boats going up and down thatchannel, and yet there was no problem. Infact, in that area in Missionary Bay we haveseen the dugong population hold its own, ifnot improve, over a period.

We have other ridiculous situations suchas planes flying sightseers around at 1,500feet. For safety reasons alone anybody flyingthrough the Hinchinbrook Channel from time totime has to get down to 500 feet to get underthe cloud, and planes being used forsightseeing ventures have to go to 1,500 feet.We cannot ski up and down the HinchinbrookChannel. There has been no problem withsugar boats and speed boats travelling up anddown the channel. I am not aware that therehave been any dugong deaths in recent timesfrom boat usage there.

Of course, no floating reef can be put outat Britomart Reef or any of nearby reefs, yeteven during the Goss period I recall seeing atNQEA's premises in Cairns a floating pontoonthe size of a football field that was going to betaken out to be anchored at one of the reefs.

A road called the H road was built duringthe construction of the Kareeya Power Station.It is a very serviceable road which was builtwhen the power lines were put through therainforest and which goes from the Tully Gorgethrough the rainforest to Millaa Millaa. It is ingood condition. It is not a road that people cantravel very quickly on; it has whoa boys inplace. That road has been there for some 40years or even longer. About six months agoPowerlink decided to stop people going up thisroad, despite the fact that there are already

preventive measures like gates and that sort ofthing situated at either end. Powerlink dug ahole that was something like a tank trap,something that even a D8 would have troublegetting through, to stop any use of that road.After all the rhetoric about it being a WorldHeritage area we should be enabling people,particularly those who have difficulty in walking,to be able to see it.

Time expired.

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(4.02 p.m.): I rise today to make a fewcomments on Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2000,which authorises the Treasurer to pay an extra$326.75m from the Consolidated Fund forunforeseen expenditure of variousGovernment departments.

There is no doubt that over the pastdecade or two the majority of GovernmentBudgets were directed at infrastructuredevelopment on the Gold Coast, SunshineCoast, Brisbane and other large populationcentres along the coast of Queensland. Thisdirection of major funding was due to apopulation boom in Queensland that wasunprecedented for any State in Australia. Mostof the population growth was due to interstatemigration and the spending on suchinfrastructure was certainly necessary to caterfor the demands created by such a populationincrease. This migration has now slowed and itis time that this Government directed itsenergy towards infrastructure development inthe rural and regional areas of Queensland.This development is absolutely essential if thecurrent tide of centralisation of populationgrowth in the coastal regions is to be checked.

In my electorate alone, the farmingcommunity of the Lockyer Valley injectsapproximately $90m into the State's incomeeach year. This area, together with the Warrilland Fassifern farming districts, plays a majorpart in the rural income of south-eastQueensland in general. Thus, it is time thatGovernments, instead of largely ignoring theserural areas, thanked the people for theircontribution to the wealth of this nation byproviding more infrastructure including betterroads, better health facilities and access tothese facilities, increased spending on ourageing schools in these areas and theprovision of sporting and cultural facilities.

One of the most unfortunate things that Ihave noticed since becoming the member forthe electorate of Lockyer is that there is somedifferentiation between the procedures ofallocating grants to shires of different sizes.Shires with a smaller population are definitelydisadvantaged when it comes to receiving


grants from Governments to provideinfrastructure to their residents. In particular,because they have smaller populations someshires such as the Boonah Shire have a greatamount of difficulty in receiving any grants atall to assist them to build better culturalfacilities for activities in the communities.

At the moment, the Boonah Shire Councilhas a great problem with its civic hall. The hallis in great disrepair. The building is unstableand the floors have basically had it. The wholebuilding needs to be pulled down and a newone built. Unfortunately, this will costsomewhere around $3m; that is $3m that theBoonah Shire Council certainly does not have,and as a smaller community it has greatdifficulty in raising that sort of money. Mysuggestion to this Government and any otherGovernments that come into this place is thatwe should be looking at these smallercommunities in general. We should bepushing a policy under which, each financialyear on a rotational basis and on an as-needsbasis each smaller shire is provided with agrant of money to build these sorts of facilitiesfor its residents. In that way over a period ofyears these facilities—particularly cultural andsporting facilities—could be provided to smallershires.

At this juncture, I wish to thank theMinister for Local Government,Mr Mackenroth, for the recent grants that hehas given to the people of the Shire of Gatton,which has certainly received some significantgrants—approximately $1.5m—from theGovernment in the last 18 months. Gatton,with a population of a little over 15,000, will berewarded with a great sporting facility. I thankthe Government for that.

There is no doubt that rural areas such asthe one that I represent have been underattack from many changes in the past fewyears. Many of these have been caused bythe advent of what I have labelled thedisastrous National Competition Policy. Theimpact that deregulation of the dairy industryhas had in my electorate is only now starting tobe felt. Many businesses have reported amarked downturn in their activities due to thisderegulation. Already about 20 dairy farmers inmy electorate have withdrawn completely fromthe industry. Some of these dairy farmersproduced fairly significant amounts of milk. Iknow of one dairy that produced in excess ofone million litres of milk each year. It has nowclosed due to deregulation.

Even my family veterinary surgerybusiness is suffering quite markedly as a resultof the deregulation of the dairy industry. For

the first time I have seen farmers come intothe business and say, "Sorry, this month wecan't pay your bill. We just haven't got themoney." I can understand that. We have tosympathise with those people. What we try todo is to assist them as much as we possiblycan. We have to keep supplying farmers withthe necessary drugs and other things theyneed from a veterinary surgery to keep theirbusiness going in the hope that sometimedown the track they will start to come goodagain and return to being an important featureof our economy and our district.

But at this stage of the game there is nodoubt that these people are certainly in direstraits, and the delay in the granting of thedairy restructure package is adding to theirwoes. The delivery of that restructure packagehas now been put back and at this stage itlooks as if they will get their money aroundFebruary of next year instead of thisNovember. That, to me, is a great tragedy thatwill certainly put more of the dairies out theback door.

The cost of the impact of the newVegetation Management Act, the new WaterAct and the new forestry agreements in myelectorate will take a little while to beascertained, but I believe that the impact willbe quite significant. The Lockyer electorate islargely a rural-based electorate with a hugehorticultural component. Water is an essentialingredient in the ability of this area to producequality produce. I have heard the member forHinchinbrook talking about the devastatingimpact of the recent drought. Even thoughsome areas have received fairly substantialrainfalls, if they do not get follow-up rainfallthey will quickly return to drought condition.Many areas at this stage have received onlyvery small amounts of rain—some one and ahalf to two inches. Some areas may havereceived four, five, six or seven inches, but thewater from those very heavy rains just floodedaway down the streams anyway.

What concerns me about this is somerecent activity in the central Lockyer area byDNR officers who at this stage and to my wayof thinking are issuing unreasonable waterallocations to many traditional irrigationfarmers, which will have a far-reaching impacton the economy of the area. These DNRofficers are allocating as little as 0.9 megalitresof water per hectare to farmers. That amountsto as little as four inches of rain per year. Thereis no way in the world that irrigation farmerscan survive on 0.9 megalitres of water perhectare. They might as well pack up their gear,have an auction sale and get rid of the farm.The social impact of such activities is going to


be great. Farms will be devalued and a lot ofbankruptcies will probably follow. I have twicewritten to the Minister and I am awaiting hisreply.

Last night in this House the member forToowoomba South, Mr Horan, spoke aboutone of the most exciting proposals that hasbeen projected for south-east Queensland. Irefer to the proposal to pump recycled effluentwaters from Brisbane, Ipswich and LoganCities to the Lockyer Valley and the DarlingDowns. It has the potential of producing ahuge economic boost for both the LockyerValley and the Darling Downs. It will addconsiderably to the economy of this State.

This proposal has been underexamination for some time and, hopefully, isovercoming its last hurdle towards reality. Theconsultants, Kinhill, Brown & Root, are due toreport to the interdepartmental committee byearly December. This is an essential projectwhich must go ahead for a number of reasons.It will overcome the problem that the DNRofficers are causing in the area at present. As Isaid, these officers are downgrading theallocations of water that farmers can use fromthe underground aquifers. It will virtuallydrought-proof the valley and make it a majorhorticultural production area. It will be asustainable production area. The productivityof the Darling Downs will be increased with theintroduction of this water from the south-eastregion of the State. The Lockyer Valley is amajor horticultural production area and theDarling Downs is more directed to such thingsas cotton production.

Projects such as these are essential tothe wellbeing of this country. This particularproject is a classic win/win situation for thepeople of Brisbane and its surroundingregions. It will have cleansing effects on theenvironment of Moreton Bay. Moreton Bay is apristine environment, and we will see theremoval of some 200,000 megalitres of freshwater—waters which are quite polluted—fromthe bay each year. It will be a win/win situationfor the bay and for the Brisbane area. It willalso be a win/win situation for the farmers ofthe Lockyer Valley and the Darling Downs. It isa visionary project. It is a project that theGovernment must grasp in order to ensure thefuture of this State. I urge the Government,and particularly the Treasurer, Mr Hamill, toensure that State Government money isprovided to back such a project.

I heard the member for Sandgatecomment on this proposal. I agree with someof the very good points that he made. I realisethat State Governments cannot entirely fund

such projects. I do not believe any honourablemember or any farmer would disagree withthat suggestion. There are a number of factorsin this project that are very important. It willhave a major positive environmental effect onBrisbane and the Moreton Bay area. LocalGovernment must have an input into thisproposal. There is no doubt that privateenterprise will provide quite a lot of money forthe project. However, initially, Governmentshave to grasp the nettle and go ahead with it.Governments must provide the seed fundingfor this undertaking.

There has been a lot of discussionbetween intergovernmental committees inrelation to this matter. I have attended someof the meetings. I have talked withrepresentatives of Kinhill, Brown & Root andwith Greg Fahey from the Department of StateDevelopment. Hopefully, if all the figures arecorrect, this project will go ahead in the nearfuture.

With the completion of the M1 motorwayto the Gold Coast, I believe it is now time thatthe Main Roads Department redirected itsefforts to providing a good, safe roadwork topeople in regional areas. In my electoratealone, there is a huge number of old woodenbridges on main roads which must bereplaced. At the last count, I believe therewere still 10 of these bridges existing in myelectorate. They are very expensive bridges toreplace. They are not very big, but there is notone that could be replaced at a cost of under$1m. Most of these bridges have beenscheduled for replacement under the RoadsImplementation Program, but this program hasslipped behind schedule. I ask the Minister toreassess the program and have these bridgesreplaced as soon as possible. Some of thebridges are quite dangerous.

I believe many members of this Housewould be well aware of the bridge acrossPurga Creek at Peak Crossing. The woodworkof the bridge has been eaten away by whiteants. I thank the Minister for Transport, MrBredhauer, for the speedy rescheduling of thereplacement of this wooden bridge. I have justbeen briefed by Main Roads officers who areinvolved with that project. I thank the Ministerfor making those officers available to brief meon this matter. A very good bridge is plannedto cross that creek. This particular bridge willcost some $2m. I urge the Minister to try to getthe Roads Implementation Program back ontrack.

Hopefully, with the completion of the M1motorway, many hundreds of millions of dollarswill be going towards the upgrading of the


major highway network throughoutQueensland. In particular, I refer to theduplication of the Gatton bypass. It is essentialthat something is done to this bypass in orderto reduce the number of single-car accidentsand head-on collisions that have occurredalong this section of the highway.

The duplication of this section of theWarrego Highway is estimated to costsomewhere in the vicinity of $30m. It willcomplete the dual carriageway from Brisbaneto Toowoomba. This section of the highwaycurrently carries around 12,000 to 14,000vehicles a day. Most of the money involved inthis project will be Commonwealth money. Iurge the Minister to talk to his Federalcounterpart in an effort to have this section ofthe highway duplicated as quickly as possible.

There is no doubt that the Toowoombabypass is an essential piece of roadwork thathas to be carried out. It will require a lot oftunnelling under the Toowoomba Range. Thisproject will cost the Federal Government some$250m. The bypass will ensure safe travelbetween Ipswich and Toowoomba.

I urge the Minister for Main Roads tocontinue to push for the electrification of therailway line between Ipswich and Toowoomba.This is an essential project which will largelydepend upon Federal Government input. It willprobably also need major input from privateindustry. Hopefully, the railway link fromMelbourne to Brisbane will come through theLockyer Valley.

Mr Lucas: They are working on thecorridor now, aren't they?

Dr PRENZLER: They are working on thecorridor now. A lot of discussion is occurringbetween the people involved. The project isprogressing quite well. I thank the Ministeragain for proposing the corridor. I hope that itwill go through sometime within the next 10years. It will give us a railway corridor fromMelbourne to Brisbane, and it will complementthe electric train service between Ipswich andToowoomba.

Projects such as the water project for theLockyer Valley and the Darling Downs, theduplication of the Warrego Highway, theToowoomba bypass and the upgrading of therailway link between Ipswich and Toowoomba,together with the associated engineeringworks, are big projects, but they are essentialto the development of this State.

Recently, the Minister for Educationannounced the construction of a new highschool in the Flagstone area of my electorate.This new high school, together with therecently completed Laidley State School, will

assist in the education of young people in myelectorate. I thank the Minister for thesefacilities.

Unfortunately, the older schools in myelectorate are suffering badly. Some 533students attend the Gatton State School.There are 21 permanent teachers, but theschool has only 20 classrooms. This situationhas led to improvisation being the order of theday. As a result of pressure being applied tothe Department of Education, we have seenthe arrival of a prefabricated structure that willact as a temporary classroom. Unfortunately,this building is totally inadequate for theteaching of children. I urge the Minister to takenote of the plight of this school and to instigatea building program at the school as soon aspossible.

In addition, the high schools in my regionof Gatton, Laidley and Boonah have beenthere for quite a while. The other night the highschool at Gatton had its 40th speech night,which I attended. The high school at Boonahhad its 36th speech night, which I alsoattended. I was a Year 8 student 36 years agowhen that school was built. That schoolcertainly needs some attention from theBuilding Better Schools Program to rejuvenateit so that it can cope with the teachingrequirements of the new millennium. I take thisopportunity to again thank the Minister forHousing, Mr Schwarten, for the work that Q-Build did after the disastrous storm that hit thatschool late last year. Certainly, Q-Build—and Ithank it very much for this—responded veryquickly. It has done a great job of rebuildingthat school up to new wind classifications.Certainly, the school is much better off for it. Atthe same time, Q-Build replaced a lot of theold asbestos roofs. Certainly, because of thatdisastrous storm a major upgrade of theschool was undertaken.

I notice that the Minister for Education, MrWells, has just walked into the Chamber. Thescience laboratories at the Lockyer District HighSchool at Gatton date back to the start of theschool some 40 years ago. They are in urgentneed of refurbishment. I say to the Ministerthat I will be taking up that matter with him veryshortly to see whether we can get somethingdone under the Building Better SchoolsProgram.

Mr Wells: Perhaps you can make arepresentation on it.

Dr PRENZLER: I think I will.

Recently, Gatton college was renamedthe Gatton Campus of the University ofQueensland. This renaming was not beforetime but occurred only through concerted local


pressure to ensure that the campus survived.Unfortunately, this campus has been largelyignored by its parent university since itsamalgamation in the early 1990s. As I statedin my submission to the Brown report, thiscampus fulfils an essential teaching niche inQueensland, particularly in the agriculturalarea.

This campus should really be a stand-alone agricultural university. To do this, wehave to have some innovative ideas. One ofthe ideas that has been generated bymembers of the campus, the businesspeopleat Gatton as well as me is the establishment ofa farm mechanisation centre that would fill animportant niche in relation to farm machinerysafety and also the promotion of home-grownfarm machinery enterprises of Australia. Asubmission has been presented to the Ministerfor Primary Industries, Mr Palaszczuk, toestablish such a facility in conjunction with theUniversity of Queensland and the StateGovernment. All this facility requires is aseeding grant to get it established. It will thenbecome self-supporting by providing anessential service to machinery manufacturersin Australia. As a consequence, this facility willallow the training and education of machinerydesign engineers in this State. Once again, Itake this opportunity to urge the Minister forPrimary Industries to push this proposal at thenext meeting of the Australian and NewZealand Agricultural Ministers. I know that he isgoing to do that. On numerous occasions hehas talked to me about it. I urge him, if he can,to make sure that that is done, and hopefully aseeding grant can be given so that this facilitycan take off.

Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (4.22 p.m.): Irise in support of the Appropriation Bill. One ofthe areas that will be funded by the Bill is theDepartment of Fair Trading. I note that theMinister is in the Chamber. It is to fair tradingissues that I want to direct my comments.

On 18 October, I spoke in this Chamberabout a telephone scam. At that time I toldParliament of a 69 year old lady of WynnumWest in my electorate who was telephoned bya canvasser and told that she had won a freemobile phone. That lady had never entered acompetition at all, but she was told that shehad won a competition. She was a relativelyunsophisticated person—a normal sort ofperson—and thought, "That is great. I havewon a mobile phone."

A few days thereafter a salesrepresentative turned up. For that mobilephone that the lady had supposedly won shehad to pay a $1 deposit. Why did she have to

pay a $1 deposit? I say as a lawyer that it wasprobably to make her part of a bindingcontract—a consideration to support thecontract. That lady was then signed up for a$39 per month fixed fee on the mobile phonethat she had won. The fact is that these dayspeople can go to a mobile phone store andget all sorts of mobile phones for free.However, people do not really get them forfree because they pay for them when they paytheir monthly subscription. That is whathappened to this poor lady. These areoutrageous bait tactics, they are quite unfair,and they took advantage of this lady'svulnerable position. This lady did not need amobile phone but she was forced into asituation where she had entered into acontract.

I am delighted to say that when I wrote tothe Minister about this matter she acted verypromptly and her department dealt with theissue. To its credit, the company agreed tocancel the contract and allowed my constituentnot to be bound by the monthly fee. However,I know that was because the Minister'sdepartment raised the issue with thatcompany. How many other people are there inQueensland who have been taken in by similartricks? I am greatly concerned that people donot really understand that there is no suchthing as a free lunch and there is no suchthing as a free mobile phone.

Ms Spence: I think that it should beacknowledged that the woman was fortunateto have the representation by the honourablemember.

Mr LUCAS: I am pleased that that ladycame and spoke to me about it and thoughtthat I could help her. She was one of thesepeople who has no-one to turn to. She wasnot a wealthy person. She was living in rentedpremises.

Mr Johnson: The sharks of life.Mr LUCAS: That is right. Unfortunately,

the sharks of life took this lady as a victim. Thefact is that that lady was an unsophisticatedperson—a lovely pensioner residing in rentedpremises—and she was taken advantage of.How many other people are there who do notunderstand that what is free up front might inthe long term have a great cost?

On Monday this week it was of greatconcern that I got a telephone call fromanother constituent. This man had beencontacted by an electronic telephone service.This man indicated to me that a computertelephoned his house and told him that hewas one out of 100 people who were selectedto win a home security system. That computer


asked whether he would want to avail himselfof it and to leave his name and details afterthe tone. This man thought, "That is fantastic."He stated his name and shortly thereafter hewas contacted by a person who organised asales representative to come around and seehim.

This person—I will call them Brett—lives atWynnum North and essentially is a battler. Heis a labourer who on average works a week perfortnight. He does not have full-timeemployment, but he gets all the employmentthat he can. He lives in a rented house. Hedoes not even own the house that he lives in,but these people sell him a home securityalarm system. Those people went around andsaid to him, "You have to listen to thispresentation that we are going to give you ifyou want to collect the home security system."So those people sat this man and his partnerdown and explained the system to him. Thenthese people said, "If you sign up for this, it willcost you a fee of $47 per month. But youcannot get out of it." He said, "Gee, it soundsreally good", and signed up for it. So this manwas then committed to three years of $47 permonth for an alarm monitoring system for ahouse that he did not own, but he has twoRhodesian ridgeback dogs. This man did notneed a security system and he was ripped off.To make matters worse, these people madehim sign a bank withdrawal authority. They didnot tell him when it starts. So it overdrew hisbank account and he wears another $20 forthat.

I think that it is about time that we tookaction. I know that the Minister is veryinterested in the issue because again I havewritten to her about it and she has expressedher concern to me. It is about time that wetook action on these sorts of marketing tactics.I have spoken to other people in my electoratewho have also been phoned by so-calledcompanies offering so-called free alarmsystems. It is just not on.

When I contacted the company, I wastold that there was a 10-day cooling-off period.My constituent told me that, in fact, whathappened to him was that the sheet that hadthe 10-day cooling-off period on it was torn offthe contract that he was given so he had noknowledge of it at all. We should not beallowing the situation where people can use aso-called excuse that a person has won a prizewhen that person has never entered acompetition. This man in question neverentered into a competition. He never filled outa form to win a home security system; it wasjust an artifice to get him to sign a contract.

We must outlaw this sort of behaviournow. It is not fair, it is not Australian and it isnot the decent thing to do to give people theimpression that they have won somethingwhen, in actual fact, they are signingthemselves away for a lengthy period,particularly when they have no need for theproduct. As I said, my constituent is a battler.He does not need a security system. He cameto see me because he had nowhere else toturn. He does not have the money to hirelawyers. He needed to talk to his member ofParliament, and I am glad that he came andsaw me. As I said, when I raised it I found thata whole lot of people in my electorate hadsimilarly been canvassed about "winning"home security systems. It is simply not fair thatpeople are exposed to those sorts of high-pressure tactics.

The Minister has done very well in relationto her legislative initiatives in precluding peoplefrom canvassing after hours. I support her inthat. The unfortunate thing about consumeraffairs law is that as one loophole or one crackis closed another one opens. This is one issuethat we have to look at. We need to outlaw thesituation where marketeers claim that peoplehave won a competition when, in actual fact,they have never entered a competition andthey ought not win a prize. To sign up for sucha contract is a rip-off.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)(4.30 p.m.): I wish to canvass a number ofissues in relation to not only my portfolio areaof Transport and Main Roads but also otherareas relating to Government agencies inother portfolio areas and that affect peopleand businesses in my electorate of Gregory.

When we as members of Parliament thinkabout this, the most important issue is how ourfellow citizens—the people in ourcommunities—are affected. Even thoughfunds are allocated from Government Budgetsto certain areas, certainly many areas are stillcrying out for funding; they seem to have beenleft high and dry. I will touch on that as Iprogress. Although pork-barrelling is oftendiscussed in the House, it is time to be fairdinkum with all of the people of all electoratesand give them a fair share of what theydeserve.

I wish to mention police services. Police inwestern communities are no different to policein any other community in the State. For along while now we have had fantastic policeofficers in the Gregory electorate. I have saidthat before and I further endorse the greatwork they do on a daily basis. But they can dothe work only if they have the staff necessary


to do the work. A remote area like Windorah,which is 300 kilometres south of Longreachand on one of the main arteries to the westbetween Quilpie and Birdsville and Longreachand Birdsville, has not had a resident policeofficer for over 12 months. This is totallyunsatisfactory; the local people are sick andtired of this. Relieving officers have come fromLongreach or the second officer from Jundahwill come and fill in for a couple of days oreven just a fews hours and then go back toJundah. After a long period we have just hadthe sergeant's position in Jundah filled.

The same can be said for places likeThargomindah and Quilpie, which are in mycolleague's electorate of Warrego. Thesergeants' positions there have not been filled.I know people who have applied for thepositions but, because of the requirement for aCJC clearance, they have not been given thego ahead to take up the positions. It isabsolutely ludicrous that we have people whowant to go to those communities and be a partof them for two, three or four years but whocannot be given the go-ahead. That is totallyunacceptable. I trust that the Police Minister,or some of his advisers, are listening so thatsome of these anomalies can be fast-trackedand corrected. It is an unfortunate situation.

All places, whether they are remotecommunities, larger towns or cities throughoutthe State, deserve to have a full complementof police. We have heard the Minister say howpolice numbers are growing and the recruitsare coming through the academies in Brisbaneand Townsville, yet we do not seem to be ableto get police officers to the places where theyshould be. Officers genuinely want to come tothese places, but they are not given the go-ahead because of the stringent selectionpanel interviews they are subjected to. Ibelieve that that is totally unsatisfactory andnot acceptable to the wider community.

I also put on record my acknowledgmentof the great work of the former commissioner,Mr Jim O'Sullivan, over his period of eightyears as commissioner of this State. I think JimO'Sullivan is a truly wonderful person. In thecouple of years that we were in Government,in Russell Cooper's absence and as the ActingPolice Minister I had occasion to work with hima few times. I cannot say enough good wordsabout Jim O'Sullivan. I wish him and his wife,Del, all the best for their retirement. I wishCommissioner Bob Atkinson all the best as henow takes the reins of the Queensland PoliceService and trust that he can lead it in thesame way that Mr O'Sullivan did.

I raise the issue of rural power that wasaddressed in the House last night by themember for Callide, the shadow Minister forMines and Energy. That is an issue that is notgoing away. We have to respect the peoplewho live in isolated, remote communities. Theyhave been subjected to Third World conditionsfor far too long. To be able to flick a switch toturn on power is something that many peopletake for granted today, but people in some ofthose western, north-western and peninsularegions are still dreaming of that. I think it isgoing to take a coalition Government toovercome that.

I know not everyone can have ruralpower, but the commodities produced in thoseregions certainly speak volumes for them.Natural gas is coming out of the ground at arate of knots and being pumped through toMount Isa. There is an abundant supply of oil,coal and all the other commodities we need toproduce power or any other sort of commercialventure. Yet it seems that although the naturalresources come from those western areas wecannot have the products that flow from them.

I believe rural power, or power of anytype, should no longer be provided to only arelatively few; all people are entitled to havethat convenience. Those who are unable tohave rural power—the people in the Barcoo,Boulia Shire, my region, the honourablemember for Mount Isa's region, areas westinto my area of Diamantina, down into theBulloo Shire and Thargomindah—are some ofthe best producers in the nation. They producemasses of cattle, wool and other commoditiesthat enable business operations on theeastern seaboard to function throughout theyear.

The important factor to remember here isthat these people do not ask for a lot from dayto day, but this would be a very small bonus. Ifit has to be a community service obligation togive them that power, they should be entitledto it as recognition of the effort that they haveput in throughout their lives. This issue is notgoing to go away. It is near and dear to thehearts of many people in western Queenslandand one that is high on the agenda of thecoalition when we return to Government nextyear, because I can assure those people thatJeff Seeney will be fast-tracking theimplementation of that policy.

I will also touch on the area ofprofessional medical services in the west. Inotice the member for Fitzroy is just walkingfrom the Chamber now. No doubt this topic isnear and dear to him, too. When we talk aboutflying surgeons and flying doctors—


A Government member: He is going tostay and listen now.

Mr JOHNSON: I hope he does, because Iknow he will support me on this. The issue isthat of the Flying Surgeon based inLongreach. That service is sacrosanct to thepeople of remote western Queensland.Whether or not the service is carrying outmedical procedures, it is absolutely paramountthat we have full retention of the FlyingSurgeon service based in Longreach. At thesame time we have flying doctor servicesbased at Rockhampton, Charleville and MountIsa. They are very important and integral partsof our flying medical services throughoutcentral and western Queensland.

I am pleased the member for Fitzroy hasstayed in the House, because over the last 12months we have witnessed two horribleaccidents in coalmines in central Queensland,and it is the flying medical services that weneed to be able to provide on a daily basisthat mantle of safety to people in thosepredicaments, so that we can save lives byrescuing people from predicaments that placetheir health at risk.

I say to the members on the Governmentside that the services of the Flying Surgeonfrom Emerald to the east, Claremont, furthersouth to Charleville, north to Mount Isa and inthe Longreach region are absolutely critical.Those services must be retained. I havewritten to the Minister and asked her to placean advertisement to fill the void in Longreachcaused by the resignation of Dr Allan Basson.Hopefully, we will see that advertisement runbefore too long. A lot of people in the localcommunity are concerned that theadvertisements are not going to be placed,that this position is going to be declared voidand go somewhere else in the central regionor further to the east. That would be a totallyunacceptable situation. I appeal to the Ministerfor Health today to immediately call forapplications. I know that an American surgeonfilled in for some two months, but it isabsolutely paramount to the ongoing viabilityof medical services in western and remoteQueensland that that position is filledpermanently.

June Lithgow, the District Director ofHealth in Longreach, has told me that theposition will be kept open until the end of 2001and filled. I have to say that 2001 is not on thisagenda; this has to be ongoing, it has to bean indefinite posting and one that is notnegotiable. We will not be compromising onthat. I put that on the record today. I canassure the people of western Queensland that

it is not negotiable; we will not compromise. Iwant to see the Government put in place aprocedure now that is going to makeabsolutely certain that we retain the fullservices of the Flying Surgeon in westernQueensland. So many lives have been savedand so many more lives will be saved becauseof that professional and sacred help that wehave which a lot of people in this part of theworld take for granted.

Another issue I want to touch on while Iam talking about medical services is dentalhealth. Again, we are crying out forprofessionals to come to western Queensland.As with doctors, although we have difficultyattracting them in the first place, we need toengage them on a bond so that they remain inthe area for a reasonable time. That issomething that I believe the Government hasto look at closely. These professional people,whether they are doctors or dentists, are a veryintegral and important part of encouragingpeople to stay, live and take up positions inwestern Queensland. The first thing peopleask is: what medical services are available?When you look at places like Charleville,Roma, Emerald, Longreach, Mount Isa,Cloncurry and Charters Towers, they are allwonderful centres—

Mr Purcell: If you've got trouble with yourteeth, mate, we'll fix it for you.

Mr JOHNSON: With my teeth? I don'thave many teeth, but we won't go into thattoday. I have a couple there, though.

Mr Purcell: You were starting to slowdown a bit, mate. We thought we'd fire you upagain and get you going.

Mr JOHNSON: It is just a touch oflaryngitis. However, I will get over that.

Mr Quinn: Don't put them in my glass.

Mr JOHNSON: I wouldn't do that. Wealways have to have a couple of comics in theplace; we have to put a bit of colour into thejoint. I always enjoy a comment from themember for Bulimba or the member for Fitzroy,because they understand exactly what I amtalking about. I believe that they support metotally in what I am trying to encourage theGovernment to do here today.

Another issue that I want to touch on ismy shadow portfolio. I have seven minutes leftto talk about the portfolio of Transport andMain Roads. I was pleased today to see theMinister for Transport and Main Roads launchthe Roads Implementation Program for 2000-04, the five-year program. I hope thisdocument has not been gutted. I hope it putssubstantial funding arrangements in place, not


just the ones for the budget for the nextcouple of years but ongoing indicative funding.Again, it is absolutely paramount to theongoing viability of shires right across thisState that we can take advantage of thatprogram, because it provides jobs security forlocal councils and work forces throughout thelength and breadth of Queensland. Localauthorities have been waiting for thatdocument for a long time. I have not seen acopy of it yet, but I was pleased to hear theMinister's assurance that he would get a copyto me some time today.

Another matter that I want to touch on isthe railways. There is a lot of angst in therailways community. I visited Townsvillerecently, and there is concern about the futureof those railway workshops. I have given thosepeople a commitment that under a coalitionGovernment those workshops would not close.They are sacred to north Queensland. Wemust not forget the importance of thoserailway yards to the north-west mineralprovince of Mount Isa. Transportation of thatmineral out of north-west Queensland isessential to that project. We also have toconsider passenger and freight services notonly to the north-west but also to the north andsouth of Townsville, and the ongoingmaintenance and upgrade of QR rolling stockin north Queensland.

Mr Reynolds: Hear, hear! I agree withyou 100%.

Mr JOHNSON: I thank the member forTownsville very much. I put that on the recordhere today. I hope that the member willsupport those workers in the Townsville railwayworkshops and support me in makingabsolutely certain that the Townsville railwayworkshops become a stand-alone entity. It isof paramount importance that they be giventheir own management rights and proceduresand that they have their own expertise. Weneed to guarantee those jobs. Thoseworkshops are currently doing a magnificentjob building 300 cattle wagons.

Mr Reynolds: A tremendous job they'vedone.

Mr JOHNSON: It is state-of-the-art. Acouple of weeks ago I witnessed about 130wagons just about to come off the assemblyline. It is essential that we keep the work goingat those workshops. I can assure the people ofTownsville that that will become a reality on theelection of a coalition Government. I canassure the people of Townsville and therailway workers of Townsville that I will continueto work overtime to ensure the security of jobsin that operation in Townsville.

Another issue I want to touch on today isWalkers in Maryborough. Last week I visitedthe Walkers operation in Maryborough and Iinspected some of the great work they aredoing there. The last one of their 50 locos isjust about to come off the assembly line. The30 three-car sets that the coalitionGovernment commissioned from them is justabout complete. At the moment they arehoping to win a contract for six three-car setsfor the Gold Coast railway. I hope that thatcontract is awarded to Walkers. It is absolutelycritical to the future ongoing viability—

Mr Bredhauer: You've got a hide. You'rethe person who complained about us givingthe tender to Walkers for the new tilt train.

Mr JOHNSON: Because you didn't put itout to tender.

Mr Bredhauer: Three hundred jobs tothose workers in Walkers, and you've donenothing but complain about it for two and ahalf years.

Mr JOHNSON: I said that to themanagement of Walkers last week inMaryborough, too. I said to the gentleman inquestion, "I didn't agree with the way you gotthat contract. It should have been put out foropen tender." The Minister knows that himself.He did not put it out for open tender.

Mr Bredhauer: You didn't want the jobsto go to the 300 workers in Maryborough.

Mr JOHNSON: We believed that it shouldhave been put through the fair and propertender process, and the Minister knows that aswell as I do. That is the way you should docommercial and corporate business, and theMinister knows that. However, members on theother side of the House do not have anunderstanding of how commercial andcorporate business works. The Minister can dowhat he likes; he will not wind me up on thisissue. I know that, when it comes to credibility,the Minister has never been seen there. Hehas never been seen walking through theworkshops in Townsville. I do not knowwhether the member for Townsville has invitedhim to visit or not, but I suggest that he does. Iknow that 40 jobs are going to be lost fromWalkers before Christmas, and another 200will go by June next year if they do not winsome of these contracts. I hope that the QRcontract for these Gold Coast cars can bebeneficial for that company.

The other issue that I want to touch on inthe short time remaining to me is major capitalworks by Main Roads. I know that the Ministerand the Premier recently opened the PacificMotorway, which was a project that created alot of jobs in Queensland—probably a


maximum of 3,000. A lot of the peopleemployed by those construction companies,and people from further south and furthernorth, are now looking to see what projects arecoming up. I say to the Minister today that ifthere are projects up for tender, it is essentialthey are fast-tracked so that we can keepthose jobs going in Queensland.

Mr QUINN (Merrimac—LP) (DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (4.50 p.m.): Inrising to speak to the Appropriation Bills, I wantto make a few very brief comments abouteducation. I do so because I am concernedabout the level of underfunding of education inQueensland over the past three years.Queensland has a long history ofunderfunding education compared with thenational average. To illustrate this point, oneonly has to go back to the change ofGovernment in 1989. There was a largecampaign by the Queensland Teachers Unionto raise education funding in Queensland tothe national average. If my memory serves mecorrectly, one of the policy promises of theGoss Government at the time was to achievethat feat. Sadly, that was never achieved inthe six-odd years of the Goss LaborGovernment.

