wednesday, 18 october 2000

18 Oct 2000 Legislative Assembly 3741

WEDNESDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2000

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

ASSENT TO BILLSMr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable

members, I have to inform the House that Ihave received from His Excellency theGovernor a letter in respect of assent to certainBills, the contents of which will be incorporatedin the records of Parliament.

GOVERNMENT HOUSEQUEENSLAND16 October 2000The Honourable R. K. Hollis, MLASpeaker of the Legislative AssemblyParliament HouseGeorge StreetBRISBANE OLD 4000Dear Mr SpeakerI hereby acquaint the Legislative Assembly thatthe following Bills, having been passed by theLegislative Assembly and having beenpresented for the Royal Assent, were assentedto in the name of Her Majesty The Queen on 13October 2000:"A Bill for an Act to amend the Penalties andSentences Act 1992, the Juvenile Justice Act1992 and the Childrens Court Act 1992""A Bill for an Act to amend the criminal law andfor other purposes""A Bill for an Act to amend the Evidence Act1977""A Bill for an Act to amend the Electricity Act1994""A Bill for an Act to amend the Child Care Act1991""A Bill for an Act to amend Acts administered bythe Minister for Transport and Minister for MainRoads"The Bills are hereby transmitted to theLegislative Assembly, to be numbered andforwarded to the proper Officer for enrolment,in the manner required by law.Yours sincerely(sgd) Peter ArnisonGovernor

PETITIONSThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petitions—

Fuel PricesFrom Mr Borbidge (37 petitioners)

requesting the House to call on the Premier of

Queensland, The Hon Peter Beattie MLA, toimmediately establish a Royal Commission ofInquiry with powers to investigate the retail fuelprice in the State of Queensland.

Redlynch State SchoolFrom Dr Clark (311 petitioners)

requesting the House help the Redlynch StateSchool obtain a second preschool unit.

Penalties and SentencesFrom Mr Rowell (82 petitioners)

requesting the House to release thosecurrently in jail for non-payment of fines toserve community-based sentences as a firstoption as opposed to a fine option order whichhas a higher chance of failure resulting inimprisonment and that the money saved bythese means be devoted to resourcingcommunity-based options for fine defaultersincluding restorative justice options. Thisshould include adequately resourcing theState Penalties Enforcement Register (SPER)so as to be fully effective.

Petrie-Redcliffe Rail LinkFrom Mr Wells (3,946 petitioners)

requesting the House to require theGovernment of Queensland to construct a raillink along the existing Petrie to Redcliffe railcorridor as a matter of urgency.

Houghton HighwayFrom Mr Wells (5,520) petitioners,

requesting the House to require theGovernment of Queensland to duplicate theexisting Houghton Highway as a matter ofurgency.

Petitions received.

PAPERThe Clerk informed the House of the

tabling of the following document—MINISTERIAL RESPONSE TO APARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTThe following response to a parliamentarycommittee report was tabled by The Clerk—

Response from the Minister for Education(Mr Wells) to Report No. 68 of the PublicWorks Committee entitled The BentleyPark College.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTSalinity

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: One of

3742 Legislative Assembly 18 Oct 2000

the very important matters that will bediscussed at the Council of AustralianGovernments meeting in Canberra on 3November is the national problem of salinity.On 10 October the Commonwealth releasedthe paper entitled "Our Vital Resources: ANational Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality in Australia". This paper sets out theCommonwealth's planned actions to addresssalinity and deteriorating water quality in keycatchments and regions across Australia. TheCommonwealth intends this to be the basis ofdiscussions at COAG.

Queensland stands ready to play acooperative role in addressing this pressingenvironmental issue, despite the fact that thepaper does not address the full sweep ofnatural resource problems confrontingQueensland. First and foremost, theCommonwealth is not putting up a $1.5 billionpackage as it suggests in its media releases.The reality is that the Federal Government isproviding $700m over seven years to all theStates and Territories. That works out to$100m per year in total, and that then has tobe split among the seven States andTerritories.

If we divide it evenly, that works out toabout $14.3m per year for Queensland. Theonly way that the Commonwealth can createthe illusion of $1.5 billion in funding is bydemanding a dollar-for-dollar contribution fromthe States. It is no wonder the environmentmovement attacked the package as beinginadequate and tokenism, particularly whenthe Australian Conservation Foundation andthe National Farmers Federation said it wouldtake billions of dollars to do the job properly.

The package also fails Queensland in thearea of tree clearing. The prime cause ofdryland salinity is tree clearing, yet the nine-page document that the Prime Minister put outcontains three short paragraphs on treeclearing, and these do little more than repeatwhat the State legislation already covers. Theoverwhelming focus of the package is dealingwith the degradation already caused by poorland use, particularly in southern States, ratherthan trying to prevent the damage occurring inthe first place, as in Queensland where we stillhave large tracts of land and river systems ingood shape.

While Queensland has been dealing withpreventive measures, John Howard is focusedon trying to repair damage already caused.That is fair enough as long as we go to thepreventive stage as well. In short, this packageis largely for the southern States, not forQueensland. As well, the package is deficient

because it should include biodiversityprotection and greenhouse gas reduction, butit does neither. Trying to prevent salinitywithout addressing these two major issues islike trying to drive a car with two wheels: it isjust not possible or sensible. It is politicallyirresponsible.

Queensland has already made someprogress on these complex issues. Forexample, our Vegetation Management Actalready rules out tree clearing in areas subjectto land degradation such as salinity. MrHoward's land clearing section merelysuggests this action as a starting point. TheQueensland river catchments that his plantargets are already the subject of QueenslandGovernment initiated water managementplans, several of which are at a very advancedstage. We are already doing the work that thePrime Minister is seeking from other States.That is already happening in Queensland.

The Queensland Government hasinvested close to $200m in the South-EastQueensland Regional Forest Agreement andin vegetation management, and we wouldexpect dollar-for-dollar funding from theFederal Government for these schemes as astarting point, and I call on the Prime Ministerto fund accordingly. Twice I approached thePrime Minister for Federal financial assistanceand twice I received not one cent. The $5moffered by Wilson Tuckey in recent times is aninsult to Queensland and Queensland farmers.

Queensland has done the hard yards,taken the political pain, spent the necessarymoney and consulted widely, despite MrHoward refusing to help in any way.Regardless of the obvious shortcomings of thispackage, however, we stand ready tocontribute to the further development of thispackage in a positive way. We believe we canimprove it markedly, which will be to theadvantage of the Commonwealth as well asthe States, in particular Queensland.

I look forward to discussing improvementsto the package at the COAG meeting nextmonth. At COAG I will be saying thatQueensland has catchments and regions thatare ready to commence detailed actionplanning or where investments will avoid costlydegradation. John Howard's own documentsays that these would be exactly the mosteffective starting point for his strategy. I willalso be telling COAG that Queensland has aproposal to provide compensation to freeholdfarmers affected by our original tree-clearinglaws.

John Howard's document states that theCommonwealth is prepared to contribute funds

18 Oct 2000 Ministerial Statement 3743

to compensate, to promote land use changeand to address dryland salinity. In eachexample, Queensland has a compelling casefor immediate priority attention under the termsof the Prime Minister's strategy, and thatmeans funds. I say to John Howard: stopignoring Queensland and fund accordingly.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTOlympic, Paralympic and Goodwill Games;

Operation Champion

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (9.38 a.m.), by leave: OnMonday last week it was my great pleasure,along with other Ministers, to help say"welcome home" to the Olympic athletes whotook part in the parade through Brisbanestreets. It was fantastic to see so manyQueenslanders—around 100,000—turn out tocongratulate the athletes who did this Stateand this country so very proud at the SydneyOlympic Games. It was great to see their pride,their delight and gratitude on show. I am surethat the athletes who were being honouredcould feel the emotion of the crowd.

I had the opportunity to speak with someof the athletes personally at a function hostedby the State Government and attended by theMinister for Sport and I at Parliament Houseon Sunday, 8 October. These two tributeswere richly deserved after the magnificentperformances we saw at the Olympics.Queensland's Olympians played a major rolein Australia's success at the Sydney Games.They helped achieve our best-ever medal haulat an Olympic Games—58 medals and a totalof 180 medals for individual athletes. They didit with pride and, more importantly, as greatsportsmen and women.

Of course, our attention now turns to theParalympic Games. I wish the Queenslandand Australian competitors every success, as Iam sure all members of Parliament do.Tonight is the official opening of theParalympic Games. Being selected for aParalympic team is a great achievement. TheState Government has shown its pride byproviding bonus payments of $10,800 to the45 Queensland athletes who will compete atthe Games. When Parliament sat less thantwo weeks ago, the Minister for Sport, TerryMackenroth, and I had a ceremony atParliament House to present the athletes withtheir cheques. I should point out that that isthe same amount granted to Olympic athletes.

The athletes have rightly been the focusof public pride and acclamation. However,there is another group of people deserving ofpraise and acknowledgment. These people

are the volunteers who gave their time andenergy to help make the Sydney Games agreat success. I am told that many visitors tothe Games remarked on the friendly face thatSydney presented through the volunteers. Itwas almost like they were in Queensland!Around 2,900 Queenslanders volunteered forthe Olympic and Paralympic Games, including750 Olympic volunteers for the soccer inBrisbane. All volunteers received a certificateof thanks from SOCOG and a uniform andaccessories package to the reported value of$500.

The Brisbane football volunteers alsoreceived free public transport to and from theGabba, SOCOG orientation training and venuespecific training, accreditation and meals, acomplimentary ticket to one of the footballmatches and an invitation to a post-Gamesbarbecue at South Bank on 1 October to viewthe Sydney closing ceremony on a large-screen television. As well, the sportsdepartment coordinated 59 student volunteersfrom three Brisbane universities—GriffithUniversity, the Queensland University ofTechnology and the University of Queensland.

The volunteers worked at sevenorganisations to assist with pre-Games trainingcamps and competitions. Those organisationswere Baseball Queensland Inc., NudgeeCollege, the Queensland Cyclist AssociationInc., the Sleeman Centre, QueenslandAthletics from the State Athletics Centre, UQSport and the International Sport Unit fromSport and Recreation Queensland. Thestudents received credit points towards theirsport-related degrees. Another 405 volunteerswere used by the British Olympic Associationto assist with its pre-Games training camp onthe Gold Coast. Some 95% of the volunteerswere Griffith University students. The studentvolunteers who were given a position ofauthority received credit points towards theirsport/leisure management degrees.

We are hoping that these volunteers willagain offer their time and experience for theGoodwill Games to be held in Brisbane nextyear. At the official reception at City Hall, anumber of volunteers asked me what avenuesthere would be through the Goodwill Games.The Brisbane Goodwill Games, as well as surf-lifesaving on the Gold Coast, are to be heldfrom 29 August to 9 September. It will be themost prestigious event on the world's sportingcalendar in 2001. The Goodwill Games willrequire about 3,000 specialist volunteers, thatis, people with sport or medical backgrounds,as well as generalists who can work inpositions from managers to assistants acrossall divisions in the organisations at all venues.