It was not until the coalition came to officein 1996-97 and 1997-98 that educationfunding in this State rose above the nationalaverage for the first time ever. It was atremendous achievement to find the availableresources to ensure that happened. Benefitswere achieved and a range of innovativeprograms developed and put into schoolsacross-the-board, no matter where they werelocated around the State. Sadly, the lateststatistics indicate that in 1998-99 Queenslandhad slipped below the national average again,and that is to be regretted. Even though theexpenditure per student is small in terms of thedecrease, when it is added up across thesystem the results are quite profound.

In 1997-98 Queensland was $132 abovethe national average for per capita spendingon education. Under the Beattie LaborGovernment, that funding slipped to $75below the national average. So it slipped $200straight away. Since that time, indications inthe next two Budgets have shown thatunderfunding has continued. In fact, the 1999-2000 Budget barely kept pace with inflationand enrolment growth. There is a view thatthere was a cut in real terms in the Educationbudget. In my mind, the last Budget, whichcame down some months ago, againcemented the fact that education isunderfunded. In the Budget Papers, there wasa real cut in terms of per student expenditure.

Although there was a small increase of $34per student in high schools, primary educationsuffered a cut of $22 per student, specialeducation was cut by $428 per student anddistance education was cut by some $72 perstudent.

The quality of an education system is notjudged solely on the funding available to it. Infact, there are many instances throughouthistory where funding for education in anumber of States has been well above thenational average, but the results have beenwell below national expectations. However,funding is a critical component in ensuring aquality education system. It again comes backto how Governments spend the funds andwhat policies are in place, but funding iscritical. In a State such as Queensland, whichhas a large number of smaller schools, thecost of education is higher than in moredensely populated States such as New SouthWales and Victoria. Therefore, whenQueensland slips below the national average,we are in real trouble. That is the problem wehave at the present time.

For the past three years the figures quiteconvincingly show that the funding needed foreducation in State schools has not beendelivered. It is all very well for the Minister forEducation, Mr Wells, and the Premier toembark upon a bout of Canberra bashing,saying that the Federal Government is shiftingfunding from the State Governments to thenon-Government schools or whatever it maybe, but those opposite cannot mount thatargument when they themselves areunderfunding State schools in this State. Thatis a hypocritical stance to take. The figuresquite convincingly show that funding inQueensland has fallen below the nationalaverage in 1998-99 and, by all measures,looks as though it will continue over the nexttwo Budgets.

Mr Sullivan: That's a bit rich from acoalition that for 30 years had it well below thenational average.

Mr QUINN: I point out to the member forChermside that there has been only oneGovernment in this State which broughteducation funding above the national average,and that was the coalition Government in theBudget periods 1996-97 and 1997-98. Theindependent figures show that the first Budgetthe current Government brought downreduced it below the national average again.Those opposite did their old trick. They cutfunding and we slid below the nationalaverage. Those figures are not in dispute. Howcan members opposite come in here and


mount the argument that the Commonwealthshould supply more funds for schools whenthey themselves are underfunding Stateschools? That is the most hypocritical stancethose opposite have taken.

However, the Opposition is not the onlyone to say this. The Queensland TeachersUnion is no friend of the coalition, yet itsupports what we have said. It recognisedfrom the independent figures that there hasbeen underfunding of education in 1998-99. Itmakes the point that the two Budgets sincethat time have not repaired the damage. Infact, they have taken funding even lower thanthe national average. So we are not alone insaying this. The Queensland Teachers Unionis right beside us on this point, because itspolicy for quite some time has been to getfunding above the national average. That isone of the points I wanted to make aboutfunding for education today.

The Minister has mounted the argumentthat cost effectiveness and economies of scalemake no difference. The economies of scaleargument comes back to a number of issues.Economies of scale are achieved in two ways:larger schools and larger classes can becreated, which reduce overheads, or programsand services to students can be cut. They arethe only ways to create economies of scale,and that is what underfunding of educationproduces in this State—larger schools, largerclasses, cuts in programs. Take your pick! Ithink we are starting to see evidence of that inour schools at the present time, because thereis now a mid-year census. Whereas previouslythere was only one per year, there are now twoper year. However, larger classes andtherefore larger pupil/teacher ratios cutflexibility from schools. My office has receivedquite a number of phone calls about classeswhich have been constructed or"deconstructed" mid year because of achange in staffing in a school. That is causingenormous angst and problems not only inschools but also amongst parents. That is oneoutcome of underfunding in education.

There are other outcomes. For a start, theprograms that need to be put in placesometimes cannot be put in place. Forexample, I refer to the lack of serious drugeducation programs in our schools. Anindependent analysis of the amount of moneyspent on central drug education budgetsacross all the States shows that Queensland issimply not in the ballpark. In fact, we are rightout the back door. Queensland spendssomething like 50c per student compared withVictoria, which spends $10 per student—thehighest amount in Australia. The Government

can mount all the arguments it likes, as theMinister has done, about teachers inclassrooms teaching drug education programs,and that happens in other States as well.However, an analysis which compares centrallyheld drug education funds right across thenation shows where there is seriousunderfunding. As I said, Queensland is thelowest with 50c per student, whereas Victoria isthe highest with $10 per student. Again, thefigures speak for themselves.

I turn to the school cadets program. It istrue that more students have entered into theprogram over the past three years, but it isalso true that there really has not been asignificant increase in the funding. If theGovernment really had a commitment toprograms such as school cadets, police inschools and so on—those programs forstudents who really need some assistance inself-discipline and those programs whichcreate self-reliance, self-esteem and a wholerange of social outcomes for students—in thethree Budgets we have had so far from thisLabor Government there should have beenmore money allocated. That more studentsare participating while the funding hasremained static really shows no commitment tothe program whatsoever. I know from mydiscussions with and visits to schools that thisis one of the programs that the high schoolsreally see as having positive benefits rightacross-the-board for all students who enter intoit.

I will touch on something that has cometo light just recently. It concerns informationtechnology grants and allowances. Theprevious funding mechanism allowed schoolsto receive payments in February and October.Schools would get 50% of their allocation inFebruary and the other 50% in October. Byand large, that allowed schools to plan withconfidence. I am now made aware that fromnext year, 2001, there will be one annualgrant. One hundred per cent of their allocationwill be made in October. The problem with thatis that in October this year schools got 50% oftheir IT budget. It will be another 12 monthsbefore they get their next IT allocation. So fora 12-month period they really have to make dowith 50% of the money they normally wouldhave had. I know that some schools arelooking at some quite serious cutbacks interms of programs and at ways they cansupplement their IT programs to try to getthem over that six-month period in which theywill not have any money at all.

The effect of this, of course—besides theeffect at the school level, as I havementioned—is effectively a saving for the


budget this financial year. It is 50% of theprogram that is not being paid out as it wouldcome due in February. Instead, theGovernment is rolling it over into the nextfinancial year. Effectively it has saved itself50% of the program in this financial year. Thatis a symptom of underfunding, as are all theother cases I have mentioned. That is why Iam concerned.

Over the last three years, as I have said,there really has been an underfunding ofeducation. If we want to be the Smart State, ifwe want to have all the benefits that flow froman educated populous and work force, wecannot continue to deny education the fundsthat it needs. Whilst we do not judge thequality of the system purely on the fundingavailable, it is a key component in overallterms.

I make the point again: Queensland,because of the larger number of smallerschools, has a relatively high-cost system. Wecannot be compared with the more populousStates of Victoria and New South Wales thathave a larger number of larger schools. Theyhave the economies of scale, if it can betermed that way. It is very difficult to make ajudgment as to what level of funding is correct.The best approach is to look at the nationalaverage. We were above the national averagefor a couple of years. We have now slippedbehind. The last two Budgets at least look asthough they have taken us further behind. Iam concerned—and I am quite sure thatparents and teachers are concerned—aboutthis underfunding that has gone on over thelast three years.

If the Government is going to address thisproblem, the next Budget really should see asignificant increase in education funding in thisState. No longer can we afford to keep oncutting in per capita terms across certainsectors—mainly the primary and specialeducation sectors. I understand why thereneeded to be an emphasis on the high schoolprograms, in light of the way the funds weredistributed before. In 1997-98 and 1996-97primary education funding was above thenational average and secondary was below. Iunderstand the need to redress that, butoverall we simply cannot continue tounderfund and redistribute funds from a smallpool of money. That is not the way to have aquality education system. While it is equitable,it is equitable in a declining fashion. What weshould be looking at is increasing funding,getting it above the national average, where itought to be, and then, if we need to,redistribute funds. I am satisfied that theissues I raise have been addressed. However,

I get back to the point I made before: it is notthe quantity always; it is the quality. Butquantity is also important in terms of funds.

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (5.05 p.m.): Itake the opportunity of debate on theseAppropriation Bills to deal with some issuesrelevant to my shadow portfolio of Mines andEnergy that are important to everyQueenslander. I take this opportunity to speakin this Parliament about the Queensland coalindustry and to make some long overduecomments about the regrettable attitude thatthis Government has taken to that greatindustry.

The Queensland Government has forsome time made a financial contribution to theCooperative Research Centre for Black CoalUtilisation, based at the University ofNewcastle. Unfortunately, this Governmentand Minister McGrady have seen fit to reducetheir contribution to the Cooperative ResearchCentre and they have seen fit to reduce theamount of money they have been prepared tocontribute to research and development in thecoal industry generally.

Queensland depends very heavily on theblack coal industry. It is an industry that hasprovided enormous benefits to Queenslandover many years. Yet this Labor Governmentis abandoning the coal industry, and that is nottoo strong a term. This Government isabandoning the coal industry in a range ofways and reducing the amount of effort that itis making to the sustainable future of thatindustry.

The greenhouse issue is obviously a verytopical one at the moment. Understandably,the Black Coal Cooperative Research Centre,the CRC, has been doing a deal of researchinto the emissions question and the viability ofrecovering carbon dioxide at the point ofgeneration. The studies done by the BlackCoal CRC have confirmed that it would becostly to remove carbon dioxide from boilerwaste gases by available chemical scrubbingtechnologies, given that the means ofextraction would have to be retrofitted toexisting power stations. The main reasons are,of course, the large volumes of gas to betreated and the relatively low concentration ofcarbon dioxide in the waste gases.

However, the interesting point is that,even in these inherently unfavourableconditions, where the extraction mechanismshave had to be retrospectively fitted to theexisting power stations, adding the additionalcost of carbon dioxide recovery and disposalwould, according to the studies, cost about7c per kilowatt hour. When this cost is added


to the very low cost of our large-scale coal-firedgenerators, which currently are around 3c perkilowatt hour, the end result in the sent-outcost of electricity would still be around 10c perkilowatt hour. And that is no more than most ofthe renewable or alternative energy powerprojects. That is the point, for whatever reason,this Government has chosen to ignore.

Even given the high cost of removing thecarbon dioxide from the emissions of our coal-based power stations, Queensland coal-firedpower can still be produced at a competitiveprice when compared with most other energyprojects. Of course, we should not be preparedto incur those costs until there is much morecertainty about what is really needed in termsof emissions, until there is much more certaintyin terms of what we need to do to meet ourinternational commitments.

However, it must be acknowledged that, ifit has to be done, conventional coal-firedgeneration can reduce emissions and still becompetitive with other energy alternatives. Thisbelies the falseness and the fraudulence ofthis Government's energy policy. TheQueensland Labor Government has embracedan energy policy that will mandate a 15%market share for gas-fired electricity by theyear 2005. It has justified that energy policy bythe need to meet and reduce gas emissions.

The research that has been conducted bythe Black Coal CRC in Newcastle—researchwhich was, partly at least, funded by this StateGovernment—has indicated that our coal-firedplants can meet emission control limits if weneed to, albeit at a large cost. We can meetemission limits from our existing powerstations, and we can meet them at a costwhich will be competitive. That is what theresearch that this Government has funded hasindicated. But still this Government's refusal toeven consider this option would seem toindicate that its energy policy is based onsome motivation other than the greenhousegas emission issue. It is ignoring the results ofthe research that it itself paid for.

As I have said before in this place, theKyoto Agreement and the greenhouse gasemissions issue are being used as aconvenient excuse by this Government toadopt a policy which is all about providing arails run for a single project in the Queenslandenergy market. It is about tipping the playingfield in favour of one project that seeks toimport energy from New Guinea to thedetriment of every other energy proposal andto the detriment of every other energyproponent in the Queensland industry.

The Black Coal CRC at the University ofNew South Wales has established that ifgreenhouse gas emissions do have to begreatly reduced, it would be much more cost-effective to build the carbon dioxide recoveryinto the new units in new coal-fired powerstations. There are other ways, too, of makingcarbon dioxide recovery cheaper, for example,still using the familiar pulverised coal-firedboilers but with oxygen-rich combustion inrecycled flue gas to produce a concentratedcarbon dioxide waste gas.

International Energy Agency studiesindicate that substantial reductions in carbondioxide recovery costs could be achieved bythese means. Requirements for low carbondioxide emission power generation would thusconsiderably improve the attractiveness of thisnew technology.

It is also worth noting that the USDepartment of Energy, in its Vision 21program, has strongly embraced the conceptof carbon dioxide sequestration as a viableand potentially economical technology forsustainable energy scenarios, includingindefinite sourcing of power generation fromfossil fuels. This would involve the disposal ofcarbon dioxide emissions by dissolving it in seawater or injecting it into deep porous rockformations.

Given that the sourcing of powergeneration from fossil fuels can be acompetitive scenario, can be a sustainablescenario, the Queensland Government shouldbe allocating much more funding to researchsuch as that being carried out by the BlackCoal CRC. Given the large deposits of blackcoal that Queensland has both for domesticuse and for overseas sale, the QueenslandGovernment should be leading the field inencouraging research on all the issuessurrounding carbon dioxide emissions. TheQueensland Government should besupporting the investigation of every possiblealternative technology to ensure thatQueensland's vast resources of black coalhave a ready market in the future.

The Queensland Government's energypolicy favouring renewables and natural gasover coal is regrettably misguided and itignores the research results that theGovernment itself has funded. The correctapproach, the logical approach, would be toprescribe emission limits, if emission limitprescriptions are to be part of an internationalapproach, and then let the market decide howbest to meet those limits. Let the technologydevelop to meet the emission limits, and it willif market forces are allowed to operate.


To create mandated markets for oneparticular energy source is an interference inthe market that is misguided at best. It is evenmore misguided to interfere to support anotherforeign energy source, given the extent ofQueensland's coal resources and the extent towhich Queensland's electricity generationindustry is based on the mouth of the mineblack coal-fired power stations.

It is clear that pressures are increasingworldwide on all Governments to demonstratea commitment to reduce greenhouse gasemissions from energy conversiontechnologies and other energy intensiveindustries. Everyone agrees that Australiashould play its part in a move in that direction,but there is no reason for Queensland to berunning in front of the field. There is no reasonwhy Queensland should rule out what, onlogical examination, appears to be our bestoptions. Whatever we do needs to be part of anational and international approach; it needsto be part of an agreed approach.

Numerous options are available for thecontrol of carbon dioxide emissions, includingnew combustion technologies, energyconservation, renewable energy technologiesand carbon dioxide sequestering. It isimportant to understand the relative costs andmerits of each of these options in order thatinformed decisions may be made. Many of theavailable technologies will only becomecommercially available when the marketdictates that there is a place for them. Theimportant thing is to realise that there areoptions other than the simplistic one that thisQueensland Government has adopted. Thereare options other than the simplisticabandoning of our coal industry in favour ofother fuel sources that may be only marginallydifferent in terms of emissions.

The studies at the Black Coal CRC at theUniversity of Newcastle have shown that retro-fitting existing black coal-fired power plants withCO2 removal systems is technically feasibleand the industry can, if the market demands,meet emission limits and still be economicallyviable. There is a future for Queensland's coal-fired electricity industry—a great future—andthe Government should be helping theindustry to meet the challenges to ensure thatthat sustainable future is realised. TheGovernment should be increasing thecontribution that it makes to industry researchrather than decreasing the amount of moneythat it is prepared to commit to ensure thefuture of the great coal industry. Otherresearch is being conducted by privatecompanies and other organisations involved

with the Australian coal industry, and that is asit should be.

Coal is the major source of energy forpower generation in Australia, with about 85%of the market. It is the major source of energyfor power generation globally, with about 40%of electricity being generated from coal inglobal market terms. Coal also providesessential carbon for the production of iron andsteel, with 70% of the world production usingcoal and coke. The Australian coal industryand the Queensland coal industry, moreespecially, will continue to play a vital role inworld steel and energy production for decadesto come.

However, that is not to deny that there aresignificant environmental challenges for theindustry. It needs to be recognised that theindustry has already become cleaner, moreefficient and environmentally aware. Theindustry has already made great strides. Thecoal industry is striving towards continuousimprovement in the performance of coal andother energy technologies, particularly inrelation to greenhouse gas emissions. Thosecontinual improvements are being demandedby the community to ensure a sustainablefuture for the industry.

The Government should be supportingthe industry in these endeavours. It isimportant to understand all the complexities ofthe issues rather than to make knee-jerkreactions in the way that this LaborGovernment has done with the compilation ofits energy policy. It is important that decisionmakers at all levels of Government work withthe industry to identify and quantify theenvironmental credentials of coal relative toother energy sources. It is important that wequantify the impact of new technologies thatare emerging in coalmining and that areemerging in terms of combustion and wasteutilisation. It is important that we develop newapproaches to better compare theenvironmental performance of coal with otherenergy sources, and it is important that wedevelop strategies based on quality data andanalysis to improve the environmentalperformance of the industry. We also need toimprove the overall perception of coal as anenergy source. We need to improve theperception of customers and the communitygenerally.

The coal industry, to its credit, has mademajor financial contributions to studies into theenvironmental credentials of coal. It isimportant that we as a community understandthe complexity of the issues. It is importantthat we do not oversimplify what are very


complex decisions. There needs to be awhole-of-life-cycle analysis for every energysource. Whole-of-life-cycle analysis is anappropriate methodology to comprehensivelycompare the environmental impacts of allenergy sources, as it allows the quantificationof all emissions and the calculations ofemissions saved. For example, the by-products of one process might be used toreplace products in another process, therebyavoiding emissions associated with thosereplaced products.

It is much more complex than justmeasuring the amount of carbon dioxide atthe point of combustion. In electricitygeneration, life cycle analysis accounts foremissions that occur as early as in themanufacture of the construction materials,during the construction of dam walls andpower stations, while extracting resources suchas coal and gas, while transporting resourcesto power stations, including natural gastransmission and distribution, and of coursethe combustion of fuels to produce theelectricity.

It is that sort of life cycle analysis that theQueensland Government should have done,and failed to do, before it opted for amandated 15% market in Queensland by2005 for one particular energy source. It isthose complex issues that this Governmentshould have looked at and come to terms withbefore it made simplistic decisions that werenot based on logic and science.

In coal-fired generation, 97% of emissionsoccur at combustion, whereas in gas-firedgeneration more than 10% of the emissionscan occur in gas production, in processing andin transportation. That is why whole-of-life-cycleanalysis is so very important. Taking accountof displacement credits and advancedcombustion technologies, emissions from coal-fired generation can conceivably be reducedby about 30%. Advanced technologies for gas-fired generation might also reduce emissionsby 20%, and the maximisation of fly ash use incement manufacture and co-firing of biomasswith coal could reduce the life cycle analysisemissions from coal to be equivalent to thosefrom gas-fired electricity generation. No-onereally knows, but the indications are there thatenergy sources can be very comparative.

For coal-fired power stations, up to a 10%reduction in overall impacts can be achievedby using fly ash as a cement extender. Its usedepends on attitudes as well as sometechnical issues. This is an area that needspromotion and development like so manyothers. It is an issue for coal producers, it is an

issue for the power industry and it is an issuefor the Queensland Government as well. It isan issue for the Minister for Mines and Energyif he is interested in the future of Queensland'scoal industry. There are also opportunities forgas and organic fuel co-firing with conventionalpulverised coal. There are a range of emergingtechnologies involving combined cycletechnologies.

Once again, these are issues that theQueensland Government should have lookedat. It should have looked at them before itcommitted this State to an energy policy. Itshould be still looking at them now. These arethe areas in which the Minister for Mines andEnergy should be supporting ongoingresearch. The Queensland Governmentshould be encouraging the development ofpractical strategies for maximisingdisplacement credits for coal ashes fromelectricity production. It should be encouragingand quantifying options for improving coal-based electricity generation by a range of newtechnologies. It should not be abandoning thecoal-fired electricity industry, and it should notbe abandoning the coalmining industry whichnot only provides a great domestic fuel sourcebut also provides a competitive fuel sourceproduct for the export market.

The coal industry itself is preparing tospend $3m on a two to three year study of theenvironmental impact of the full coal cycle, anda further $1.5m on promoting coal as a fuelsuitable for use in an increasingly sensitiveglobal environment. Given the importance ofthe coalmining industry to Queensland, giventhe contribution that the coalmining industryhas made to Queensland to date, and giventhe potential contribution that the industry canmake in the future, the QueenslandGovernment should be making a similarcommitment.

There is enough evidence frompreliminary work to assume that coal can beno more polluting than natural gas once thefull cycle of production is taken into accountand the new technology is used. In addition,the Queensland Government needs tocontribute to an industry promotion campaignto counter some of the negativity—to countersome of the simplistic negativity—that hasachieved credibility only by repetition.

I wonder whether the Minister for Minesand Energy understands the complexities ofthis issue, or is he just a captive of theenvironmental extremists in his party's leftwing? Is he sacrificing the future of this greatindustry to environmental slogans andsimplistic concepts that do not stand up tological and scientific examination?


It is well to place on record the size andsuccess of the Queensland coal industry.Rising productivity levels and lower operatingcosts have lifted the competitiveness ofQueensland's coal industry through a difficulttrading environment. Productivity jumped 26%in the 1999 calendar year to 14,491 tonnesper employee, and the State alsostrengthened its international standing with 17central Queensland hard coking coalminesplaced in the world's top 20, including the top13 mines being in Queensland.

Coal production improved with recordsachieved for saleable product up to 123 milliontonnes. Exports improved to 102 milliontonnes in the 12 months ended 2000. Higheroutput resulted from some expanded capacityat the Burton, Ensham and South WalkerCreek open-cut mines and at Moranbah North,Newlands and the Oakey Creek undergroundmines, and from two new open-cut operationsat Coppabella and Foxleigh.

The coal industry has worked hard toremain competitive in the world market and itdeserves greater recognition from this StateGovernment. It deserves greater recognitionfrom the Minister for Mines and Energy. Thecontribution the industry makes to the Stateeconomy cannot be understated.

The potential for the future is great.Although world coal demand is predicted togrow steadily over the next five years, analystshave cautioned that coal prices are likely todecline. Faced with that future, Queenslandproducers are employing diverse strategies toremain competitive. Contract miners are beingused, small niche markets are beingdeveloped and many producers are focusingon workplace reform.

The Queensland Government's energypolicy can only delay investment in the coalindustry. The Queensland Government shouldbe supporting the industry's move to asustainable future. It should be encouragingfull life cycle assessment of the environmentaleconomic and social aspects of coal use andinsisting on that full life cycle assessment in itsown decision-making process.

The Queensland Government should befacilitating the development and use ofsustainable coal based energy technologies,and it should be recognising the transitionpaths and policies that lead to sustainable coaluse. It should be ensuring the sustainability ofthis great Queensland industry. Instead, it issending negative signals to the community atlarge about the coal industry, and it is sendingnegative signals to the world market about aproduct on which the economy of this State

depends. It is doing so not for environmentalreasons but for pure cynical political reasons.This Labor Government's attitude to the coalindustry is regrettable and it will be to thedetriment of every Queenslander.

Mr SLACK (Burnett—NPA) (5.23 p.m.): Ibelieve this is an appropriate time to look athow we are performing as a State. Manyearlier speakers in this debate have done that,particularly the Leader of the Opposition andthe shadow Treasurer.

I would like to make some comments inrespect of the way I see it and also support thecomments that earlier speakers have made. Ibegin by saying that day after day we sit in thisChamber and the Premier comes in and tellsus all about the achievements of theQueensland economy. He espouses thatmessage broadly throughout the electorate—throughout the State. Obviously, one wouldexpect him to do that. We would expect him totalk up the Queensland economy relevant towhat we can achieve. This would giveconfidence to our people and to people whomay want to invest in our economy.

I do not believe in being negative. I donot think it pays to be negative. Onediminishes confidence in business if one isnegative about the prospects of the outcomesfor the State with respect to other States andother economies. Having said that, theOpposition has a responsibility to point out thefailings of this Government. We need to pointout where the Government and the Premierare misleading the people with regard toeconomic management.

The measure of how well the Queenslandeconomy is doing should be the measure incomparison to other Australian States and theoverall performance of the Australianeconomy. On comparative terms the indicatorsshow that we are not doing so well, or as wellas we should be doing. The comparativefigures were earlier given to the House by theLeader of the Opposition.

The unemployment figures came outtoday and I believe we went up a notch to7.6%. As the Leader of the Opposition pointedout, our last unemployment figures were 7.5%and the Australian figure was 6.4%.Queensland had the third highestunemployment rate, being only above SouthAustralia on 7.6% and Tasmania on 9.7%.This is not a good indicator and it is not areassuring figure for the Premier and theGovernment who are looking at achieving a5% unemployment rate.

We can go a little further and look at thenumber of bankruptcies. In Queensland in


1997-98 we had 1,352 bankruptcies againstan Australian average of 691. Again, that isnot a good indicator for the performance of theQueensland economy. In 1998-99Queensland had 1,678 bankruptcies againstthe Australian average of 844. Again, that is avery negative figure as far as businessconfidence is concerned.

I come now to consider the number ofventure capital investments. In the Decemberquarter of 1999, New South Wales andVictoria had 89 venture capital investmentsand Queensland, Western Australia and SouthAustralia together had 34. Of that figure,Queensland had only nine.

If one looks at the total for 1999 one seesthat New South Wales and Victoria had 269and Queensland, Western Australia and SouthAustralia had 102 between them. Of thatfigure, Queensland had 31. That is not a figurethat will give confidence to business operatorsand investors.

The Leader of the Opposition referred topreparedness for e-commerce. Queenslandranked second last with Tasmania, just aheadof the Northern Territory. Surely, they are notfigures that the Premier would want to speakabout. He would not want to hear the Leaderof the Opposition, or me, saying that they arethe figures that Queensland is enjoying incomparison with the rest of Australia.

This morning I heard the DeputyPremier—and I have heard this manytimes—trying to pass off the failings of theQueensland economy on the GST. One wouldthink, when listening to the Deputy Premier,that the GST applied only to Queensland. Ofcourse, we all know that the GST applies tothe whole of Australia. So there is no doubt inmy mind that when the Deputy Premier keepsharping and harping and knocking andknocking and being negative about the GSTand the implications of the GST on business,he is indulging in a very cynical exercise ofpolitical opportunism. I give the Premier hisdue: in this instance he has not been quite asnegative as the Deputy Premier. However, thatnegativity is counterproductive because, at theend of the day, it erodes business confidence.

The latest QCCI Pulse survey indicatesthis erosion of business confidence. I knowthat the Deputy Premier has used the QCCIsurvey results to demonstrate to theParliament that the GST and petrol prices arecausing problems for business. However, as Isaid earlier, we should make a comparisonbetween Queensland and the rest of Australiato gauge a true measure of how Queenslandis doing and how people see Queensland

doing. In terms of people's expectations of theQueensland and Australian economies, theQCCI Pulse survey showed that 37% of peopleexpect the Queensland economy to be weakeror much weaker this time next year. I askmembers to remember that figure. Thirty-oneper cent expect a somewhat weaker or muchweaker performance in the Australianeconomy. So 6% less than the 37% of thepeople surveyed think that the Australianeconomy will be weaker. In other words, ahigher percentage of people think that theQueensland economy will be weaker this timenext year. In terms of Queensland andAustralia's business environment, 34% ofrespondents classified Queensland's businessenvironment as good to very good, whereas39% classified the Australian businessenvironment as good to very good.

Mr Deputy Speaker has studiedeconomics and he would appreciate thesignificance of these figures. That surveydemonstrates that the business communitybelieves that the Australian economy isperforming much better than the Queenslandeconomy. Despite the negativity of the DeputyPremier in terms of the GST, which isnationwide, and the excise levied on petrol,which is a Federal issue, businesspeople havejudged that the Australian economy is betterthan the Queensland economy. I sheet homesome of the blame for that result to the DeputyPremier in that he is destroying confidence inthe Queensland economy with his negativeattitude towards the GST, which is a fact of life.

The GST was introduced by the FederalGovernment. The Federal coalition won thelast election on the promise that it wouldintroduce a GST. Of course, there are humpsin respect of the first return of the businessactivity statement. It is recognised that it is acomplex process and that many businessesare having problems meeting the requirementsof the business activity statement and that it iscosting them. It also places time constraints onpeople in respect of the management of theirbusiness.

The question that we have to askourselves is: why is the process so complex?My understanding is that the Australianrequirements are about an inch thick whereasthe New Zealand requirements are only abouta quarter of an inch thick. The reason for thatis quite obvious. The New Zealand GST isbased on what the Labour Government of theday introduced. It was a simple goods andservices tax that applied to most things,including food. The New Zealand Governmentdid not have the exemptions to the tax thatthe Australian Federal Government was forced


to make by the Democrats and the LaborParty. The Labor Party, by default, ensuredthat the Democrats were able to get theamendments to the GST that they wanted. Asa result, we saw people question why anuncooked chook is GST-free whereas acooked chook attracts a GST, and so on.However, the reality is that the blame for thedifficulty that businesses are facing in gettingover the hump of returning their first businessactivity statement can be sheeted homedirectly to the input of the Federal Labor Partyand the Federal Democrats.

I would like to take a moment of the timeof the House to outline the experience that Iand several other Opposition members hadwith the GST some years ago. We were part ofa delegation to New Zealand after the NewZealand Labour Government had introduced aGST. At that time the Federal Opposition,under the leadership of Dr Hewson, wasproposing to introduce a GST in Australia. Iask members to bear in mind that it was sometime before the then Labor Treasurer and laterPrime Minister, Paul Keating, had proposed tointroduce a GST. As part of that delegation, Iwell remember talking to many organisations inNew Zealand about the effects of the GST andhow people coped with it and how they copedwith their returns.

One of the highlights of that trip was anaudience with Roger Douglas, who at that timewas the Labour New Zealand Treasurer andthe architect of the GST in New Zealand. Idistinctly remember him saying two things tothat delegation: one was that at some stage oranother Australia would have a GST. RogerDouglas did not believe that Dr Hewson couldbring it in, based on the fact that itsintroduction was so difficult. The New ZealandLabour Government was able to get a GSTthrough only because of the bipartisan supportof all the other parties and the unions. Duringits introductory stage, the New ZealandGovernment approached the issue of the GSTvery cleverly, knowing full well that the publicwas not supportive of it. The AustralianGovernment also knew that the public was notsupportive of the GST. However, theyrecognised the benefits that it would have forthe economy.

The second thing I distinctly rememberRoger Douglas saying was that whatever wedid, we should not allow exemptions from theGST. He said that we should compensategenerously those people who would beadversely affected by the GST, but we shouldnot allow exemptions because that would takeaway the simplicity of the tax and limit its realbenefits to the economy. An argument

develops as to what should be exempted andwhat should not be exempted and then thereis confusion, and businesses experienceproblems in returning their business activitystatements—all of the sorts of things that weare seeing happening now in Australia. RogerDouglas said further that the CanadianGovernment allowed exemptions and lostGovernment at the next election. Hopefully,the Federal Government is not going to loseGovernment at the next election, because Ibelieve that business generally has acceptedthe benefits of the GST.

However, everybody acknowledges that atthis point there is a hump with the GST, asthere was a hump when it was introduced. Buthaving said that, there was no doubt fromwhat was said by Roger Douglas, a LabourTreasurer, that we should not makeexemptions to the GST. The exemptions weremade on behalf of the Democrats and theLabor Party, who would not accept a taxpackage that was supported by the Australianpeople at the last election.

At the end of the day, the Labor Partydoes not have any credible tax policy of itsown. All it is proposing to do is to roll back theGST. Of course, if Labor were to be elected toFederal Government and did that, that wouldcause more confusion and problems within theelectorate. So all that Labor and the DeputyPremier have been able to do is knock, knock,knock, knock. As I said earlier, that in itself hasbeen a contributing factor to the erosion ofbusiness confidence in Queensland, which isreflected in these figures that are produced inthe QCCI Pulse survey.

The reality is that in comparative terms inthe market place we should be well ahead ofthe other States, because we have had a verystrong economy for many, many years fromsuccessive Governments; we have had aneconomy with no debt, and our basic economyhas been so far ahead of those of the otherAustralian States that it is not funny.Queensland has many natural resources. Themember for Callide just spoke about the coalindustry, the mining industry and the primaryindustries. You name it, Queensland is able todo it. We are able to do it if we are positiveabout it. We need confidence to do it, andconfidence is the key ingredient.

We can add value to all of our products,and it is acknowledged by everyone in thisHouse that we have to do that. We have touse innovation. Our people have the capacityto do that. Our people are our greatest asset.When somebody asks, "What is your greatestasset?", the response can be put in three


words: "People, people, people." We get uphere and say we have them, so why aren't wedoing better? We have a clean and greenenvironment. We have tourist attractions thatpeople want to see. Our standard of living isone of the major factors that led to Boeingestablishing its headquarters in Queensland—and that was under our administration. Whenwe were in Government, my department wasable to demonstrate to Boeing executives andemployees that we had these health andeducation facilities and living conditions thatwere far ahead of those in places that werecompeting with us for Boeing's headquarters.

Our proximity to Asia is an advantageover the other States. Asia has a recoveringeconomy. I do not care what the Treasurersaid today about Asia's weak economy. Asia'seconomy has been recovering for the last twoor three years, and we should have been ableto benefit from that. We have more overseasoffices than any other State, and many ofthose were established during our time inGovernment, which lasted for only two shortyears. We established offices in Shanghai, LosAngeles, Jakarta and Semarang. Weestablished sister-State relationships. TheTexas sister-State relationship that was talkedabout by the Honourable Premier wasestablished during our term, and I pay tributeto the member for Clayfield, Santo Santoro,because his connections there were a keyfactor in establishing the sister-Staterelationship with Texas. So, we have all ofthose advantages. On top of that, we have thePremier's promotion, his salesmanship. ThePremier likes to think of himself as being asupersalesman, but at the end of the day it isnot happening, as the figures I gave to theParliament before indicate.

Morale in the Public Service is low. TheGovernment should not deny that; it is verylow. One of the reasons it is low is job security.We have just seen redundancies in DPI,Natural Resources and Environment. Thefeedback I am getting from Education andHealth, in particular, is that morale is extremelylow. As I have said, business confidence isextremely low.