3744 Ministerial Statement 18 Oct 2000

The Goodwill Games has just appointed avolunteer program manager and is lookingforward to tapping into the same communityspirit that made the Olympics such a success. Iam advised that the Goodwill Games peopleare receiving up to 80 calls a day from peopleinterested in their volunteer program. Many ofthese people have already been volunteers forthe Olympics and Paralympics, as well asothers who have been enthused by thesuccess of the Olympic volunteer programboth here and in Sydney. Quite a number, ofcourse, were involved in the Indy on theweekend.

Finally, I want to mention that at1.30 p.m. today on the Speaker's Green I willbe joined by my pet Rusty to askQueenslanders to dob in a dog fight—a littlebit like Parliament last night, Mr Speaker. Thisis a national first for the Queensland RSPCA,with the idea due to expand to the entirecountry next year. The RSPCA recorded its firstsuccessful prosecution for organised dogfighting earlier this year.

Mr Borbidge: Have you got Rusty on theroll?

Mr BEATTIE: My dog is twice as bright asyou are, young man. It believes that there areother dog fights being organised inQueensland and needs the public's help tostop this cruel and barbaric behaviour.

The RSPCA is calling the phone-inoperation Operation Champion and wouldwelcome calls on any other cruel activities suchas cock fighting and greyhound blooding.Anyone in Brisbane who can help should ring3848 1766 and those outside Brisbane shouldring 1800 612 188. The lines will be open from8 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. on Thursday and Friday,19 and 20 October. We cannot allow people toforce dogs to tear one another apart simply sopeople can bet on the result. I would askeveryone who loves their dog—in fact, eventhose who do not have a dog but who still lovedogs—to make sure that they help support theRSPCA in Operation Champion.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

IT & T Industry

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Minister for Communication andInformation, Local Government and Planningand Minister for Sport) (9.44 a.m.), by leave:The Real Women, Unreal Jobs Role ModelDay is being held today at the QueenslandClunies Ross Centre for Science and Industry.The event is being hosted by the QueenslandWomen in Information Technology Industry

Association, more commonly referred to asWIT. The Real Women, Unreal Jobs eventprovides an important opportunity to positivelyhighlight women's achievements andparticipation in the IT industry. Currently, manywomen see IT & T jobs as too maledominated. There are a lot of myths about theprofession, that it is technically driven andboring. A different image of IT & T needs to bepromoted— one less about technology, moreabout people and personal interactions andone with family-friendly working and lifestyleconditions.

Another problem is attracting women intoIT & T courses and careers. Only 20% ofIT & T students and employees are women.The latest statistical information availableshows that there is little sign of any increasinginterest. Changing this trend needs to beaddressed through partnerships between boththe school system and by changing theindustry culture, which needs to bedemonstrated by key industry players. TheReal Women, Unreal Jobs initiative is aimed atencouraging more females to select IT & Trelated education and enter the IT & Tindustry.

As outlined in our Government's strategy,IT & T Skills in the Smart State, this is a keyarea of priority for Government. The RealWomen, Unreal Jobs showcase will providereal-life examples of female role modelsworking successfully in the IT & T industry.Queensland women will provide their ownstories and first-hand experiences to inspirethe audience of the interesting and excitingopportunities that the IT & T industry providesfor people. The event is aimed at secondaryschool students from Years 8 to 12, universitystudents and women looking to changecareers. Rural and regional Queenslandcoverage has been arranged as part of theevent's program via a live video stream on theInternet to ensure that audiences around theState also benefit and are able to share thesewomen's valuable knowledge andexperiences.

The event has received assistancethrough my department's IT & T Skills, Trainingand Role Models, or the I-STAR program. TheI-STAR program assists industry, educationaland training institutions and State and localauthorities with projects that contribute towardsaddressing and overcoming the IT & T skillsshortage. The first round of the program, whichclosed in July, received a large number ofinnovative and competitive applications fromacross Queensland. The successful applicantsare undertaking a range of projects located inareas as close as the Gold Coast and as far


away as the Gulf of Carpentaria. I havealready allocated $200,000 to successfulprojects in the first round.

I am fully supportive of initiatives such asthis, particularly those which encourage morewomen and girls to think seriously about thecareer and learning opportunities that the IT &T industry presents. The Real Women, UnrealJobs initiative is just one shining example ofhow industry and Government in partnershipare trying to turn current trends around byimproving the reputation of IT & T as a careeroption among female students and showingyoung Queenslanders where the employmentgrowth opportunities of the future will be.


Queensland Economy

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP)(Treasurer) (9.49 a.m.), by leave:Queenslanders can look forward to a brightand prosperous future over the next few years.In fact, the latest independent assessment ofQueensland's economic performance byAccess Economics predicts continued stronggrowth for the State. The predictions arecontained in the September quarter 2000issue of Access Economics' Five YearBusiness Outlook. Access Economics is veryup-beat about Queensland's prospects. Itpredicts—

"Queensland will slug it out withWestern Australia to be the nation'sfastest growing State."

The report acknowledges Queensland's solidperformance during most of the 1990s, withgrowth generally above 4%. It goes on tostate—

"Even better, the pace lifted in thepast year, with the pre-GST spike pushingoutput gains towards 8%—the best since1994."

Of course, those figures tell us what hasalready occurred. The really good news in thislatest report is that Access Economicspredicts—

"Queensland may perform evenbetter in the next few years."

The report forecasts growth of more than 10%a year in the tourism industry, helped along bythe massive international publicity splurge thataccompanied the Olympics and furthersupported by next year's Goodwill Games inBrisbane.

The report also highlights the significantinvestment under way in the Queenslandeconomy. What is encouraging is that, despite

the knocking and the whingeing, whiningnegativity of the Opposition, AccessEconomics points out that there are more than$8 billion of industrial and resource projectsunder construction in this State. It makesparticular mention of the boost in infrastructurespending in the power industry, transport andcommunications, much of which is occurring asa direct result of the $15 billion injected intocapital works projects by this Government. Thiseconomic activity is expected to beunderpinned by continued strong populationgrowth, and it is forecast that Queensland willaccount for a rising share of national output.

The report also reinforces the diversityand resilience of the Queensland economy. Itpoints out that strong economic growth hasbeen achieved at a time when the residentialhousing industry has been in the doldrumsbecause of earlier overbuilding. AccessEconomics predicts that building activity willrecover to more normal levels in the mediumterm—something we all look forward to.

This is an excellent report card on thestrength of the Queensland economy. It is anexcellent report card on the economicmanagement of this Government and it willhelp foster ongoing confidence from thebusiness community. The predictions in thisreport are very positive. What we have toremember is that economic growth is not justabout some statistics on a balance sheet. It isabout jobs, pay cheques and futures forQueenslanders and their families. On thosecounts the outlook is very positive indeed.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTBrisbane Magistrates Court

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP)(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice andMinister for The Arts) (9.52 a.m.), by leave:This Government is committed to ensuring thatour court system is reflective of the needs andaspirations of the community. It has sought toreflect those aspirations with the appointmentof judicial officers to reflect the diversity of thecommunity, as well as with the appointment ofjudges' associates on merit and not on thebasis of nepotism.

The Government has also providedfunding to support the courts with newtechnology to assist with case management,the streamlining of registry procedures andaccessibility of information to both courts andtheir users. These days judgments can beaccessed free of charge through the Internet.People can also get information on hearingdays and list matters via the Net. Judges canelectronically access materials even when on


circuit. There are now two courts in theBrisbane courts complex, including an appealcourt, set up to receive evidence via videotransmission. A court has been prepared toview scenes of crimes using advancedtechnology developed by police.

Technological advances are nowextending to the Magistrates Courts. I ampleased to announce that the major computerinitiative, the Courts Modernisation Project, hasreached a significant milestone. The hardwareand communication links for Queensland's 80permanent Magistrates Courts registries wereinstalled by mid 1999. Custom-built softwarewhich provides a criminal and domesticviolence case management and financialsystem for all Magistrates Courts is now beingrolled out across the State. So far, 42 courtsand approximately 70% of the courts' 600 staffmembers have access to the system. Eachcourt and staff member will have access bymid November. For the first time, access to allcriminal and domestic violence cases will bepossible from any court in the State.

This Government is also committed to theprovision of appropriate court facilities. Itscommitment is reflected in the fact that it fullycosts and fully funds its capital works projects. Iam pleased to announce that my departmentwill be seeking expressions of interest for thedesign of the new Brisbane Magistrates Courtcomplex in Saturday's newspaper.

The decision not to proceed with theinner-city light rail project resulted in changesto transport plans for the area. These changeshave meant that the complex will now beconstructed on the eastern rather than thewestern end of Queensland Place. Extensivework already undertaken by my department inrelation to the requirements for the courtscomplex will be made available to thearchitects selected to design the complex.

Unlike our predecessor, we had nointention of proceeding with the courtscomplex without having the capacity to directlyfund it. However, to ensure that the people ofQueensland get the best value for theirmoney, the private sector will be given theopportunity to submit funding proposals forconstruction of the complex in accordance withthe selected design. Proposals for purchase bythe State on completion of construction, or ata later date, will be rigorously tested againstthe cost of publicly funded construction forwhich provision has been made. If a netsaving to the public purse can bedemonstrated, this Government is prepared toenter into a private sector financing

arrangement. If no such saving can bedemonstrated, it will fund the construction.

While Brisbane will get a new MagistratesCourt complex, the program of providingmodern court facilities throughout the State willcontinue. As well as new community justicecentres in Doomadgee, Bamaga andKowanyama, a new centre will be built atPormpuraaw. Consultation between mydepartment and the community is alreadyunder way. Courthouses in Mount Isa,Mackay, Maryborough and at Wynnum willalso be significantly upgraded, while a newcourthouse will be built at Inala. ThisGovernment stands for action—properlyplanned, properly funded and properlydelivered.


Cancer Action WeekHon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha—

ALP) (Minister for Health) (9.56 a.m.), by leave:As members would be aware, last week wasCancer Action Week. As everyone knows,cancer is a major cause of ill health and deaththroughout the world. In Queensland, morethan 15,000 people every year are diagnosedwith cancer. A growing and ageing population,especially here in Queensland because ofmigration to the Sunshine State by retirees,means that the actual numbers of people withcancer are very much on the increase.However, it must be said that every effort isbeing made by our health professionals andour research scientists in Queensland toprevent cancer occurring and to provide thevery best clinical management when it does.

There is ample evidence that changes insome human behaviours and lifestyle choicescan substantially reduce the burden of cancerin Queensland. Smoking, for example, isresponsible for up to 30% of all cancers. TheGovernment's Tobacco Action Plan, approvedby Cabinet this week, is therefore a very timelyinitiative.

The wonderful efforts of our healthprofessionals and research scientists are beingbacked up by this Government with action. InAugust I launched the Radiation OncologyServices Plan 2000—2003. The purpose ofthe plan is to ensure that the delivery ofservices for cancer patients in Queensland isproperly planned and funded. Included in thisplan for the next three years is a $25mcommitment for extra staffing and newequipment. This includes the establishment ofan $8m radiotherapy unit at the PrincessAlexandra Hospital and new linear accelerators


at the Mater, Royal Brisbane and TownsvilleHospitals.