As the honourable member for Moggill,the shadow Treasurer pointed out in the lastBudget debate, while the Government skitesabout its big Capital Works Program, only asmall proportion of that program is actuallynew money. Business knows that. The GoldCoast road is finished now and there are nomajor projects on the books for businesses tofeel confident about having projects to go toand providing jobs, with the resultantcirculation of money stimulating the economy.

There is no doubt in my mind that morale andconfidence are low.

While the Deputy Premier and thePremier get up and announce new privateinvestment from overseas, we see jobs beinglost in Queensland. Austoft laid off 96 thismorning. That is a big blow to the Bundabergeconomy and the people of Bundaberg. So,while we had the Deputy Premier announcinga new investment into Queensland thismorning, at the same time we had thatheadline in the Bundaberg News Mail.

I would like to finish on the fact that oneof the other reasons confidence is low is thatthis Government has taken the liberty toencroach on people's property rights. Nocompensation is to be paid if people losewater rights. With the vegetation managementprovisions, while there are arguments betweenthe State and the Commonwealth as towhether compensation should be paid, thereality is that compensation is not being paid. Ihave land-holders in my area who areexperiencing economic hardship because theyare not receiving compensation.

Time expired.

Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)(5.46 p.m.): It is time that the Main Roads andTransport Minister, Steve Bredhauer, facedreality and accepted that the integratedtransport study for the Kuranda Range is busytrying to answer the wrong question.

The study is looking for the best road toservice future urban growth nodes to bedeveloped at Myola, Speewah and Koah. Inother words, the question is: what road shouldbe built to best urbanise Kuranda and itshinterland. Urbanisation will be the inevitableresult of building a major road to Kuranda.

The study is following the directive of theFNQ 2010 regional planning process. It is as ifthe planning process was hijacked by an anti-East Trinity development lobby who vetoedplacing the overflow population growth fromCairns on the other side of Trinity Inlet. Theplanners did not want to place that populationgrowth on viable cane land north and south ofthe city, either. That would risk closing downthe last sugar mill and putting several hundredpeople out of work.

Looking further out, the planners foundKuranda up in the hills only a half hour's drivefrom the city centre. They felt the rural areasaround Kuranda could be the solution. Therewould be no need to disturb the acid sulfate atEast Trinity and no need to wipe out theremnants of the once proud sugar caneindustry. The planners believed that theoverflow population from Cairns might live 400


metres above sea level in new suburbs aroundKuranda.

But what about Kuranda's tourismindustry? Kuranda is one corner of the region'sso-called tourist triangle. Its attractions rateamongst the best in the country. It is a veryvaluable industry and is sustainable in the longterm. Why compromise that sustainability bydramatically altering the nature of the area?The populations of the future Kuranda urbangrowth nodes would have to commute toCairns to work, hence the need for the road.There would be very few employmentopportunities in the nodes themselves. Underthis plan up to 70,000 people could becommuting down the mountain to Cairns. Theenvironmental impact of all that traffic wouldbe enormous. It seems that, of the threeoptions for accommodating the overflowgrowth from Cairns, the Kuranda option wouldbe the most damaging, the most expensiveand the most inconvenient when viewed fromevery conceivable perspective.

The FNQ regional plan clearly needs to berefocused away from impractical conceptsaimed at appeasing minority interests. It needsto take a big picture view of what is working forthe people of this region now and plan ways tomake that continue to happen. One thing thatis not working as well as it should is roadaccess between the major population centresof the region, specifically Cairns and thetablelands. The most acceptable, andtherefore busiest, of the available roadsbetween Cairns and the tablelands is theKennedy Highway, part of which is theKuranda Range road. It is quite steep inplaces with very tight corners; it is so steep andtight that B-double trucks cannot use it. It isoften closed in adverse weather and is thescene of too many traffic accidents. It isusually congested and has few passingopportunities.

The study has reported that the KurandaRange road is rapidly reaching its capacity. Onpresent growth patterns, it will reach saturationpoint in the next few years, and will beoverloaded from that time on. Less than halfthe traffic on the Kuranda Range road isactually going to or from the Kuranda area.The majority of it is going through Kurandabecause that is where the road takes it. It isactually travelling between the Cairns area andthe tablelands, the cape and the gulf areas. Allthat through traffic is forced to take a 17kilometre detour to the north through Kurandaand Smithfield, twice crossing the Barron River,as it travels from Mareeba to Cairns. The mainreason for that is past planning decisions,

which is why present day planning decisionsneed to be made intelligently and realistically.

Mareeba is ideally placed toaccommodate industrial and urban growth. It isperfectly suited to a new regional airportdevelopment. It is an existing, established,productive community with enormous potentialto do a better job of providing for the Cairnsoverflow growth than Kuranda could. All itneeds is a new direct highway link. Such a linkcould readily be developed in the form of theLake Morris-Davies Creek road. It is a 45 yearold route, originally built to service the loggingindustry, which now serves as a powerlinecorridor. It is as close as possible to a straightline between Cairns and Mareeba. It wouldprovide far greater benefits to the region andits residents than a Kuranda Range roadupgrade for about the same money. It is theonly degraded corridor through the wet tropicsWorld Heritage listed area.

The public consultation phase for theintegrated transport study for the KurandaRange resulted in massive public support forthe Lake Morris-Davies Creek road. Of the3,629 persons who signed their name to apoint of view regarding the integrated transportstudy, 99.23% want the Lake Morris-DaviesCreek road built. The residents of the outlyingareas of the Cairns region require and deservea new highway link that directly connects theirtwo biggest population centres. This road mustbe environmentally sensitive, reliable undertropical weather conditions, suitable for heavyfreight, user friendly and not destructive to theexisting sustainable industries.

It is time the correct question was asked:"What road development would best linkCairns and the tablelands?" The answer tothat is the Lake Morris-Davies Creek road. Atotal of 3,601 local individuals recently told theQueensland Government that. The numberincluded over 10% of the electorate ofTablelands. It would be a sad day fordemocracy in this State if all those peoplewere to be ignored by the Government theyelected.

It is time the Minister did what has to bedone: leave the Kuranda Range road as it isfor the Kuranda people and their tourismindustry and build a highway to serve theregion on the logical, central alignment thatbenefits the most people—the Lake Morris-Davies Creek road.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)(5.51 p.m.): I am pleased to take part in thisdebate tonight and to speak of some issues,particularly when we are dealing withappropriation, that are important to my own


electorate of Caloundra and to the SunshineCoast in general. There is no doubt that one ofthe big issues facing our Sunshine Coast is thelack of transport infrastructure. Very recentlythe shadow Minister for—

Mr Sullivan: What, a tollway?

Mrs SHELDON: We do remember verywell what Tom Burns did. First of all, WayneGoss promised that he would remove the toll.Remember him? Then he got in and totallyreneged on that promise. Tommy Burns wentup and said that he was "going to shift thetoll", which was then on the Maroochy Riverbridge, "down amongst Mike Ahern and hismates". Ahern was then the member forCaloundra. Indeed, not only did Tom Burnsshift it down to Mooloolaba, which was just aone-way road, you might say, betweenMooloolaba and Buderim; he did better thanthat—he put another two tolls on the road aswell!

The Sunshine Coast people reacted asone would think they would to that Labor Partyiniquity and they kicked out its only member upthere. Remember Ray Barber? So now it hasno members on the Sunshine Coast, and it willnot have any in the future either, I can assureit. We came to Government and we fulfilledour promises. Yes, we removed the toll and weremoved the iniquity on the Sunshine Coastthat the Labor Party had wrought on it. Didmembers opposite notice the word I used?

When we look at transportinfrastructure—and those iniquitous tolls was aclassic example—we see that this LaborGovernment has not in any way providedadequate funding for adequate road or railinfrastructure on our Sunshine Coast. Theshadow Minister, Vaughan Johnson, came upand did a very thorough examination withcoalition members up there last week. He iscertainly fully aware of the needs of our region.I would like to relate a couple of very importantneeds in my own electorate of Caloundra.

One is the four laning of the CaloundraRoad from the Bruce Highway to the PierceAvenue turn-off. We in the coalition put fourlanes in from Pierce Avenue into Caloundra.However, the four laning from the BruceHighway to Pierce Avenue is needed becausedrivers come up in four lanes and then theyhave to swing around a very narrow anddifficult roundabout. As Mr Johnson said, thatcertainly does need to be improved. Then itgoes into two lanes. In peak hour it is chock-a-block. It is the main road that goes to theCorbould Park Racecourse. That has createdreal problems because of the heavy traffic withthe horse floats and all those sorts of things.

Then drivers finally get back onto the fourlanes coming into Caloundra.

The coalition had done a lot of work in thisregard. Main Roads had conducted a verygood consultation with the local people—oneof the best consultations I think we have everhad in relation to transport. There were threechoices. The community chose which one itwanted and it had to take environmentalconcerns into consideration. The route waschosen. We put $800,000 into a planningstudy to get this off the ground and then, ofcourse, the Government changed. The LaborParty has put no money into that road and it isstill floating around somewhere in the outyears. In other words, it is not funded. We willfund that road; we will put it in place, and wewill see that that is done.

Another major issue is the Kawana arterialroad, because there is considerablecongestion along the Nicklin Way. We have agrowing population. We have seen that in theredistribution of electoral boundaries of whichthere have been two in the past 10 years, andthere is now an extra seat in that SunshineCoast area. With the projected growingpopulation, that road is becoming a majorproblem. If the Kawana arterial road wasfunded from Caloundra Road through to theback of Kawana, to the new estates thatKawana Estates is developing, and if it waslinked up with the Sunshine Motorway, whichwould be extended and widened, then thatcongestion would be eased because peoplewould be taken off the Nicklin Way. Theywould not have to come right around there. Towiden that road—and there are greatdifficulties because there are houses anddifficulties on both sides—would be extremelyexpensive.

The multimodal corridor that the coalitiongazetted and set down is there. That is wherethe Kawana arterial road is planned, and itshould go ahead as soon as possible. Wehave had quite extensive consultation withKawana Estates. I know that the council iscertainly behind it. If that road is treated as apriority and put in place, it would save a lot ofcongestion and a lot of taxpayers' moneycompared with any other alternative. Ofcourse, that is in the never-never, too. It issomewhere in the out years and there is nofunding allocated at all. So in other words,there are no forward estimates. That sort ofplanning would not only affect the electorate ofCaloundra; it would affect the new electorateof Kawana. The road goes up intoMaroochydore and then it would go out ontothe main highway. It would considerably affect

9 Nov 2000 Cooke Inquiry 4227

a large percentage of the population on theSunshine Coast.

I would also like to look at the issue of therail corridor and find out when that is going togo ahead, if it is going to go ahead. Is it goingto be heavy rail? These are the questions thatpeople really want answered, because theywere given a very sham form of consultation.Their concerns were not taken intoconsideration. I think we have to find out: isthe rail going ahead? Where is the connectionback onto the main line? Is it going to beheavy rail? Is freight going to be used? Is itgoing to be light rail? Are we looking at abusway?

I think there are two issues here: whetheryou have a heavy rail connection loop onto themain line and some type of people moveralong the coast, be it busway or light rail—andI think that is eventually what will have tohappen—or whether it is satisfactory just tohave a heavy rail line coming in where thisLabor Government has proposed it will go,which is right through my own area, throughthe houses and the residential areas inAroona. These people bought their homesand established there. There was never goingto be a railway there and all of a sudden it isdumped on top of them. That is not lookingafter the average person; it is not looking afterthe battler. It is really trampling on people'srights. Often their only investment is theirhome. Now their homes have been devaluedbecause, as I said, the rail line will mostprobably go in along there. That is theMinister's preferred route. So if people aretrying to sell their house, they have thisproblem hanging over their head—the fact thata railway is literally going to be thunderingthrough their backyard.

Debate, on motion of Mrs Sheldon,adjourned.

COOKE INQUIRY

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)(5.59 p.m.): I move—

"That this House calls on theGovernment to reinstate the Cookeinquiry recommendations contained in theprevious coalition Government'slegislation to stop the vote rorting inindustrial unions and electoral corruptionin their political arm, the Australian LaborParty." The Cooke inquiry proved that the ALP

has contempt for industrial democracy. TheShepherdson inquiry will prove that the ALPhas contempt for democracy full stop.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the membershould be very careful here and remember myruling yesterday.

Mrs SHELDON: Yes, I do remember, MrSpeaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This is not a motion on theShepherdson inquiry.

Mrs SHELDON: No, it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we have to beextremely careful that we do not stray into thatarea. There are no expressions of guilt fromthe Shepherdson inquiry, and I think themember would realise that. If the memberspeaks to the motion, that is, the Cookerecommendations, I would appreciate it.

Mrs SHELDON: I am, Mr Speaker. Youwill find that I am not dealing with theShepherdson inquiry.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member is. Thehonourable member was referring to theShepherdson inquiry finding the ALP guilty ofcorruption, which is not allowed. It is subjudice.

Mrs SHELDON: I did not say theShepherdson inquiry had found that, MrSpeaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member did.

Mrs SHELDON: I said "will prove".Mr SPEAKER: Even so, I think the

member is straying into bounds where sheshould not.

Mrs SHELDON: In 1989, Mr MarshallCooke, QC, was appointed to inquire into theactivities of particular Queensland unions.There were 188 days of public or privatesessions at which 276 witnesses gaveevidence. There were 3,667 exhibits tendered.The transcript ran to 12,934 pages. Mr Cookemade numerous recommendations. I can tellthe House in one word what the Goss LaborGovernment and then the Beattie LaborG o v e rnment d id with t h o s erecommendations—nothing! The fact is thatLabor under Goss and Beattie does notbelieve in making the union movement openand accountable because Labor simply doesnot believe in industrial democracy.

In 1997, the coalition Governmentintroduced the Industrial Organisations Act.We did what Goss would not do and whatPremier Beattie and Mr Braddy have sinceundone. We implemented the majority of theCooke inquiry recommendations. TheIndustrial Organisations Act introduced by thethen Minister for Industrial Relations, SantoSantoro, removed union rorts, improved unionaccountability and, importantly, introduced and

4228 Cooke Inquiry 9 Nov 2000

confirmed democracy in trade unions.However, democracy and accountability in theunion movement in Queensland enjoyed avery brief life. Democracy in the unionmovement was killed in Queensland last yearwhen Labor repealed most of the IndustrialOrganisations Act.

To some people, the death of democracyin the union movement may not seem tooserious, but the implications go far beyond theunion movement. The fact is that people witha criminal disregard for democracy in the unionmovement very often end up as Labormembers in Parliament. That very fact isillustrated in this House. Last Thursday,Marshall Cooke, QC, was interviewed byAndrew Carroll on ABC Radio. Mr Cooke, theman who devoted nearly two years of his life tolooking very closely at the way unions conducttheir activities, had this to say. He said—

"A very big majority of politicians onthe Labor side have cut their teeth in theunion movement and if there is thisentrenched view in the union movement,as we discovered from our inquiry that it'sall right to rort the ballots to stay in power,the prize for state governments andfederal governments is much bigger andone needs to wonder whether the samesort of rorting goes on at state and federalelections as well."

One does not need to wonder anymore. TheShepherdson inquiry has confirmed thatpeople graduate from rorting union elections tororting State preselections to rorting Stateelections. As Karen Ehrmann said in heraffidavit dated 10 August this year—

"I was a bit player in a well knownscheme being carried out by the AWUlong before I was involved."

I have no doubt that the Federal inquiryestablished by Senator Chris Ellison to bechaired by Mr Chris Pyne will establish beyondany doubt that the kinds of rorts we haveheard about in the electorate of Fisher in 1987were widespread.

The unions, through their political arm—the ALP—have been able to spread a cancerin Queensland, and that cancer has a doubleeffect. The first effect of that cancer is thataspiring ALP politicians learn the ropes onrorting as they rise up through the unions. Thesecond effect of the cancer is that merit playsno part in the selection of people to occupyseats in Parliament. The result is a House fullof people on the Labor side who owe favoursbig time to their union backers and stackers. Inhis final report, Marshall Cooke, QC, said that

his inquiry was not the easiest to conduct. Hesaid—

"The connection of the unionmovement with the Australian Labor Partyinjected political overtones into theinquiry."

"Connection" has to be theunderstatement of the year. Bill Ludwig saidthat he sees the ALP as the political arm ofthe union movement. "Siamese twins" wouldbe a more accurate description. All unionswere hostile to the inquiry and all wanted toclose it down after Labor came to power on 2December 1989. No doubt Wayne Goss wouldhave liked to close it down, too. However, hewas smart enough to realise what a gross actof hypocrisy that would have been, seeing ashe had just won power thanks to the Fitzgeraldinquiry.

The aim of the Cooke inquiry, in MarshallCooke's own words, was to "signpost the wayfor reforms in union accountability"—something the Premier seems to haveignored. Mr Cooke erected some very clearsignposts, but the ALP has bulldozed them all.The commissioner's report dated July 1991made a number of recommendationsspecifically in relation to the AWU. Mr Cookefound that, essentially, the AWU was a unionrun by officials for officials. Not one rank andfile member of the union held a position ofpower within the union. The executive wastotally made up of paid officials. All of thesepaid officials were subject to dismissal at thewhim of the big boss, Mr Bill Ludwig.Honourable members might remember thesaying that power corrupts and absolute powercorrupts absolutely. The Cooke inquiryrecommendation, which the coalitionintroduced in 1997, was that no more than30% of the executive could be paid officials.Amazingly, when this was repealed by MrBraddy and Mr Beattie, the AWU had the gallto claim that it was repealed on the basis thatit was undemocratic.

Another Cooke recommendation was thatthe union hold an annual general meetingwhere members could actually question theexecutive and even put forward policy. Inanother show of utter contempt for democracy,the AWU got around this one by having adelegates meeting but only paid officials evergot to be delegates. So, again, the rank andfile was ignored and democracy was crushed.Another recommendation of Cooke which thecoalition introduced was that rival candidatesbe given a chance to gain election within theAWU. Previously, rival candidates who wererunning against the official ticket were not


given any opportunity to make their viewsknown. The coalition's Industrial OrganisationsAct made it law that a statement from each beincluded with the postal ballot at the union'sexpense. It was also made law that the AWU'sofficial newspaper, ironically called The Worker,must carry each candidate's statement. Thereason Labor gave for repealing this one wasa doozey. It said these statements couldcontain defamatory material and The Workerdid not want to publish defamatory material.

Democracy died when the Cooke inquiryrecommendations were repealed. The Cookeinquiry uncovered voting fraud in four unions,including the Australian Workers Union. Itdetected electoral fraud in the AWU inQueensland, Victoria and South Australia,almost 200 suspect or forged signatures onballot paper envelopes, 169 suspiciousduplicate ballot papers and hundreds whoclaimed they did not vote but were recorded asvoting. It is an old tale, is it not? Have we notheard all of this before and are we not hearingit now? It sounds just like an ALP preselectionto me.

Last week, Mr Beattie was quoted in theCourier-Mail as saying the Cooke inquiry was"ancient history". The reality is that Mr Beattieis going to be history because he allowed thecancer to go unchecked. How blind, how deafand just how big a mushroom can one manbe? It defies belief for Peter Beattie not tohave some inkling of what was going on in theorganisation he led first as State Secretary andthen later as parliamentary leader. It is not as ifMr Beattie is a hands-off sort of guy wholeaves everything to his subordinates.

Mr Borbidge: Compulsive meddler.

Mrs SHELDON: He is a compulsivemeddler. In August this year he took it uponhimself to take over the media duties of JudySpence and Robert Schwarten and several ofhis other lame duck Ministers. He now believesthat he is the Minister for The Arts as well. Hehas left Matt Foley in the dark. Mr Beattie is aperson who likes to be in the engine room. Tocontinually wipe his hands of any knowledge ofmisdeeds means he is either the most naiveman in the world or he is not telling the truth.

Queensland is in dangerous hands withsomeone so naive at the helm. The questionis: what did Mr Beattie know, when did heknow it and why did he do nothing?Queensland needs people at the helm whobelieve in democracy. For too long the unionmovement has been the training ground forthe ALP's riggers and rorters. I call on theParliament to bring back the Cooke inquiry

recommendations as enshrined in thecoalition's Industrial Organisations Act. Wemust bring back accountability to the unionmovement. We must bring back democracy,and we must bring back decency. It is up tothis House to see that that happens.

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(6.09 p.m.): In rising to second the motionmoved by the honourable member forCaloundra, I make the observation that it sayssomething about the desperation of thisGovernment that the Minister is going to movean amendment to congratulate himself and tocongratulate the Government on a job welldone, particularly when one looks at the intentof this motion, that is, to stop vote rorting inindustrial unions and electoral corruption.

I would have thought that if the Premierwas a man of his word he would have beenprepared to support a motion such as this,because any amendment to this motion willmean that the Labor Party in Queensland isnot prepared to take appropriate action to stopvote rorting in industrial unions and electoralcorruption.

The Cooke inquiry was in many respectsabout the abuse of the system by a number ofunions. It was about industrial relationsdemocracy. What we now see are the samesorts of problems—the stench of corruptionengulfing this Government with regard toelectoral matters—that were placed before thepeople of Queensland before, at the time ofthe inquiry by Marshall Cooke, QC. I will quotea couple of comments made by formerCommissioner Cooke on ABC Radio on 2November 2000. He said—

"Well, with regard to the AWU weestablished that there had been ballotrigging and ballot fraud." Isn't that familiar? It reminds me of what is

unfolding at another place at this time. Hewent on to say—

"We set out a uniform code forrunning union elections which attemptedto provide safeguards and checks toensure that ballot rorting was made moredifficult and if it did occur it could bereadily identified or more readily identifiedthan it can now."

He continued—"We also made some

recommendations about financialstatements and things that should beprovided to members so that they knowexactly what their money was being spenton."


In the same interview he was asked whathappened. Former Commissioner Cookesaid—

"Well, nothing happened while theGoss Government was in. With thechange of Government, the BorbidgeGovernment—I think Santo Santoro wasthe Minister at that time—introducedamendments which included the majorityof the recommendations which we made.With the return of the BeattieGovernment, most of those wererepealed."

I repeat: "most of those were repealed".This is a Government that claims and pretendsit is interested in doing something aboutstamping out rorts and electoral corruption. Itabolished legislation based on therecommendations of the Cooke inquiry tomake sure that what was happening, what hadbeen established under the Cooke inquiry,could happen again—a licence to rort in thetrade union movement, presided over by thisPremier and this Government who now saythat they have had nothing to do with rorts inthe electoral system. Marshall Cooke went onto say—it is worth repeating—

"You see, most—a very bigmajority—of politicians on the Labor sidehave cut their teeth in the unionmovement and if there is this entrenchedview in the union movement as wediscovered from our inquiry that it's allright to rort the ballots to stay in power,the prize for State Governments andFederal Governments is much bigger andone needs to wonder whether the samesort of rorting goes on at State andFederal elections as well."

I think Tony Fitzgerald had a word for it.He called it a "culture"—a culture that he saidhad developed in the Queensland PoliceService over a period of time. I contend thatthere is a culture of corruption that has grownout of the trade union movement in this Statewhich has extended itself to and infected thepolitical wing of the trade union movement, theAustralian Labor Party in Queensland—thegenesis of so much that we have heardfollowing on the revelations of Karen Ehrmannand the decision by the Electoral Commissionto refer this matter to the Criminal JusticeCommission and the subsequent hearings.We have heard it before. We heard it in theCooke inquiry. We legislated to stop it. Laborlegislated to legalise it.

Time expired.

Hon. P. J. BRADDY (Kedron—ALP)(Minister for Employment, Training and

Industrial Relations) (6.14 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"Delete all words after 'House' andinsert the following—

'congratulates the Government on its fairand balanced industrial relationslegislation (through the IndustrialRelations Act 1999) which included thoserecommendations from the Cooke Inquirywhich were fair and practicable. Further,that this House acknowledges theprovisions of the Industrial Relations Act1999 relating to the conduct of ballots inindustrial organisations are entirelyconsistent with the unanimouslysupported recommendations of thetripartite Industrial Relations Taskforce.'."We are really back to old times when the

member for Caloundra and the member forSurfers Paradise are in duet again—both ofthem incapable of telling the truth in this place.

Mrs Sheldon: How unkind!Mr BRADDY: But how accurate. First of all

we had the speech from the member forCaloundra, who made the claim that we hadnot implemented any of the Cookerecommendations, which of course was thencontradicted by the member for SurfersParadise, who said that we had implementedsome. The truth is that we did implementsignificant numbers of the Cookerecommendations—first of all in GossGovernment legislation and then in thelegislation which I brought into this place. I willlist 12 of the most importantrecommendations.

The recommendations that were adoptedby the Goss Government and then reinstatedby the Beattie Government are as follows:limiting those who could be auditors ofindustrial organisations to those who areregistered company auditors under theCorporations Law and who are not employeesor officers of the organisation; requiring theElectoral Commission to conduct elections forofficers in industrial organisations—a fairlyimportant thing to do if we want to havehonest elections; increasing penalties forunauthorised interference in union elections;requiring amalgamation ballot papers to bekept; and requiring the Electoral Commissionto conduct amalgamation ballots. This in turnwas reversed by the coalition Government inits much-vaunted legislation.

The Beattie Government has kept all ofthese provisions in the Industrial Relations Actwhich I introduced to this place, as they are fairand practical and reflect community standards.This Government has also adopted a


requirement that financial accounts ofindustrial organisations be prepared inaccordance with Australian accountingstandards. The coalition Government, on theother hand, did not adopt that Cooke inquiryrecommendation. By contrast, the IndustrialRelations Regulation 2000 that we introducedactually requires organisations to comply withAustralian accounting standards. It actuallyachieves the purpose of requiringorganisations to comply with the acceptedaccounting practice contained in Australianaccounting standards so that organisations areaccountable to their members.

The Government also adopted a numberof other Cooke inquiry recommendations.These include prohibiting organisations fromusing their resources to support a particularcandidate in a union election, requiringadditional security measures to be taken inelections of industrial organisations andmaking it an offence to interfere in anamalgamation ballot. We did not implementany of the sensible inquiries of the Cookeinquiry? I have listed them!

The member for Caloundra knows so littleabout her shadow portfolio that she has comeinto this place and misled the Parliament—Ibelieve by accident, because she does notknow what she is talking about. Then we hadthe statement by the member for SurfersParadise, who demonstrated by thatstatement just how biased Nelson MarshallCooke was. I know that gentleman. He and Iwere doing law at about the same time. He isone of the most Right Wing Liberals everelected to the Federal Parliament. He was atrue precursor of the other former Liberal whodid an inquiry for the coalition, PeterConnolly—another biased ex-Liberal memberof Parliament, whom they call upon in time ofneed to do their dirty work for them. NelsonCooke is a man incapable of being fair.

Mrs Sheldon: Marshall.

Mr BRADDY: Nelson Marshall Cooke ishis real name. He is incapable of being fair tothe Labor side of politics. The commentsquoted by the member for Surfers Paradiseshow how unfair he is, because NelsonMarshall Cooke said that most of the membersof the Labor side of politics cut their teeth inthe union movement. We have done a quickcount. On this side there are eight of us, notincluding me, who are former unionofficials—and there are a lot more than eightof us on this side of the Parliament. Thatshows how little Nelson Marshall Cooke knewabout the Labor Party—how biased he was.

The master of the half-truth, the memberfor Surfers Paradise, repeated the defamationthat we all owe our livings to the unionmovement. What a load of nonsense! It isabout time those opposite got their factsstraight. We have adopted many of the fairrecommendations of the Cooke inquiry. Werejected the others. We have been vindicatedin many instances. A report prepared for theFederal Government by Blake DawsonWaldron—

Time expired.

Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (6.19 p.m.): Iam pleased to second the amendment movedby Minister Braddy. I thank the member forCaloundra for providing the opportunity tonightfor me to talk about the tremendouscontribution Minister Braddy has made toQueensland through the very fine legislationwhich is the Industrial Relations Act 1999.While I am tempted to respond to the unionbashing that members on the other side of thisHouse engaged in with their not so hiddenagenda of breaking the union movement—always raising, as they do, that ridiculousspectre of the AWU as some kind ofbogeyman—I will resist that temptation andinstead address the really important elementsof the Industrial Relations Act 1999 that,thanks to Minister Braddy, all of us in theBeattie Government can take some credit for.

One of the important things in thatlegislation is the establishment of anindependent industrial relations task force. Itwas from that base and through widespreadconsultation with all of the players involved inindustrial relations—not just with employerbodies and not just with unions—that we wereable to undertake the best review that therehas been of the Queensland industrial lawsand on the basis of that set the Bill in place.

In the end we adopted a substantialmajority of the task force recommendations.However, the Bill also introduced otherimportant and progressive changes that theGovernment considered a priority. Some ofthese more innovative features of thelegislation reflect the changes that haveoccurred in the work force, such as newstatutory rights for conditions of employmentfor all Queensland workers. Very clearly, wehave seen significant changes occur over thelast 10 to 15 years in what typifies a normalworking arrangement. For instance, in 1999 itwas reported that only 37% of the work forcewas employed in a typical 9 to 5 Monday toFriday job. This change in the pattern of workhours is still unsettled and has broughtrequirements that all of us in this House should


attend to for a more flexible response to thework force issues that arise.

That is where Minister Braddy's Bill hasled the way. The new laws broughtQueensland into the new millennium withregard to such issues as the increase infemale employment, the development of newand emerging industries, higher levels ofcasualisation, part-time and contract work,increasing levels of work intensification and theneed for workers to balance work and lifedespite the exigencies and pressures of life inthe nineties and now in this new millennium.

A further consequence of the growth innon-standard types of employment has beenthe unparalleled growth in dependentcontractors and workers engaged undercontract for services in traditional awardregulated areas. These industries includecleaning, security and building andconstruction. As the member for Cairns I knowthat that certainly applies to the regional areasof Queensland.

In response to these changes, the lawsfor the first time in Queensland's historycodified essential community standards ofemployment such as annual leave, sick leave,long service leave, carer's leave, bereavementleave and parental leave for all Queenslandworkers regardless of whether they arecovered by an award or an agreement. Thelegislation, I am also pleased to remindhonourable members, recognises pay equityas an industrial issue and updates the principleof equal remuneration for men and womenworkers to include equal pay for work of equalor comparable value. A review is currentlyunder way.

The other areas of reform included in theAct were the invigoration of the QueenslandIndustrial Relations Commission which, for thefirst time in 80 years, has a full-time president.

There are many, many more elements ofthat Bill of which we should all be proud, butthis is an opportunity for me to pay particulartribute to Minister Braddy for the good workthat he has done and to pay particularrecognition to the fact that this is his last termin Government and that with only some sixmonths to go there may not be many moreopportunities to recognise how his experience,his balanced approach and his determinationto face all of the conflicting parties—employersand the many different unions involved—havelead to the steady development of a balancedand fair approach that will leave Queenslandwith a wonderful legacy long after he hasmoved into his retirement and is having, Ihope, a whole lot more fun than he has in thisHouse on many occasions.

This is my tribute to him. I am proudindeed to be part of the team with MinisterBraddy.

Dr WATSON (Moggill—LP) (Leader of theLiberal Party) (6.24 p.m.): Queensland is beingrun by a Premier who has presided overrampant electoral corruption within the ALP forthe best part of 20 years. At best, he hasturned a blind eye; at worst, he has activelyfacilitated that corruption by winding back thestatutory reforms recommended by MarshallCooke, QC, and passed by the former coalitionGovernment.

The people of Queensland are entitled towonder why any Government would turn backthe clock to the bad old days of routine rortingand ballot rigging in the trade unionmovement. Marshall Cooke's inquiryuncovered hundreds of cases of blatant fraudin at least four unions, including the AustralianWorkers Union. But, as I am sure the memberfor Cairns knows, it was certainly not alone.

One of the most brazen examples of thesystematic rorting involved the TransportWorkers Union election in 1980. It is worthrevisiting the supplement to Mr Cooke's fourthreport of June 1991 in which he detailed someof the evidence provided by Mr George AllanGoold. I will quote it. It is interesting to go backand read this stuff to see how long rorting hasbeen endemic in the ALP and in the unionmovement. That is why we have to look atsome of this history, to find out exactly howbad it has been and why the currentrevelations should not come as a surprise. MrCooke's report states—

"Mr Goold was standing as anorganiser in Brisbane on theWilliams/McPaul ticket in the 1980election. He alleged that completed ballotpapers were collected, reopened and, ifthey voted for the opposition, themarkings on the ballot paper were 'whitedout' and the ballot paper was completedfor the Williams/McPaul team.

Even more shocking was Mr Goold'sallegation that he collected returned,unclaimed ballot papers from the postoffice."

That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

"He described how the returnedenvelopes were easily obtained." Mr Cooke then went on to quote from

Mr Goold's sworn statement and said this—

"A few minutes later, he came backwith the bag full of envelopes, thereturned unclaimed envelopes, I took thisbag."


Mr Nelson: Was it a brown paper bag?Dr WATSON: I will come to that. The

statement continued—

"The bag itself was a green bagwhich was used for carrying money to andfrom the Reserve Bank. It was not astandard Reserve Bank bag but was usedby another bank to send in money andwas then redundant to use by theReserve Bank and it came into mypossession whilst working for BramblesBrinks. It stood about 18 inches indiameter and nearly 3 feet high when full,which it then was. I took it in a type of'bear hug' to carry it out of the Post Officeand there were loose envelopes on thetop of the open bag. It was full to the brimand I had to be careful with the top oneslest they fall out of the bag." You would not want to lose some unfilled

in ballot papers, would you? Mr Cooke notedthat Messrs Goold, McGarth, Williams andMcPaul reportedly opened these envelopesand completed the unused ballot paperstherein for their favoured candidates.

He then returned to Mr Goold's statementwhich said—

"Our system was to open all theenvelopes, sort the ballot papers into pilesfor each colour for each position. Wecouldn't open a window or door or havethe overhead fan on, because it blew thepile of ballot papers about, so weencountered considerable heat inside theclosed up house with no ventilation as wecontinued our activities. The ballot paperswere stacked on the dining room table,which was then a new pine circular table.Some envelopes we opened whichcontained cheques and some unionmatters not related to the ballot wereplaced aside to be dealt with later. Wethen proceeded to fill in the ballot papers,marking with a cross the ballot papersaccording to 'our ticket', as opposed tothe official ticket supported by Bevis.

The exercise was carried out on atable, the top of which was marked withthe imprint of many 'Xs'."

Mr Cooke went on to observe that theincident was notorious within the IndustrialElections Branch of the Australian ElectoralCommission and presented "a strong primafacie case of ballot-rigging on a grand scale".

That example of systematic rortingoccurred more than 20 years ago—in1980—but the more things change the more

they stay the same. As Mr Cooke said in theCourier-Mail just last week—

"Why would you stop? If you think it'salright to get power in a union by thosesorts of means, why not when the prize isbigger?"

That is why I commend this motion to theHouse. By winding back the statutory reformsproposed by Marshall Cooke and implementedby the coalition, this Premier and thisGovernment have paved the way for a wholenew era of ballot rigging within the Queenslandunion movement.

Once electoral fraud takes off in theindustrial wing of the Australian Labor Party, itis only a matter of time before it graduates tothe political wing of the Australian Labor Partyand the systematic rorting of local, State andgeneral elections. That is not acceptable.

Time expired.

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP)(6.30 p.m.): There have been a number ofcomments made in this debate about peopleon this side of the House who cut their teeth inthe union movement. I am one of the eight,and I am proud to declare myself as one ofthe eight people on the Labor side of politicswho cut his teeth in the trade unionmovement. I spent 10 years in what I considerto be an honourable pursuit in representingthe interests of workers in improving wagesand conditions. I represented workers, many ofwhom were not capable or were not in aposition to represent themselves. I, togetherwith all the other members who come fromthat background, am very proud to stand hereand say that that is my background.

The Cooke inquiry was finalised in 1991.That is nine years ago. It is clear what thismotion tonight is all about. It is simply anotherunion-bashing exercise from an anti-worker,anti-union coalition. I ask those opposite: whatabout giving some recognition to the goodthings that the trade union movement does? Ido not believe that in the five years I havebeen in this place I have heard one statementfrom members opposite about the good workthat is undertaken by the trade unionmovement.

What about the tireless efforts of tradeunion officials in representing workers in wagesand conditions bargaining? What about thework involved in representing workers beforethe commission when they have been unfairlydismissed by employers? What about thetireless efforts of union officials aimed atresolving disputes?


We hear about the disputes that hit theheadlines. We hear about the strikes. Forevery matter that hits the headlines, another100 have been resolved by negotiation, andmost of those involve trade union officials.However, there is very little recognition bymembers opposite of that type of work.

It is obvious that members of theOpposition are more interested in the ancienthistory of the Cooke inquiry. As has beenoutlined by the Minister, Labor Governmentsand the coalition Government haveimplemented many of thoserecommendations. In fact, morerecommendations from the Cooke inquiry wereimplemented by the Labor Government thanthe coalition Government.

The coalition had its chance to dosomething about this when it was inGovernment from 1996 to 1998. As I recall it,the coalition did not revisit therecommendations. The coalition prefers towaste our time in order to deflect attentionaway from its real agenda. We are all aware ofthe coalition's agenda in the area of industrialrelations because the member for Clayfield letthe cat out of the bag about six to 12 monthsago when he said that he wanted to hand overthe industrial laws of Queensland to theFederal Government. He wanted to hand themto Peter Reith.

Mr SANTORO: I rise to a point of order.The comments that have just been made bythe honourable member for Nudgee about meare untrue. I did not say that. I find theremarks offensive and I ask that they bewithdrawn.

Mr ROBERTS: I withdraw, but it is veryclear when you put one and one together. Themember for Clayfield made it perfectly clearthat he would fix the industrial system of thisState once and for all if he ever got back intoGovernment, and that can only mean onething from the coalition perspective—to givethe powers to the Federal Government. That isthe Opposition's agenda. It does not matterhow much those opposite bleat and complain;that is what the member for Clayfield meantwhen he made that statement at the end ofthe debate on the Bill last year.

Let us get back to Peter Reith. This is theman upon whom the coalition models itsindustrial relations policies. Let us go back tothe waterfront dispute of a couple of yearsago. Who remembers the balaclava-coveredthugs on the Hamilton and Fisherman Islandswharves? What about the attack dogs thatstood there intimidating the workers and theprotesters who were there to support the

workers? That is the style of industrial relationssupported by the member for Clayfield, themember for Caloundra and other members ofthe coalition.

That is the type of industrial relations thatmembers on this side of the Chamber reject.This Government is concerned with trying toput in place a fair and just system, rather thanone which is based on thuggery. A type ofindustrial relations based on thuggery wasclearly demonstrated during Peter Reith's andSanto Santoro's waterfront dispute. SantoSantoro was in it right up to his neck.

I want to move on to some other issuesrelated to this matter. As I have said, given achance the coalition will take us back to theFederal system. The key point about that isthat it will involve deregulation of the labourmarket—

Time expired.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.35 p.m.):The Parliament has no choice but to supportthe motion moved by the member forCaloundra because it is quite evident that ifthe recommendations of the Cooke inquiry, asimplemented by the coalition and withdrawn bythe current Government, had beenimplemented much earlier it is quite possiblethat we would not have seen the endemicpolitical corruption and cheating which we haveseen permeating the Labor Party, the politicalarm of the union movement, over the past 10years—or even longer—in Queensland.

It has been interesting to sit here andlisten to members opposite speak about theimportant role of the union movement. Theunion movement has an important role. Theunion movement has had an extremelyimportant role in this State and in this nationfor more than a century. I recognise that, and Icommend those people who have worked inthe union movement for their achievements onbehalf of working men and women inQueensland and in Australia. That is why theunion movement will always, and shouldalways, have an important and respected rolein this nation and in this State.

It was also interesting to note that wehave a lot of alienated workers out there aswell. A lot of workers feel that their paidofficials—those who are elected to representthem—are not representing the interests or theaspirations of grassroots unionists. I hear thata lot as I move around my electorate. Peoplesay to me, "The only time you see a lot ofthose people is when they turn up to collectthe union dues. But when you have a genuineindustrial problem, or difficulty with your


employer, they are not there." That is animportant lesson for the union movement.

If one considers the concerns that havebeen raised in the motion moved by themember for Caloundra, it is very clear that anumber of provisions could have beenimplemented earlier which may haveaddressed the situation that we areexperiencing in Queensland today. MarshallCooke recommended that the rules of everyindustrial organisation should provide for anannual general meeting of members of theorganisation at which resolutions binding onthe committee of management can be carried.The coalition's industrial relations legislation—killed off by the Beattie Labor Government—put this recommendation in place.

Marshall Cooke also said that if such anannual general meeting takes the form of ameeting of elected delegates, then no morethan 30% of the total number of delegatesshall be full-time paid officials of theorganisation. This is a commonsenseproposition which was also killed off by theunion-organised Government led by themember for Brisbane Central.

What about other issues such as thepolitical objects fund which was put in placeand which was killed off by the BeattieGovernment? Marshall Cooke was very keento ensure that grassroots unionists had somedegree of effective control over those whopurported to represent them and some degreeof democracy—something that those oppositewho profess to believe in democracy do notreally believe in when they have the chance tolegislate for such things in Government. Whathappens as a consequence of the contemptwhich many of the paid officials of the unionhave demonstrated over the years? We haveseen the political arm of the union movementindulge in such underhanded political activitythat it has now led to an inquiry just across theway.

We have also seen desperation on thepart of the Government. We saw thatdesperation today as the Government cameinto this place and sought to implicate theNational Party in these sorts of things. Themember for Chermside stood up and spokeabout ancient history. In 1992 he wrote to theQueensland Electoral Commission with anumber of allegations against Doug Foggo. Itwas quite remarkable. We have somestatutory declarations here which show thatDoug Foggo actually enrolled at 32Cranbourne Street, West Chermside, a monthbefore the election. He also stayed therefollowing the election. I table that statutorydeclaration.

With regard to the allegation that he wasenrolled for the electorate of Lilley at the timeof the 1992 Federal election, I can inform theHouse that he was actually enrolled for Petrie.The member for Chermside was asked,"Where is the letter to the ElectoralCommission?" He said, "I can't find that. I amonly a backbencher. I don't keep that sort ofinformation." However, he had all the otherinformation. He came in here and continuedthe pathological untruth telling that we haveseen from that side of the Parliament.

Time expired.

Ms STRUTHERS (Archerfield—ALP)(6.40 p.m.): The members opposite try torewrite history to suit their own political needs,and generally they get it wrong. One thing thatthey would not admit is that some of therecommendations of the Cooke inquiry wereso unworkable and so unwieldy thatimplementation of them by any Governmentwas not possible.

The recommendation that officialmisconduct within unions should fall within thejurisdiction of the CJC was one of the mostbizarre. It showed that Marshall Cooke had adistinct lack of understanding of the role of theCriminal Justice Commission, as did theLeader of the Opposition, Mr Borbidge.

On 4 August 1992, Mr Borbidge askedthe then Premier, Wayne Goss, whether hewould abide by Cooke's recommendation forthe CJC to act as a union watchdog. PremierGoss replied—

"The CJC is a public sector body andwe propose to maintain its role in thatregard ... In New South Wales, ICAC"—

the Independent Commission AgainstCorruption—

"does not investigate unions. There is noprovision for such a watchdog in otherjurisdictions." If Mr Borbidge was fair dinkum, he would

have implemented the watchdogrecommendation when he was Premier. He didnot. He did not even try. He knew that it was aload of nonsense. Queenslanders need toknow that Mr Borbidge and his colleagueswant to get rid of the CJC. They do not like tobe accountable. But when it suits them, theyare happy to hand over investigations to theCJC.

Another major problem with the Cookeinquiry was that slabs of material that MarshallCooke gathered could not even be published.Large chunks of the report had to be heldback from the public because it includedmaterial that the Director of Public


Prosecutions advised was inappropriate to beprinted at the time. At that time, in contrastingthe Cooke inquiry to the highly respectedFitzgerald inquiry, the then Minister forEmployment, Training and Industrial Relations,Ken Vaughan, stated—

"Mr Fitzgerald had the foresight todeliberately omit evidence which couldhave been used in court cases againstindividuals. This allowed the publication ofhis report in full. In comparison, MarshallCooke, QC, not only included evidence,but also went so far as to weigh thatevidence and comment about whether ornot he considered a person hadcommitted a criminal offence."

The members opposite are well aware ofthese problems that were thrown up by thesloppy nature of the Cooke inquiry and thereport. Many people saw the Cooke inquiry asa politically motivated stunt to take the heat offa dying, corrupt coalition Government. Theyknew that it was a concerted attack on tradeunions, an attack on working people. Thecoalition members make a living out ofundermining the interests of working people. Itis the labour movement in this State that hasfought hard and won a better deal for workingpeople. It is the labour movement that hasfought hard and succeeded in gaining betterwages, safer workplaces and leaveentitlements for people throughout this State.

It is the Liberal/National Parties that haveactively sought to destroy trade unions. It isthe Liberal/National Parties that have foughtagainst improved wages and conditions forworking people throughout this State. Theformer coalition Government did nothing tobring about a fair and balanced industrialrelations system in this State. It shied awayfrom that and, when it comes to industrialrelations strategies, it now defers almostentirely to the wishes of the disgraced FederalIndustrial Relations Minister, Peter Reith.

In 1992, the Goss Labor Governmentenacted legislation to ensure that industrialorganisation elections were conducted by theState Electoral Commission. This legislativeamendment was based on a Cookerecommendation. The Beattie LaborGovernment has also implemented orcontinued with several recommendations ofthe Cooke inquiry. There now is a requirementthat the financial accounts of industrialorganisations be prepared in accordance withAustralian accounting standards. This measurewas not adopted by the former coalitionIndustrial Relations Minister, now backbencherand mobile phone enthusiast, Santo Santoro.

The measure was contained in the BeattieLabor Government's Industrial Relations Act1999. The fact is that the Beattie Governmenthas done far more than the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment did in bringing about a balancedsystem of industrial relations in this State—asystem that looks after both the interests ofworkers and the interests of employers.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—LP) (6.44 p.m.):Before I make a few comments about themotion that we are debating, I wish to state onthe record my belief that Marshall Cooke, QC,was a very distinguished parliamentarian andis a very distinguished lawyer. He still practisesas a lawyer and makes a better living than anyof the other lawyers opposite could hope tomake. He was also a very ethicalcommissioner, so much so that when theGovernment changed he was kept on as acommissioner. He was funded as acommissioner—albeit not as well as he shouldhave—and his terms of reference wereextended at his request by the thenGovernment. If Marshall Cooke was so bad,the members opposite should have shut downhis inquiry. They did not, and they did not forvery good reasons—he was doing a good job.He is still a very distinguished citizen. He is agood constituent of mine. In common with allmembers on this side, I am pleased to beassociated with him.

This motion again displays the hypocrisyand the deceitfulness of this Government—aGovernment that does not believe in industrialdemocracy; a Government that believes inallowing industrial thuggery and electoral fraudwithin industrial organisations, and by this Imean unions, not employer organisations, toflourish; and a Government that is happy toreplenish its parliamentary ranks, as theLeader of the Opposition suggested, from theunion movement which is electorally corrupt.Object (h) of the current Minister'slegislation—which he did not mention in hissecond-reading speech when he introducedhis legislation and on which he did notelaborate—states—

"The principal object of this Act is toprovide a framework for industrial relationsthat supports economic prosperity andsocial justice by—

(h) encouraging responsiblerepresentation of employees andemployers by democratically runorganisations and associations."

So what did the Minister do when hebrought in his legislation? What did the LaborParty do to uphold the fine and noblesentiments that it espouses in this object that


is contained within its legislation? It abolishedthe essential—and I stress, the essential—industrial democracy provisions that thecoalition had enshrined within its industrialrelations organisations legislation.

For the record, the Government abolishedthe following provisions—and membersopposite should forget about all the others thatthey kept; these are the ones that theyabolished—that a full-time officer or a full-timeemployee of the organisation or branch of theorganisation may not be elected to an office inthe organisation or branch, other than anoffice stated by the rules to be a full-timeelected position; that the organisation's or abranch's management committee membershipmust not be made up of more than a total of30% of the organisation's branch full-timeelected officers or full-time employees; thatthere must be an annual general meeting ofits members—not of delegates but itsmembers; that its annual general meetingmust be held within five months of the end ofeach of its financial years, including a financialyear under section 195(2); that its annualgeneral meeting may pass a resolution thatbinds the management committee of theorganisation or its branches; and that itsannual general meeting takes the form of ameeting of elected delegates, and that nomore than 30% of the delegates may be full-time elected officers or full-time employees ofthe organisation.

Of course, the Government alsoabolished the political objects fund provisionswithin the coalition's legislation. All of thoseprovisions were democracy provisions thatguaranteed grassroots control andinvolvement in the unions. They are theprovisions that the members opposite do nottalk about. They are the provisions that theyabolished.

Why did the coalition implement thoseprovisions? Just in case the members oppositewere not listening, I point out to them that theprevious coalition Government put thoseprovisions in because Marshall Cooke, thatperson whom they are all trying to characterassassinate, found some interesting things. Insummary—because I have outlined themalready—he found that union funds were usedto pay for prostitutes for union officials; unionfunds were used to purchase real estate forunion leaders; union money was diverted intosecret slush funds; there was massive ballotfraud in union elections; there were forgedsignatures on ballot papers; union memberswere treated with contempt by some of theirleaders; and union leaders made secret

decisions that were not revealed to theirmembers.

That is why the previous coalitionGovernment enacted the provisions which thisGovernment then abolished. That sort ofculture will again flourish because theGovernment has destroyed industrialdemocracy within unions. The Governmenthas taken away the control of the unions'affairs from their grassroots members. Noamount of mealy-mouthed statements that theOpposition are anti-workers will stack up. Undercoalition Governments, more workers got jobsthan they are getting under this Government.Under coalition Governments, job security forpublic servants in the Public Service wasguaranteed and pay increases were given thatmore than matched the national average,including averages within Labor States. That iswhat happened in Queensland under coalitionGovernments. We support unions, we supportunion leaders and we support union officials,but only those who are honest who believe inindustrial democracy, and not the crooks thatMarshall Cooke discovered.

Time expired.Mr WILSON (Ferny Grove—ALP)

(6.49 p.m.): I support the amendment to themotion. In 1998 the Beattie Governmentestablished a tripartite and independentindustrial relations task force to review theprevious Government's legislation and to makerecommendations on a new industrial relationssystem which reflected and accommodatedthe emerging new labour market. But we willhear nothing of any substance from membersof the coalition about the report of that taskforce, because they do not want to knowabout it. It is too much a part of the real world.

It is important to note that the task forcewas independent and representative. It waschaired by a noted industrial relations expert,Professor Margaret Gardner, and drew equalrepresentation from unions and employerorganisations. Professor Ron McCallum, anoted expert in industrial law, was anotherindependent member of that task force. Thetask force carefully considered issuesassociated with the regulation of industrialorganisations. It also considered submissionsfrom organisations and individuals about theoperation of the provisions of the 1997Workplace Relations Act.

It is important to note that the task forcewas not driven by an ideological agenda withpredetermined views of the roles of unions, norwas it stacked with pro-union or anti-unionmembers. It was drawn from a cross-section ofrepresentatives of all industrial organisationsthroughout the length and breadth of


Queensland. It reached its recommendationsin the light of an understanding of the issuesand the evidence and arguments put byorganisations and individuals who madesubmissions.

Equally important is the fact that the taskforce had access to information about thehistory of the regulation of industrialorganisations in Queensland, including thefindings of the Hangar and the Cookeinquiries. The task force subsequently made166 recommendations, 34 of which dealt withthe regulation of industrial organisations. Ofthese, 28 were adopted by the Government inlegislation. But the Opposition is totally silenton those things. The recommendationsprovided a strong foundation for democraticand accountable industrial organisations. TheOpposition is also silent about the fact that thetask force comprised a broadly representativecross-section of industrial organisationsthroughout Queensland.

Recommendations adopted by theGovernment with respect to union electionsincluded the retention of model election rules;access to the roll of members entitled to vote;candidates being given a copy of the roll; arequirement to specify before an election theprocess to be used to decide the outcome,that is, first-past-the-post or preferential voting;rolls for elections to be cut-off rolls; prohibitionson organisations favouring one candidate overanother; prohibiting a person fromdisadvantaging another person in relation toan election; provision for the QueenslandElectoral Commission to conduct electionswhich will be paid for by the State; andregulations prescribing the material thatcandidates can publish to prevent publicationof misleading statements. The Opposition istotally silent tonight about those reforms. Theyare opposed to them.

The provisions of the Act with respect tounion elections were also consistent with therecommendations of a 1997 Commonwealthstanding committee on electoral matters and areport prepared by Blake Dawson Waldron forthe Federal Government on a review of currentarrangements for the governance of industrialorganisations. Not a word has been said bythe Opposition about those two reports.

Members opposite may recall that theFederal Government at that time was theHoward Government, a Government notknown for its support of unions; indeed, aGovernment that displays what its realindustrial principles are by the way in which itpractises industrial relations, bestdemonstrated by the waterfront maritimedispute of two years' standing.

On the issue of the accountability ofindustrial organisations, the task forcerecommendations that were adopted in ourlegislation—and the members opposite aresilent about these as well, or if they do not likeit they ignore it—were that accountingpractices should accord with Australianaccounting standards; an organisation needonly record the total amounts spent onprofessional services; only the total ofcompulsory levies and voluntary contributionsneeds to be listed in accounts; officers'remuneration should be recorded in bandedamounts, and so on. I strongly support theamendment to this motion.

Time expired.

Question—That the amendment beagreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 42—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham,Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill,Hayward, Kaiser, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady,Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,Nuttall, Pearce, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan,Purcell

NOES, 40—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Cooper,E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Feldman,Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson,Kingston, Knuth, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt,Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner,Veivers, Watson. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty

Resolved in the affirmative.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Any future divisionson this motion will be of two minutes' duration.

Question—That the motion, as amended,be agreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 42—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham,Edmond, Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill,Hayward, Kaiser, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady,Mickel, Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr,Nuttall, Pearce, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan,Purcell

NOES, 40—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Cooper,E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Feldman,Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson,Kingston, Knuth, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt,Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner,Veivers, Watson. Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty

Resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 7.03 p.m. to8.30 p.m.

9 Nov 2000 Corporations Law 4239

CORPORATIONS LAWMr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—IND)

(8.30 p.m.): I move—

"That the Queensland Parliamentcalls on the Commonwealth Governmentto amend the Corporations Law andrelated legislation to require that largecompanies undertake a social and culturalimpact assessment before makingsignificant corporate decisions which maychange the operation of the company orsubstantially increase its market share,and that a discussion paper be preparedon how corporate governance laws shouldtake account of the social responsibility ofcorporations."I move this motion out of a sense of

frustration that ordinary people, especially inthe country, and even honourable membersappear to be powerless against the juggernautof competition reform and the lack of concernfor community values shown—maybe shownunder compulsion of the Corporations Law—bycompany directors when they make some oftheir decisions. Only last month we heardabout the National Bank's record profits, andat the same time we heard of the bank's latestplans to close a further 100 bank branchesover the next 12 months.

Also last month I organised a nationwidetelephone link-up involving Woolworths seniormanagement and Australian Milk ProducersAssociation's dairy industry representativesfrom all States in Australia. During thatnationwide telephone link-up, Woolworthssenior management acknowledged that theyhad concerns with the price that someprocessors tendered for the supply of milk.They had concerns that the price tenderedmay have been unsustainable. That concernwas supported by the dairy industryrepresentatives on that telephone link-up, whoechoed the concerns that the price tenderedfor the supply of milk by the milk processorDairy Farmers was unsustainable.

When I put this concern to Woolworthssenior management, they said words to theeffect that it was not their problem; it was theprocessors who submitted the price to supplythe milk. The problem is that, even if thedirectors and managers who make thesedecisions want to make a more humanedecision that preserves services for countrypeople or that preserves a reasonable farmgate price and a chance of economic survivalfor milk producers, they may feel that theCorporations Law compels them to ignorethese factors. Even if the Prime Ministerlectures the banks on the fact that they, like

Telstra, have a community service obligation,the directors and managers find contradictoryobligations in the Corporations Law. Sections180, 181 and 184 of the law provide thatdecisions have to be made in the bestinterests of the corporation, and section 232gives shareholders a right to sue the directorsif their conduct of the corporation's affairs iscontrary to the interests of the corporation as awhole.

I am a conservative. I believe incompetition. I believe in the right to have a go.But the absolute maximisation of profits anddividends to shareholders cannot be pursuedto the exclusion of all other obligations. Ibelieve the Corporations Law should beamended not so that community obligationstotally override the pursuit of profits—thatwould be silly—and not even so that they areprohibited from making more than areasonable profit; but so that when directors ormanagers have a choice between two pathswhich would both produce a reasonable profitthey are free, or even encouraged, to choosethe path which would also promote widercommunity interests.

I am sure that banks could still havemade pretty good profits without closing asmany branches as they have over the past fewyears, and I am sure that Woolworths cancontinue to make a handsome profit withoutscrewing the price it pays for wholesale milkdown so low that even their own seniormanagement share concerns and wonderwhether the successful tenderer will be therefor the next round of tendering. It is true thatthis might make life more complex forcompany directors and managers. They willhave to strike a balance between theircorporation's interest and the community'sinterest instead of obsessively promoting justone interest.

I am also a solicitor. One of the first thingsI remember learning in law school is that welawyers have a mixture of duties. The duty tothe client sometimes has to come second tothe duty to the court and to the public interest.Lawyers manage to make those choices whenthere is some tension between the client'sinterest and the public interest, and I am surethat company directors will be able to as well.They might even feel happier in their heart ofhearts about the decisions that they may endup making.

I have referred in this motion to the extraobligations to be imposed on the corporationsthat have substantial powers in the market.Corporations such as Woolworths that havesubstantial power in a market already have

4240 Corporations Law 9 Nov 2000

special restrictions on what they can do, andwhich are imposed by section 46 of the TradePractices Act. They cannot deliberately takeaction where their market power could be usedto damage competitors and thus make thedistribution of market power even moreuneven. I am suggesting that they should alsobe encouraged to stop the less powerfulplayers in the market from committing suicideby offering absurd prices just to keep thecustom of the powerful corporation. This is theonly country in the world where 80% of thefood market is controlled by three corporations.Some special responsibilities already comewith that degree of market dominance, and Iam suggesting that another responsibilityshould be added.

This motion is very indirect. I ask thisHouse and the Premier to ask the PrimeMinister to take some action. This is becausethis House has no real power over the duty ofcompany directors and managers. This is ironicbecause when we look at the statute books,we see that the Corporations Law is law inQueensland because of the Queensland Act,the Corporations (Queensland) Act of 1990,but all that this Act says is that theCorporations Law which is stated in theCommonwealth Act is law in Queensland andthe details are found in the CommonwealthAct. We still have a theoretical power to makelaws about corporations, but we have prettywell given it away by Commonwealth/Stateagreements. Our Act also states that, if theCommonwealth amends the CorporationsLaw, the amended version automaticallybecomes law here. So in practice all we can dois ask the Commonwealth to take action. Iseek support from this House for this motiontonight.

Ms STRUTHERS (Archerfield—ALP)(8.37 p.m.): As the motion put forward by themember for Nicklin seeks to extend the socialresponsibility of corporations, I am pleased tosecond this motion. Entrepreneurial flair,capital investment and risk taking bycorporations form the backbone of a healthyeconomy. However, a sustainable economyand environment will be achieved only ifeconomic and social objectives are in balance.There is increasing public concern aboutglobalisation, economic rationalism and theimpact that competitive market reforms arehaving on job insecurity and economicinequality. The divide between the rich and thepoor is growing, and we have an enormousincome and power divide between the workingpoor and the so-called gold-collar workers inour community.

There is increasing public concern thatmultinational corporations control our economyand community, not duly electedGovernments. There is increasing publicconcern that unless private corporations,particularly powerful multinational corporations,are more accountable to the public, we willwitness further environmental degradation,erosion of jobs and wages, and the decline oflocally based industries. Many corporatecitizens are socially responsible, but we witnessdaily accounts of unethical practice andenvironmental abuse from a range ofcompanies, and it is important that we keepthese sorts of companies in check and makethem accountable.

I am pro-investment, pro-economic growthand pro-jobs. Our State and FederalGovernments must continue to provide thefoundations for corporations to grow andprosper. But social, industrial andenvironmental considerations must be givenequal importance. We know that the HowardGovernment has no problem giving a helpinghand to big corporations. The current debateon fuel prices is a case in point. At no time hasMr Howard challenged the corporate practices,particularly the pricing practices of themultinational oil companies.

I support the member for Nicklin in his callfor the Federal Government to amend theCorporations Law to enhance the socialresponsibility of corporations. To date,corporations have been called to accountthrough the efforts particularly of the labourmovement, the environment movement andconsumer groups. It is time the FederalGovernment got some spine and usedlegislative powers to bring greater socialresponsibility to the actions of some of theseirresponsible corporations. The AustralianCouncil of Trade Unions Secretary, GregCombet, has been leading some veryinnovative trade union/shareholder alliances totackle the might of multinational corporations.

The ACTU, the CFMEU and othershareholder alliances have flexed theircollective muscle at corporate AGMs in theirquest to make big corporations moreaccountable for the blow-out in executivesalaries, unfair industrial relations, workplacehealth and safety breaches and environmentalpractice. One of those targeted companieshas been Rio Tinto. The union/shareholderalliance rallied internationally to muster morethan a million votes at the Brisbane AGM ofRio Tinto in favour of its corporateaccountability resolutions. That was 20% of thevotes cast, which is a unique and amazingachievement. This must have had a few board


members shaking in their boots and wouldhave been a blow to the Rio Tinto CEO, whoclaimed that he had 99% of votes in his backpocket.

Rio Tinto has an international track recordthat it cannot be proud of in environmentaland other areas. A 1996 report of theEcumenical Council for CorporateResponsibility in the UK stated—

"The company's actions show verysignificant abuse across five completesections of the Principles for GlobalCorporate Responsibility."

A 1998 report alleged that loss of land andincome, forced evictions of local people by themilitary, pollution and social upheaval were alegacy of Rio Tinto's Kelian goldmine.

It is encouraging to see that many of theworld's leading institutional investors havedeveloped policies that address the impact oftheir investments on society, the environment,employees and human rights. I am verypleased that the Beattie Government hasbeen particularly diligent in leading the chargein terms of humanising National CompetitionPolicy. There are many benefits in a morecompetitive environment—I do not deny thatat all—but it is important that problems whichresult from job insecurity and the downsizing ofcorporations are dealt with and that we have astronger public interest test. I am very pleasedto see the developments in the past week orso and congratulate the Premier on hisdiligence and leadership in this area.

It is also incumbent on our Government,particularly in its dealings with big corporationsand those receiving Government incentivepackages, that it insists on fair industrial,environmental and health and safety practicesand stricter adherence to local industry contentpolicy when negotiating arrangements withthem. There is certainly a lot to be said for themotion moved by the member for Nicklin.There has to be more public accountability. Isupport his motion tonight.

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—CCAQ)(8.42 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise tosupport the motion moved by the member forNicklin. If there is a chance for CCA to giveNCP a good kicking, we will take it. Communitydissatisfaction, disenchantment andinconvenience are now a fact of life. This is anew and unwanted public emotion that hasnot had to be dealt with in years gone by.Every day, and generally several times perday, we are advised of instances where thepublic has received a mauling at the hands ofthe banking cartels, the supermarketmonopolies and privatised or partly privatised

Government owned corporations. In this dayand age of mad economic rationalism wherethe only consideration is the mighty dollar,people are becoming the victims rather thanthe customers.

In most cases, the people most hurt bythe heartlessness of the modern-day corporateenvironment are the very people who are leastable to cope with such harsh treatment andsuch inconvenience. I refer to the elderly in ourcommunity who have been loyal to, say, aparticular bank all their life and are now beingrewarded for their lifetime of loyalty with thelocal branch of their bank withdrawn. Many ofthese people have trouble coping with thelatest whiz-bang technology. They do not wantto have to do their banking at an automaticteller or on the Internet or over the phone,where they do not know who they are talkingto and they have to go through myriad buttonpressing to speak to anybody. With spirallingbank charges, these people deserve andshould be able to expect a decent level ofservice. I know that that is not what the peoplein the community and the communityorganisations of Kilcoy expected, but whatthey got was the closure of theCommonwealth Bank.

Dr Prenzler: And in Laidley.

Mr FELDMAN: Yes, and in Laidley. It istragic to see small communities wither and die,and it is not just about a company and anindividual client. Whole communities and anestablished way of life are being torn asunderthroughout Australia even as we speak. Banksamalgamate, rationalise and withdraw servicesand a small town loses a few bank employees.The town could be losing the president of theApex Club, the secretary of Rotary or thetreasurer of the local cricket club. The bankemployees' children are withdrawn from thesmall school causing the loss of a teacher, andthe whole tragic cycle starts over again.

Dr Prenzler interjected.

Mr FELDMAN: Yes, local businesses loseas well. The same process has occurred withthe same results as predatory supermarketshave gobbled up family-owned grocerybusinesses and the local butcher shops.Decreased job opportunities and decreasedcustomer services are the price we pay forincreased corporate profits. No-one denies theright of the shareholder to expect a return ontheir shareholding. What must be borne inmind, though, is that the corporations aredepriving their profits from the communitiesand there must always be a balance thatensures the community receives anacceptable level of service in return.


Normally the balance is achieved bycompetition among the service providers, but itis quite ironic that the much-vaunted NationalCompetition Policy spurned from the mind ofMr Fred Hilmer is in fact delivering theopposite. The formation of monopolies,oligopolies and cartels is tilting the balanceagainst the customer. It is now absolutelyessential that we retain the balance bylegislation, because that is the only way that itcan be forced to be done. It will be pretty hardto create competition when there is only onebank and one store. It could be exactly like theold song says—

"I load 16 tonnes and what do I get

Just another day older and deeper indebt

St Peter don't you call me because Ican't go

I owe my soul to the company store."That could be the song of the new century.

Corporations benefit from communities. Ibelieve that it is eminently reasonable toexpect that they should be required to subjecttheir operations to a meaningful communitybenefits test. Just as citizens do, and perhapseven more, corporations have a socialresponsibility. It is not unreasonable to expectcorporations to be good corporate citizens. It iscertainly not unreasonable for consumers tobe assured of a reasonable level of serviceand to have that assurance enshrined inlegislation. I commend the member for Nicklinfor bringing this motion to the Parliament fordiscussion. I commend the motion to theHouse.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—IND)(8.47 p.m.): I rise to speak in support of theprinciples of the motion moved by the memberfor Nicklin. The requirement on companies fora social and cultural impact assessment beforemaking significant corporate decisions willmean that the corporations involved will haveseveral steps to implement before they canmake a significant decision. To get theinformation being asked for in this motion,there will be a requirement for consultation withthe affected communities. I believe that thereare many in our communities, particularlyregional Queensland, who believe that largecorporations have little idea of the impact onthem as individuals and as isolatedcommunities when these corporations maketheir decisions. It will require the corporation tohave consideration of the issues raised bycommunity members. It will result in a decisionwhich has at least had the opportunity to beinformed.

Companies such as banks say that theirfocus is their customers. We see stickers andslogans to that effect hung on bank walls, yetthey close rural branches because thosebranches do not achieve unrealistic profitlevels. What about support to the community?The Commonwealth Bank was a bank for thepeople. It had a branch at every postoffice—that was when every town and outposthad a post office! It provided a service to allsized communities and did okay as far as itsfinancial returns were concerned. Then thebank was privatised.

Banks now require a $500 minimumdeposit or charges apply. They have addedcosts to face-to-face transactions to encouragecustomers to use ATMs and then placedcharges on the use of ATMs. They havealienated older customers who are afraid oftechnology, who are afraid of being exposedas they stand at ATMs on the street, and saidto them, "If you feel frail and disadvantaged,come on in. We'll just charge you more."Telstra did the same. The sale of 49% ofTelstra was, and remains in my view,reprehensible. I remain of the view thatstrategic community infrastructure shouldremain in public ownership. Theseinstrumentalities include roads, rail, ports,communications, electricity, water and the like.If the privatisation of Telstra proceeds past49%, I believe the result will be, withoutexception, greater rural dislocation. Even now,people who live outside of the south-eastcorner or other major regional towns faceincreased costs to connect to this lifeline.

The pricing policies of Woolworths havebeen mentioned. That pricing policy, agreed toby the large supermarkets, had scant regard, ifany, for the impact on the very people whoprovided the product—the dairy farmers.

This motion refers to the requirement for asocial and cultural impact assessment to bedone before significant corporate decisions"which may change the operation of thecompany or substantially increase its marketshare" are made. Australia has the highestlevel of market share by the smallest numberof conglomerates of any country I have beenable to identify. Every other country I havelooked at that has a highly developedeconomy has a limit on the amount of marketshare single entities can have. We do nothave that. This study, this requirement, thisobligation, will ensure that more information isavailable not only to the companies makingthe decision but also to the community that willbe affected by it.


NCP required community benefit tests. Itrequired public interest tests. When NCPdemanded that the water boards examineprivatisation, recouping the full cost of the saleof water, it required a community benefit test. Ibelieve the assessment contained in themotion is no greater or no lesser an obligation.This motion intends to introduce a new facet tothe decision-making process.

Does business need profit to succeed? Ofcourse it does. But some profits, as publishedrecently, are not healthy. They areembarrassingly excessive—exorbitant. Whenbanks announce billions of dollars of profit andon the same day or the very next dayannounce that they are going to closebranches and increase charges to thecommunity, it is time to bring someaccountability into the process. The people inmy region and, I believe, right across Australiafeel that it is time that occurred. This motionseeks to ensure that corporations considermore than just the profit motive. It will requirecorporations that derive a living—a profit—fromour residents to consider also their issueswhen making decisions.