As I said when launching the plan, as faras this Government is concerned the days ofad hoc planning for cancer services in thisState are over. I must say that theGovernment has been widely applauded forthis approach. For example, Dr Liz Kenny,dean of the faculty of radiation oncology at theRoyal Australian and New Zealand College ofRadiologists, wrote—

"Your announcement last week ofnew funding and strategic planning for theprovision of radiation oncology equipmentin Queensland is extremely welcome. It istimely and is to be greatly applauded".Today I seek leave to table the

complementary document to the RadiationOncology Services Plan 2000—2003. Thisdocument is titled "Cancer in Queensland—AReport on Queensland Health's Achievements1998-2000 and Activities 2000—2001". Thisreport spells out Queensland Health'scommitment of resources from 1998 to 2000and articulates our proposed activity over thenext year. Our priorities, developed as a resultof extensive collaboration with public andprivate sector cancer control experts, areprevention, treatment, palliative care,psychosocial and supportive care, andsystems/quality enhancement.

While I do not have time to go into greatdetail, I will give just a few examples of whatwe have done and what we are doing in thefight against cancer. This Government hascommitted $20m over four years to enhancethe infrastructure of the Queensland Instituteof Medical Research. We have investedalmost $18.5m annually in the BreastScreenQueensland and Queensland cervical cancerscreening programs. We have invested $3.5mto establish school-based youth health nursepositions across the State to assist with theprevention of risky behaviours, includingsmoking. This year we are investing $400,000to progress the Queensland Tobacco ActionPlan and enhancing the BreastScreen andcervical cancer screening programs by$600,000. We are investing $280,000 in aStatewide melanoma screening trial. We areproviding $350,000 for a centre for palliativecare research and education and $160,000 fora 24-hour Statewide telephone support servicefor palliative care.

I have just touched on some of the finework under way here in Queensland. Irecommend that members read the report. Iseek leave to table the report for theinformation of members.

Leave granted.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTPolice to Population Ratios

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP)(Minister for Police and Corrective Services)(10 a.m.), by leave: With successive recordbudgets for the Queensland Police Service,the introduction of enhanced police powersand the delivery on a promise to significantlyboost the number of police officers in thisState, the Beattie Labor Government hasmade its commitment to law and orderabundantly clear.

The latest statistics on the police topopulation ratios for each police district in thisState show how our commitment to puttingmore officers on the beat throughoutQueensland is having a positive effect. At theoutset, I should reiterate the words of mypredecessor, the member for Crows Nest, andcaution against taking police to populationratios as the only indicator of police strength.They are not. For example, when we talkabout average police to population ratios, weneed to keep in mind that sparsely populatedareas will have ratios significantly lower thanthe State average, while densely populatedareas will have figures which are higher.However, a comparison of the figures over aperiod of time are useful for showing trends.And the trend revealed when the figures noware compared with those which applied underthe previous Government show a very cleartrend—clear evidence of more police per headof population in Queensland.

I have very great pleasure in being able toinform the House today that, in almost everypolice district in Queensland, the police topopulation ratio has fallen, and significantly.This result, which differentiates Queenslandfrom every other Australian State, where policeforces are actually shrinking, is a direct result ofthe Beattie Labor Government's commitmentto boosting police numbers. As I have pointedout in this House previously, this Governmenthas achieved a net increase in police numbersof more than 700—a result almost double thatachieved by the members opposite duringtheir entire previous term.

Importantly, the improvement in police topopulation ratios has been achieved in everyone of the eight regions in this State. InCairns, the ratio has fallen from a figure of 1officer to every 534 people at the time thisGovernment was elected to 1 to 443 now. InTownsville, the ratio has fallen from 1 officer toevery 581 people to 1 to 496 now. In Gympie,the figure has fallen from 1 to 630 to 1 to 526.In Dalby, the figure has fallen from 1 to 609 to1 to 529. On the Gold Coast, the ratio has


fallen from 1 to 631 to 1 to 602. In Oxley, thefigure has fallen from 1 to 898 to 1 to 781. InClayfield/Hendra, the ratio has fallen from 1 to904 to 1 to 711. In Gladstone, the ratio hasfallen from 1 officer to every 628 to 1 per every581 people. These are examples from each ofthe eight police regions in Queensland.

By any measure, those figures representa significant achievement and a significantcommitment to boosting police numbers inQueensland. Those statistics show that thisGovernment is delivering on its promises andmaking a real difference to Queenslandcommunities.


Electrical Safety Switch CampaignHon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP)

(Minister for Mines and Energy and MinisterAssisting the Deputy Premier on RegionalDevelopment) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: Electricalsafety in the home is an issue that allmembers would be concerned about. Over thepast 10 years, 45 people have died inQueensland as the result of electricalaccidents in the home. The experts tell methat 40 of these deaths could most likely havebeen prevented if a safety switch had beeninstalled where those accidents occurred. Thisis a fact that we must try to address, becausealthough the installation of safety switchesbecame compulsory for all homes built since1992, there are still about half a millionQueensland homes unprotected.

Electricity kills, but unfortunately in thismodern world we tend to become morecomplacent about its use. There is nosubstitute for safe behaviour, but installation ofa safety switch in the home will provide agreatly enhanced level of protection if theworst happens. There have been efforts madeboth by this Government and by the previousGovernment over the years to either providerebates or otherwise encourage people toinstall safety switches. These programs hadmoderate success but have never spurredlarge numbers of householders into action.Market research has shown that, although asmall percentage of people are aware of thefunction of a safety switch, others arecomplacent about the danger or find that theinitial up-front cost is a barrier despite previousrebate schemes. Our job is to help overcomethe complacency and spur people into action.

Mr Speaker, I have pleasure in informingyou today of another important initiative toimprove electrical safety in homes andworkplaces. This involves a Statewidepromotion of electrical safety switches through

extensive television advertising and a safetyweek, both aimed at influencingQueenslanders to install electrical safetyswitches. This campaign is based on the factsof life as determined by market research. It ishard hitting to make Queenslanders awarethat these tragedies do affect families just likethemselves.

I am especially pleased to advise that theNational Electrical and CommunicationsAssociation, Energex and Ergon Energy are allsupporting this campaign extensively. Thethree will combine resources to enableQueenslanders to provide central contactpoints for arranging an electrical contractor toinstall a safety switch. Time payment will beavailable via a customer's electricity account sothat a switch can be installed as soon aspossible. The three organisations will also playa major role in the Electrical Safety Weekplanned for 12-18 November.

I suggest that all members can assist inthis campaign by promoting the benefits ofthese proven safety devices, because if wecan save just one life, then it will be worthwhile.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTAustralian Top 20 Tourist Destinations

Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP)(Minister for Tourism and Racing) (10.07 a.m.),by leave: Eight Queensland regions havemade the list of Australia's top 20 destinationsfor international tourists. The Gold Coast,tropical north and Brisbane made the top fivebehind Sydney and Melbourne; the SunshineCoast and Whitsundays came in at 10 and 11;and Hervey Bay/Maryborough, northernQueensland and the Fitzroy regions ranked15, 16 and 17. The latest International VisitorSurvey—IVS—figures for 1999 show thatQueensland destinations far outrank all otherStates in the popularity stakes. In fact, weboast double the representation of any otherState. The Northern Territory had the secondhighest number of regions in the top 20, and ithad only four. New South Wales was evenfurther behind with three; Victoria had two;while Western Australia, the ACT and SouthAustralia all had only their capitals in the top20. This is an outstanding result for tourism inQueensland and reaffirms our position asAustralia's No. 1 holiday State.

The results are proof that Queensland'sdestination marketing strategies continue to hitthe mark in targeting international visitors.Queensland has everything internationalvisitors are looking for, from a great climate toa unique natural environment and a laid-back,

18 Oct 2000 Private Members' Statements 3749

friendly lifestyle. It is particularly encouraging tosee emerging markets such as HerveyBay/Maryborough, northern Queensland andthe Fitzroy area make the top 20. TheSunshine Coast and Whitsunday regions alsoimproved their rankings. In 1998, the SunshineCoast was Australia's 11th most populardestination for international visitors. In 1999, itmoved to 10th position. The Whitsundays hasrisen from 12th to 11th position. This is afantastic achievement for these regions. Theincreasing popularity of these areas is proof ofhow important regional tourism is to this State.

The survey also revealed: 1,950,200international visitors came to Queensland in1999; Gold Coast theme parks and the GreatBarrier Reef were the State's most popularattractions with 35% of overseas visitorstravelling to each; 73% of international visitorsto Queensland came for the main purpose ofa holiday—the highest percentage of anyState in Australia; Japan remainedQueensland's biggest international market,with 75% of Japanese visitors to Australiacoming to Queensland; the Gold Coast andtropical north Queensland were the mostpopular destinations for Japanese visitors, with50% visiting the coast and 25% the tropicalnorth; 66% of international backpackers visitedQueensland, with more than one quarter ofAustralian backpacker nights spent in theSunshine State; and, overall, internationalvisitor nights in Queensland made up 23% ofthe Australian total.

Tourism contributes more than $8 billionto the Queensland economy each year, and itis encouraging to see our State maintain itsposition as Australia's most popular holidaydestination. Tourism is the State's secondlargest industry, employing more than 130,000people. Visitor numbers continue to rise andthe prospects for the immediate future arebright, thanks to the magnificent tourismproduct we have in Queensland and toexposure from the Sydney Olympics.

LEGAL, CONSTITUTIONAL ANDADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE

Report

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP)(10.11 a.m.): On behalf of the Legal,Constitutional and Administrative ReviewCommittee, I lay upon the table of the Housethose submissions and responses tocommittee requests for information which thecommittee has authorised for publication inrelation to its inquiry into the prevention ofelectoral fraud. On behalf of the committee, Itake this opportunity to thank those people

and organisations who have madesubmissions to our inquiry.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Moreton Bay Islands

Mr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ)(10.12 a.m.): I give notice that I will move—

"That this House calls on the BeattieLabor Government to order an immediateindependent judicial inquiry into the plightof the landowners of the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands, with terms ofreference to include suspect land dealingsin the original subdivision, the low level ofinfrastructure provision in comparison torate revenues collected, and possiblecollusion between State Governmentsand Redland Shire Council to resumeland by deceit under the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands Planning Study."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Queensland Labor Party

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.12 a.m.): As each day goes by and thisdivided and desperate political party oppositestarts to fracture—this scandal-riddenadministration—there are further revelations asto the extent of electoral corruption by theLabor Party and Labor identities. We see theclaim by a prominent Left Wing Labor identityin the Sydney Morning Herald today thatQueensland Labor faces its Watergate.

The allegation from Mr Jim O'Donnell sayshe has access to documents—

Government Members: Ha, ha!

Mr BORBIDGE: They laugh, Mr Speaker.They laugh at electoral fraud!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House willcome to order.

Mr BORBIDGE: I note that the Premier isparticipating in a function shortly with Rusty, hisdog. If he is up to form, Rusty will be on theelectoral roll. What we have—

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! There is apoint of order.

Mr BORBIDGE: We have claims from MrO'Donnell—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point oforder.

Mr BORBIDGE:—of documentaryevidence—

3750 Private Members' Statements 18 Oct 2000

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a point oforder.