Time expired.Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)

(Attorney General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (8.52 p.m.): The law ofcorporations has come a long way since theSouth Sea bubble burst. Protections havebeen built into the law for shareholders and forthird parties dealing with corporations.Statutory duties have been imposed oncompany directors to prevent rip-offs and topromote responsible conduct.

This motion argues for greater socialresponsibility on the part of corporations. Itinvolves a broad statement of principle ratherthan detailed legislative machinery. As such,the Government is willing to support thismotion. If this motion is passed by the Housetonight, I shall have pleasure in bringing thematter before the Ministerial Council forCorporations, which sits in the latter part ofnext week, in conjunction with the StandingCommittee of Attorneys-General.

The circumstances in which CorporationsLaw now develops have to be considered inthe light of the High Court decision in Hughes.That case demonstrated that the currentframework of law involving agreementsbetween the Commonwealth and the variousStates was an unsatisfactory and uncertainbasis, given the decision of the High Court.Accordingly, at the July 2000 joint meeting ofthe Standing Committee of Attorneys-Generaland Ministerial Council for Corporations,

agreement was reached in principle to referpower to the Commonwealth to deal with theHigh Court's decision in the Hughes case.

But as has been pointed out by thehonourable member for Nicklin and veryeloquently, may I say, by the honourablemember for Archerfield, it is important thatthose Governments in more direct contact withthe people—namely, State Governments—should continue to play an important role inthe process of development of the law.Indeed, the agreement entered into providesfor such involvement. This is an example, Ithink, of the evolution of the law ofcorporations into areas of social responsibility.So I shall be very happy to take this matter upwith my colleagues in the ministerial council.

That referral of power is designed not toabrogate an interest in this area on the part ofthe States. Rather, it is designed to make surethat there is certainty. Workers need jobs, andthat means there must be a framework of legalcertainty in which corporations can operate.We have acted promptly in order to ensurethat that legal certainty is available forcorporations and, hence, their employees. Butit is important that we do what we can toreform the law of corporations.

In one area in particular the QueenslandGovernment has worked hard to seek toreform the law. I refer in particular to the areaof workers' entitlements in the event ofcompany insolvencies. The Australian Bureauof Statistics estimates that 12,000 workers losetheir jobs every year because of the financialproblems of their employers. We saw in thewaterfront dispute the experience of workerslosing their entitlements, it so appeared at onestage. We need to ensure that that does nothappen again.

As a result of the persistence of theQueensland Government and other LaborGovernments, the Commonwealth has passedthe Corporations Law Amendment (EmployeeEntitlements) Bill 2000. That increasesprotection for employee entitlements in twoways. It extends the duty of directors not toengage in insolvent company trading and toprohibit a company from entering into acommercial transaction that is not a debt.Secondly, it prohibits agreements andtransactions entered into to prevent therecovery of employee entitlements. Severepenalties will apply for breaches of theseprovisions. Having pressed for these reforms,Queensland is pleased to see them passed.However, we do wish to see, in theconsideration of the CLERP 8 process,consideration given to giving employee


entitlements priority over all creditors, bothsecured and unsecured.

Time expired.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (8.57 p.m.):I do not believe there would be too manymembers in this Parliament who woulddisagree with some of the sentiments andconcerns expressed about the actions of thebanks, the chain stores and so on. Althoughthe Opposition supports the sentiment behindthis motion, it cannot support the motionbefore the Parliament.

I will highlight a couple of issues. First, thehonourable member's motion does not providethe definition of a large company. That issomething that would certainly create someissue. I will read out the names of a number oflocal companies which people in the electorateof Nicklin would consider large. They areJuniper Pty Ltd, building contractors, just downthe road at Mooloolaba; Rod Smith Parts andBearing Co., motor accessories; Crosby RuralServices and Hardware, hardware retail;Nambour Tractors and Implements, agriculturalmachinery; Arrow Electrical, electricalcontractors; Skinners Subaru, new cardealership; and Brown and Thorne Pty Ltd,builders. In that community and any othercommunity, many small operators wouldconsider those companies as largecompanies. This is what needs to be spelt out.There are some real issues here. Whilst whatis contained in the motion is aspiratory,certainly there would be some issue in trying toachieve its aims.

The motion refers to social and culturalimpact assessments. For some timeQueensland has had a process requiring ruralimpact statements prior to legislation goingbefore Parliament. Are the rural communitiesany better off? Have the decisions made ontheir behalf been any better? I think they aredecisions we really need to look at in order toconsider whether this is the right way to go.

We need to look at a number of otherissues. Tonight we have heard a lot about thematter of the predatory chain stores, and Ithink that that is something we would all agreewith. How many people in this Parliament dothe bulk of their grocery shopping inWoolworths, Coles or Franklins? I would say if Iwent around here, the majority of peoplewould put their hands up. I do not shop inthose places because I believe in shopping atmy local IGA. I very rarely darken those othercompanies' doors. Probably 2% of myshopping would be one in those places, andonly for items that I cannot get locally. Many

people say they aspire to something. I thinkthat the best way to achieve some of thesethings is to let our actions in the communityshow what we believe.

I think we would be better off looking at acharter of social responsibilities andencouraging Government to work with largecorporations to look at those sorts of thingsrather than trying to legislate. If we didlegislate, we then have to try to define what isa large company, start to define nebulousconcepts and then try to interpret whetherwhat they are doing is in line with theexpectations of the Parliament or thecommunity. I think that that is an issue ofsome concern for people.

As I said, whilst this probably providesgoals which very few people could reallydisagree with, the achievement and theexpectation of it is something that wouldprobably let the community down. I think weare better off looking at other areas.

I think that the Auctioneers and AgentsAct of 1971 as amended provides us withsome examples of the sorts of things that wecan do in working with companies andcorporations to try to achieve these results.With regard to a range of professionals,including commercial agents, motor dealersand auctioneers, the Act says that acommittee may, as a guide to the standard ofprofessional conduct expected of auctioneers,compile a code of professional conduct ofauctioneers. In this case the code says it mustbe approved by regulation.

Whilst I am not necessarily advocatingregulation, I am saying that we probablyshould look at some other legislation that wehave in place in this State and look atexamples of things that may have worked inthe past and work with large corporations toachieve those outcomes. I do not think thatthere is necessarily a strong relationship withNCP and all of the issues that have beenraised here tonight because many of theissues relating to the banks happened whenderegulation occurred in the middle of the1980s.

I think we need to be very careful aboutthe decisions that we make and theinterpretation of things as we seek to look atthem in later times. I do not think that this isthe best way of achieving it. However, very fewpeople would argue against the concerns thathave been raised here tonight.

Time expired.

Motion agreed to.


APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2)APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENT) BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading (Cognate Debate)

Resumed from p. 4227.Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)

(9.02 p.m.), continuing: Earlier, I was speakingabout the need for good legislation and goodtransport infrastructure in the electorate ofCaloundra and on the Sunshine Coast. Anissue of particular concern to the residents andto the environmental groups in my electorate isthe proliferation of jet skis. The use of jet skisin the Pumicestone Passage is causingconsiderable stress to local residents, theiramenity, lifestyle and safety. Accidents haveoccurred with recreational fishers, with childrenand with people swimming in the passage.Very prolific grass seabeds are located in thepassage and it is a noted national marinepark. It also hosts many migratory birds, whichare being disrupted by the careless behaviourof jet ski owners and by the noise and fumesemanating from those jet skis.

The Government proposes to introducelegislation dealing with this issue. Theregulations proposed in that Bill are far fromadequate. It would be fair to say that inmeetings that have been held the communityhas unanimously rejected those regulations.To my knowledge, the Minister will be bringingforth those same regulations. If the Minister isconsulting with people, he has to listen to whatthey are saying. Hopefully, as legislators, wewill put in place what the vast majority of thecommunity wants. That is what we do in ademocracy.

Another issue of concern in my electorateis policing and the number of police we have. Iwould like to endorse the work done by thepolice at the Caloundra Police Station. I wouldparticularly like to acknowledge the work doneby the Juvenile Aid Bureau. The JAB's staff donot have an enviable task. There is certainlynot enough of them. The great majority ofcrime in my area is juvenile crime, some of itdrug related, some of it related to juvenileswho have very little responsibility shown towardthem at home and who often have beenexpelled from schools or have chosen to betruants. A lot of the petty crimes—the break-ins, the car thefts and so on—are perpetratedby those people, so the JAB has a big job.

I have a great concern that, with theestablishment of a new police station atBeerwah, two of our JAB officers will settledown there. That really is not good enough.We need them in Caloundra. At the moment,we have a complement overall, I believe, ofsomething like 35 police. I would like the

Minister's assurance that none of thoseofficers will be taken down to Beerwah,because we need them all in our area.

Of course, the Minister can put extrapolice in areas around the State because thecoalition built the academy in Townsville. Thatallowed more police to be trained. Thoseofficers are now coming on stream and theycan be placed in those areas. I urge theMinister to look at the model of the police topopulation ratio. It is very inequitable on theSunshine Coast.

The other issue I would like the Minister toaddress is twofold. With the growing activity onthe waterways in the Caloundra electorate, weneed our own branch of the Water Police.There is no point in ringing officers atMooloolaba and having them come down onlyto find that by the time the police launcharrives the perpetrators have well and trulygone. Caloundra has an increasing number ofcanal developments that need to be policed.As I said, we need the Pumicestone Passage,which is a natural wonder, well protected fromthose who would act as delinquents andhoons and destroy it.

We also need to make sure thatadequate police are provided on the beat. Atourist area like the Sunshine Coast, which hasa great influx of people during tourist periods,needs to have a corresponding increase in thepolice force. I am not saying that this shouldbe restricted to the Sunshine Coast, the GoldCoast, Cairns and areas where there is aninflux of tourists. At the moment, the numberof police who have to do that job in the busytourist periods is the same as the numberduring off-peak periods. It is a nonsense to saythat when the population swells fourfold thesame number of police can do the job. Theyjust cannot. It wears them out; they becomevery stressed; and, of course, the communityis not getting the policing that it deserves.

A squad could be implemented to do justthat sort of thing around the State. If that weredone, then we would not have this problemthat occurs. The resources provided need tobe over and above the police allocated topolice stations during normal periods. I thinkthis needs to be given budgetaryconsideration.

Health is another issue of great concernto my constituents. A number of elderly retiredpeople reside in my electorate, as well as anumber of young mothers and a number ofsingle mothers with the responsibility of lookingafter their children.

There is only one word that can be usedto describe the dental resources at Caloundra


Hospital, and that is appalling. I place onrecord my absolute support for the dentistsand their staff at the dental clinic in Caloundra.They do an incredible job with very few dentistsand very few resources to do it. There shouldbe a complement of at least four dentists atthat hospital. At the best, we have only twodentists. Often we have only one dentistbecause the other dentist has to do schoolduties. This year they have been allocated theduties at Caboolture. The school conditionsare just ridiculous.

People are told to line up at the dentalclinic in the morning at 6 o'clock—rain, hail orshine. There is no cover; sometimes they lineup in terrible weather. Often only the first sixpatients are taken, so the rest have to gohome.

The dentists come on duty about8.30 a.m. Old people are often very distressedby this, as are mothers with children. Often,mothers who have children who have to go toschool have to leave the queue, take thechildren to school and return to the end of thequeue. I have had to contact the Ministerabout a number of cases where emergencydental services have been needed. One caseinvolved a single mother of three children whohad an exposed nerve in her tooth. She wasputting Blu Tack on the tooth to try and settlethe tooth down because she could not get theservice that she required. Are we a caringcommunity or is this the Dark Ages? Peopledeserve basic health care at a much betterlevel than that.

The new development at the hospital,which the coalition Government funded fiveyears ago, is finally under way. Thisdevelopment will be very beneficial to thepeople of Caloundra, but only if it isadequately staffed and resourced. I intendkeeping a watching brief on this matter,because it has taken the Minister for Healthnearly three years to get this show on theroad. Large hospitals, such as the RoyalBrisbane Hospital, have been built in fiveyears. However, we could not manage tospend $14.6m in Caloundra. One can onlybelieve that the capital went elsewhere, eventhough it still stayed on the books. That is abudgetary deceit in itself.

We have an excellent sport andrecreation centre at Currimundi. The coalitionfunded the improvements to that centre to thetune of more than $3m. These improvementswere very desperately needed because theCurrimundi Recreation Centre is usedpredominantly by students from our Stateschools for recreation, sports and camps.

Private schools and primary schools are alsopermitted to use the resources at the centre.The recreation centre is now catering forpeople with disabilities. This has been awonderful development. The centre has aheated swimming pool. However, there is nomanagement plan in place, even though it hasbeen requested by the manager and theMinister. We now have a management planwhich has been with the department for sometime but has still not been approved. As aresult, we cannot go ahead with staffing of therecreation centre.

Until very recently, we could not use theheated pool. It sat there in all its pristinebeauty because we had no-one who couldsupervise users of the pool. A little money hasnow been made available to the managerwhich enables him to employ some casualstaff. As a result, clients using the recreationcentre can now use the pool. The situationwas very similar to the "Yes Minister"hospital—a hospital which was up and running,which had a full administrative staff and awaiting list, but no patients. One could say thesame of the Currimundi Recreation Centre. Wehad a built centre, we had staff, we had aheated pool and we had lit tennis courts butthe clients could not use it. What a nonsense!

I ask Minister Mackenroth to give approvalto the management plan. I also ask him togive the centre adequate resources so that itcan be well run. The lit tennis courts and thepool could be rented out to the generalcommunity at a not too expensive rate. Thiswould allow the recreation centre to gathersome funds which would allow it to function.

I want to raise the question of theestablishment of a TAFE college in Caloundra.At the moment we do not have one. We havean apology for a TAFE where a few things canbe done, but resources are very limited.Caloundra High School has embraced thePathways program very enthusiastically. Isupport that program. However, our studentscannot attend a TAFE college in Caloundra;instead, they have to go to Nambour, Cooloolaor Mooloolaba—all of which are a long wayaway from Caloundra High School. A numberof employers in Caloundra are interested inbeing involved in the registered trainingorganisation and are prepared to act as privateproviders. I know that the high school wouldlike to incorporate a TAFE college as part of itsestablishment.

However, the high school would need anextra building to cater for the TAFE college.Across the road from the Caloundra HighSchool we have an old Telecom site and


building. I encourage Education Queenslandto buy that site, which would enable us to erecta TAFE college there. This is something whichcould be looked at jointly by DETIR andEducation Queensland. The high school wouldbe very happy to have a TAFE college as a co-campus. This could reduce administrativecosts. The establishment of the college wouldallow our students to have a full TAFEeducation. At this stage, EducationQueensland has said, "No, definitely no moreland."

I am aware that Australia Post wants tosell the land. Australia Post will not achieve aready commercial value on the propertybecause it is well away from the commercialcentre of Caloundra. It would be excellent ifCaloundra High School could obtain this landand go ahead with the construction of theTAFE college. Students in Caloundra wouldbenefit considerably if this project came tofruition.

In a growing community such asCaloundra and the Sunshine Coast we have alot of needs which should be attended to. Oneof our needs in Caloundra is for a courthouse.The present courthouse is a joke. It is sittingon land owned by the Department of Justice.The old police station is next door. Policeofficers in Caloundra have now gone to theirnew police station. The courthouse land is aGovernment asset and needs to be sold. Themoney obtained could be used to build a newcourthouse away from the centre of the town—

Time expired.

Mr TURNER (Thuringowa—IND)(9.15 p.m.): This Government has continuallydenied that our public health system is in crisis,yet inadequate hospital services are raised inthis House every sitting day. TownsvilleGeneral Hospital and Kirwan Women'sHospital are certainly experiencing difficultieswith unacceptable delays in surgery.

Recently, Dr Sondergeld of the AustralianMedical Association of Queensland visited withmedics and TGH management. He claims thatpatients would wait, and had waited, for yearsfor surgery. He cited a patient whose herniaoperation has been scheduled for 2010. Hewent on to say that doctors had raised issuesthrough hospital channels for six years withoutsuccess and that doctors had been recruited,only to be told that there was no job becauseof funding. He said that bed numbers at thenew $170m Douglas Hospital would be 25%fewer than the old hospital had in the mid1990s.

The Minister's answer to this was to putout a media release in conjunction with the

member for Townsville in which she claimedslight improvements in operation numbersbetween the June and September quarters,with Mr Reynolds praising the hospital staff.Yet this week up to 10 patients will fly to PrinceCharles Hospital for heart surgery. It is cheaperfor Townsville General Hospital to sendpatients south. By giving Prince CharlesHospital more patients, it meant that thehospital met its budget target and shored upits recurrent funding.

North Queenslanders are not so easilyhoodwinked. They want answers to the bigquestions, not glib media releases withobscure statistics from the Health Minister andthe Premier's man in the north. I urge theMinister to look at the big picture and answerthe big questions. It is apparent to all,including the Queensland AMA, medical staff,nursing staff, patients and their families, thatthe Townsville General Hospital and KirwanWomen's Hospital are underfunded andunderresourced. It is apparent to all except theMinister.

Whilst I am talking about hospitals andfunding, I want to raise another issue. Iadvised this House that in June 1999 I calledon the Townsville/Thuringowa Water Board toopen the Ross River Dam for recreation. At thesame time, I asked the Minister for Transportto fast-track the State's contribution towardsthe Ross River Bridge. The good news is that,following my call, public consultation andresearch has taken place and the dam will beopened for community recreation. This isparticularly good news for residents of theUpper Ross River area and will be a majordrawcard for tourism.

A new section of road from UniversityDrive past the new Douglas Hospital andJames Cook University, and a bridge overRoss River, constitutes an essential link forThuringowa residents and is crucial to our city'sdevelopment. There are bottlenecks at theNathan Street intersection and at theroundabouts on University Drive. Hospitalemergency vehicles will be delayed unless thisroad and bridge are built.

The Douglas Arterial Road will not be partof the future national highway system for 10 to15 years. The construction of the State-developed hospital has brought forward theneed for the road. It would remain the State'sresponsibility until that time. The StateGovernment should share funding with theFederal Government 50/50—that is, $20meach, not $7.3m from the State and the restfrom the Federal Government.


The Federal Government is happy withthis arrangement, both the Townsville andThuringowa mayors are happy with thisarrangement and the people of Townsville andThuringowa are happy with this arrangement.It is up to the State Government to stopposturing and cooperate. People are fed upwith finger-pointing and buck-passing and theydo not want any more electioneering over theDouglas Arterial. It will not win brownie points.They want this access and they want it whenthe hospital is opened. I call on theGovernment to do the right thing by thepeople of Townsville and Thuringowa and letus build the bridge.

Mrs PRATT (Barambah—IND)(9.19 p.m.): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you forthe opportunity to speak to this AppropriationBill (No. 2) 2000. In speaking to this Bill, Iwould like to take a moment to remind all inthis House that the State Budget 2001-01Capital Statement states that the WideBay/Burnett area received $119.41 per personwhich, according to the table, was the lowestper person spent in any region, and 1.09% ofthe Budget expenditure, which was the fifthlowest across the State. Of course, the highestexpenditure was in Brisbane, which received37.2% of the Budget. I ask this Government toseriously consider a more generous distributionof funding to rural Queensland.

I would like to take this opportunity tobring to the attention of the Ministers of thevarious departments the areas within theBarambah electorate that need attention. I willstart with what would appear to be the mostcommon request from all the mayors in all theelectorates—I should say all but one—and thatis in relation to the roads. I spoke very brieflywith the Minister in the lift and told him that Iwould be bringing the state of the shire roadsto his attention. Although I acknowledge theMinister's reply that a couple of years ago$30m was spent in the area, it would beremiss of me not to pursue the ongoing needsof the area. The Minister would be the first toadmit that $30m in an electorate the size ofBarambah would cover but a very smallpercentage of the roads.

One of the most often neglected transportissues is that in some areas the roads are notbuilt to handle traffic such as B-doubles androad trains. The Wondai Shire considers thatthe Byee road and the narrow bridge overBarambah Creek should be upgraded beforethe closure of the railway line from Murgon toByee. There is also a need for passing laneson the Bunya Highway between Wondai andKingaroy. The Kilcoy Shire is pursuingovertaking lanes on the D'Aguilar Highway on

the western side of Kilcoy to Yarraman. I oftentravel along that road and I can attest to thelong stretches of that road where it isimpossible to pass. This road takes in theBlackbutt Range, where I have been told thatit will have pull-off bays, but these are reallyinadequate considering the increasing volumeof general traffic and trucks travelling to TarongNorth and through-traffic to Rockhampton.There is also a need for funding to rehabilitatethe D'Aguilar Highway just west of Kilcoy.

The Rosalie Shire is desperate to havethe New England Highway Cooyar to Kingaroyroads upgraded, in particular the constructionof passing lanes and the widening of theroads. Nanango sees attention paid to theD'Aguilar Highway from the top of the range toBoobir Creek and Coomba Gully Bridge asbeing two of the most urgent projects in needof completion. A further section needingattention is the Maidenwell-Bunya Mountainsroad which, as the Minister would know, is fastbecoming the gateway for tourism in the area.Also throughout the shire there is an urgentneed for the replacement of guard rails.

In regard to all of these matters we aretold that there is no money in the kitty. All ofthese projects and more could be completedwith the millions of dollars that are wasted onprojects such as the super stadium that no-one wants and the footbridge that is slowlygrowing across the Brisbane River. TheChippindale Bridge is an issue in the KilkivanShire. I have brought that matter to theMinister's attention only recently. It is a matterthat has been of concern to many residents. Ihave been informed that this bridge is toundergo repairs and maintenance that will"restore" it to its flood-prone condition. I amreliably informed that this bridge is the lowestpoint between Ipswich and Rockhampton. Thebridge is subject to flash flooding, and trafficfrom the north in particular has limited visibilitybefore being confronted with a floodedwaterway.

I will not go into the detail of this matter asthe Minister has my letter and letters fromother people in which community concerns areconveyed. This issue would have to beacknowledged as a major works project, but Iask the Minister to seriously consider it as thisroad is a major traffic carrier.

When I use the word "isolation", what domembers think of? Sometimes when we areimmersed in the turmoil of everyday living wemay crave isolation. It is not unusual to want toget away from it all to some quiet place, just aslong as we have access to the necessities oflife, such as medical attention, shops and the


comforts to which we have becomeaccustomed. However, there is another type ofremoteness that is not so pleasant—aremoteness that has been caused by theclosing of services that once enabled peoplewho lived in certain areas to communicate withand commute freely to populated areas.

Our forefathers opened large tracts ofland well away from the populated coastlines,dangling enticing carrots to encourage peopleto take up residence and make the barrenland productive. They built railways andinfrastructure designed to make the remoteareas more accessible and tolerable places inwhich to live. For instance, people in theKimberleys have one of the finest services inthe world, the Royal Flying Doctor Service.Without that service, that area would still belargely unpopulated.

So how remote is remote? In Barambah,many residents are either elderly with familyliving away or are ill and in need of specialisttreatment. Previously, these residents couldtravel to Toowoomba, Gympie and Hervey Bayon one bus service that used to run the route.Now, Dunkley's bus service has shut downbecause it cannot afford to provide a servicewithout subsidisation. It could not make a profitfrom the small numbers of people who used it,even though they may have used it quitefrequently and consistently. A few years ago,the trains stopped coming to Barambahexcept to pick up peanuts, railway sleepersand sometimes cattle. Now people's onlymeans of public transport to Toowoomba andGympie has gone and they are forced to go toBrisbane, since that is the only bus route to amajor centre that is left. How long will it bebefore that service, too, is unviable?

This Government has insisted that long-distance transport has to be competitive andnot receive subsidies. However, it has alsoadmitted to continuing subsidisation for threebus services in western Queensland. Thecoalition Government started these subsidiesin 1997, because the services were underthreat of being withdrawn on commercialgrounds.

There was a time when Australians paidtaxes to provide services to communities. Asthe word "service" indicates, these were notprofit-making ventures; they were put in placeby Governments who had the best interests oftheir voters at heart and profit was not aconcern. Now if services do not make a profitthey are left to die, strangled by the withdrawalof the taxes that subsidised them. Now wemust have the level playing field, or NCP.These ideologies do nothing more than

impoverish the impoverished while lining thepockets of big companies that can afford toserve a little in return for their huge profits.Hasn't anyone told these companies that theirfree donation to the community may even bea tax deduction for them? Or don't they haveto worry about tax because they aremultinationals?

The main concern of the CherbourgCommunity Council at the moment is thecapacity of its current sewerage system tocope with the growing demand. Recentresearch from consulting engineers hasindicated that replacement and relocation ofthe treatment plant will be required within thenext two years. I ask the Minister to treat thismatter as one of urgency.

One area needing attention is theavailability of public housing. During theCommunity Cabinet meeting conducted inKingaroy, the Minister opened a set of units inKingaroy. Although we are grateful for that,there is a need for much more as waiting listsare quite long throughout the entire electorate.In particular, and on behalf of the Wondaimayor, I ask the Minister to give the WondaiShire special consideration, as that shire hasno public housing at all.

Once again, I would like to bring to theattention of the Minister for Police andCorrective Services an issue that concerns thepolice stationed at the Blackbutt PoliceStation. Police in that area are confronted withthe situation in which approximately 75% ofthe area's roads are unsealed or clay/dirtroads, which are not just difficult but at timesimpossible to navigate during periods of wetweather. Blackbutt is surrounded by largetracts of State forest and many of those roadsare in that State forest. It is essential that thestaff of this police station be equipped with afour-wheel drive vehicle so that they cancontinue to protect the residents of the area.As I have mentioned, I have brought thismatter to the Minister's attention. He informedme that he would pass it on to the relevantauthority to be addressed. I understand it is inthe pipeline, and I thank the Minister for that.Hopefully, the requisition of a four-wheel drivewill be forthcoming sooner rather than later.

The opening line in an article quoting QUTmarketing and international business lecturerDr Mark McGovern states, "Farmers' incomestipped to disappear". The article goes on tostate that the average Australian farmer'sincome is predicted to drop to nothing by2017. That grim prediction is the result of astudy undertaken at the Queensland Universityof Technology which looked at incomes in the


1950s and took into account current industrytrends. In that article, Dr Mark McGovernstated that agricultural leaders are afraid toconfront their futures and must act now tochange the income decline. Dr McGovernstated further that our entire agriculturalindustry needs to be analysed. He went on tosay—

"We need to change the wholestructure so that those who are presentlysuccessful can be even more so.

So this assumption that a fewsuccesses are going to change theindustry's fortune or a few farmers leavingare going to be able to change thefortune of the industry, these things aregoing to be just inadequate for the task athand, so a fairly fundamental re-think iswhat I'm calling for."I would like to ask the Minister to

concentrate his attention and effort onensuring that the Premier and the rest of theBeattie Cabinet understands the severity ofthe crisis facing rural industries in Queenslandso that action can be taken and the future ofrural industries is secured. In doing that, Iwould like once again to bring to the Minister'sattention the concerns regarding the Minister'sor his department's apparent lack ofappreciation for the tick eradication programand the delay in extending tick eradication intoareas such as Coolabunia, Moffatdale andBooie.

I am told that this implementation couldbe achieved with current staffing levels andminimum extra expense. Drought has beenmentioned by many members tonight. It hasbeen stated by experts that the ongoingeffects and the recovery of those affected isbetween two and five years. Therefore, it isessential that these people be supported andnot left floundering. Dairy deregulation and thetrue cost has also been addressed by many.The dairy industry in Barambah has alsosuffered severely.

One area which I believe is vital tocommunity development is the need forGovernment to provide incentives toencourage industry to rural areas to establishemployment opportunities for residents west ofthe ranges, especially in communities like ourswhich have suffered through deregulation,NCP and Government legislation.

At a recent meeting of the BurnettCatchment Care Association held on 19October in Wondai, those who attendedexpressed concern about the spreading ofnoxious weeds. I would like confirmation fromthe Minister that he did in fact get the letter

from the BCCA meeting in which it was statedthat due to drought there was a necessity totransport grain and fodder from areas far afieldsuch as central Queensland, an area knownfor its parthenium. The drought has also forcedthe movement of stock to feedlots that havebeen stocked with animals from other areas,which has allowed the spreading of noxiousweed seed due to the manure from thesefeedlots being spread across our paddocks asfertiliser.

Present local government regulationscover the control of known outbreaks ofnoxious weeds, but do not cover the cleaningof agricultural machinery or trucks transportingthe fodder and stock. The Burnett CatchmentCare Association is quite concerned about thisgap in noxious weed control and I would askthe Minister to review this area in anendeavour to control the spread of thesenoxious weeds.

Health is an issue that has beenmentioned many times tonight. For every shirein the electorate, Kilcoy Shire especially asksfor more and better integrated health servicesfor the aged. Respite is a rapidly growing needin all shires and there is an urgent need for thecoordination and education of the public as tothe availability of the services already inexistence in their areas. Throughout all theshires of the electorate there is a consistentrequest for health services to be maintainedand upgraded, not rationalised anddowngraded. The Minister may feel she isbeing particularly picked on, but it is apparentthat no-one is convinced they are betteroff—not the councils, not the staff of thehospitals and not the patients.

I would like to relate one case brought tomy attention in which the person involved, onreading the Minister's reply, felt the Ministerhad called her a liar. That is a very offensivething to do. Mrs Hale broke her ankle on 1 July2000. Her husband phoned the NanangoHospital and was told it was a doctor-freeweekend, which happens once every month.He was advised to take his wife to Kingaroy asx-rays could not be taken at the NanangoHospital without a doctor's authorisation.

I sent my constituent's letter to theMinister. In the Minister's detailed response,she stated, "X-rays, if required, are able to beordered by the doctor and can be taken atNanango Hospital if a qualified x-ray endorsednurse is on duty." The Minister obviously didnot read my constituent's short, 10-line letter. Itclearly stated it was a doctor-free weekend,which happens once per month. So it wasimpossible to get an x-ray at Nanango.


Mrs Hale travelled to Kingaroy, a 56kilometre round trip. A doctor saw her andstated that it has to be a matter of life anddeath before a radiologist could be called in.The doctor treated the ankle as if it was brokenand administered some pain-killing tablets.She made an appointment for an x-ray to bedone on Monday morning. Mrs Hale spent theweekend in severe pain. Monday's x-raysestablished a couple of spiral breaks whichrequired specialist attention.

This Minister has apparently surroundedherself with bureaucrats, many of whom havetrouble understanding the real situation.Legislation and answers to questions thatcome through indicate that she is so far out oftouch that in my lifetime it is possible she willnot even touch back to earth. Sadly, goodpeople who deserve better have to live withthe results. Let me assure the Minister forHealth that if the number of complaints comingthrough my office are any indication, herdepartment is a shambles.

Farrholme has served the elderly well inKingaroy and they have been cared for by thehospital staff with great respect andconsideration. In a couple of years Farrholmewill close, and I ask the Minister where sheplans to ship these elderly people to? I wouldask her to establish facilities in Kingaroy for thegrowing aged population and not closeFarrholme until alternative accommodation isavailable.

The Minister for Education, Mr Wells,proved his ignorance recently over the truecommunity feeling about the educationsystem. From his response to my comments inmy weekly column, apparently I touched a rawnerve with the Minister. Mr Wells accused meof being critical of our local State schools, butnothing could be further from the truth. Eventhe best teachers in the electorate cannotmake a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If theeducation system is inefficient, no-one will beable to make it work. Mr Wells stated in hisletter to the editor that I should ask thecommunity in the region if they were happywith the education system. Mr Wells isapparently unaware that my informationconcerning the community's feeling wasgleaned from a reply paid questionnaire that Idistributed quite a few months ago throughoutthe electorate in which I asked the question,"Does the education system meet the literacyneeds of children today?" The result was that12% of the respondents said yes and 88%said no.

I used the results of this survey and theCourier-Mail's questionnaire results. Mr Wells

should follow his own advice and check hisinformation more thoroughly. I wonder if theMinister fired similar shots across the bow ofthe Courier-Mail in a response to its negativeresults. Mr Wells quotes figures from his owndepartmental survey indicating that 60% ofState school parents were satisfied with thesystem. I would like to see that survey if theMinister would be so kind to produce it. If theMinister has been truthful, one wonders whythe Courier-Mail claims that only 28% ofparents believe their children have beenadequately taught. This, in conjunction with myown findings, seems to indicate that Mr Wellsis believing only what he wants to believe. Iask the Minister to not shoot the messengerbut to ensure his information is accurate. Wedo not expect miracles, but there is a situationhere that needs addressing.

Members will have noticed that I haveconveyed just some of the most urgent needsof the mayors of Kilkivan, Murgon, Cherbourg,Wondai, Nanango, Rosalie and Kilcoy Shires.The Kingaroy mayor is the only mayor who hasnot conveyed the needs of his shire. I can onlyassume he believes the shire does not needanything, when in fact that shire has greaterneeds for infrastructure than most others. Ihave mentioned some of the shires needs, buttime constraints compel me to limitrepresentation.

I would like to take the opportunity tothank the various Ministers and the staff oftheir departments for their assistancewhenever needed. They have been mosthelpful in resolving many issues.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—IND)(9.38 p.m.): In rising to speak to theAppropriation Bills, I wish to bring to theattention of the House some of the issues ofconcern to my constituents. The citizens in theelectorate who use the Boyne-Tannum roadhave raised concerns with me. I havepresented a petition to the House which will beformally received tomorrow about theintersection of the Tannum Sands Road,Elizabeth Street and Hampton Drive. Theintersection has attracted black spot funding of$150,000, which has been allocated forsignage and additional lighting.

However, the community is looking forthings like a roundabout to reduce thepotential for accidents. It is a busy road. It is afeeder road for the high school. TannumSands Road has quite a high level of holidaytraffic, which means people who are unfamiliarwith the area use the road. The intersection isan unusual one. It is probably safe if


approached fairly slowly, but most people donot roll through it at 20 km/h.

I notice that a press release today fromthe Minister for Transport and Minister for MainRoads that acknowledged that $3m would beallocated to complete a new rail overbridgeand pedestrian underpass at Leixlip Creek.That will enhance flood immunity and improvesafety for the Calliope schoolchildren. It willcost approximately $3.3m. Completion date isNovember 2001. I welcome thatannouncement. The issue was revisited acouple of times by the member for Gregorywhen he was Transport Minister, and now thecurrent Minister is revisiting it. I know thestudents, and particularly their parents, ofCalliope school are looking forward to thatunderpass actually being constructed, as it willget the kids off the Dawson Highway.

There was one announcement that Iwould have to call intriguing, to say the least,that is the allocation for overtaking lanes onthe Gladstone-Benaraby road. Both theMinister for Transport and the current ALPcandidate made much of the $2m allocatedfor the overtaking lanes. The only difficulty isthat it has been in the RIP for three years andthe maturation date for that was this year,which was the big announcement. In terms offunding, that has been worked on for threeyears. Both the previous Government and thecurrent Government had agreed to thatallocation for some time.