Mr BORBIDGE:—across all tiers ofGovernment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leaderof the Opposition. I will not have this Housedisrupted. I now warn him under 123A.

Mr BORBIDGE: What did I do?

Mr SPEAKER: I told you, "Order! ThePremier is on his feet on a point of order."

Mr BORBIDGE: He is not on his feet.

Mr SPEAKER: He was.

Mr BORBIDGE: The claims say that— "The electoral roll rorting scandal

extended to all levels of the party ... Itdoes go right into the party at the State,the Federal and the municipal levels. Itreally is quite sickening what's going on inthe party."

What we are seeing day by day is a fracturedand desperate political party where people arenow starting to reveal what they know. Thisraises very serious questions as to thelegitimacy of the Premier himself.

Government Members: Ha, ha!

Mr BORBIDGE: They can laugh it off, buthe would like everyone—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember's time has expired.

Mr BORBIDGE: He would like everyone topretend—

Mr SPEAKER: I call the member forTownsville.

Mr BORBIDGE:—that he is an innocentbystander—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.The time has expired.

Housing Approvals; GST

Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP)(10.14 a.m.): I would like to talk about theimpact of the GST on housing approvals in theTownsville/Thuringowa area.

Opposition Members: Ha, ha!

Mr REYNOLDS: Well may the Oppositionlaugh about it, but it is a very, very seriousproblem for north Queensland.

The home building industry is suffering awhopping GST hangover which has takencouncil approvals in Townsville andThuringowa to the lowest level in 13 years, andwell may the Opposition laugh about that! Thisis the direct result of the GST. The HousingIndustry Association Northern Australia

Regional Director, Bruce Lean, said inTownsville two days ago that home buildinghad dived more than 60% in Townsville andThuringowa for the September quartercompared with the same period last year. Letme quote Mr Lean further. He says—

"It is a staggering fall and a lot ofpeople right now are hurting financially. Tomake matters worse, manysubcontractors were having to make theirfirst quarterly GST and tax BusinessActivity Statement payments."

This is a crisis for the building industry in northQueensland. In fact, what we see here is thathousing approvals have hit an all-time 13 yearlow at a time when Townsville and Thuringowawere going through unprecedented growth inthe last two decades. What we see as a directresult of the GST is a fall in the housingindustry for which Opposition members shouldhang their heads in shame.

It is their fault. They are the lackeys forCanberra. Where has the Opposition leaderbeen in terms of GST? He said nothing! Weknow that he said nothing because he is theweakie. He is the lackey for Canberra, and weknow he is.

The people in the building industry inTownsville and Thuringowa, indeed in northQueensland, are hurting. This 13-year low is acrippling blow that has been brought on by theOpposition's colleagues in Canberra, and theyknow it well.

Time expired.

Burdekin Bypass

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)(10.16 a.m.): In early September the Leader ofthe Opposition presented to this Parliament apetition from 1,012 petitioners in relation to theproposed Burdekin bypass. This petition calledupon the Minister for Transport and Minister forMain Roads, Steve Bredhauer, to act inaccordance with the wishes of the Burdekindistrict community and abandon the Burdekinbypass project. This petition also called uponthe Minister to abandon the proposed routeoptions on maps and, in particular, to havenotations by the Department of Main Roadsremoved from land titles.

This petition highlights the concern in theBurdekin community about the uncertainty thathas arisen from the indecision andprocrastination that has taken place in relationto this project. Because of the delays and thebuck-passing that has occurred with thisproject, there are now at least five proposedroutes for the bypass. The problem is that as


this project has dragged on the propertiesalong each of these routes have beenadversely affected by the notations on theirtitle documentation. The owners of thoseproperties have been seriously disadvantagedby the delays and indecision of this LaborGovernment.

The landowners have had enough. Theyare asking that this petition be presented tothe Government and that the Minister undothe damage that has been done. Landownershave been unable to sell their properties or, forthat matter, use their properties as security forthe development or ongoing maintenance oftheir holdings—all because of the actions ofthis Labor Government.

I join with Terry Marato and otherconcerned people in the Burdekin and ask thatthe Minister take heed of this petition and actto put an end to the bureaucratic strangling ofthis very productive Burdekin area.

Interruption.

PRIVILEGE

Burdekin Bypass

Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP)(Minister for Transport and Minister for MainRoads) (10.17 a.m.): I rise on a matter ofprivilege suddenly arising. The Burdekinbypass study is a study that is undertaken bythe State Department of Main Roads onbehalf of the coalition National Government,as it is part of the National Highway. Afterreceipt of that petition, I wrote to the NationalParty Deputy Prime Minister and Minister forTransport, John Anderson, who advised methat he wanted me to continue with the studyuntil it was finalised.

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourablemember for Nudgee.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Resumed.

Educational Facilities, Nudgee ElectorateMr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP)

(10.18 a.m.): The communities of Banyo,Nudgee, Nudgee Beach and Virginia Eastrecently participated in making one of the mostimportant decisions ever about localeducational facilities.

After an intense period of communitydebate, it has been decided to amalgamateNudgee primary school and Banyo State HighSchool into a single integrated preschool to

Year 12, or P-12, school on the grounds ofBanyo High. The creation of this school willinvolve the sale of all or the majority of Nudgeeprimary school land and will result in thecreation of a dynamic educational facilityrelevant to local needs.

This was a difficult decision by thecommunity, but one which, in the light of thebenefits that will accrue to our local children,was overwhelmingly supported at a recentpublic meeting. After more than two hours ofdebate, the motion to support the creation ofthe new P-12 school was carried on a vote of113 in favour and 18 against. Additionalindications of support were expressed in viewsrecorded at my office—25 in favour and 7against, and in written form, 16 in favour and 5against—in total representing a rate of supportof those who participated in the process of84%.

Together with the community, I lookforward to working with Education Queenslandand our local feeder schools, St Pius Catholicand Virginia and Northgate State Schools, toimplement this important community decision.I thank the Minister, the District Director, TomMould, and the local community for theirsupport and acknowledge the valuable work ofthose involved in the school's workingparty—principals Ian Crabb and John Swan;deputy principals Leah Richards and KylieSheehan; P & C presidents Jill Antuar andCindy Gerhardt and representatives AnnePerkins, Lee Scott and Kim Gymer; staffrepresentatives Bob Hutchings and DonnaBaker; community representative MorganReeder; and Richard Clifford from theAustralian Catholic University.

WorkCover

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)(10.21 a.m.): Today I am going to do theLabor Party a favour; I am going to talk aboutsomething other than Labor's"Rortergate"—although clearly this LaborGovernment views the State's WorkersCompensation Fund in the same way as itviews electoral rolls. Defrauding the fund is notreally a crime!

The fact is that the Beattie LaborGovernment has gone very soft on compocheats. There has been a 60% reduction inthe number of people prosecuted for workerscompensation fraud in Queensland in the past12 months. WorkCover successfullyprosecuted 88 Queensland workers for fraud in1997-98. This figure rose to 91 workers in1998-99, but plummeted to just 36 successfulprosecutions in 1999-2000. I am told that most

3752 Private Members' Statements 18 Oct 2000

of those 36 prosecutions proceeded onlybecause the employers, who had irrefutableevidence of fraud, insisted that WorkCovertake action.

Of course, we would all like to think thatthe dramatic drop is due to fewer workerstrying to rort the system. However, the realreason for the drop is a complete change inemphasis at WorkCover under Labor. Underthe coalition there was a concerted effort tomake sure that each claim was legitimate.There was a concerted effort to makeWorkCover efficient and accountable. But,under Labor, it is a completely different culture.It is virtually a case of "pay the claim with noquestions asked". The reason for this issimple. Labor and the unions do not regardabuse of workers compensation as fraud. Theysee it as a worker's perk. This attitude causespremiums to rise and means that there is lessmoney in the kitty for genuine cases.

WorkCover has not only gone soft oncompo cheats it has also stopped publicisingdetails of any cases it does happen toprosecute. Exposing compo cheats is a provendeterrent to others who might be inclined tolodge false claims. But WorkCover has gonesilent because Labor does not thinkdefrauding workers compensation is a crime.

With Labor's union mates dictating policyat WorkCover, convictions for fraud are rightdown while payouts for claims are right up.Last year, WorkCover paid out an extra$19.3m for statutory claims—an extra $19m!No-one on this side of the House begrudges apayment made to a genuine case. WorkCoverexists to provide protection to injured or illworkers. We fully support that. But we do notsupport a policy of "pay every claim, noquestions asked".

The Beattie Government talks about jobs,jobs, jobs. If WorkCover becomes a walk-upstart for compo cheats and payouts continueto blow out, premiums will rise, businesses willgo to the wall and jobs will be lost.

Time expired.

Taiwanese CommunityMrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP)

(10.23 a.m.): On 30 September, the secondlast day of the Olympics, over 1,500 peoplefilled the Brisbane City Hall for the 2000Rhythm of the Millennium charity concert. Ihad the pleasure of representing ourHonourable Premier that night and was able toexperience the musical talent and culture ofBrisbane's Taiwanese community. When theexcitement of the Olympics was at its peak,

the Taiwanese community was out supportinga worthy local charity, the QE II Hospital.$5,000 was donated to a good cause thatnight from the proceeds of the concert.

I congratulate Michelle Lee, chieforganiser of the Friends of Australasia YouthAssociation, for putting together this excellentevent. The Taiwanese Friendship Associationof Queensland and the Taiwan Women'sLeague joined forces with the youthassociation in the organisation of this charityconcert.

I am constantly in awe of the tremendousnetwork which pulls together to support theseevents. It seems that a single message goesout and the troops rally together to get behindthe cause. It was a unique way of celebratingthe national day of the Republic of China andTaiwan, and the delightful entertainment wasalso a valuable lesson in the history andculture of Taiwan.

The Queensland Government'smulticultural policy is aimed at promoting thebest from all that our cultural diversity offers.This country of ours is rich in many cultures. Itis great to see the friendships that occuracross cultures, the way we can work togetherfor the good of our nation and the sense ofnational pride which is expressed at all ofthese activities.

It is as important for Australians to learnabout other cultures as it is for new immigrantsto learn about and adapt to Australian society.Where one race believes it is superior toanother, disharmony and disruption will alwaysfester and eventually explode. It washeartening and symbolic to see the friendshipdisplayed as two cultures joined together onstage to sing We are the World for the finale.

Kirwan Women's HospitalMr TURNER (Thuringowa—IND)

(10.25 a.m.): The Kirwan Women's Hospitalhas again exceeded its budget this financialyear by $1m. Cuts have been made toessential services such as closing the midwivesclinic and closing an outreach clinic thatprovided professional treatment for isolatedwomen. The obstetric unit has been reducedto 25 beds despite a gradual increase indeliveries and an increase in the referral ofhigh-risk women and babies from rural andremote areas. Day surgery will now be the onlyoption for many women with gynaecologicalproblems requiring surgical intervention.Surgery patients will return from theatre to anarmchair. A 70-year-old gynaecology patientcould be placed in a bed beside a woman with


a new-born baby. This will place the baby atrisk of contracting infection, whilst placing avery sick surgical patient next to an unsettled,crying baby.