On behalf of the staff and students ofGladstone State High School, I say that itreally has been an encouragement to knowthat the school has been recognised in theSecondary Schools Renewal Program. Theydid not make Stage 1, Phase 1, but they havemade Stage 1, Phase 2. I have spoken to theMinister fairly quickly on this issue. There are23 schools in Phase 2, and the project hasbeen capped at $3.3m because of thenumber of schools involved and the limit onthe amount of finance that is available. Itsounds like a lot of money, but with theredevelopment of a site like Gladstone StateHigh School—it is not on a flat block of land, itis on a hill—added disadvantages need to betaken into account. A full refurbishment of thesite has been costed at $6.4m.

The proposal that has been put forward tothe Minister and that I believe has receivedvery positive consideration is for the demolitionof three 50-year-old buildings—an artsbuilding, a maths building and business techbuilding—and for their replacement with atechnology block and an arts block withadjoining services. Reworking the proposal, to

cut it down to under that capped amount of$3.3m, means that it is going to be a pooralternative. It has been estimated that we are$1m short of being able to demolish thosethree old buildings—and they are old buildings.The area underneath the high block building isbeing used as an arts room. It is notrecognised as an actual room because it doesnot meet specifications, but students areworking out of that block. The choice is to getthe job done for $3.3m, which would besubstandard, or for $4.3m a state-of-the-artrefurbishment could be done under theSecondary Schools Renewal Program. It wouldsee the school through for many years andensure the levelling of those three buildings,resulting in a clear building site and a multilevelsolution.

That school was built during a periodwhen Gladstone was under a lot of stress.QAL was being constructed, there was a hugeinflux of people and they just had to putstudents somewhere. So the actual mappingof the school site was not able to be done.That is not an adverse reflection on anyGovernment, whether it be this Government orprevious Governments; it was a matter ofnecessity. Those three buildings are very oldand the opportunity is afforded to us to beable to do an excellent job. The students thereare also working on a sustainability program. Ifthat refurbishment is done well, it could be amodel school for integrating sustainability,environmental techniques and a new buildingdesign which would be able to be used rightacross the State. Not only the staff but alsothe parents and the students are enthusiasticto see a good solution. The current buildingsare high maintenance and it would be ashame if, even though it is a significantamount of money, for the want of $1m theproject would be of a standard inferior to whatit could be.

The other school in my electorate that islooking immediately for funds is St John theBaptist Catholic Primary School. It has afunding application in at the moment for Stage1 of a three-stage expansion. It is looking for$400,000 in funding from State and FederalGovernments. The school has enjoyed a 38%increase in student numbers. That has reallystretched its resources. It is out in a newerhousing area in a young suburb. I know thatthe school is well regarded for its staff, itsquality of education and its care for itsstudents. I would certainly commend thefunding of that Stage 1 refurbishment for StJohn's.

Some time ago the Roseberry shelter wasgranted approval for a new building by the


Minister for Housing. I commend him. He hasbeen very supportive of the work thatRoseberry House has done. It is several yearsnow since the approval was given, and theyare looking to see the realisation of thatbuilding. I made some inquiries a couple ofweeks ago and was advised that the tenderhad been released; there was an expressionof interest for the group apprenticeships to putin a price for the construction of that building.We certainly look forward to seeing the timewhen that can be formally opened.

Meals on Wheels in my electorate playsan integral role in retaining people in theirhomes, as I believe it does in every electorate.Each of us would be able to point to volunteergroups who assist in getting the Meals onWheels out for Families, Youth andCommunity Care to keep older people inparticular in their homes. The Gladstone Mealson Wheels, which has been presided over byPrescare, has been advised that Prescarewishes to withdraw. The stand-alone facility,which has been constructed on land grantedto Meals on Wheels, is in the tenure ofPrescare, which is saying that it wants$125,000 for that facility.

It is important that the community retainsownership of that facility. It is specifically builtfor Meals on Wheels. It is a kitchen that meetsall the standards and it would be a tragedy tosee that facility lost by Meals on Wheels. I doknow that Blue Care has expressed interest intaking over Meals on Wheels. Its corebusiness is aged care provision and it does avery good job of it. Irrespective of whathappens in the short term, I believe it is criticalthat the funding for the acquisition of theMeals on Wheels kitchen from Prescare bemade available by the Government to ensurethe continuity of that service not necessarily inthe short term, but in the long term.

The care for our people with disabilities isongoing. We have a high need, as mostelectorates would, for foster care placements.The constant challenge for a number of ourorganisations is to find families who are willingto take on the responsibility of children,knowing that in many instances there is a costto them. Funding is paid to caregivers, butsmall difficulties have been found in that theclothing allowance does not cover the actualcost to clothe children who grow out of theirclothing so very quickly. Whilst I do not have aspecific request in terms of the amount ofmoney that is needed, I do know that fostercarers are finding it more and more difficult toextend their compassion and care to theseyoung children, particularly the ones who growquickly and who are tougher on clothing. This

is happening because they as individuals andas families are finding it difficult to afford thecost because clothing and similar allowancesjust do not cover all the needs.

Queensland relies heavily on tourism as ajob generator; it is acknowledged that it is oneof the growth industries in our area. An ironyoccurs when visitors from regional Queenslandcome to Brisbane. There was such an instancetoday when two bus loads of students camedown for a week in Brisbane. One of the thingsthey do is tour Parliament. They also go to themuseum and they have a wonderful time. Butbus drivers who live outside of Brisbane find itvery difficult to find anywhere to park. It usedto be that there were parks at South Bank, atthe Lyric Theatre and in William Street and thebus drivers knew they could park the bus therefor the period that the students were awaydoing their activity. All of those parks havedisappeared. The only city bus parks are inAlice Street—for the quickest two bus drivers inthe town. If they cannot find a park they haveto constantly move their buses around butremain within a suitable distance so that theycan pick up the students, deliver them to theirappointed venues and be available to themduring the lunch break because the studentsleave their lunches on the buses. It is not juststudent travel, either, that experiences thatproblem. Bus loads of retired people—pensioners—who come down to Brisbane alsoexperience that. Their bus drivers face thesame problem.

If people are going to be encouraged tocome to Brisbane for shows, other culturalpursuits and educational pursuits, a simpleissue such as car parking in the centre ofBrisbane should be made more accessible.That is a tourism issue. One bus driver I spoketo said that they had been told that they couldpark in the Valley, but it is too far away. Seniorcitizens do not want to be standing around for20 minutes while a bus materialises. Theyneed to be able to access their transportquickly and conveniently. Representationshave been made to the Brisbane City Council.It has not absolved itself of the responsibility; itappears that it is pretending that the problemdoes not exist. I draw that issue to theattention of the Minister for Tourism andRacing, because it is an issue that reflects theaccessibility of city facilities for regional andrural Queensland. I have also spoken with theMinister for Tourism and Racing about therelocation of the racetrack in Gladstone. I ampleased to note that she is supportive andinterested in the issue. That matter is beingprogressed. It is essential that the track be


available for sale so that the proceeds can beused to offset the costs of relocation.

Each electorate can point to problems itfaces in relation to emergency services andcritical services. Gladstone has a wonderfulpolice force. The officers are competent,efficient and do the very best they can insometimes very trying situations. On the manyoccasions I have spoken with the Minister forPolice and Corrective Services he has beenresponsive in attending to the issues I raisewith him, and I thank him for that. Recently,four trainees were confirmed as appointed tothe Gladstone district. Appreciation wasexpressed in the media for thoseappointments. The difficulty is that, as soon asthose appointments were confirmed, fivepeople were transferred out of the district topositions they had applied for previously. So itis back to the status quo, that is, we got fourbut lost five. As I have previously said in thisChamber and in the media, there is a similarproblem with emergency services, in particularthe ambulance service.

In these industries names are attached topositions. The roster in the Police Service mayhave 37 uniformed officers. Names may beattached to the positions, but in manyinstances the people are not available to dothe work. An example of this point is PaulRuge. Paul has been selected to assist theUnited Nations peacekeeping forces in EastTimor. Sergeant Ruge is a wonderful policeofficer. He does a great job. His wife is alsoinvolved in a community-based position. She,too, does a wonderful job. However, for sixmonths he will be in East Timor. Paul will beretained on the list of officers available to fillthe roster in the Gladstone district for that six-month period, but he will not be there to doany of the work. There is a constant problemof a roster that has to be filled with namesagainst the positions vacant in a region butwhere the people are not available to do thejob. Paul will be in East Timor. Others may beaway on leave, because they have courtresponsibilities or health problems. The actualnumber of officers available to do the workcontinues to reduce.

There was a recent instance of road ragein Marmor. A vehicle pushed a man off theroad and the driver of that vehicle jumped outof his vehicle to allegedly assault the manwhile he was still in his vehicle. The MountLarcom police officer is attached to the MountLarcom station, but he is on holidays and hasnot been replaced. I believe that the Marmorofficer is also on holidays and has not beenreplaced. The only available officer was inGladstone. He had to go to Marmor to assist

the man. In the interim, the man sat in hisvehicle absolutely terrified.

I ask the Police Minister to look at givingrelief to districts which have a significantnumber of officers who are not available to fillthe roster, even though they are still on thepayroll. It places untold stress on the officerswho remain. It means that officers cannotrealistically go to important calls and, asoccurred with the Marmor incident, calls ofsafety, because officers are not available. Thepositions are not vacant, but there needs to besurplus police numbers in order to fill thosepositions when the vacancy is for a protractedperiod.

An Opposition member interjected.Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: Yes, a pool is

what is needed. There are still problems inattracting specialist services to hospitals in myregion. There was recently a problem with anobstetrician/gynaecologist position. I thank theMinister for Health for her department'sresponse to inquiries from me, but we as aParliament will continue to face the challengeof meeting appropriate specialist services inrural and regional Queensland to give aservice to the community which it deserves.

Some time ago the Minister for Transportand the Treasurer required from the GladstonePort Authority a debt for equity swap. To myknowledge, that has not been finalised. I stillremain opposed to the principle of it. However,Mayor Peter Corones said that whilst he wasopposed to it he would put forward a numberof issues to be funded from that debt forequity withdrawal. These matters should notbe predicated on the Government allocatedpart or all of that $75m for these projects. Theyare projects that stand alone on their merit.They should be funded because thecommunity deserves that recognition.

These projects included an expansion ofthe library, funding of a multipurpose sportscomplex, an expo at the waterfront as atourism drawcard called the GladstoneShowcase, the CBD redevelopment andwaterfront redevelopment for tourism and anumber of other projects. I particularlycommend to the Minister the multipurposesporting complex and the library. Both arecritical community infrastructure. They can bedefended because our community not onlyneeds them but also deserves to have thosefacilities available to it. The funding should bemade available not because of the debt forequity swap forced on the GPA—

Time expired.

Dr KINGSTON (Maryborough—IND)(9.57 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise to


address the Appropriation Bills. My electorateof Maryborough lies within the Federalelectorate of Wide Bay. A recent Federalparliamentary research paper identified thatthe Wide Bay Federal electorate is amongstthe most disadvantaged in Australia, takinginto consideration a range of socioeconomicfactors. My constituents rely on a diversity ofheavy and light manufacturing and primaryindustries for their income and lifestyle.Currently, all the components that make upthe diversity which gave our communitystrength and resilience are under threat.Identifying how to make a living whilstpreserving some remnants of a lifestyle is nowsimilar to looking for Lassiter's lost reef. I cansee the most determined, tenacious workerswilting. The member for Bulimba knows thatthere are some very hard workers inMaryborough.

Currently, my constituents feel threatenedby both the Federal and State Governments.The blind acceptance of globalisation and theWTO rulings by the Federal Treasury andMinisters establishes an underlying feeling ofinsecurity. Such insecurity is firmly entrenchedby the following examples. Firstly, heavyengineering companies experience difficultiesencountered when the privatised WestAustralian railways calls for tenders for around170 rail carriages. Such a tender is within easyreach of the very large European companiessuch as Adtrans and Siemens, but it is verydifficult for companies such as Walkers and itssubcontractors, who are faced with supply leadtimes of up to six months for stainless steeland the confusion caused by the intermittentsupply of imported steel from Korea at a priceup to $200 a tonne lower than that ofAustralian steel.

Secondly, insecurity is more deeplyentrenched when farmers know that 70% ofEuropean beef farmers' income and 81% ofSwiss farmers' income is generated byGovernment subsidies and intervention. Yetour Federal Government deliberated for sixmonths about imposing a small import duty onDanish pork, whilst our pig farmers perished,and then concluded that allowing thecontinuation of pork importation would cause adrop in the marketplace but then the marketwould stabilise and farmers would be able torebudget.

Thirdly, that insecurity and the feeling ofloneliness increased when, later, two brightyoung Queenslanders within the QDPI, using abetter econometric model, illustrated that thepork market will not stabilise and thus will notprovide a basis for forward budgeting anddecision making.

Fourthly, the feeling of being belowconsideration increases when second and thirdgeneration dairy farmers who responded to thecontinuous economic gospel started by DougAnthony to "get bigger or get out" and whomanaged substantial, efficient businessesthroughout their lives are told by the PrimeMinister and his Minister for Primary Industriesthat they can go and work on the slaughterline in an improved pig slaughterhouse. Whata great vision for these efficient farmers!

I acknowledge that the examples I havementioned are all generated by the FederalGovernment, but they establish the economicenvironment in which my constituents areexpected to compete and survive. I ask: canwe blame them for feeling insecure and at themercy of non-sympathetic Governments?Unfortunately, that environment coloursconstituents' reception of the activities of thisQueensland Government, and I submit thatthis Government has been equally non-sympathetic to primary producers and ruralcommunities.

I will start with a short consideration of thisGovernment's capital works budget for theyear 2000-01. The Wide Bay/Burnett regionhas been allocated 1.9% of capital worksexpenditure but has 6.6% of the State'spopulation. I have already identified that theWide Bay Federal electorate, which almostconforms geographically with the WideBay/Burnett region, enjoys one of the worstsocioeconomic situations in Australia. So whathas this Government done to redress thisdeplorable and uncomfortable environment?The capital works plan for the WideBay/Burnett represents an expenditure of$119.41 per inhabitant—the lowest in theState, with the highest being Fitzroy with$693.25. Brisbane will enjoy $346.81 perperson—almost three times the expenditureplanned for the Wide Bay/Burnett.

I say to the Treasurer that electors in myelectorate consider that this capital worksbudget is politically driven, not driven by carefulconsideration of economically assessedinvestment and certainly not driven byconsideration of the relative socioeconomicconditions of different regions within thisdemocratic, egalitarian State.

In the past, Maryborough was theadministration and supply centre for the WideBay region, including the North and SouthBurnett districts. The distribution of requiredpurchases and the orderly collection of productwas facilitated by the rail lines running fromMaryborough to Kingaroy, Gayndah andEidsvold and to Hervey Bay.


My family operated a wholesale drugcompany. Our only comparative advantagewas simply that we could deliver ordersovernight, courtesy of the rail lines and QR'sexcellent service. Our comparative advantageand that of other Maryborough distributorsdisappeared with the downgrading in the railservices, despite the road service offered by Q-Link.

I receive constant complaints, particularlyfrom older people, that they find it very difficultto access the essential services which arelocated in Maryborough and which continue todisappear from small rural communities. Theyconstantly ask why this Government cannotsupply or assist with the provision of rail motortype services or equivalent public transportservices which can adequately service thesmall communities that lie near the rail tracksor near the highways.

The retail industry in Maryboroughdesperately needs to increase its shoppingpopulation. It cannot do this without attractivetravel services in and out of Maryborough. Weare grateful for the current upgrading of theBruce Highway around Gunalda, but this workis Federally funded. The member for Gregoryis to be congratulated on his quick and recentidentification of the importance of the roadsfrom Maryborough to Biggenden andMaryborough to Hervey Bay and the need forthem to be upgraded urgently. We areconstantly being told of the importance ofdrive-by tourism, but the lack of upgrading ofroads—called goat tracks by the alignedMaryborough Council—does not show ourtourism operators that this Government isprepared to back its rhetoric by facilitatinginvestment in roads.

The Maryborough CBD is starting to looklike a ghost town from a western movie. Ithank the Minister for Primary Industries forsupplying the lethal blue and white stripedtents which currently shroud our termiteinfested buildings, but if the current trendscontinue I will have to ask him to leave thosetents there to liven up the appearance of theCBD. Caring Governments must realise thatthe viability of regional cities depends on amultitude of contributors internal and externalto the city. If one of these contributors isknocked around, then people within theprovincial city and in the surrounding districtssuffer.

For many years Walkers was the majoremployer in Maryborough. It is still seen as theeconomic indicator. In the last few weeks I hada meeting with Walkers' management. Thefoundry, despite its deserved reputation for

innovation, is almost without work, anduniquely skilled tradesmen are starting tocontemplate a bleak future. The rolling stockworkshop is currently confronted by thesituation that if new work cannot be found veryquickly then the employment graph is alldownhill. It is important that it is recognisedthat the lead time from winning a contract tothe employment of tradesman can be up tonine months.

Walkers in Maryborough recognises andis grateful for the efforts of this Government,especially the building of the tilt train, but QRemployees who are currently being invited totake early voluntary retirement tell me that thetilt train can be more effectively promoted andfilled with passengers and that, if the staffnumbers at Maryborough West are furtherdecreased, they will not be able to provide thefirst-class service that a train of this calibredemands. Another tilt train or some specialisedadaptations will capitalise on the pastinvestment in developing this technology, willassist Walkers and will assist the tourismindustry.

The headquarters of EDI's energy divisionare now based in Maryborough. Theydesperately need to be significantly involved inthe supply of the co-generation plant currentlybeing considered by Stanwell and theMaryborough Sugar Factory. I have justorganised for one of CSIRO's best foresters toexamine the farms close to the sugarmill toestablish if we can grow short rotation timber tosupply fuel to the co-generation plant in thenon-crushing season.

The biggest employer in the Maryboroughdistrict is the sugar industry. We are fortunateto have a very progressive and considerate millownership. With their leadership, sewageirrigation is being developed and the totalproduction of cane has increased to almostone million tonnes. Sugar growers needreliable irrigation water, and currently they arevery nervous about continuity of supply andthe price.

Recent legislation such as the Sugar Bill,the Vegetation Management Bill, the WaterBill and so on have imposed the need forfarmers to construct maps and plans of theirproperties for water control and vegetationmanagement. I accept the logic of thisrequest, but I cannot find any logic in thesteady reduction of QDPI and DNR field staffwho once could have been expected to assistfarmers acquire the necessary skills.

Orange rust is infecting cane variety Q124in the north, and a significant proportion ofMaryborough cane is 124. The Maryborough


Sugar Factory is assisting farmers accesscheap loans to replace variety 124. I cite thisto prove that the Maryborough community isprepared to get active and to help itself, butmore Government concern for ruralcommunities which are already under duresswould improve the reputation of thisGovernment in rural areas.

During debate on the clean foodlegislation I made a plea for research fundingto ensure that that Bill could achieve itsobjectives with the minimum of inconvenienceand cost and the maximum efficiency. The1999-2000 report of the Sugar Research andDevelopment Corporation provides anexample of what a sound investment suchresearch can be. The SRDC research achieveda benefit cost ratio of 6 to 1. More precisely, itspent $33m to bring a benefit to the caneindustry and the communities involved of$200m.

I urge the member for Inala to seriouslyconsider the widespread benefits of suchresearch. I gratefully acknowledge the currentactivity of the Department of StateDevelopment relating to the diversification ofthe Maryborough sugar industry and I assurethe Deputy Premier that more than adequateland will be available, as will local industryassistance.

One bright spot on the Maryboroughhorizon is the building of the new correctionalcentre. The Minister, when challenged in thisHouse about locating the prison atMaryborough, stated that it was located therebecause the community was supportive to thepoint of being insistent. I wish to advise theMinister and this House that the revisedproposal which was successful was written andnegotiated by a volunteer group ofMaryborough citizens. Those people continueto work towards solving any remainingproblems and are preparing to provide thenecessary services to assist the smoothassimilation of the prison into our community.

The Maryborough Base Hospital hasbeen a running sore within the Maryboroughcommunity for some years. Whilst no-one inthe Maryborough community wants to denyexcellent hospital services to Hervey Bay, wedo not want our medical services decreased.This became such a turbulent issue that thePremier had to travel to Maryborough anddefuse what he called a character buildingexperience for the Minister for Health. ThePremier asked Maryborough citizens to trusthim and they did, and I think they still do. Butthey do not trust Queensland Health staff todeliver what the Premier promised. In fact,

they believe that the aim of management is tosteadily downgrade Maryborough and upgradeHervey Bay.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Ihave to tell the Premier that, in my opinion,unless there is a perceived change in theattitude of management, unfortunately he willhave to intervene again. I ask him when hedoes, can he please bring his own glasses sothat he does not have to borrow mine and Ican also read what is being written!

The Minister frequently refers to thedifficulty of acquiring skilled medical staff forprovincial hospitals. Through you, MadamDeputy Speaker, I recommend to the Ministerthat she has a serious look at the strategyinitiated by St Stephens Private Hospital. Itidentified a highly qualified, skilled orthopaedicsurgeon who now works by arrangement at theHervey Bay Hospital and at St StephensMedical Centre for the benefit of bothcommunities and at a minimal cost toQueensland Health.

In the time remaining I want toconcentrate on the negative impacts of thisGovernment on our primary industries andthen identify what I and others with moreexperience see as a great opportunity forMaryborough to become a first-class providerof training to overseas students.

Firstly, I will deal with the RFA. Theundertaking by Hynes to establish extensivesoftwood plantations helped the Premier andthe Deputy Premier to broker the RFAagreement. Currently Hynes, a very respected,progressive and aggressive marketingcompany, is reducing shifts and staff at theTuan pine mill as it cannot sell enough pine.

Dairy deregulation has shattered manysecond and third generation dairy farmingfamilies. Last week I watched four semitrailersof Holstein cattle selected for generations formilk production depart for the abattoir. Thesight of the family standing watching issomething I will not forget in a long time. Thedairy farmers who have survived until the timeof deregulation are the efficient operators. Theones who will go bankrupt first are the oneswho followed Government and industryrecommendations and borrowed to expand.The loss of their allocations is reflected as awrite-off of capital in their balance sheets, yettheir compensation payments are taxable.Obviously, the Australian Taxation Office knewwhat it was about, but the industry looters andthe Government did not. The flow-on impactsof this legislation are being multipliedthroughout regional communities.


The Dairy Industry Adjustment Package istargeted at regional problems. It does have aprivate enterprise component but that, too, isgeared to encourage groups rather thanindividuals and it involves farmers providing50% of the funding. I am afraid I find it hard toget excited about it and so do almost alldisplaced dairy farmers whom I know. Severaldairy farmers I know are considering movinginto the farm holiday industry, wherein visitorscan live and work with the family and enjoy lifeon a dairy farm. I challenge the Minister andhis advisers to be their first customers.

The vegetation legislation is causingconfusion amongst graziers and silviculturists.That confusion increased during the past fewweeks when some ecosystems were upgradedfrom "of concern" to "endangered". The recentarticle entitled "The Evergreen News" in theforestry publication Between the Leaves couldbe interpreted as saying that, whilst theforestry department practises silviculture—orassisted natural regeneration—there was noproblem with sustainability of supply. If this isso, one must ask why did they stop? Was thefunding withdrawn?

How can Maryborough, the multiskilledelectorate, pull itself out of these Governmentcreated holes? We have a multitude of veryskilled people across a whole range of skills,skills that are highly valued by the developingcountries—practical skills, implementation skillsand dirty hand skills. I know from experiencethat, given sufficient incentive following thecreation of trust, developing countries will payto acquire such skills. I know that theMaryborough electorate can provide thetrainers, real hands-on trainers, and thefacilities, real working facilities. But thosetrainers will need ongoing contracts to use astraining materials. We also currently lack theorganisation or institution capable oforganising and reliably delivering the coursesand winning the trust and confidence of theoverseas market. That is our target for thefuture and we will welcome advice andassistance from all sources.

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (10.17 p.m.), in reply: In concludingdebate on the Appropriation Bills this evening,I want to thank honourable members for theirwide-ranging—

Mr Hegarty: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr HAMILL: Sir, pardon me, but I had thecall.

Mr HEGARTY: I rise to a point of order.We have the speaking list here. It is welldocumented.

Mr HAMILL: And the member forRedlands is not on it.

Mr HEGARTY: I am sorry, I am. If youlook at the list, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Nelson-Carr): Order! Member for Redlands, I did notsee you stand up, and so the Treasurer has—

Mr HEGARTY: Madam Deputy Speaker,we have given you the list. You are digressingfrom protocol. If the Minister is not informed ofthe progression of the speaking list, that is hisproblem. But I was here ready to jump.

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. Iwas given the call and I am concluding thesecond-reading debate.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!Could I just say that the member for Redlandsdid not stand up. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HAMILL: After quite a wide-rangingdebate, which has now extended over some12 or 13 hours—

Mr HEGARTY: I rise to a point of order.Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attentionto the fact that you did not call the Treasurer—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry,but I did call the Treasurer, and that is not apoint of order. I call the Treasurer.

Mr HAMILL: As I was saying, the debateon the Appropriation Bills has been aninteresting one and it has been very wideranging. After listening intently to the offeringsof honourable members, I am at a loss to findanyone who really addressed the point thatthe Appropriation Bills that are before theHouse actually relate to unforeseenexpenditure from the last financial year. Somuch of the debate seemed to be prospectiverather than retrospective. Nevertheless, I willmake just a couple of brief points.

Last year Queensland recorded verystrong growth of 4.9%—far in excess of ourBudget forecast, and comparing that to 4.2%for the rest of Australia we find thatQueensland performed quite admirably. It isnoteworthy, however, that we are expectingthat this year growth will ease somewhat. Inote the comments made by the member forMoggill in relation to the QCCI Pulse survey.However, I draw his attention to the fullfindings of that particular survey. For theSeptember quarter 2000 the QCCI stated that49% of respondents experienced deteriorationin their general business conditions, comparedto 29% who reported improved activity.

According to the QCCI, major contributingfactors in the significant deterioration includeadministration for the introduction of the GST,


higher interest rates, uncertainty over furtherrate hikes and increased fuel prices. All ofthose matters are outside of the capacity ofthe Queensland Government to respond. All ofthose issues relate to national economicpolicies and the deliberate policies of theCommonwealth Government which haveresulted in a considerable burden being placedupon industry—and particularly the roadtransport industry—through theCommonwealth's greed in the extraction ofincreasing levels of excise on already inflatedfuel prices.

This is a matter of concern to theQueensland Government. Notwithstandingthese extraneous impacts, we certainly are notdeviating from our prime purpose, and that isto generate employment and job opportunitiesin Queensland. I note that at a time when theoverall labour force data indicates somedeterioration in the labour market nationally,the trend unemployment rate in Queenslandhas remained steady on the figures whichwere released earlier today.

Nevertheless, the general slowing of theeconomy nationally is impacting upon theregional economy of Queensland, and that isa matter of concern. That is why our recordcapital works program this year of some $5.3billion is of great significance, particularly whenone considers the dreadful impact that theGST and rising interest rates have had uponactivity in the housing and construction sector,which has long been recognised as abarometer for the general health of theeconomy.

I thank honourable members for theircontributions to the debate. Let me assurehonourable members that the QueenslandGovernment will not take its eye off the ball.We are determined to continue to provide thefiscal framework which ensures thatQueensland will have a leading role as theeconomic and job generating powerhouse inAustralia. I commend the Bills to the House.

Committee (Cognate Debate)

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) in charge of the Bills.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2)

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clause 2—

Mr HEGARTY (10.22 p.m.): Lack ofexpenditure from the Appropriation Bill for theyear 2000-01 could not be more greatly

highlighted than in the area of education. Ibring to the attention of the House the sadand sorry saga—

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order.Clause 2 of this Bill relates to expenditure in1999-2000, not 2000-01, as the honourablemember was addressing. In accordance withthe Standing Orders, I ask that the honourablemember restricts his comments relating to theBill to the clause in question.

Mr HEGARTY: Before I was able to get tothe point, the Honourable the Treasurer raisedthe very issue that I am referring to in the areaof education. Sadly and unfortunately, itreflects on the unexpended revenue from theyear 1999-2000. The area I am specificallyreferring to is the lack of a student centrebeing provided at the Victoria Point State HighSchool in my electorate.

That particular matter of expenditure wasscheduled in the 1999-2000 Budget but,because the current Government could notmeet its financial commitments, it slipped backto the year 2000-01. Even worse, we are nowwell into the 2000-01 Budget year and theschool's student centre has still not beencommenced. We are now in the latter stagesof the school year and not a sod has beenturned for that particular learningestablishment.

Additionally, next year the Year 12students, and subsequent students whoattend the institution, will be left short of eightgeneral learning areas. The student centreshould have been part of Stage 4 of thecapital works program.

This is a damning indictment of thisGovernment's inability to manage its financialprogram. We have a growing community in theRedlands area, which I represent. This is onevery significant area where the Governmenthas fallen down. The Government cannotmaintain its capital works program because itdoes not have the money. The Governmenthas not expended the money that waspromised in the year 1999-2000 or in the year2000-01 because it is short of funds. It is grossfinancial mismanagement. Children attendingthe high school are now missing out on vitaleducation facilities which should be the verybasis upon which this Government rests itscredentials.

This is not the only area whereexpenditure has not been up to scratch. Icould mention a couple of other areas,particularly in the transport and road areas,where we have problems. Under the coalitionGovernment, the roads program—


Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order.There is no unforeseen expenditure in the Billrelating to transport.

Mr HEGARTY: I refer to the RoadsImplementation Program. The particular areaof concern is the Windemere Road/ViennaRoad area in the electorate of Capalaba. Morethan $2m has been planned to be spent onthis area for over two years. However, here weare in the 2000-01 Budget year and nothinghas been done. Not a shovel has been turnedon that particular road. This is just anotherexample where this Government has faileddismally in not expending the money whichwas allocated and which was projected to beexpended not only in the 1999-2000 year butalso in the 2000-01 year. It is only a relativelysmall section of road but it carries a greatvolume of traffic which is moving through thesouthern part of my electorate.

Another section of the road further southof the area to which I have just referred wascompleted at a cost of more than $6m whenthe coalition was in Government. However, weare left with this small piece of road whichneeds to be built. However, it will not be doneunder this no-can-do Government.

The next section of road to which I refer isthe continuation from Vienna Road to RedlandBay Road. This is a $6m project that will neversee the light of day while this Government hascontrol of the Treasury benches. Going furthersouth in my electorate, I refer to the BryantsRoad and Cairns Street area. This section ofroad needs duplicating towards the PacificMotorway. The Pacific Motorway is amagnificent road commenced under thecoalition Government. It is almost a $1 billionsection of roadway. We now need theseconnection roads. However, this Governmentis falling down on the job; it cannot completethe connection roads which will enable thetraffic flow to meet up with our major arterialroads.

I could mention another small piece ofinfrastructure on Redland Bay Road. I amreferring to the provision of a right-turn arrowon Cleveland-Redland Bay Road at theintersection of Clay Gully Road. There is aretirement village at that particular location.The elderly residents in that area areconcerned that there is an accident waiting tohappen because this Government will notallocate $11,000 to provide a right-turn arrowto allow the residents to negotiate that sectionof the road safely. It is a small amount ofmoney in anyone's terms. Because of the lackof $11,000 we cannot have a right-turn arrowbecause this Government cannot manage itsfinances.

As other honourable members will agree,every day we have people coming to ouroffices requiring small amounts of money to beexpended on services. These matters could beattended to if this Government knew how tocorrectly manage its finances.

I will give honourable members anexample. The Redland Bay community hasbeen very proactive in providing funding for thelocal ambulance service. When the ambulancestation was opened a year ago the localresidents did a very good job of equipping theinterior of the station. Yet what do we find?Just recently, one of the officers who wasallocated to that station—a trainedparamedic—was transferred to the MountGravatt station. That is just one example ofhow the whole system has been falling into ahole. Obviously, the paramedic has to fill aposition elsewhere because the Governmentdoes not have the money to fund areplacement officer at that station. So thecommunity that funded all of this wonderfulequipment at the Redland Bay station hasbeen dudded by a Government that cannotmanage its finances.

That is a shameful indictment on a LaborGovernment, which is supposed to look afterthe interests of the battlers, the people whocannot finance their own health requirements.In the lead-up to the last election, the LaborParty touted the fact that it was going toabolish ambulance fees for pensioners. TheLabor Party is now going to dud those peopleof the very services that they were lookingforward to receiving from a paramedic—someone who could do a little bit more thanthe average ambulance officer in a life-threatening situation.

I refer now to a situation that applies notonly to the Health portfolio but also to theEducation portfolio, and that is the provision ofspeech therapy. Recently, a couple came tosee me about this issue. They had a youngchild under school age. They were vitallyconcerned that their child could not receivespeech therapy from the health system, whichwould impede that child's progress in thefuture. In the same week I was asked to go toa school in my area. At that school, the work ofthe remedial teachers is being hampered bythe fact that speech therapy is not beingaddressed by the Education Department.

The list goes on and on, because thisGovernment cannot provide the funds that ittouted it was going to provide in its massiveBudgets. It does not have the money. TheGovernment has lost it to other areas. It heldback funding in the 1999-2000 financial year

9 Nov 2000 Mr Speaker's Ruling 4261

and it is holding back funding this currentfinancial year. I think that is a damningindictment of this Government.

Those are just a couple of issues that Iwanted to raise in the short time that I hadavailable to me to highlight the ineptitude andmismanagement that the Treasurer and thisLabor Government have foisted on theelectors of Queensland.

Clause 2, as read, agreed to.Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Appropriation (Parliament) Bill (No. 2)

Clauses 1 and 2, as read, agreed to.

Bills reported, without amendment.

Third ReadingBills, on motion of Mr Hamill, by leave,

read a third time.

MR SPEAKER'S RULINGMotion of Dissent

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(10.34 p.m.): I move—

"That Mr Speaker's ruling that MrBeanland's question without notice to thePremier was sub judice be dissentedfrom."

In rising to speak to this motion, I want tosay that the Opposition will not be taking its fulllength of time. Although on 5 October theGovernment used the guillotine to handle byway of cognate debate some 10 dissentmotions in a one-hour period, we are verymuch aware of the time.

This Government is simply rorting thesystem. This Attorney-General and thisGovernment know exactly where the bodiesare buried. This whole exercise is a cover-up ofthe highest degree.

Mr Foley: You're embarrassing.

Mr BEANLAND: I want to go through thehistory of this matter and show just howembarrassed this Government is. I invitemembers to listen to this. I would suggest that,as the member opposite did a fine job ofputting his foot in it, he should keep quiet.

We should not forget that theGovernment moved to guillotine the debate onthe motions of dissent because it was runningscared. The Premier rushed out of theChamber with his tail between his legs. On thatlast occasion he did not want to debate the

dissent motions—no way, not all 10 of thosedissent motions.

This issue is about protecting the AWU.The sub judice rulings come and go as theSpeaker pleases. It is little wonder that theOpposition has been so appalled and shockedby his rulings. On so many occasions theOpposition has moved dissent motions tothose rulings, because the Speaker movesthat questions are sub judice willy-nilly toprotect the AWU faction—a faction, I mightsay, of which he is a member. That is erraticdecision making. It has nothing to do with anyinquiry in another place.