It is planned that the ward charge sisterwill surrender her present office and move towhat is currently a cupboard for rental TVs.Nursing staff numbers are critically shortbecause of funding cuts. Why, with cuts innursing staff, fewer beds for patients andappalling service to the public, is the annualbudget still being exceeded by in excess of$1m? Staff have told me that, while thenursing staff has come in under budget for thepast two years, the medical staff has been wellover budget. They have not been able to cutspending and have, in fact, poached fundsfrom nursing to finance the construction of newmedical offices and the rebuilding of overnightaccommodation for medical staff on call,despite there being other areas—not asflash—where they can rest.

For the past 10 months, the KirwanWomen's Hospital has employed a locumspecialist at a cost of $24,000 per month. Thisfigure is equivalent to half the yearly wage of amidwife. The overspending by the medicalpeople and the severe cutbacks to the nursingsection have created a situation bent ondisaster.

In a letter to my office, midwives andnursing staff at Kirwan Women's Hospitalsuggest—

"Wendy Edmond says thatQueensland has a very healthy healthservice, perhaps she needs to come outof fairyland and remove her blinkers."

I urge the Minister to consult with the midwivesat Kirwan Women's Hospital and to listen towhat they are saying.

State SchoolsMr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP)

(10.27 a.m.): I invite all honourable membersto join me in congratulating Queensland Stateschools. Many of their achievements are trulyremarkable and are worth repeating. In thismonth alone, Queensland State schoolstudents from Charters Towers, Wynnum,Miles, Chinchilla, Goondiwindi, Bundaberg,Mount Isa, Johnstone, Yeppoon, Ravenshoeand Weipa have won prizes and accolades ina range of community, academic and artisticcompetitions.

Weipa North State School, which I hadthe good fortune to visit recently, is just oneexample. The school has recently taken theinaugural Keep Australia Beautiful title and has

been named far-north Queensland's greenestand healthiest school. Within weeks of thatachievement, the school won the ElgasCommunity Action Award and the BismarkGood Food, Health and Canteen Award. Whatan achievement for a school that contendswith all the challenges presented by a remotelocation, as well as having a mix of studentsfrom a broad range of backgrounds! Seventyper cent of students at the school are ofAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background.Many of them come in from nearbyNapranum. This is a school that makes astrong contribution to the fabric of localcommunity life. This is a school that hasadjusted well to the circumstances with which itis confronted.

The school's success in the awards wasbased on school tidiness, a strong degree ofcommunity interaction and cooperation, thecommunity's strength in the face of a range ofadverse situations, the creative use ofcommunication techniques and the promotionof the benefits of eating healthy food. Thisschool is an integral part of the localcommunity. This school is the community.Community life in Weipa is centred aroundactivities at the school. This is a school thatworks well with what it has. I take thisopportunity to congratulate Weipa North StateSchool on its achievements. I thank theteachers for their dedication and their caringattitude towards their students.

Time expired.

Prequalified Building CompaniesMr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP)

(10.29 a.m.): Once again we see theshortcomings of this Government as anotherprequalified building company goes intoprovisional liquidation, leaving a number ofQueensland subcontractors out of pocket. Thistime it is the McMaster company, which hasbeen working on a number of projectsincluding Mosman Hall at Charters Towers. Ofthe $4m debt, $2m is owed to subcontractors.This is equivalent to 30 jobs for one year.Smedley Plumbing has already laid off eightworkers, including an apprentice, as a directresult of this failure. Dozens of subcontractorsare now facing severe financial difficulties—notto mention the plight of suppliers.

Honourable members will remember thedebacle earlier this year at St George andelsewhere where another prequalified builder,Designer Steel Homes, failed, leaving severalsubcontractors in the lurch. Subcontractorshave a right to feel confident that they will bepaid when working on Government jobs for

3754 Questions Without Notice 18 Oct 2000

builders who have been given prequalificationwhich, amongst other criteria, includes anadequate financial capacity. Surely it was clearto the Minister for Public Works late last yearthat the financial capacity of prequalifiedbuilding companies needed to be reviewedand closely monitored.

Time expired.

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

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEElectoral Fraud; Mr J. O'Donnell

Mr BORBIDGE (10.30 a.m.): I refer thePremier to claims by Left Wing identity JamesO'Donnell that the electoral rorts scandal is thePremier's Watergate and to his claims thatelectoral rorting in the Labor Party iswidespread across all tiers of Government. ThePremier has been a State Secretary of theLabor Party; he is the parliamentary Leader ofthe Labor Party; he is a member of the keyadministrative committee that approves partymembership. Therefore, I ask: does heseriously expect Queenslanders to believe thathe saw nothing, heard nothing, said nothingand knows nothing?

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourableLeader of the Opposition for his question. If Irecall correctly, he sat in a number of NationalParty Cabinets from which some Ministerswent to jail for corruption. Did he knowanything about it? Did he know that TerryLewis was crooked? Did he know that RussellHinze was supervising and allowing corruptionin the Valley through prostitution? Did he knowthat half his Cabinet should have been in jail?Was he a friend of Don Lane? Was he a friendof Brian Austin? Did he know their level ofcorruption? Did he go out and have lunch atthe taxpayers' expense? Did he know all ofthese things or did he see nothing, knownothing and do nothing?

The bottom line in all of this is very simple.Wayne Goss gave me one piece of adviceabout the Leader of the Opposition when Ibecame leader. He said, "Be careful. He willsay anything and do anything. He has norespect for credibility or the truth." Thedifference between the Leader of theOpposition and me is very simply this: when hesat in National Party Cabinets with his corruptmates he did nothing. I have made itabsolutely clear—

Mr JOHNSON: I rise to a point of order.Mr Speaker, I sat in a National Party Cabinetwith the Honourable Rob Borbidge, and I can

tell you that that Cabinet was not corrupt. I findthat offensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a pointof order. The comment was not personallydirected at you.

Mr JOHNSON: No; I made a faircomment. There are two sets of rules here, MrSpeaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. No, there are not two sets ofrules.

Mr Sullivan interjected.

Mr JOHNSON: We are not talking aboutthe honourable member.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a pointof order. The member for Gregory will resumehis seat.

Mr JOHNSON: I asked the Premier towithdraw it. I find it offensive.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The remark was notdirected at the honourable member. Therewas no personal remark.

Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order. Iask the Honourable Premier to withdraw "hiscorrupt mates". I was part of that Cabinet and Iwas found not to be corrupt. I ask that thatcomment be withdrawn. I find it offensive.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I made noreference to the honourable member and heknows that. Under the Standing Orders—

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. I findthe Premier's words offensive and I ask thatthey be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! But the honourablemember was not mentioned by name. I amsorry, but all honourable members know theStanding Order. There is no point of order.

Mr BEATTIE: I have made a very clearcomparison between the allegations theLeader of the Opposition made in relation tome and his behaviour when he sat in theNational Party Cabinets. He does not like itbut, if I apply his standard, he knew aboutevery piece of corruption that went before theFitzgerald inquiry. So let us not have doublestandards.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Idid not serve in the Bjelke-Petersen Cabinet.

Mr BEATTIE: I never said the Leader ofthe Opposition did.

Mr BORBIDGE: I did not serve with RussHinze and Don Lane, the two Ministers whomthe Premier referred to. Mr Speaker, I wouldmake the point that—

18 Oct 2000 Questions Without Notice 3755

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not adebate.

Mr BORBIDGE:—I was not the onebehind the cowshed at Bethany doing thedeal.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition will resume his seat.

Mr BEATTIE: He has a double standardin all of these matters.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes, he does. It does notmatter; he was in the party room with them. Hewas in Cabinet. He wants a different standardfor himself. As the Leader of the Oppositionwell knows, he sat in Cabinet. Now he doesnot like the standard he has applied to me.The difference between the Leader of theOpposition and me is very simply this: I havenot sought to cover up anything. I have madeit clear that all of these matters should go toan inquiry. If Jim O'Donnell or anyone else hasmatters that should be drawn to the attentionof the CJC, they should be sent there. Whenhe was Premier he sought to cover up aninquiry into his own behaviour.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.

Mr BEATTIE: He does not like it.

Mr BORBIDGE: I find that untrue andoffensive and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr BEATTIE: He can hand it out, but hecannot take it, can he?

Mr BORBIDGE: It is simply—

Mr BEATTIE: I will withdraw it. But let thepublic record—

Mr BORBIDGE: Tell him to withdraw foronce in your life.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have alreadywarned the Leader of the Opposition underStanding Order 123A. That is my final warning.

Mr BORBIDGE: Has he withdrawn, MrSpeaker?

Mr SPEAKER: The Premier withdrew. Icall the Premier.

Mr BEATTIE: If the Leader of theOpposition had not been so rude and had notbeen engaging in his usual wrecking strategy,he would have heard what I said. Let this beclear. Let the television networks broadcast tothe people of Queensland exactly what he andthe member for Southport said last night in thedebate about the Speaker and let the peopleof Queensland judge his coming in hereattempting to wreck this Parliament. He hasbeen engaged in the most vile and divisive

behaviour ever. He has come in here todestroy this place. I urge the televisionnetworks to play what he said last night and letthe people of Queensland make a judgmentas to whether he is fit to form a Government.He is not fit to form a Government. Oppositionmembers simply came in here as wreckers andspoilers. They will wreck the Shepherdsoninquiry if they get a chance. That is what this isall about. They want to wreck theShepherdson inquiry.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.The Premier is losing it. That remark isridiculous and offensive and I ask that it bewithdrawn.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I withdraw.Mr BORBIDGE: He has lost it.

Mr SPEAKER: It was withdrawn.Mr BEATTIE: He does not like it when he

gets a bit of his own back, does he? He canhand it out, but he cannot take it.

The bottom line in all of this is that lastnight's debate of confidence in the Speakerwas an absolute disgrace. It was the worstdebate that has ever taken place in theParliament. I hope every television networkplays the performance of the Leader of theOpposition and the member for Southport,because they are not fit to form aGovernment.

Mr HOBBS: I rise to a point of order. Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, for how long

are they going to disrupt Government Ministerswithout our being given a chance to reply?

Mr SPEAKER: What is the member'spoint of order?

Mr HOBBS: The Premier had a chancelast night to defend the Speaker and he didnot do so. Why is he doing it now?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a pointof order. I will not accept any more frivolouspoints of order. I now warn the member underStanding Order 123A.

Mr BEATTIE: What we saw last night wasan un-Australian attack in this Parliament. Lastnight they were in the gutter as part of theirwrecker's role to try to wreck the Parliamentand your role as Speaker. Mr Speaker, as weall know, I have full confidence in and supportfully your role in this place. I do not believe thatthe Opposition should adopt a spoiling role towreck the Parliament.


Mr BEATTIE: Here they go again—thewrecker's role. Listen to them. Every one ofthem is trying to wreck the Parliament.


Electoral Fraud; Mr J. O'Donnell Mr BORBIDGE: I direct a further question

to the Premier and I preface my question bysaying that there is nothing more un-Australianthan rorting elections and corrupting theelectoral process.

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker, I take that tobe the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is that thequestion?

Mr BORBIDGE: No, I said "preface myquestion". Be patient. I know the Premier islosing it. He is no good under pressure.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of theOpposition is not to debate this. He will ask hisquestion or resume his seat—one of the two.

Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier againto claims by James O'Donnell that the electoralrorts scandal is the Premier's Watergate andthat he has access to widespreaddocumentary evidence in respect of his claims,and I ask: as parliamentary Leader of theLabor Party, has the Premier sought anydiscussions in respect of these most seriousallegations in regard to his party or, onceagain, is he going to tell us that he sawnothing, heard nothing, said nothing and knewnothing?

Mr BEATTIE: Does the Leader of theOpposition mean like he did prior to theFitzgerald inquiry, when he saw nothing, heardnothing and did nothing? Is that what theLeader of the Opposition means? Is heaccusing me of behaviour like his involvementin the Fitzgerald inquiry?

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.

Mr BEATTIE: He does not like it.Mr BORBIDGE: I was not the

parliamentary leader. Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. I was not the

parliamentary leader in 1993 or 1995, either.So there you go. The Leader of the Oppositionis having a dud of a day.

Mr BORBIDGE: I was referring to 1996,1997, 1998—the term when the member forBrisbane Central was Leader of the LaborParty and during which time alleged corruptactivities took place.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Resume your seat.That is my final warning, otherwise you will beout of this Chamber. That is my final warning.

Mr BEATTIE: Every test and standardthat the Leader of the Opposition applies hefails. Every test that he seeks to apply to mehe failed himself. What a hypocrite! He hasfailed it at every single opportunity. Everystandard he tries to apply to me he fails. He

failed, and he knows it. Last night what we sawin the debate on the motion of no confidencewas the wrecker's role. Opposition membersare wreckers of the first order. They want towreck confidence in the Shepherdson inquiry.That is what this is all about. Even today theykeep interjecting.

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for

Callide will cease interjecting.Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order.Mr BEATTIE: And now they will not even

let me answer the question.Mr BORBIDGE: The Premier has just

repeated the comment that he was askedbefore to withdraw in respect of theShepherdson inquiry and what we wereseeking—

Mr BEATTIE: I was talking about theOpposition.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That referred to theOpposition. He did not mention the Leader ofthe Opposition. Resume your seat.

Mr BEATTIE: The Opposition has awrecker's role. I will repeat it for the benefit ofthe Opposition: they have a wrecker's role.They are first-class wreckers and they are outto try to wreck public confidence in theShepherdson inquiry.

The people of Queensland do not wantmatters before the inquiry determined bypoliticians—and certainly not by Rob Borbidge.I say to the people of Queensland that wewant these serious and weighty issuesdetermined by the independent head of thatinquiry, Tom Shepherdson, not by RobBorbidge—and that is the difference betweenus. If Jim O'Donnell has material orinformation, he should do what the Leader ofthe Opposition should do: he should go downto Tom Shepherdson and give him thematerial. I want every piece of materialavailable through Jim O'Donnell or anybodyelse fully investigated by the Shepherdsoninquiry. Let there be no piece of paper—notone document—and not one witness heldback. I want every one of them to be heard bythe inquiry, including Jim O'Donnell.

My advice to Jim O'Donnell is this: ring upthe Shepherdson inquiry, go down and givefull disclosure of all the material that he has.The difference between the Leader of theOpposition and me is this: when he was inGovernment, he wanted a cover-up; I am inGovernment, I want a clean-up. That is thedifference. I will have nobody who breaks thelaw.

Interruption.


PRIVILEGEQuestion Time, Time Limits

Mr GRICE (Broadwater—NPA)(10.42 a.m.): Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter ofprivilege suddenly arising. Your clock is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: No, what happens is that,when we have interruptions to the answer ofthe question, I press the pause button. I madethat statement some months ago. That hasbeen an order of the House. It has been a ruleof the House. And I have pressed it again.

Mr GRICE: May I finish my—


Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear you for thenoise of the Opposition. Order! The House willcome to order. Your behaviour is atrocious.

Mr GRICE: May I finish?


Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear you for yourfellow colleagues. Order!

Mr GRICE: May I finish my matter ofprivilege suddenly arising?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.

Mr GRICE: If indeed you do control thetime, do you control it similarly for each side ofthe House?

Mr SPEAKER: That is not relevant.


Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House willcome to order. If you had any commonsenseyou would realise that when a question isasked the Minister gets three minutes toanswer.

Mr Davidson interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn the memberfor Noosa under Standing Order 123A.

The Minister, or whomever the question isbeing asked of, gets three minutes to answerthat question. If members of the Oppositionare rude enough to keep on interrupting duringan answer to a question they have asked, thepause button goes on. I made that statementsome months ago and I continue the practice.

PRIVILEGE

Question Time, Time Limits

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition)(10.44 a.m.): I rise on a matter of privilegesuddenly arising. Mr Speaker, I just seek youradvice in respect of your ruling. Last night inthe motion of no confidence I was subjected toconsiderable interruption. I take it that the

courtesy extended to the Government duringquestion time is not extended to theOpposition in terms of general debate. Is thatyour ruling?

Mr SPEAKER: It was never intended forgeneral debate. It was always intended forquestion time. I made the statement in theHouse some months ago. You are onlydestroying your own question time.

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, thank youfor clarifying your latest novel and interestingruling.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will resumequestion time.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Resumed from p. 3756.

Job Creation

Mr SULLIVAN (10.45 a.m.): I ask thePremier: can he give the House an example ofwhy his Government is more successful at jobcreation than the disgraced and failedBorbidge Government?

Mr BEATTIE: I am delighted to do that,but let me finish the remark I was about tomake. The Leader of the Opposition is so lowin his attack on these issues that he isprepared to even attack my poor dog. I do notthink it gets any worse than that. Rustydeserves better than being defamed by theLeader of the Opposition. I will bring himaround later and he will share something withthe Leader of the Opposition.

One reason why my Government hascreated 23,900 more jobs than the previousGovernment did is the focus on Smart Stateindustries. This week the QueenslandGovernment used the influential Australia-Japan joint business conference to showcaseeight Smart State organisations at a three-hour technology exposition. We tookmaximum advantage of having more than 250senior Australian and Japanese businessleaders at the Brisbane Convention Centre,and on behalf of the State Government I helda major dinner at the Art Gallery on Mondaynight.

Japanese Prime Minister Mori recentlyannounced that he intends that Japanbecomes an information technologysuperpower in five years. In Queensland thatindustry has been growing at the rate of morethan 10% each year for more than a decadeand our exports exceed $550m a year.Queensland is aiming to contribute to theJapanese Prime Minister's vision in terms of


this region and we have our own vision, andthat vision is for Queensland.

We showcased opportunities forincreased trade and new industries such asbiomedicine, biotechnology and light metalsmanufacturing. The Japanese are alsointerested in our expertise in aged care. TheQueensland organisations showcasing thecapabilities were AstraZeneca, which isbioprospecting in our rainforests and coralreefs to unlock nature's medical secrets anddevelop new drugs to combat diseases; theInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, which by2002 will be the largest biological researchfacility in Australia, with more than 700 world-class scientists; the Queensland Institute ofMedical Research, which is the largestindependent medical research organisation inAustralia, with more than 400 scientists andstaff, which will grow to a staff of more than1,000 in the next five years; the JuliusKruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, whichhas 115 staff and postgraduate studentsdeveloping solutions to technical problemsfacing the mining and metal industries; andthe Australian Magnesium Corporation, whichis establishing a major new export industry toproduce high quality magnesium metals andalloys for the international automotive industry.There is also the Cooperative Research Centrefor Alloy and Solidification Technology, theCollaborative Health Informatics Centre andthe Australian Masters in Aged Care Services.For the information of the House I table thedocuments relating to the 38th Australia-Japanjoint business conference.

The Cooperative Research Centre forAlloy and Solidification Technology has morethan 100 engineers and scientists in Brisbaneand Melbourne, with expertise in production,processing and manufacturing of aluminiumand magnesium alloys. The CollaborativeHealth Informatics Centre was established in1998 to act as an independent matchmakerbetween health care providers and theinformation technology industry to expand theglobal health information technology industry.

Integrity Commissioner; ShepherdsonInquiry

Dr WATSON: I refer the Premier to hisadmission yesterday that two public servantshave been rostered in tandem to provide himwith a parallel stream of legal advice at publicexpense on matters before the Shepherdsoninquiry into electoral corruption within the ALP,and I ask: given the clear potential for aconflict of interest in his dual role as Premierand Leader of the ALP in Queensland, did he

clear this disgraceful misuse of publicresources with the Integrity Commissioner? Ifnot, does he have the political integrity and thestrength of his convictions to refer it to him nowand to table his advice for the benefit of theParliament?

Mr BEATTIE: In all this the Opposition isnowhere other than in the gutter. On one handits members say on a daily basis—and themember opposite does it—that I should standthis person down or that person down. To dothat the Premier of the day, particularly onewho wants to do the right thing, the honestthing, the honourable thing, which I am doinghere, wants to be properly informed. I have notdone anything other than get impartial adviceto be properly informed—

Mr Borbidge: You don't trust yourcolleagues.

Mr BEATTIE: Here we go again, thewreckers are at it again. They are trying towreck question time. We are limited to threeminutes. The Leader of the Liberal Partyasked a question and the Leader of theOpposition in the role he plays best—thewrecker—is at it again. No wonder he is not fitto form Government, because all he is about iswrecking. We saw it last night.

Dr WATSON: I rise to a point of order.The question was—

Mr BEATTIE: Mr Speaker—

Dr WATSON: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forMoggill! The member has already asked hisquestion. He will resume his seat.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: Let me say this to theLeader of the Liberal Party: he should have achat to his mate next to him. Get him to bequiet and I will give the member a full answer.The member cannot expect to ask a questionwhile his mate next to him and all those othersopposite want to wreck this Parliament, as theydid last night, and therefore deny me theopportunity to answer. Let me go through this.This is a decision for the Premier of the day. Imade this decision. I appropriately andproperly made this decision, and I stand bythis decision because I gave this Parliamentan assurance. Unlike those opposite, when Igive an assurance, I stick to it.

Opposition members: Oh!

Mr BEATTIE: Here we go. The Leader ofthe Opposition, the wrecker, is at it again. He isnot fit to form a Government. I gave thisParliament a commitment in a ministerialstatement that I would watch matters before


the inquiry and that I would take appropriateaction. Surely those opposite do not expectme to sit there every day to watch it myself.

Dr Watson: I expect you to use publicmoney appropriately.

Mr BEATTIE: Absolutely, and that isexactly what I am doing. In other words, themember opposite would like me to withdrawthe statement that I would take appropriateaction.

Dr Watson: No, I would like you to refer itto the Integrity Commissioner and table hisadvice in the House.

Mr BEATTIE: The member knows as wellas I do that that is not what the Act is for. Thatis a breach of the Integrity Commissioner's Act.That is not the way the position of IntegrityCommissioner was designed to work. Myadvice to the member is that he should go andread the Act passed by the Parliament. Theadvice is to be provided directly to people. Thisis a decision that I made. I stand by thisdecision. I am the one who indicated that, onany issues contained within these matters, Iwould make a decision, and I will make it onan informed basis. Let me go back to whathas been happening. This is a matter for thePremier to decide, not the IntegrityCommissioner. I will make that decision. I havemade that decision and I stand by it.