I turn now to how this exercise pannedout. Of course, the Beattie Labor Governmentis extremely sensitive when it comes to MrBermingham, and that is exactly what thisissue is about. The question was simply askedin relation to Mr Bermingham. It was asked ofthe Premier—no-one else. Of course, on anumber of occasions the Premier hasindicated that he is extremely happy to answerall questions. He says, "I am always happy toanswer these questions, being the generoussoul that I am, a lovable person at heart."However, on this particular day a question wasasked in relation to Mr Bermingham, and thistime it was ruled sub judice.

I want to go through the list of questionsthat were asked in relation to Mr Berminghamthat were ruled sub judice. That is veryimportant, because it shows why theOpposition has moved dissent motions. On 4October 2000, the member for Moggill askedthe Deputy Premier whether he employed MrLee Bermingham. That question was ruled outof order on the grounds of sub judice. Yet on17 October, the same question was asked ofthe Minister for Mines and Energy and was notruled out of order. It was not ruled sub judice.The question was allowed.

Not only that, on 4 October, two questionsafter the question asked by the member forMoggill of the Deputy Premier, a Dorothy Dixquestion was asked of the Deputy Premier inwhich he was allowed to answer the memberfor Moggill's question. Accordingly, theHansard shows that. Then we had theludicrous situation in which a question wasasked of the Minister for Tourism and Racingby the member for Caloundra. That was alsoruled out of order, yet the Minister rose fromher seat and said that she had a matter ofprivilege that she wanted to raise. Despite theSpeaker ruling the question out of order, theMinister proceeded to answer that samequestion on a matter of privilege. The Minister

4262 Mr Speaker's Ruling 9 Nov 2000

was not ruled out of order by the Speaker; shewas allowed to answer the question.

Then on the same day the Parliamentwitnessed that shameful outburst by themember for Woodridge in which he went togreat lengths to try to distance the Labor Partyfrom distorting, cheating and corrupting theelectoral rolls. I might add that, in answeringthe question, the Deputy Premier got the partabout Mr Bermingham wrong and had tocome back into the Parliament and correct therecord. We had high farce in relation to thewhole situation. Moreover, the member forNoosa had to then come back into theChamber and correct the record, because theDeputy Premier still had it wrong. He had twogoes, but he got it wrong twice.

The question to the Premier had nothingto do with any inquiry in another place or theDeputy Premier. In fact, my question simplyasked the basic question—

"Can the Premier inform the Housewhy his beloved ALP and the member forWoodridge were perfectly capable ofinvestigating irregularities in union ballotsbut failed to show anything like the sameexpertise or enthusiasm for allegations ofelectoral corruption?"

I can well understand why the Premierwanted the Speaker's protection and thisquestion was suddenly ruled out of order. Hewas suddenly unhappy to answer it, eventhough he had said he was happy to answerall of these questions. So we have thesituation that questions are answered when itsuits the faction and not answered when itdoes not. The Premier really has his tailbetween his legs when it comes to the issueand quite obviously he does not want to getfurther involved with Mr Bermingham.

The sub judice rulings handed out in thisHouse have in fact been handed out in a verydiscriminatory fashion and, of course, Hansardis there for all and sundry to read. TheSpeaker is well aware of the erratic way inwhich these decisions are handed out. It is allabout protection of the Government andprotection of the AWU faction of the Laborparty, the same faction that the Speaker is amember of. This is about, among other issues,protecting the Government in what is a verydifficult time in relation to matters happening inanother place. It is about protection of theAWU. I think I have shown that the rulings arenot about sub judice but about protection ofthe Government, the cheating Government. Itis about making decisions—

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member pleasekeep to this dissent motion?

Mr BEANLAND: I certainly am. I amtalking about this motion as I read it out—

Mr SPEAKER: You are not, really; youare talking about the history. If you would liketo talk to this motion—

Mr BEANLAND: This is all about thisparticular question, a reference to MrBermingham which, Mr Speaker, you haveruled out of order on a number of occasionsand allowed on a number of occasions.

Mr SPEAKER: I am asking you to refer tothis motion of dissent.

Mr BEANLAND: I certainly am. I canunderstand the reason why you are veryunhappy about this matter being raised—

Mr SPEAKER: I am not unhappy at all.

Mr BEANLAND:—because it calls intoquestion your judgment. Mr Speaker, if youwish to come and join the debate you arewelcome to do so, but you should not try to dothat from the Speaker's chair. You are there toprotect the members, as I have told youpreviously.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a reflection on theChair and I ask you to withdraw it.

Mr BEANLAND: I do, Mr Speaker. I haveindicated previously—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask you to withdraw it. Mr BEANLAND: I have withdrawn. I have

indicated previously—

Mr SPEAKER: And I ask you to keep tothis dissent motion.

Mr BEANLAND: I am. Mr Speaker, I haveindicated previously the reason why youshould not be in the chair presiding over thesedebates. I think that is a fair comment whicheven you must take to heart, because youhave participated on a number of occasionsand you have done so again this evening. Soit is quite clear what this is about. It is quiteclear why the opposition has moved dissentfrom your ruling, Mr Speaker, because yourrulings are most erratic; they do not follow apattern. There is nothing sub judice about thequestion I asked. In fact, Mr Speaker, whatyou do continually is make things up as you goalong. That is exactly what happens. In fact,there is an old saying in the Labor Party—if allelse fails, laugh it off. Mr Speaker, weunderstand what you mean by laughing it off,because you have endeavoured to do thatwith this issue, but it simply will not wash.

Mr QUINN (Merrimac—LP) (DeputyLeader of the Liberal Party) (10.43 p.m.): I riseto second the motion and reiterate what themember for Indooroopilly has just mentioned,that there have been a number of inconsistent


rulings on this subject. Ministers have chosento answer questions when in fact there hasbeen no need to answer them. The issues thatwere at the heart of the question have beencanvassed widely in newspapers and othermedia outlets, and for the matter to be ruledsub judice is inconsistent—

Mr SPEAKER: This is a motion of dissentagainst one ruling; that is the motion of dissenttonight. What you are doing is talking aboutother motions of dissent. I would ask you tokeep to this motion.

Mr QUINN: Yes. The issues that were thesubject of the question were canvassed inother media outlets. There is nothing in thequestion that should have been ruled subjudice because it was widely reported in themedia outlets around the State. It is on thatbasis that the member for Indooroopilly hasmoved the dissent motion. In support of themember for Indooroopilly, I say that we on thisside of the House are of the opinion that theruling is inconsistent and it is for that reasonwe have moved this motion.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (10.46 p.m.): This is afrivolous and vexatious motion of dissent,utterly devoid of merit, calculated only to attackthe lawful authority of the Speaker in a squalidpolitical tactic of disruption. The member forIndooroopilly, Mr Beanland, has had an ironybypass. He comes into this Parliament todefend the institution of the Parliament andattack the Speaker. This is the same memberwho sat in this Chamber without theconfidence of the Parliament. This was theman who brought disgrace to the high office ofAttorney-General by clinging to the office,despite losing the confidence of theParliament.

This motion tonight, which has been thesubject of such a pathetic speech from themember for Indooroopilly and an equallypathetic speech from the member forMerrimac, shows that in fact there is nothingserious in the attack being made by theOpposition in this matter. It is simply a tactic ofdisruption, calculated to attack the lawfulauthority of the Speaker. Let us look at theruling. This is the matter that both the memberfor Indooroopilly and the member for Merrimacwere so careful to avoid. What was thequestion asked? The question asked, fromwhich the dissent motion to the Speaker'sruling has been moved, related to a questionas to whether the ALP and a particularmember of the House had shown enthusiasmor expertise with regard to allegations of

electoral corruption. That is the very issuewhich is the subject of the terms of referenceof the Shepherdson inquiry—the very issue!

What is the relevant ruling? The relevantruling is that of 3 October made by thisSpeaker when he said this—

"Equally, the matters as outlined inthe terms of reference for theShepherdson inquiry into allegations ofelectoral fraud or any matters which comebefore the inquiry are now the subject ofthese rulings on sub judice and shouldnot be referred to in the House."That was the ruling. He applied that ruling

to the fact of that question and ruled it out oforder because it was sub judice.

In stating that rule the Speaker followed aline of authority based on Speaker Fouras'sruling of 19 February 1991 and SpeakerTurner's ruling of 3 April 1996. In the debate inthis House on 3 April 1996 I challenged thatruling in respect of Speaker Turner but,notwithstanding my arguments on that point,he made it in the same terms as SpeakerFouras, and the current Speaker has made itin exactly the same terms. He has applied thatruling to the facts of the question and ruled itout of order. Why? Because it is sub judicewithin the terms of that ruling—plain andsimple! There could not be a morestraightforward case.

The moving of this motion of dissent is anonsense. It shows a lack of intellectualhonesty on the part of the members of theOpposition. It shows at best a frivolousness,but at worst it shows that their tacticthroughout this has not been to pursue theproper processes of the Parliament, their tactichas been otherwise—it has been one ofpolitical disruption. They hope that byengendering alarm and despondency they caninflame political discontent around this issue.They hope that by kicking up dust and byscreaming, shouting and carrying on withfrivolous and vexatious motions of dissent thatthey can somehow erode public confidence inthe institution of the Parliament and, hence,the institution of the Government.

The appallingly shallow contributions thatwe have heard from the member forIndooroopilly and the member for Merrimacdemonstrate that their tactic has backfired. It issimply not possible for them to keep cominginto this Parliament with frivolous andvexatious motions utterly devoid of evidence,utterly devoid of lawful authority, utterly devoidof precedence and expect to be takenseriously.

Ms Bligh: Utterly devoid of conviction.


Mr FOLEY: And utterly devoid ofconviction. I thank the Minister.

It was a sad thing that we have seen sucha succession of attacks on the lawful authorityof the Speaker. It is ironic that the members ofthe Opposition like to hold themselves out asthe people who support lawful authority. Theylike to say that they support lawful authority.They like to hold themselves out in that regard.But let us judge not on their words but on theiractions. What are their actions? Their actionsare to move a frivolous and vexatious motionof dissent, to fail to address the specific issue,namely, whether or not the particular questionwas sub judice. It is a fairly simple question: isit or is it not within the terms of reference of theShepherdson inquiry as to whether or not theALP showed a capacity to investigateallegations of electoral corruption? That is whatthe question was about. It is the very issue inrespect of a number of plebiscites that formsone of the terms of reference of theShepherdson inquiry. It could not be plainer.That is what the sub judice rule is about, ashas been determined in this Chamber.

In the course of this debate or in thecourse of any other of the debates I have notheard any rational attempt to define a differentrule. It is not as if there was a shred of analysisin the arguments advanced by the membersof the Opposition. It is not as if they weresaying, "Well, the rules should be different.The rules should be more narrow. The rulesshould be expressed in a different way." No,they accept the rule. They accept it because itis the same rule that Speaker Turner adopted;it is the same rule that Speaker Fourasadopted. It is a rule which was articulated on 3October. But when the rule is applied, we havethis cosmetic protest of outrage on the part ofthe Opposition.

I think the people of Queensland arestarting to wake up to the sorts of tactics thatthe Opposition has been adopting in thisChamber, the sorts of tactics of politicaldisruption designed not to get at the truth butto create uncertainty and despondency.

Mr Horan interjected. Mr FOLEY: They can succeed for only so

long—up until the moment when they have todefend their actions in rational debate in theParliament. And what a paltry effort they havemade at trying to substantiate this allegation!

During my time and practice as a barrister,I have defended people who have facedaccusations of various kinds. I cannot think ofa single time in which I have been called todefend a case where the prosecution hasbeen so pathetically weak. I do not know of

one shred of evidence which has been putforward by the Opposition. I do not know ofone precedent which it has cited. It iscompletely without substance in this matter. Itdeserves to be condemned on the basis ofhaving made this attack frivolously andvexatiously.

Mr WELLINGTON (Nicklin—IND)(10.54 p.m.): I rise to participate in this debate.Before doing so, I consulted AssociateProfessor of Law at Bond University GerardCarney. I sought Mr Carney's advice on thismatter because of his special expertise inconstitutional law. Mr Carney's specialexpertise in constitutional law matters hasbeen acknowledged by the parliamentaryScrutiny of Legislation Committee, which hasbriefed him on numerous occasions. MrCarney's advice to me is contained in twoletters, one dated 19 October 2000 and afurther letter dated 6 November 2000. I thankMr Carney for his advice. For the benefit of allmembers I will quote from Mr Carney's advice.The first letter states, in part—

"The essence of the sub judice rule isto prevent debate within the House whichis likely to prejudice the trial of a matterthe subject of criminal or civil proceedingsin a court of law. A real and substantialdanger of prejudice is required.

...

A trial may be 'prejudiced' where thejudge or jury ... may be influenced in theirjudgment of the issues by what is said inthe House."

Mr Horan: Is this a trial?Mr WELLINGTON: Just bear with me. It

goes on—

"However, the concern is not onlywith being actually influenced, but alsowith any appearance of being soinfluenced.

...

Each case therefore needs to bejudged on its merits.

...

On the one hand, there is the needto not unduly restrict parliamentaryfreedom of speech on matters of publicinterest, while on the other, there is theneed to protect the independence andintegrity of the commission of inquiry.Balancing those competing factors isdifficult where the inquiry is into matters ofpolitical controversy, and this difficulty iscompounded if it is likely to impact on thereputation and liability of individuals.


In such a case, the sub judice rule isless likely to be applied broadly ... so as toensure that parliamentary debate ofimportant public issues is not undulystifled. This means that a blanketprohibition on any questions which touchon the issue before the inquiry cannot bejustified. The rule should be applied onlyto those questions which are clearly likelyto embarrass the inquiry and prejudicepublic confidence in its independence andintegrity.

Hence, questions which raise specificissues on which an inquiry will need to ruleshould be avoided. Similarly, questionswhich focus on the veracity of the specifictestimony of a witness are likely toembarrass an inquiry, being aprejudgment of the matters for which itwas established to report on.

...

In applying these principles to a CJCinquiry, the particular nature of that inquiryneeds to be taken into account. TheSpeaker is faced with a difficult task indeciding how far the sub judice ruleshould be applied in the presentcircumstances. Rather than rule out oforder every question or statement whichrelates to the terms of reference of suchan inquiry, it is necessary to consider theextent to which the question or statementprejudges the issues before the inquiryand thereby undermines publicconfidence in its independence andintegrity."

I now table those two letters for thebenefit of all members, a letter dated 19October 2000 and one dated 6 November2000. I will not be supporting the motionmoved by the Opposition.

Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—NPA)(10.58 p.m.): I just wish to comment on whatspeakers on the other side of the House havesaid. Firstly, I point out that I support thedissent motion moved by the member forIndooroopilly and seconded by the member forMerrimac. It is not necessarily a question ofhow long we speak on an issue like this; thefact is that there are dissent motions, therehave been dissent motions and there will bemore dissent motions, I believe, based on theissue of inconsistency. That is the thing whichhas concerned us on this side of the Housequite dramatically.

As far as the motion is concerned, it hasbeen clearly explained by the member forIndooroopilly. Quite obviously, at the time of

moving it, he has that right to move a motionof dissent. I believe that even the Speakersitting in the Chair tonight would agree that, ifthe member for Indooroopilly—or anyone onthis side of the House—does not agree withthe Speaker's ruling, he has the right to movea motion of dissent.

The previous speaker, the member forNicklin, quoted Professor Carney. We are notarguing the fact that sub judice should not berespected; we believe that sub judice shouldbe respected, and I would say that everysingle person in this House believes that itshould be. We are arguing that inconsistencyin the Speaker's rulings has brought about thisdissent motion. The member for Nicklin wenton to say that blanket prohibition cannot bejustified, and we agree that blanket prohibitioncannot be justified. Dissent motions can bebrought about if the Speaker makes specificrulings. It is our right to disagree with theSpeaker and move a dissent motion, and thatis what we have done. There is nothing wrongwith that.

As I have said, what we object to is theinconsistency. We realise that the Speaker hasa difficult task. No matter who the Speaker hasbeen over the years, it has always been a verydifficult task, especially when the Speaker ispolitical, and by that I mean that the Speakeris not independent. There is a very good casefor having an independent Speaker. If thatwere the position, it would remove the need fora Speaker to defend the Government. Webelieve that the Speaker and his or her rulingsshould be bipartisan. A truly bipartisanSpeaker would gain enormous respect frompeople from all walks of life.

The member for Yeronga carried on in hisusual pompous way. I will admit that I have asoft spot for him, but in these debates—

Mr Foley: Is that above your shoulder?Mr COOPER: The member opposite

knows very well that that does not apply to me.

The member for Yeronga has attackedthe member for Indooroopilly over his record,yet he criticises him for attacking the Speaker.He, too, has to be consistent in his judgments.Instead, he is being hysterical in attacking themember for Indooroopilly for obvious reasons.He has a thing about him; he is allowing hispersonal dislikes to enter this debate, and I donot think he should. He should stick to thefacts. I do not think that Speaker Turner threwanyone out of this House except the memberopposite.

Mr Laming: He was a long-suffering man,too.


Mr COOPER: I think the whole House waslong suffering, as was Speaker Turner.However, he obtained and commanded—notdemanded—the respect of members of thisHouse. There are certain ways in whichSpeakers go about doing that, that is, to beconsistent, fair and equitable to both sides ofthe House. I believe Speaker Turner achievedthat. Those opposite know darn well thatSpeaker Turner had the respect of mostmembers in this House.

The member for Yeronga said that themotion of dissent moved by the member forIndooroopilly is frivolous. I do not believe it isfrivolous at all. It is not. That is his right. That isa member's right. If those opposite return tothis side of the Parliament—which they haveevery chance of doing—under a differentSpeaker, I firmly believe that they will end upmoving dissent motions. That is a member'sright. We will defend that right absolutely.

There has been inconsistency in theSpeaker's rulings in that a number of Ministerswho have been asked various questions inrelation to the sub judice rule in relation to thisissue have answered the questions in spite ofthe sub judice ruling. That indicates a verystrong inconsistency. We have been verypatient so far and have put up with it for longenough. Therefore, it is our right—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the memberto keep to this dissent motion.

Mr COOPER: I am, Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is not. He

is going back into history.

Mr COOPER: I was speaking about thisdissent motion.

Mr SPEAKER: We are debating thisdissent motion.

Mr COOPER: I am speaking about thisdissent motion.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is not.Mr COOPER: It is a reflection on you that

you will not allow me to speak on this dissentmotion.

Mr SPEAKER: I am allowing the memberto speak on this dissent motion.

Mr COOPER: That is all I ask. Thank youvery much.

Mr SPEAKER: Return to it.

Mr COOPER: This place has become afarce. When we move dissent motions, be iton this particular issue or any other—and I dospeak on this issue—we have the right to doso. I also point out the inconsistencies of yourruling, Mr Speaker. That is why the member for

Indooroopilly moved this dissent motion. Idistinctly remember that it was because hewas asking questions that had been asked onthe same issue before. Some you rule in;some you rule out. How on earth are we toknow what we are allowed to ask? When thequestion is asked and it is allowed, that is fineand Ministers are available to answer it, and sothey should. However, in the next breath yourule that, no, we cannot ask it because it is subjudice. That results in a lot of confusion. Don'tblame the Clerk of the Parliament. The dissentmotion has been moved against your ruling,Mr Speaker. This is not about the Clerk of theParliament; let us leave him out of it.

I believe that the Courier-Mail has it right. Ido not want to go out on a personal note,because we have been through that in the firstno confidence motion this Parliament hasseen for a long time. Many of us made ourpoints then in that regard. Without dragging itout, I simply reiterate that members haveevery right to move dissent motions. Thedissent motion was moved because of theinconsistency in rulings in that you allowedsome questions but not others. That is whathas confused us, and that is what we areobjecting to. We have every right to move thisdissent motion, and I fully support it.

Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg—ALP) (11.06 p.m.): I have asked to speak inthe debate on this dissent motion tonight toexpress my disgust at yet another cowardlyattack—I believe the 11th—on the Speaker bythe Opposition. I say this to the Opposition:your behaviour in moving this dissent motionand your behaviour over these past few weekshas been a disgrace from people elected tosuch high office in this great State. It bringsthis whole Parliament into disrepute and itreflects on every member of this House.

There are many good, honest,hardworking people in this Parliament whogenuinely want to make a difference—menand women who work long hours, who give upmost other aspects of their lives and forfeitvaluable time with their families and friends togain much-needed facilities in their electorates,to make Queensland a better State and tohelp build a better future for our children, ourgrandchildren and generations to come.

Yet with just two sitting weeks left beforethis House rises for Christmas and with some25 Government Bills and seven privatemembers' Bills waiting to be debated, here weare in the middle of the night wasting time ona senseless motion. It is just a part of thesame old Opposition vendetta that we havebeen seeing in this House for weeks—day in,


day out. Apart from the fact that most of us donot want to hear any more of this vindictivenonsense, it is costing the taxpayers ofQueensland around $750 for every hour thatthis Parliament sits after the dinner break. Thissenseless motion is not only costing ourtaxpayers in the vicinity of $1,000; it is takingup valuable time that should be used fordebating Bills before the House, and it is adisgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege.


Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: The membersopposite have no manners, either. This motiontonight—


Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: Mr Speaker, Iwould like to be heard.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forWestern Downs and the member for CrowsNest!

Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM: This motiontonight has nothing to do with the Speaker'sruling; it is just another cheap opportunisticattack on this Labor Government at thepersonal expense of the Speaker in theOpposition's obsessive and desperate quest toregain power in this State, not because it hasthe ability to govern Queensland but becauseit has never accepted the umpire's ruling. Atthe last election the people voted it out withthe loss of 12 seats after just two years andfour months in office. What an indictment! Butthe Opposition has not accepted that, and itwill not accept the umpire's ruling in this Houseor show any respect for the Chair. If itsbehaviour in this House is any example of thecalibre of the current Opposition, then it will bea sad day for Queensland if it ever regainsGovernment in this State.

Mr Speaker, you can hold your head highfor the dignified way in which you have satthrough these vicious personal attacks. I donot believe that parliamentary privilege wasever intended for use in such cowardly attacks,and if it is going to continue to be used in thisway then I believe it is time we looked atchanges to that system as well. People insideand outside this House must be protectedfrom such personal attacks.

Mr SULLIVAN (Chermside—ALP)(11.10 p.m.): I rise to oppose the motionbefore the House.

Mr Seeney interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr SULLIVAN: The member for Callideencourages me even more to oppose thisdissent motion. On 18 October the member for

Indooroopilly asked a question without notice,and the wording of the question is important. Itstates—

"I refer the Premier to the ALP'sdecision to sack Mr Lee Bermingham as asenior organiser because a partyinvestigation found he was guilty ofinterfering in an internal ballot of anaffiliated union."

The next part of the question is theimportant bit. It is a bit long, but it states—

"Can the Premier inform the Housewhy his beloved ALP and the member forWoodridge were perfectly capable ofinvestigating irregularities in union ballotsbut failed to show anything like the sameexpertise or enthusiasm for allegations ofelectoral corruption?"

The only way the Premier could haveanswered the second part of that longquestion would have been to actually refer toevidence before the Shepherdson inquiry.There is no other way the Premier could haveanswered as to why he believed the ALP orthe member for Woodridge did not fail to dothat. The only way he could have answeredthat would have been to refer to evidencebefore the Shepherdson inquiry. And that, asmembers opposite are well aware, would havebeen in direct contravention of the rulings ofSpeakers Fouras, Turner and Hollis, based onCrown Law advice.

This question was not a general questionabout Lee Bermingham. The member forCrows Nest a short time earlier said, "You letsome questions in; you don't let somequestions in." That is perfectly correct. Ifanswering the question meant that the subjudice rule would be contravened, the questionwas ruled out. If an answer would notcontravene the sub judice convention, thequestion was ruled in. It is simple.

As a former Premier, the member forCrows Nest would know that the questionsworked out by the Opposition are not justrandomly selected and randomly thrown onpaper. The Opposition works out very carefullywhat its questions say and it would know,given the rulings of Speakers Fouras, Turnerand Hollis, what would or would not beallowed.

Very conscious of the clear rulings bySpeakers Fouras and Turner on sub judice,Speaker Hollis did what he should havedone—that is, recognised that the questionwould have forced the Premier into addressingevidence before the CJC's inquiry. He thencalled the Clerk for further immediate andspecific advice on the sub judice convention.


Acting on this advice, he ruled the questionout of order. Indeed, Mr Speaker made thisclear by stating—it is in Hansard—

"I have accepted the advice of theClerk."

Without batting an eyelid, the Leader ofOpposition Business, the member forIndooroopilly, moved dissent from theSpeaker's ruling. In doing so, he unfortunatelyfollowed the example of his leader, themember for Surfers Paradise, who hascontinually displayed a lack of respect forParliament and its practices. While paradinghimself as some master of parliamentarydebate, the member for Surfers Paradisewhite-ants this place continually. At least theWest Indian termite attacked only the physicalfabric of this place. What the OppositionLeader is doing is taking the soul out of theParliament.

Mr Nelson: You don't mean that.

Mr SULLIVAN: I do mean what I amsaying. If the member for Tablelands had anyrespect for what this Parliament stood for, hewould be voting against this dissent motion aswell.

This House might be interested to learnthat during the 49th Parliament the Speakerhas had to call members to resume their seatson 293 occasions. On 94 of those occasions itwas the Leader of the Opposition who defiedthe Chair. He would not accept the ruling fromthe Chair and had to be asked to resume hisseat. On almost one third of all thoseoccasions there was an attempt by theSpeaker to maintain order in response todisruption from the Leader of the Opposition.The next worst offender, of course, is themouth from the north, the member forTablelands. The member was asked toresume his seat 28 times. But of course thoseoccasions came in little bursts, because hegets a little bit of a rush to the head and thenhe goes back to sleep.

This dissent motion was born not of agenuine grievance at the Chair's ruling. Themotion of the member for Indooroopilly is partof a culture of disrespect and disregard for theauthority of the Speaker and this institution. Ithas started to become just part of the culturethat Mr Borbidge will defy the Chair and MrBeanland will move dissent. Here we have themember for Crows Nest also jumping to hisfeet in the same way.

The ruling from which those oppositetonight have moved dissent is expressly basedon advice from the Clerk. It was on advice fromthe Clerk that the Speaker gave his ruling.

Mr Littleproud interjected.Mr SULLIVAN: The member for Western

Downs can yell and shout all he wants, but allhe has to do is refer to Hansard, or refer to thetape if he actually wants to hear it. If he does,he will find that the Speaker took advice fromthe Clerk.

Mr Littleproud interjected.Mr SULLIVAN: We are not talking about

some days; we are talking about a dissentmotion. I thought the member had been herelong enough, but he has gotten lazier thelonger he has been here. Maybe he did noteven look up Hansard. For his benefit, I pointout that this occurred on 18 October. Themember for Western Downs should come backto earth. On the specific occasion about whichthe Opposition has moved dissent, the Clerk'sadvice was sought. Taking the Clerk's advice,the Speaker made a ruling.

The member for Crows Nest tried to worma way out for the Opposition by saying, "Weare not really saying anything about the TableOffice staff or the Clerk." That is rubbish—adeliberate falsehood. The member for CrowsNest knows that this is a direct attack on theClerk and the Table Office staff. The memberfor Crows Nest is so low that he attacks thestaff of this place.

Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, I rise to a pointof order. I find his remarks offensive anduntrue, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forChermside will withdraw.

Mr SULLIVAN: I withdraw. When theadvice of the Clerk was expressly sought andthe Speaker took that advice, the Oppositionimmediately moved a motion of dissent,without any reference back to the Speaker.What the member for Crows Nest said is anabsolute farce. He has deliberately done it. Hehas deliberately attacked the Clerk. He has norespect for the Table Office staff here.

Mr COOPER: He has done it again, MrSpeaker. He has claimed that I have made adirect attack on the Clerk. I was defending theClerk and, as such, I find his remarks offensiveand false, and I ask that they be withdrawn.

Mr SULLIVAN: I withdraw. TheOpposition's attack is a deliberate attack onthe Clerk, because the advice was soughtspecifically from the Clerk, as is shown inHansard. Those opposite can squirm andsqueal all they want, but Hansard shows thatthat advice was sought. I will even let themember for Caloundra see it if she wants.

One would have thought that Oppositionmembers might have learnt their lesson from

9 Nov 2000 Succession and Other Acts Amendment Bill 4269

the last week's sitting and the infamous noconfidence motion, but they are here againdragging down the institution of Parliament,clutching to the Speaker and the Clerk on theirway down. Their behaviour is a disgrace. Themotion is a disgrace. It needs to be defeated. Ioppose the dissent motion.

Question—That Mr Beanland's motion beagreed to—put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Beanland, Black, Cooper,E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Feldman,Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson,Kingston, Knuth, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt,Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon,Simpson, Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner,Veivers, Tellers: Baumann, HegartyNOES, 40—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser,Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller,Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Pearce,Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose,Schwarten, Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wellington,Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

Resolved in the negative.

SUCCESSION AND OTHER ACTSAMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 1 June (see p. 1542).

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition)(11.26 p.m.): The Opposition supports this Bill,but it is another telling indictment of theincompetence of this Government that we aredebating retrospective legislation designed toremedy the unwitting abolition of statutoryguardianship provisions effected by thepassage of the Child Protection Act.

The essential principles enshrined in thisBill are designed to maintain the legal statusquo as it existed prior to 23 March this year.While there are some marginal changes to thelaw, it is patently obvious that this is noexercise in law reform but another example ofthis Government fixing up a botched legislativeprogram.

Queensland has had legislation allowingand facilitating parents to appoint guardians tolook after their children in the event of theirdemise since 1891. In that year, thisParliament passed the Guardianship andCustody of Infants Act, which legislationremained in force until the Children's ServicesAct became operative in 1965. Part 9 of theChildren's Services Act dealt at some lengthwith the guardianship and custody of infants.The many sections in Part 9 were amended on

a regular basis and it is clear that they wereused often by Queensland parents andwithout major problems.

It is a measure of the inherent soundnessof the drafting and policy of Part 9 that itremained substantially unaltered until thepassing of the Child Protection Act. Not oncein the Minister's introductory speech did hepoint out that this Bill was a catch-up exercisedesigned to preserve existing rights. He madeout as if this was another piece of proactivelaw reform rather than a rushed exercisedesigned to overcome the legislativeincompetence of this Government.

I do not wish to be unduly critical of thisBill as far as it goes, but I am very critical of thefact that we have now to debate retrospectivelegislation. If this Minister were up to scratch,he would have introduced this Billsimultaneously with the Child Protection Bill orat least have secured its passage andproclamation to coincide with thecommencement of the Child Protection Act on23 March this year.

There seems to be a trend with thisGovernment of presenting to Parliamentretrospective legislation which is needed topaper over administrative failings, failings thatseem to be symptomatic of a lazy andinattentive administration. I hope that we donot have to debate many more retrospectiveBills during this Parliament because it is badpractice and sends out all the wrong signals tothe wider community.

Mr Lucas: How is it retrospective? Itapplies to all wills.

Mr SPRINGBORG: If the memberlistened, he would understand.

In addition, I am concerned that since 23March this year the parents of Queenslandchildren have been deprived of the legislativeunderpinnings to appoint testamentaryguardians for their children in their wills. Wehave had the quite unbelievable situation that,for the first time in more than a century, thisbasic statutory right has been taken away.Instead, there has been a legislative vacuum.At the end of the day, the public will passjudgment on Governments of whateverpolitical persuasion on the basis of whetherthey can deliver the basics—not the glitz andglamour, just the bread and butter issues forthe workers and other people of this State.This is yet another straw in the wind of how thisGovernment has dropped the ball and displaysthat, when it comes to the crunch, it just simplydoes not deliver. Again, we are seeing catch-up public administration and this is not goodenough.

4270 Succession and Other Acts Amendment Bill 9 Nov 2000

The Minister could at least have explainedwhy this unsatisfactory state of affairs cameabout, but as usual this Parliament was givenno explanation. If the Minister thinks thatignoring the issue and hoping that it will goaway without scrutiny will work, I hope that thisis a salutary example of how that sort ofapproach only makes the situation worse.

I will turn to the substance of the Bill. Itgoes without saying that it is very importantthat there be a simple, cheap, non-litigiousand effective legislative means for parents toappoint testamentary guardians for theirchildren. In the absence of such a power, anapplication would have to be made to theChildrens Court for a care and protection order,or to the Family Court, rather than leave thismatter in the hands of a third party, and onlyafter potentially traumatic and expensive legalproceedings have been instituted. It isobviously far better to leave the nomination tothe persons who have the ultimate day-to-daycare of the infants in question—namely, theirparents.

Any adult who has children knows onlytoo well the importance of having in placeappropriate testamentary provisions for theirchildren's care and protection. There are fewthings more important to a parent than theknowledge that their children will be lookedafter financially, emotionally and physically if atragedy occurs and they predecease them.The question of who should look after a childin the event of the death of the parent who isthe primary caregiver should lie with thatparent.

A parent who is in that position should beallowed a private right, facilitated by clear andfair provisions passed by this Parliament, tomake clear by whom and how their children orchild will be raised. As I see it, the fundamentalprinciple underpinning this Bill is one whichwould be supported by all thinking adults. It isa principle which has been the law of this Statefor over a century.

The first issue I raise concerns thepreservation by the Bill of the appointment ofany person to act as guardian of a childthrough the execution of a deed, if that deedwas in force prior to 23 March 2000. I note thatthe Minister said in his speech—

"While it is not the policy of thisGovernment to authorise the appointmentof a guardian by deed, it is important thatno children be disadvantaged by therepeal of that Act."

I have no quibble with the protection ofdeeds of appointments made prior to 23March, but I do question why it is the policy of

this Government to prevent personsappointing guardians by deed and limitingsuch appointments to wills.

The ability of parents to appoint guardiansby deed is recognised under the Children'sServices Act 1965 and has been the law ofboth Queensland and the United Kingdom formany years. I draw the attention of the Houseto the following comments in Volume 21 of the3rd Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England,which was published in 1957. It states—

"Both the father and the motherhave power, if under age, by deed, and ifof full age, by deed or will, to appointpersons to act as guardians of an infantafter their respective deaths, if the child isthen an infant. Where the appointment ismade by deed, it is of a testamentarynature and is revocable by a subsequentwill making a different appointment."

There is quite a deal more on that matter,but the point I want to make is that the powerto appoint a guardian by deed seems to haveworked fairly well for quite some time.

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: If not, presumably theMinister would not be going out of his way touphold such appointments made prior to 23March. The honourable member for Lytton, nodoubt, professes or pretends to be learned inthe law. He will have his opportunity as thedebate goes on to outline his particularcontentions in relation to what I am advocatingin Parliament.

Obviously the preferable means ofappointment of guardian is by will, and mostpeople refer to guardians as testamentaryguardians in recognition of that fact. However,I would like the Minister to explain why theGovernment is opposed to appointments bydeed. I would like to know what problems havearisen and why this option is being taken awayfrom Queensland parents. There may be aperfectly legitimate reason which the Ministerwould like to advance. There may well besound policy reasons based either on changesin the law or specific problems that havearisen.