Fuel Prices; GST

Mr PURCELL: My question is directed tothe Premier. I refer to the billion dollar taxwindfall being reaped by the HowardGovernment through excess GST collectionsarising from skyrocketing fuel prices. I ask:apart from the Borbidge/Watson Opposition,does anybody deny that the Commonwealth isbenefiting from a huge tax windfall?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer is: no. However,let me finish what I was saying in answer to theprevious question. I will not politicise theIntegrity Commissioner, which is what theOpposition wants to do. I will not politicise thatoffice and I will not have a breach of the Act.The Leader of the Liberal Party wants me tobreach that Act. I will not break the law, I willnot breach that Act and I will not politicise theIntegrity Commissioner.

Let me share something interesting withthe House relating to the Leader of the LiberalParty, who wants to get in the gutter on everyoccasion. I was delighted to see that theCrikey web site—the member's Liberal Partymate—states—

"Doctor Who?Life isn't getting any better for the

hapless Queensland Liberal leader, DrDavid Watson.

Watson, off at a party function andexchanging small talk with new members,was a little taken aback when he wasasked who he was and what he did."

I think that says it all.

The answer to the question asked by themember for Bulimba is: no. The AustralianAutomobile Association says there is awindfall. The oil companies say there is awindfall. The Motor Trades Association saysthere is a windfall. The National FarmersFederation says there is a windfall, as doesAgforce. The Western Australian Liberal Partyhas the honesty to admit that there is awindfall. Federal coalition backbenchers admitthere is a windfall. Not even John Howarddenies that he is getting a windfall. JohnHoward told 4BC yesterday that theGovernment may get a windfall from higherpetrol prices. So the windfall does exist. Theonly people who cannot see that there is apetrol tax windfall for the Commonwealth arethe Leader of the Opposition and the Leaderof the Liberal Party in this House.

How much extra revenue will the HowardGovernment cream from motorists over thecourse of this financial year? The latestestimate is that it is up to $1 billion in extraGST collections, extra resource rent tax andincreased excise. John Howard tries to fudgethe issue by saying that there may be higherexpenditure in other areas to offset his newlydiscovered windfall. "It's just too early to tell,"he complains. He went on to acknowledge thatthis perfect balance was unlikely, saying, "Buteven if the Budget was better, I don't want torun down the surplus." It is not about runningdown the surplus; it is about whether thesurplus needs to be boosted by another billiondollars. If the petrol tax windfall is handed backto motorists, the worst that will happen to theBudget surplus is that it will come in on target.

Let me make a prediction. Bearing inmind what the Northern Territory Chief Ministersaid, I believe that next year prior to theFederal election the Federal Government willback down. I think it will reduce the amount ofexcise. I think it will back away from the CPIincreases in February and August because itknows that the political will of the Australianpeople is mounting. They want to see a cut inpetrol prices. They are sick and tired of beingripped off. I believe the Prime Minister will backdown as a result of pressure from theAustralian people. I urge all Australians to write


to the Prime Minister to ensure that heunderstands that this billion-dollar windfall ishitting at the heart of ordinary Australianfamilies.

Electoral Fraud; Shepherdson InquiryMr QUINN: My question is directed to the

Premier. I refer the Premier to his admissionyesterday that two public servants had beenrostered in tandem to provide him with aparallel stream of legal advice at publicexpense on matters before the Shepherdsoninquiry into electoral corruption within the ALP.I ask: how can the Premier condemn his fellowmembers of the ALP for rorting the electoralroll when he is abusing the public purse byusing public servants for political purposes?

Mr BEATTIE: This is nothing more than ajoke, and a pretty sick joke at that. The bottomline is that the standards are very differentbetween the Opposition and this Government.When the Opposition was in office, when theConnolly/Ryan inquiry was in place and whenthe CJC and the Carruthers inquiry took place,the previous Government set aside millions ofdollars—in fact, $2.2m if I recall correctly—oftaxpayers' money to fund the legal expensesof the Leader of the Opposition, the thenPremier. I think his bill alone was $500,000.The expenses of the National Party PoliceMinister were over $500,000. However, thetotal was $2.2m if I recall correctly. TheOpposition put its hand in the taxpayers'pocket and took it.

There is no extra cost to taxpayers forthis. There is an adviser who attends theinquiry. That adviser is paid to advise me onlegal matters. That advice is to ensure that ifany action needs to be taken by me it will betaken. That advice is not coming from theLabor Party or Labor Party lawyers; it isindependent advice. If I was going to seekadvice as to whether I was to take appropriateaction, where would I go? I would go to thesame unit and seek the same advice. If MrBorbidge happened to be Premier, he woulddo the same thing.

What is this about? This is about ensuringthat the Premier of the day does the rightthing, and that is what I am doing. I haveasked for a person to go to that inquiry. Wenotified the CJC beforehand. There wasappropriate accommodation provided for thatobserver. Let me ask the Opposition thisquestion. The Leader of the Opposition sendsFrank Jackson up there and he sits in themedia room every day. That is at taxpayers'expense. He has not shared that withanybody. So Frank Jackson sits there every

day in the media room observing the inquiry.He is paid for by taxpayers. It does not matterwhere he is; he is paid for by taxpayers.

Mr Borbidge: He is an Opposition staffer.

Mr BEATTIE: Oh, I see! The membercannot have it both ways. He is happy for thetaxpayers to pay for Frank Jackson to advise,but he is not happy for taxpayers to pay foradvice that I get to advise me, and he is theLeader of the Opposition! I am the one whowould have to take appropriate action inrelation to the ministerial statement. Here wehave the usual double standard. It is all rightfor the member opposite to have FrankJackson paid for by the taxpayer, but in hisview it is not fair for me to be properly advised.

Let me say this to those opposite: do notmake any more news releases about metaking action against anybody. He comes inhere and criticises the fact that I am beingproperly informed on the one hand but thensays that I should not have someone there toproperly inform me. This is in the gutter. Thoseopposite are whingeing. They are at it again.They are world-quality whingers.

Wine Industry

Mr LUCAS: My question is to the DeputyPremier and Minister for State Development. Iask: can he provide any detail on how thisGovernment is assisting the Queensland wineindustry?

Mr ELDER: I thank the member for thequestion. In short, let me put it this way:distinctive, palatable and definitely gettingbetter with time. That is the message we aresending those who visit Queensland in relationto the Queensland wine industry. Togetherwith the Wine and Grape ProducersAssociation, we developed an initiative topromote some of the better features ofQueensland wines. Some of our finest winesare now on display at the international airport.At the international departures area bothdomestic and international travellers can tasteand sample Queensland wines. That is aninitiative of the Department of StateDevelopment, the Tourism Minister'sdepartment and Tourism Queensland, and ithas been successful.

We now have 60 wineries in this State.There is likely to be an increase to some 80wineries by the year 2003. That is how fast thisindustry is growing. In that sense, the wineindustry is a major regional employer. Thatgrowth is in the Granite Belt, in the Burnett andin the new areas surrounding Brisbane andTamborine. It is also in the Redlands, as the


member for Cleveland well knows, with theMount Cotton winery. It does represent goodemployment opportunities. Wine industryinvestment is over $60m and it is projected interms of its export market to grow from 10,000cartons today to 100,000 cartons by the year2005. Members can see as a result of that theemployment opportunities that will come inthose regions.

The Beattie Government has beenworking with the industry to actually produceprograms to help it to grow the business,improve investment opportunities, improvewine quality and get greater internationalawareness and export opportunities. Again, itis all about job opportunities in regionalQueensland. We have worked with theQueensland Wine and Grape ProducersAssociation to produce that sustainabledevelopment, and it is paying dividends.

The work we have done over the yearswith the wine industry is paying dividends. TwoQueensland wines recently received a five-starrating in the August edition of the nationalwine magazine Winestate. That is somethingthat has never occurred before. It is significant.The magazine awards only approximately twodozen five-star awards each year. In the pastQueensland wines have received four and ahalf star awards, but none has received a five-star award. I can say that the Golden GroveSemillon and the Ballandean EstateChardonnay—they are both Granite Beltwines—got five-star ratings in that nationalmagazine. That is a significant achievementfor the wine industry in this State.

Wine is an industry that is growing. It isone that we are going to spend timedeveloping. We are going to work with theassociation to develop job opportunities. Whilethose opposite whinge, knock, run down theeconomy of Queensland and run down theregions they represent, this Government will beout working with those industry sectors—making sure they get the jobs growth, makingsure they get the export opportunities andmaking sure they produce for the region. Thatis the difference between us and thoseopposite.

Firefighter Uniforms

Mr DALGLEISH: I refer the Minister forEmergency Services to a $1.2m contract forfirefighter uniforms, and I ask: did thesuccessful tenderer have the cheapest price orwas there a behind-the-scenes deal which cutout Queensland companies such as HallmarkMitex, Can't Tear 'Em and Gympie-basedDrummond and Kindred, who are capable of

providing quality garments at a competitiveprice? How does the awarding of this tender toa Victorian company fit in with theGovernment's much-vaunted Buy QueenslandFirst policy?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourablemember for the question. This is a verycomplex issue.

Opposition members: Ha, ha!

Mr ROBERTSON: I am just trying to helpeveryone here. This is a very complex issue,so I want to work it through in some detail. Thecontract the member refers to was let to acompany after an open and fair competitivetendering arrangement. When I was advisedthat Australian Defence Apparel from downsouth had won that contract I was, like themember, concerned. That is why, when I wasadvised that that tender was to be let, Irequested the department to conduct anindependent audit of the tendering process toensure that there was nothing untoward aboutthe contract, that all of the requests forinformation and processes in place werecorrect and that a fair and correct decision wasmade. That independent audit was conductedby the Industrial Supplies Office. I was advisedby the Industrial Supplies Office that, apartfrom some minor technical deficiencies in theprocess, there was nothing corrupt orinappropriate about the awarding of thattender. As a result of receiving that report, Iwas unable to affect the matter any further.

Mr Cooper interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCrows Nest will cease interjecting. This is myfinal warning.

Mr ROBERTSON: I refer to the member'sview about the Government's new purchasingarrangement. That tender was let prior to theintroduction of the new policy, so that policycould not then take effect because it was notactually in existence. It is regrettable that thatcontract went to a company from down south.However, the repair work will be done inQueensland with local repair firms.

Time expired.

First Home Owners Grant Scheme

Mr ROBERTS: Can the Treasurer informthe House of the impact of the First HomeOwners Grant Scheme on Queensland'shousing and construction industry?

Mr HAMILL: Honourable members wouldrecall that one of the aspects of theCommonwealth's GST arrangements was arequirement for all the States and Territories to


introduce a First Home Owners Grant Scheme,because it was well recognised that the impactof the GST would be felt most severely by thehousing and construction industry acrossAustralia.