However, these were not spelt out by theMinister and I think it is only fair that, if we arechanging the law by limiting options forQueensland parents, we are told why. As Isaid, I am not arguing the point, but I wouldsuggest to the Minister that some clarificationis warranted.

Another aspect of the Bill deservingcomment is the extended definition of the term"parent" to include persons who, under


Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander custom,would be regarded as parents of the child.Fortunately, we have come quite a long wayover the past few decades in recognising theimportance of indigenous customs in theadministration of the law in all of its facets.

In 1986, the Australian Law ReformCommission recommended that Governmentsand indigenous people should work togetherto decide on methods by which Aboriginalcustomary law could be recognised.Nevertheless, the ALRC itself pointed out thatthere were limits on how far this recognitioncould go, particularly in the areas of marriageand criminal law.

However, there is some scope for thelegislatures of the various Parliaments inAustralia to integrate indigenous customarylaw into the statute law of our nation. This isnot just because it has been recognised byvarious law reform bodies as desirable andjust, but basically if our system of law is tohave relevance and be able to operate in apractical and sensible way, it must recognisethe reality of what occurs in our indigenouscommunities. It is pleasing to be able tocontribute to the debate on this aspect of theBill in a bipartisan fashion.

I draw the attention of the House to thefollowing comments which appear in thesecond edition of a book entitled IndigenousLegal Issues which was published in 1997.The authors make this point—

"Extended kin, especiallygrandparents and aunts, are regarded asprimary caregivers with status equal tothat of the biological parents. It is acommon and accepted practice formothers to leave young children with theirgrandparents for extended periods oftime. Such a mother would be seen bynon-aboriginal people as 'no good' or'unworthy' but in fact she is acting in aculturally acceptable way given the rightsand obligations that aboriginal familiesshare."

The authors quote from a 1984 study ofurban Aborigines in south-west WesternAustralia, which states—

"Most Noongar families add cousinsor grandparents to the household as amatter of form. It is common forgrandparents to become social parents toa child who calls them 'dad' and 'mum'.Birdsall relates how child-rearing in aNoongar household is a communalenterprise from the very first, with childrenlearning to be looked after by their

grandmothers and aunties, in particular,and other relations from time to time.Such flexibility of filiation extends to auntsand cousins, in particular. A Noongar childis taught to regard an aunt as a mother,and her cousins as her sisters and herbrothers. The classificatory kinship systemapparent in more traditional communitiesis still strongly apparent among theNoongar today. 'Granny', for example,refers to any adult of either sex of one'sgrandparent's generation, who has thestatus and respected position of agrandparent ... this communalisedmethod of child rearing is the very core ofNoongar social structure and organisation.It is by this means that an individual formsclose and lasting associations that will beof major importance through life."There are a number of indigenous

communities in Queensland that have theirown traditional and accepted means of dealingwith the rights and responsibilities of childrenand the wider family unit, including quitedetailed and socially accepted proceduresabout the reallocation of care. This Bill touchesonly at the margins of this complex matter butinsofar as it approaches it from an inclusiveand understanding perspective, it is to besupported. Whether a child is indigenous ornon-indigenous, the same principle governingtheir welfare should be upheld, namely, what isin the child's best interests. Nevertheless, it isright in certain contexts in assessing the bestinterests of an indigenous child to have regardto their Aboriginal background and toAboriginal child-rearing practices.

I state specifically that it should be givenappropriate weight because, as the Ministerwould be aware, there are numerous FamilyCourt cases dealing with the guardianshiprights of children of mixed race relationships. Inthese cases, the Family Court has held that anumber of factors have to be considered indetermining what is in the best interests of thechild. As the Family Court has emphasised, itis critical not to favour one culture overanother. We should not replace the mistakesof the past with new mistakes and we must beever vigilant to ensure that the focus alwaysremains on the best interests of the children.

This Bill simply recognises the relevanceof Aboriginal culture in certain limitedcircumstances and is a positive move thatdeserves support. As I mentioned earlier,without legislation facilitating parents havingguardianship provisions in their wills, thecommon law would prevail and recourse wouldhave to be made to the courts. Nevertheless,there will continue to be a need for the courts


to have a supervisory jurisdiction and to beable to step in when the need arises.

Proposed section 61J ensures that thepower of a Supreme Court is not limited by thisBill. The Supreme Court has the inherentjurisdiction to exercise parental power and canmake orders that it considers are in the bestinterests of the child. The current Governor-General, when he was a High Court judge,made the following comments in 1992 aboutthe inherent powers of courts such as theQueensland Supreme Court—

"The authority of parents with respectto a young person of less than eighteenyears is limited, controlled and varying. Itis limited to what is in the best interests ofthe welfare of the young person. Thatbeing so, it can, at least as regards reallyserious matters, be validly exercised onlyafter due inquiry about, and adequateconsideration of, what truly represents thewelfare of the child. It is controlled in that,if it is exceeded or if it is exercised otherthan for the benefit and welfare of thechild, a court invested with the welfarejurisdiction of the old Chancery Court hasjurisdiction to intervene and preventexcess, abuse or neglect of authority.Such a court can, when its jurisdiction isinvoked, make an order directed toensuring what should, within the limitsimposed by financial and other practicalconsiderations, be done or not done inthe interests of the welfare of an infant isdone or not done." So it is important to ensure that, while the

Succession Act should contain provisionsenabling the appointment of testamentaryguardians, the general welfare supervisoryjurisdiction of the Supreme Court is in no waydiminished.

The Minister noted in his second-readingspeech that the provisions dealing with theappointment of testamentary guardians wouldnow be found in the Succession Act. I agreewith this move. It really does not make muchsense to spread provisions dealing with thewill-making powers of persons throughout thestatute law of this State. All provisions dealingwith testamentary powers, responsibilities andancillary matters should be located in thestatute dealing with wills. I can readilyunderstand that a case existed in the past,with the ability of parents to make non-testamentary deeds appointing guardians, forthese provisions to be located in the generallaw governing the welfare of infants. But nowthat the Government is dispensing with non-testamentary guardian provisions, no such

rationale can be made. I recommend to theMinister that officers of his department shouldengage in a thorough review of other statutesto see whether similar rationalisation canoccur. Surely one of the objectives of the plainEnglish legal strategy is to ensure that the lawis not only more accessible in terms of draftingbut also more accessible in terms of location.

The Minister also pointed out that, underthe Bill, unless the will shows a contraryintention, a testamentary guardian will exercisepowers only after the death of the child's lastsurviving parent. However, if the will does havea contrary intention, then the guardianship willbe activated on the death of the testator ortestatrix. However, in such a case the guardianis limited to joint involvement in makingdecisions about the welfare of the child.

I would like the Minister to deal in his replywith a few queries that I have about theoperation of the Bill. First, proposed section61B provides that the power to appoint atestamentary guardian is not limited to aparent but also applies to a guardian of thechild. In other words, as I read it, if a person isappointed as a guardian of a child under a will,then that person can, in turn, appoint anotherguardian under the person's will. Obviously,allowing a parent to appoint a testamentaryguardian is essential, but has it always beenthe case that the power to appoint atestamentary guardian can be transferreddown the line, so to speak?

There appear to be no guidelines orsafeguards spelt out in the Bill in this regard. Iwonder whether the Minister could explain thephilosophy underpinning this provision. As Isaid earlier, the court has, and under this Billcontinues to have, a general supervisoryjurisdiction and I would have thought that, inthe event of the death of a testamentaryguardian, it had inherent powers to makeguardianship orders. I just wonder whetherallowing a guardian to appoint anotherguardian without any supervisory tick-off fromthe court is leaving the matter too openended. I am not opposed to this provision but Ican see some scope for problems to arise andI would appreciate the Minister dealing with itin his response.

The second issue that I would like to raiseis the extent to which the law is being changedby the Bill so far as the authority oftestamentary guardians compared with that ofa surviving parent. As members of this Housewould be well aware, for a number of reasons,not the least being the high incidence ofmarriage break-ups, a very high proportion offamilies are headed by one parent. Under


section 89 of the Children's Services Act, whenone parent died and provided in their will for atestamentary guardian, then that guardianacted jointly with the surviving parent in lookingafter the interests of the child or children. As Iread section 89, the law as it stood up until lastyear ensured that the guardian automaticallyshared responsibility with the surviving parent.Nevertheless, under this Bill, that will occur onlyif—and I now quote from subsection (3) ofproposed section 61D—"the will shows that theappointor intended the appointment to takeeffect on the appointor's death, theappointment takes effect on the appointor'sdeath."

The first question I have for the Minister iswhat does that part of subsection (3) mean inpractice? I presume that the mere nominationof a person to be a testamentary guardian onthe death of a parent will not result in thatperson actually having any role to play if aparent remains alive, even if that parentplayed no role in the parenting of the child orchildren. If the fact of nomination is notenough, then does this section require that aparent must actually state in clear words thatthe guardian will share responsibility for therearing of the child or children on the death ofthe will maker? Should that be the effect ofthis Bill, then it will be of utmost importancethat this fact be made clear to the Queenslandpublic. It would be a travesty of justice if aparent's heartfelt wish so far as the bringing upof their children is concerned was diluted by achange in the law which was not made clear toQueensland parents.

The second question relates to why thelaw has been changed. I would have thoughtthat there was now a far greater case thanthere was in 1965 for ensuring that a guardianappointed by one parent was automaticallyentitled to be a joint guardian with the survivingparent, unless the will provided otherwise. As Isaid, with the rate of divorce now much higherthan it was 35 years ago and with the numberof de facto marriages continuing to rise,providing that a surviving parent has soleguardianship rights, even though a deceasedparent has appointed a person other than thesurviving parent as the guardian of a child,seems a little strange to me. It is all too oftenthe case in the event of a break-up in arelationship that a parent may nominate oneof their brothers or sisters or their parents to bethe guardian of their children.

Mr Schwarten interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: Pardon?

Mr Schwarten: I was talking to them.

Ms Bligh: They are more interested. Weare not saying anything.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I am sure the Ministerfor Families is not interested in these issues.

Mr Schwarten: How long are you going tobe?

Mr SPRINGBORG: I will be about anotherfive minutes. After the problems the Ministerhad this morning, there may be some lessonsin this for tomorrow morning.

Under this Bill, unless very clear andprecise language is used the clear intention ofa parent could be ignored, which would bevery unfortunate. I fully realise that theSupreme Court has its supervisory powers andfunctions, but from my own experiences I knowfull well that it is critical that a child or childrenin these circumstances not be the subject of atug of war, especially when it could involve atraumatic court case.

Moreover, I fail to see why this apparentchange is being made, because section61E(2) makes clear that the testamentaryguardian will, in any event, only have daily careauthority of the child if the child has noremaining parent. In other words, in the eventof a dispute it will be the child's remainingparent who will have the day-to-dayresponsibility for the child. However, thetestamentary guardian will have the generalright to supervise the way that the child isbeing brought up and looked after. In otherwords, the testamentary guardian will not haveresponsibility for a child's daily care, but willhave the legal right and ability to maintain awatching brief.

I ask the Attorney-General if myassumption about the change in the law iscorrect and, if it is, what was the policyunderpinning it. I raise these questionsbecause proposed sections 61G and 61I setout what occurs if a testamentary guardianwhose appointment is not automatic wants itto be the case or in the event that a survivingparent does not want a testamentary guardianhaving any role.

These proposed sections give to theSupreme Court the power either toautomatically commence the powers of atestamentary guardian, even though the will issilent, or to revoke or suspend the role of thetestamentary guardian. My reading of the Billis that the law is being changed, but in theevent that a testamentary guardian wants hisor her appointment to commence immediatelythat person can apply to the Supreme Court. I also ask the Minister what hisdepartment will be doing about educating the


broader Queensland community about the lawgoverning testamentary guardians. People donot think about the issue of guardianship untila tragedy occurs, and I can indicate from myown experience that there are a lot ofmisconceptions in the community about howthe law operates. It would be helpful if someeffort was made to produce pamphlets in plainEnglish so that people making wills or peoplewanting to know what the law was could haveaccess to a brief but authoritative explanationof what the Succession Act provides. Maybethe Attorney's department does something likethat, but I am not aware of it.

Finally, I support the proposedamendments to the Commonwealth Powers(Family Law—Children) Act. It is important thatthe provisions relating to testamentaryguardians be excluded from general referral bythe State to the Commonwealth of legislativepowers relating to children. The law governingtestamentary guardianship is inextricablyinterconnected with the law governingsuccession and rightly belongs under State lawand within the general supervisory jurisdictionof the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, I note that the Attorney-General referred to the work of the LawSociety succession law committee and inparticular its chairman, Dr John De Groote. DrJohn De Groote and Tony Lee, who is theauthor of numerous succession and trust textbooks for many years, have been regarded asthe pre-eminent experts on succession law inthis State, if not throughout Australia. Whenthe Minister mentioned that John De Grootehad been involved in this legislative exercise Iwas very pleased because I am sure anyadvice that he and his committee profferedwould have been practical, expert and wellintentioned.

I join with the Minister in thanking the LawSociety for its assistance because since theenactment of the Succession Act 1981Queensland has had the most progressiveand best drafted code of succession law inAustralia.

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—LP)(11.56 p.m.): I am very pleased to take part inthe debate because my friend and colleaguethe member for Warwick and shadow Ministerfor Justice always presents to the House a veryreasoned and intelligent contribution.Sometimes when members are confrontedwith numerous Bills which are essentiallyprepared by departments and read intoHansard by Ministers, there is a temptation tomouth a few platitudes when the Bill is non-controversial and let it go through with as little

debate as possible. This is the sort of Bill thatwould normally fall within that category. It isnon-controversial, it is non-partisan and it isbasically a very sound initiative. It is not thesort of Bill that will attract even one-tenth of acolumn inch in any newspaper. Yet it is a veryimportant measure.

It is the very type of Bill that Parliament issupposed to debate and carefully scrutinise. Itis the sort of bread and butter measure whichcan impact on many ordinary people andfamilies, as the honourable member forWarwick has just intimated. This Bill is all aboutthe very terrible scenario that none of us everwant to confront or experience. A parent wantsto have some say over who will look after theirchildren when they are gone. The death of aparent is an immensely personal and terriblytraumatic situation, one which requires acareful weighing of various policyconsiderations.

As my friend the member for Warwick hasjust pointed out, the essence of this Bill is toduplicate the law that has been in place in thisState for a century. It is not a Bill which breaksthe mould and moves the State in a new lawreform direction. Quite frankly, the law is in noneed of major reform. It has served thefamilies of Queensland well for as long asanyone can remember. That is not to say thatthis Bill does not introduce change, because itdoes, but it is not a major work of law reform,rather a tidying up exercise aimed atrenovation at the margins.

The major problem with this Bill lies notwith its content but with its timing. It is too late.It is a Bill that we should have been debatinglast year. It is a Bill that has been introducedlong after it should have been. The fact of thematter is that since 23 March this year theparents of Queensland children have been letdown by this Government. Since 23 March thecapacity of parents to provide for theappointment of testamentary guardians in aneffective and efficient manner has beendenied. It is amazing that this Government hasallowed a situation to arise whereby for the firsttime in more than 100 years Queensland hasno legislation on the books that empowers aparent to appoint a testamentary guardian.This has not been a heartless act by theBeattie Government—far from it. Rather, it isjust another example of the sloth,disorganisation and incapacity of thisadministration to produce the goods and in atimely fashion.

Even something as basic as repealing theChildren's Services Act, which had been inplace since 1965, and replacing it with a series


of statutory reforms designed to maintain thestatus quo has apparently been beyond thisGovernment. I do not know whether the blamefor this incompetence lies with the member forSouth Brisbane, who I acknowledge is in theChamber here tonight, who was responsiblefor the repeal of the Children's Services Actand its replacement with the Child ProtectionAct 1999, or the Attorney-General, who isresponsible for succession law. At the end ofthe day it does not really matter. The doctrineof ministerial responsibility applies and theyand their colleagues must be held up asresponsible for repealing an Act without puttingin place replacement provisions.

It is a pretty sloppy effort, one whichrequires some explanation from the Minister. Isay that because he did not even offer anapology in his second-reading speech. Insteadhe just gave another explanation of his bluffand bluster approach which he no doubt finetuned when he was at the Bar doing Legal Aidfunded motor vehicle accident claims in theMagistrates Court.

There is no doubt it is essential thatparents be given the right, backed up bysuitable legislation, to nominate in their willwho will be their children's guardian shouldthey pass away while their children are stillinfants. While the Supreme Court retains itsgeneral—

Mr Lucas: Where did you get that rot?

Mr SANTORO: I can give the honourablemember some further explanation if that isnecessary.

While the Supreme Court retains itsgeneral supervisory welfare jurisdiction overchildren and can make orders, it is far betterfor the decision to be made outside the courtroom by a parent and not by a third person,even if that third person is a judge.

The law governing guardianship iscomplex and covers a great deal of territory.However, parents are by natural right theguardians of their infant children. Parents, asthe guardians of their infant children, musthave the right to nominate someone who willtake over the guardianship roles and dutiesshould they not be able to do so. Undersection 90 of the Children's Services Act, aparent was specifically empowered to appointa guardian to look after their children bymeans of a deed in addition to being given thepower to appoint a testamentary guardian bymeans of a will. Yet under this Bill that right isnot recognised. Instead, clause 9 ensures thatthe Child Protection Act will be amended toprotect guardians appointed by a deed under

the repealed Children's Services Act, providedthat the deed was in force prior to 23 Marchthis year.

The Minister said that it is not the policy ofthe Government to authorise the appointmentof a guardian by a non-testamentary deed. Tobe honest, I am not sure why the Governmentis taking away the right of parents to appointguardians by means of deeds. Certainly underthis Bill—and quite rightly so—any childrenalready being looked after by a guardianappointed by a deed will continue to havethose arrangements legally backed up. So ifthere were significant problems, I wouldimagine that the saving provision contained inthis Bill would have been drafted in a muchnarrower fashion than it has been.

My friend the member for Warwick raisedthis issue in his contribution, and I join him inseeking some advice from the Minister on theproblems or drawbacks of section 90 of theChildren's Services Act that might have arisen.I point out to the Minister that, under theChildren's Services Act, specific explicitsections dealt with the appointment ofguardians by will, deed and the SupremeCourt. Under this Bill, and pursuant to theinherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, theright to appoint guardians will still exist by willmakers and by the court, but not by a parentwho chooses to execute a deed.

I can well imagine circumstances in whicha parent may not wish to reopen a will but by aseparate legal document nominates a personto be a guardian. For the information of theHouse, section 90 limited that appointmentuntil after the death of the parent. So therewas no capacity for the appointment tocommence at an earlier point in time. I reallyfail to appreciate what the problem is withallowing a parent to nominate a guardian in awill but not in a separate deed when,irrespective of whether the parent chooses touse a will or a deed, the appointment will notcome into effect until the death of the parent. Ihope that the real reason for this deletion isnot that there is any real objection toappointing guardians by deed but the need byGovernment to justify a late amendment to theSuccession Act to cover up the inadvertentrepeal of the provision of Part 9 of theChildren's Services Act.

In common with my colleague themember for Warwick, I also welcome theextended definition of the term "parent" toinclude indigenous customs. In 1994 MickDodson wrote—

"In indigenous societies, theextended family or kinship system


traditionally managed all areas of social,economic and cultural life."There is no doubt that in many traditional

Aboriginal and Torres Strait communitiescustoms regarding parenting and the welfareof children, which are far different fromEuropean values, are still practised. This Bill,like all other Bills dealing with children, has atits heart an intention to ensure that theparamount goal is ensuring that the bestinterests of the children are advanced. One ofthe ongoing problems Australia must deal withis the trauma that thousands of indigenousadults continue to face on a daily basis as aresult of the separation they suffered from theirnatural families because of policies adopted byall Australian Governments over manydecades. If we have learnt anything from themistakes of the past, it is that we can neveragain impose an ethnocentric strategy on ourindigenous citizens so far as child rearing isconcerned. I hope that we have also learnedquite a bit more, too. I hope that we havelearned to recognise and respect traditionalindigenous customs and practices and that,whenever it is possible and just to do so, weshould ensure that these customs andpractices are given appropriate, but notnecessarily automatic, legal recognition.

The definition of "parent" in this Bill doesno more than recognise that the parent of anindigenous child under indigenous custommay be a person other than the child'sbiological parent. The member for Warwickexpanded on this point in his speech, and Isimply acknowledge what he said and indicatethat under the definition of "parent" some ofthese indigenous child-rearing practices will berecognised. As I mentioned earlier, theSupreme Court still retains its inherentjurisdiction to intervene and make orders in theinterests of children, and child welfareauthorities also have various powers to ensurethat the wellbeing of children, whether they beindigenous or non-indigenous, is taken care of.So, in reality, the definition of "parent" will allowaccepted Aboriginal child-rearing and kinshiptraditions to be incorporated within theframework of guardianship law but at the sametime will in no way diminish the power of thecourt or the State to intervene when a child'swelfare is at risk. This is then only a very tinylaw reform, but it is a good one. Incombination with many others it will go a longway towards healing the breach betweenAboriginal customs and the law passed byvarious Australian Parliaments.

There are a number of other provisions inthe Bill which I will briefly mention. The first isthe application of the Bill as outlined in

proposed section 61B. The Bill provides thatproposed Part 5A will apply to a child, whetherthe child was born in Queensland or elsewhereand whether the child was born before or afterthe commencement of these provisions. Thereis no doubt that this rather wide provision isnecessary, because the power to appointtestamentary guardians has existed in thisState for many years. On top of that, it wouldbe strange if the law did not apply to childrenwho happened to have been born outside ofQueensland. So I am pleased that theapplication of this Part has been explicitlyprovided for and that it is beyond doubt thatthis Bill will apply to all children domiciled in thisState, whether born here or elsewhere andwhether they were born before or after this Actcommences.

The second area that I think deservessome scrutiny concerns the operation ofproposed Division 2 of Part 5A. In particular, Iam curious, as was the member for Warwick, ifmy recollection serves me well, about thepowers of a testamentary guardian in terms ofwhen that guardian's role commences. Underthis Bill, even though a person has nominateda guardian in their will, there is no guaranteethat on the death of the testator the guardianwill be able to ensure that the testator's wishesare given effect to. The reason for this is thatsection 61D provides that the appointmenttakes effect only on the death of the lastsurviving parent, unless the deceased parent'swill—and I now quote from subsection(3)—"shows that the appointor intended totake effect on the appointor's death". Myfriend the member for Warwick has askedsome questions about this and made anumber of very telling observations. I also joinhim in seeking some advice from the Ministeron whether this does, in fact, constitute asubstantive change in the law.

Under section 89 of the Children'sServices Act, on the death of a parent of aninfant the surviving parent was jointlyresponsible for the child with the guardiannominated by the deceased parent. To myknowledge there was no provision in therepealed Act that provided that theguardianship did not commence unless therewere specific words in the will. The simple factof nomination was sufficient. Yet under the Billwe are considering, that will no longer be thecase. A person making a will must do morethan simply nominate a person to be theguardian of their child in the event of theirdemise. They must make it clear in the will thatthe guardian is to take up duties as a guardianimmediately and not just upon the death ofthe surviving parent. There are a few pointsthat should be made.


The first is that a person cannot give toanother that which they do not have in the firstplace. In other words, if the deceased parentdid not have custody of the child, thenobviously a person nominated as guardian bythe parent would have no greater rights. Thesecond point that I wish to make is that thisissue would almost certainly only arise whenthe biological parents of a child haveseparated, or have never married and livedtogether in the first place. Honourablemembers could well appreciate the situationwhere a mother who has looked after a childsince birth nominates her mother, thegrandmother, as guardian of the infant. Underthis Bill, the father of the child, who has notpreviously cared for the infant, would beplaced in the position of pre-eminence if thedeceased parent did not specifically state thatthe nomination of guardianship was to beeffective on her death. Proposed section 61Gdoes allow a testamentary guardian in such acircumstance to make an application to thecourt for an order that the appointment takeeffect immediately. Likewise, section 61H givesa surviving parent the right to approach thecourt. In addition, the right to the daily care ofa child, even when guardianship is effective,rests with the surviving parent. Nevertheless, Iwould have thought that, at a time when manyfamilies comprise only one parent, somespecial consideration should have been madein this Bill to accommodate changed socialcircumstances.

Just as this Bill has appropriatelyrecognised indigenous family relationships, itshould have been more sensitive to changedfamily relationships in the broader Australiancommunity. In fact, this Bill actually representsa retreat from that which existed under the1965 Act. At the end of the day, I recognisethat the Supreme Court can step in and makean order about a child's welfare. Section 61Jspecifically makes it clear that the powers ofthe court are not limited by the Bill. However,this Bill could cause problems to unwarypeople who make a will nominating a closefamily member as a guardian and, by doingso, assume that if they pass away that familymember can have some say immediately inlooking after the child. In fact, this Bill woulddeny that parent that wish unless that parenthad gone the extra mile and specifically madeit clear in the will that the appointment is totake effect immediately.

There are two issues I want the Minister todeal with. First, why is the law being changedfrom that which existed under the 1965 Act?Second, what steps will be put in place,hopefully, in conjunction with the Law Society

to ensure that legal practitioners and the publicare aware of their rights and obligations in thisregard? I again support the call made by thehonourable member for Warwick towards theend of his speech in terms of an educationprocess to be put in place. As I said at theoutset, this is not a controversial Bill.Nevertheless, it is a very important one. Someof my comments have been critical, but overallI am pleased to be able to contribute to thedebate on the Bill. I look forward also to theMinister's response.

Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (12.10 a.m.): Iam pleased to make a short contribution to thedebate on the Succession and Other ActsAmendment Bill, which replaces earlierlegislation in the Children's Services Act 1965with respect to the appointment oftestamentary guardians. Not only does the Billreplace the old legislation but it alsosignificantly improves it. As a former solicitorand one with a fairly extensive practice withrespect to wills and probate, I am pleased tooffer my thoughts on the legislation to theParliament. By referring to my experience, I donot want to belittle the contribution of anyoneelse. That is the prerogative of people such asthe member for Callide, who seems to thinkthat only farmers can comment on primaryproducer Bills. We all represent electoratesand we should all be entitled to comment. Theshadow Attorney-General is a former farmerwho brings experiences we should all valuewhen commenting on legal Bills. The sameapplies for people like former lawyers whencommenting on other legislation.

One of the most concerning issues for aparent is the provision for children after theirdeath. Sometimes parents die before theirchildren become adults. It is a truism to saythat parents never want to bury their kids. Inthese circumstances, the real concern is who isto look after them and make those importantdecisions that parents agonise over. We allworry about our children while we are around.The concern is even greater if the tragichappened and we were not there to guidethem and care for them in their growing years.A testamentary guardian is a personappointed by a testator in their will. The oldChildren's Services Act allowed forappointment of testamentary guardians andon its repeal the provision was deleted. Therewas a need to replace it. I commend theAttorney-General for replacing it in a betterform than originally existed.

It specifically says that an appointment ofa testamentary guardian applies only if there isno surviving parent. I note that the shadowAttorney-General and the member for Clayfield


questioned this. I say to them that the purposeof drafting wills and the purpose of legislationthat assists with the drafting of wills is toprovide for the cases that the majority ofpeople find themselves in. In 10 years ofdrafting wills, I cannot recall any situationwhere I saw a guardian appointed by deed. Icannot recall any situation when I was takinginstruction for wills where a parent did not wantme to draft the clause to say, "If my spousedies before I do, then I appoint X as mytestamentary guardian." In other words, I knowof no examples that came across my deskwhere someone wanted to appoint atestamentary guardian over their survivingspouse.

This legislation specifically provides, as doother parts of the Succession Act, that theaccepted practice will apply. That is a smartway of doing it. If a person leaves their estateto their children and one of the children pre-deceases that person, in the absence of aprovision in the will to the contrary, it goes tothe children of that child. Say a person hasthree children and one of them dies before theparent. The grandchildren—the deceased'schildren—get the third share that theirdeceased parent would have taken. Properdrafting of succession law takes into accountthe ordinary circumstances of drafting. That isexactly what this does. That is why it is goodlaw. I commend the Attorney-General for it.

There are a number of other provisions Iwant to note with respect to the legislationwhich apply to daily care and authority inrelation to an appointment of a testamentaryguardian, that is, if there is no surviving parentand there is a court order. That is veryimportant. We do not want a situation wherethe surviving parent has their primaryobligation and responsibility to their childrenunduly interfered with. Suitability is also veryimportant. Circumstances can changedramatically after one does a will. Peopleshould do their wills regularly, but they often donot. People often do wills that last 20 or 30years. The person whom they might considerto be a suitable person as a testamentaryguardian when they are 25—when they starthaving a family—may not be considered as anappropriate person when they turn 35. Theymay have had a falling out. They may havenoticed that their character has changed. Theymay have had a rethink about it or movedaway.

It is important to remember thatcircumstances change. It is important that thecourt can very quickly provide access to peoplewho want to alter arrangements with respect tothe appointment of a testamentary guardian.

A parent can apply for a testamentaryguardian to be removed. A testamentaryguardian not immediately appointed becausethere is a surviving parent can apply to thecourt. That takes into account a situation thatthe member for Clayfield referred to wherethere is a family break-up and the deceasedperson has appointed their mother, brother orsister and they do not immediately take over.Ordinarily, one would expect that the survivingparent would take over, but if there is anoutstanding issue they can apply to the court.It is appropriate that this provision should be ina Succession Act, because the Succession Actshould be self-containing when it comes tosuccession law. It really is more an aspect ofthis part of law than it is children's legislation.

In closing, I pay tribute—the shadowAttorney-General mentioned it, as did theAttorney-General in his second-readingspeech—to two fantastic practitioners andexperts in the law in Queensland who tookQueensland succession law to the forefront ofsuccession law in Australia when it wasenacted in 1981. It is smart, sensible lawdrafted by Tony Lee, who incidentally was mylecturer at university. I would not want toembarrass him by claiming that that gave meanything more than anyone else, but he wascertainly an excellent lecturer and an excellentdraftsman. I also refer to John De Groote fromthe Law Society. He made his efforts inrelation to succession law a real labour of love.He has also written an excellent book inrelation to probate law administration andpractice in Queensland. We have been luckyto have two very good texts and good drafting.I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ)(12.16 a.m.): I rise to support theGovernment's Succession and Other ActsAmendment Bill. The wish of a parent toensure the safety and wellbeing of their child inthe event of their own death is one of the mostnatural and basic of all parental instincts. I amsure that the current inability of parents whomay be in ill health to make and enforce thisdecision has the potential to cause greatanguish to themselves and their families. I feelthat it is particularly important in this day andage when so many marriages fail that there isthe ability to make considered decisions inadvance as to what situation is going toprovide an orphaned child with the bestprospects of growing into a happy, functionaladult in a loving and caring environment.

The only point of concern with this Bill isthat I feel that its provisions may be able to beused in a situation where the custodial parentin a failed relationship may, in the event of


their death, spitefully attempt to deny custodyof a child to the surviving biological parent. Thesurviving parent should not be placed in asituation where they are forced to fight in thecourts for the right to care for their child. Theright to care for one's own child should be anabsolute, provided that no court has ruled thatparent to be unfit for the role. If the Ministercan give a clear assurance that the rights ofthe surviving parent will be protected, CityCountry Alliance will be supporting the Bill.

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (12.18 a.m.), in reply: Ithank honourable members for theircontribution to the debate and for their supportof this Bill. Let me turn to the contribution ofthe member for Warwick. The honourablemember indicated that he was approachingthe Bill in a bipartisan manner, for which Ithank him. He then sought to make criticism ofthe manner in which the Child Protection Actrepealed the relevant provision. Let me simplydraw to the honourable member's attentionthat, in that regard, it was in exactly the sameposition as the Children and Families Bill 1997tabled by Minister Lingard in this House on 28October 1997. I draw that to his attention inthe generous spirit of bipartisanship with whichthe honourable member sought to drawattention to that point. The simple point is this:there is a need for this area of the law to beclarified. It is also important that deeds inexistence be given ongoing force. It is alsoimportant that it be in its proper place, which isin the Succession Act, rather than in childwelfare legislation.

I now turn to other points raised by thehonourable member. The honourable memberraised the question: why is it done by way ofwill instead of by way of deed as well? I thankthe honourable member for Lytton, who I thinkanswered that point satisfactorily. Appointmentby deed is somewhat anachronistic andsomewhat inappropriate. The Bill provides insection 259A for the continuation of the validityof those, but in an age where we have theFamily Court and other courts to deal withthese matters it is appropriate to havetestamentary guardianship but not to continuethe practice of doing it by deed.

The provisions which pick up on Aboriginaland Islander customary parenting approachesare really designed to show respect forAboriginal and Islander custom. I am awarethat the honourable member for Warwick hasspoken in support of Aboriginal customary lawon other occasions. This applies it in the areaof family law.

With respect to the issue of the authorityof the testamentary guardian vis-a-vis thesurviving parent, at the end of the day if thereis a problem it is a matter for the courts todetermine. This is about ensuring that a parentcan make some provision for his or her child inthe event of death. Why is such a provisionalso made where the guardian is not a parent?It is because people can become guardiansnot simply by testamentary means but moreoften by appointment by the court. They thencarry out the roles, responsibilities and dutiesof a guardian, and in that respect they stand inthe shoes of the parent—in loco parentis.

I turn my attention from the shadowAttorney-General to the shadow shadowAttorney-General, the honourable member forClayfield. It is interesting that the Liberal Partyhas not yet given up hope of regaining theJustice portfolio, although pinning its hopes onthe member for Clayfield shows the triumph ofhope over experience that characterises theLiberal Party. The honourable member urgedthat there be steps to inform the public, and Iconcur with that view. Certainly we haveworked with the Queensland Law Society onthis matter and will continue to do so to ensurethat members of the profession are fully andadequately informed and, hence, members ofthe public can be informed, particularly at thetime they come to make their wills.

In the May 2000 edition of Proctor, thejournal of the Queensland Law Society, MrBruce Doyle, President of the Family LawPractitioners Association of Queensland, wrotecommending the Child Protection Act 1999.He also states—

"Under the Borbidge Government theChildren and Families Bill was developed.The structure of the Bill was the same asthe new Act but some of the philosophieswere different. In 1996 Governmentconsultation with the legal profession waslimited. In 1998, the consultation processfor the Child Protection Act 1999 wasbetter, with wide consultation."

That is a glowing reference for theMinister for Families from the legal profession.The same edition of Proctor, which speakspositively of the Child Protection Act 1999,notes also the issue of the testamentaryappointment of guardians. I thank the LawSociety for its assistance. I thank the membersfor Lytton and Ipswich West for theircontributions, and I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Motion agreed to.


CommitteeClauses 1 to 9, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Foley, by leave, read

a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.26 a.m.(Friday).

Documents

Hansard 9 November 2000 - parliament.qld.gov.au · Residents Association (Inc.) 27 Bathurst Street ELLIOTT HEADS Q 4670 Dear Mrs Phillips I refer to your letter of 25 September 2000