Since 1 July this year in excess of 7,600first home owners have received the $7,000grant from the Queensland Government underthat scheme. That represents a $53.5minjection into the housing and constructionindustry since 1 July this year. Despite the factthat over 7,600 grants have been made, thehousing and construction sector still reels fromthe impact of the GST.

Honourable members may be interestedto know that it would appear that the vastmajority of grants have been made in respectof dwellings which were already in existence.Some 437 grants in Queensland have beenmade in respect of contracts to build. Whilstthe information does not allow us to discernhow many home packages have beenpurchased from—

Mrs Sheldon: If I were you, I would just sitdown.

Mr HAMILL: I am surprised that thecoalition is not interested in the operation ofthe First Home Owners Grant Scheme inQueensland, considering all the brouhahawhich came from honourable membersopposite as to how important it was to havethis scheme in place and how it would be thesalvation of the housing and constructionindustry.

The facts are—the housing industryknows this—that the grant scheme has notproduced the outcomes for the housingindustry which the Federal Governmentpromised. In fact, we have seen a continuingdecline in the housing and construction sectorsince the GST was introduced. The declinehas been dramatic. As we said for weeks andweeks prior to 1 July, the double whammy ofGST and increasing interest rates would take aterrible toll on the housing and constructionsector, and it is taking a toll in terms of jobsand in terms of companies in that sector.

Commonwealth Electoral Roll

Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to hisvehement opposition to new Commonwealthelectoral roll arrangements that would ensuretighter identification requirements beforeenrolment and to this morning's Bulletin articleby Laurie Oakes stating that it is the four LaborStates, led by Queensland, that are objecting

to the new accountability measures. I ask theAttorney-General: will he now admit that thereal motivation for his opposition to thesemeasures is his Government's desperatedesire to protect the current loopholes for itscheating, rorting Labor mates?

Mr FOLEY: No. What short memoriesOpposition members have. Indeed, theposition that has been adopted on this issuehas been the position set out in the report ofthe all-party parliamentary committee, onwhich who were representatives? The memberfor Indooroopilly, Mr Beanland, the formerAttorney-General, and the member forBurleigh! What appeared in that report was theneed to ensure that safeguards are present,but also that we do not unwittingly effectivelyprevent many people from exercising the rightto vote. What that report reveals, if thehonourable member goes back to read it, is aconcern not to disfranchise voters.

Let us deal with a couple of other things,because the honourable member seems tohave a remarkable lack of memory. ThisHouse has referred to the all-partyparliamentary committee the review ofelectoral laws dealing with that very issue.

Mr Springborg: You had no choice.

Mr FOLEY: The honourable memberagain seems to have forgotten. My recollectionis that the motion was moved by MrWellington, the member for Nicklin, andseconded by myself in order that this mattercould be properly and thoroughly examined.What we are dealing with here is an exercise indeceit by Opposition members, just as wewere last night. What they purport to do is toput aside the record of the efforts of an all-party parliamentary committee and tomisrepresent the position of the Government—to pre-empt the work of an all-partyparliamentary committee. They do so in a waywhich can tend to mislead the gullible andshallow but which demonstrates yet again thepoor standard of ethics that we are seeingfrom the Opposition with respect to this issue.Instead of it being dealt with as the House hasasked it to be dealt with, through an all-partyparliamentary committee, what we are seeinghere is, No. 1, cheap political point-scoring;and No. 2, selective amnesia—trying to walkaway from what Mr Beanland himselfrecommended.

Community Sector Drug Forum

Mr MULHERIN: I refer the Minister forHealth to the recent Community Sector DrugForum in Brisbane, and I ask: what is being


done to create partnerships with communityorganisations to meet the drugs challenge?

Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member forthe question, and I know that for some time hehas been very concerned about and interestedin the growing and very vexing issue of drugsin our community.

Mr Horan: We had a drug forum inMackay.

Mrs EDMOND: I will come to that. Whatthe honourable member for ToowoombaSouth said is interesting.

On Thursday, 5 October, I opened thefirst Community Sector Drug Forum in Brisbaneand encouraged alcohol and drug healthprofessionals to share their expertise withGovernment. Two Community Sector DrugForums will be held each year as part of theGovernment's commitments under Beyond aQuick Fix, the Queensland drug strategicframework. Under this framework, as wedevelop our action plans, various Governmentdepartments and non-Governmentorganisations will have the opportunity to beinvolved in the next stages of the program.These forums are the next step, because theGovernment recognises that we cannot solvethis problem alone. It is not just a problem forGovernments; it is a problem for communitiesto work together to solve. We need to buildstrong, cooperative relationships betweenGovernment and the community. Mackay is anexample of what local communities canachieve when key stakeholders and concernedcitizens work together.

I am aware that the member for Mackaychaired the first meeting of the Mackay Alcoholand Drugs Community Partnership WorkingParty in July this year. I congratulate him onthat achievement. The community responsegrew out of recognition of the need to developa locally based working party to examine theeffectiveness of existing services in thecommunity. I understand that the focus of thegroup is to review community-led care models,develop a model that meets local needs andto explore opportunities for funding. It wassuch a success that the coalition thought itwas a good idea to copy it, so it held anotherone in Mackay. Imitation is the sincerest formof flattery, and the member for Mackay shouldbe sincerely flattered. It was a great idea; itwas so great that the Opposition has copied it.

I can assure the community thatQueensland Health is committed to workingwith the community to analyse existing serviceresponses across the community with a view toreducing the uptake of drug use andassociated harms. One of the biggest

problems facing our community is thechallenge of drug availability and theconsequences of drug abuse. It is essential forthe local community and all levels ofgovernment to work together locally to addressdrug-related problems, and it is only throughthis partnership and cooperation that we will beable to achieve better outcomes for peoplewith alcohol and drug problems.

It is too easy to say that the Governmentmust fix this. It is a community problem. We allneed to work together. None of us has asimple, easy answer or a quick fix.

Electoral Fraud; Mr L. Bermingham

Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Premier to theALP's decision to sack Mr Lee Bermingham asa senior organiser because a partyinvestigation found he was guilty of interferingin an internal ballot of an affiliated union. Canthe Premier inform the House why his belovedALP and the member for Woodridge wereperfectly capable of investigating irregularitiesin union ballots but failed to show anything likethe same expertise or enthusiasm forallegations of electoral corruption?

Mr SPEAKER: That matter is sub judice.It is before the commission. I have acceptedthe advice of the Clerk.

Mr BEANLAND: You have ruled it out oforder; is that what you said, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: It is out of order, yes.Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)

(11.16 a.m.): I move—

"That Mr Speaker's ruling bedissented from."A Government member: He can't do that.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he can't. I call thehonourable member for Cairns.

Premier's Literary Awards

Ms BOYLE: I direct a question to thePremier. I draw the attention of the House tothe Queensland Premier's Literary Awardswhich will be presented at the Brisbane WritersFestival gala dinner tonight. I ask: will thePremier tell the House whether his initiative increating these awards has been successful?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer is: yes, it has. Iwill tell members a great deal about it. Butthere is one matter I need to share with theHouse. A bit earlier on, when I talked aboutprevious corrupt National Party CabinetMinisters, the Leader of the Opposition wasquite happy to say he had nothing to do withthem. I point out that Mr Borbidge served in


the Cabinet between December 1987 andSeptember 1989 with Brian Austin, who wentto jail for corruption. He served from December1987 to September 1989 with Geoff Muntz,who went to jail for corruption. He served fromDecember 1987 to January 1989 with LeishaHarvey, who went to jail for corruption. So letus have no more double standards in thisHouse from the Leader of the Opposition, whoserved with all those crooks.

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. Inever served with Keith Wright.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no point of order.Mr Springborg interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The member for Warwick!That is my final warning.

Mr BEATTIE: There you go, but it wouldhave been a strange Cabinet. It would havehad to have been a Labor/National PartyCabinet. Mr Borbidge served with a lot ofcorrupt individuals. They were all corrupt. Hewas Russell Hinze's protege. Mr Borbidgeshould not come in here and deny hisassociation with them. They are all his crookmates who went to jail. The Leader of theOpposition has been caught out again.

Mr Borbidge: No.

Mr BEATTIE: Oh, yes, he was. He gotcaught out. We do our homework over here.

Let me talk about the Premier's LiteraryAwards. I am happy to tell the House thatthere are 565 entries in this year's QueenslandPremier's Literary Awards, and 233 were fromQueensland authors. As the House knows, thisis the second time the Queensland Premier'sLiterary Awards have teamed up with theBrisbane Writers Festival at this dinner tonight.I will be there to announce them, and Iunderstand the Minister for The Arts will bethere as well. The dinner kicks off the festivaland follows Queensland Arts Week.

The Premier's Literary Awards already area great success. They are part of acomprehensive package of support offered toQueensland writers by my Government. ThePremier's Literary Awards complement ArtsQueensland awards, presented by Matt Foley,and Writers Awards presented by TourismQueensland and the State Library. Arts are thebackbone of Queensland's cultural and socialidentity.

This year's winners of the QueenslandPremier's Literary Awards will be presentedwith a gift crafted by a Queensland artist. Thetotal prize pool is $135,000, including a $5,000grant from the Department of the Premier andCabinet to ensure that the winning entry of theemerging Queensland author prize is

published. The number of nominees in mostcategories has increased from three to five aspart of the high quality of this year's entries. Ithank the judges and congratulate theauthors.

In light of the time left, I seek toincorporate the short list of those people whowill be judged tonight. That short list has beenput together by the judges. I seek that it beincorporated in Hansard because there aremany significant contributions here.

Leave granted. Emerging Queensland Author category:

The Bone Flute by Nicole Bourke

The Angel of Barbican High by Michelle A.Taylor

Ali Seashells by Rose Trapnell

Fiction category:

Firehead by Venero Armanno

Drylands by Thea Astley

Too Many Men by Lily Brett

The Hunter by Julia Leigh

Benang by Kim Scott

Children's category:

Memorial by Gary Crew

The Family Tree by Jane Godwin

Toad Rage by Morris Gleitzman

Hazel Green by Odo Hirsch

Sand Swimmers by Narelle Oliver

History category:

A Cabinet Diary by Neal Blewett

John Curtin: A Life by David Day

Ahab's Trade by Allen Mawer

Stravinsky's Lunch by Drusilla Modjeska

The Devil and James McAuley byCassandra Pybus

Advancing public debate category:

Saving Jesse by Imogen Clark

The Shark Net by Robert Drewe

Why Weren't We Told? by HenryReynolds

Obliged to be Difficult by Tim Rowse

Jackson's Track by Daryl Tonkin &Carolyn Landon

Drama (Stage) category:Ship of Fools by Andrew Bovell

Box the Pony by Leah Purcell & ScottRankin

Life After George by Hannie Rayson

Mr BEATTIE: One contribution Irecommend to those opposite in the dramastage category is called Ship of Fools.


Electoral Fraud; Shepherdson InquiryMrs SHELDON: I refer the Premier to his

meeting yesterday with the leader of theAustralian Workers Union, Bill Ludwig, and ask:can he assure the House that at no time didhe give Mr Ludwig any information or advice towhich he was privy as Premier of Queenslandwhich might help the AWU to slip the noose ofthe Shepherdson inquiry into electoralcorruption within the ALP?

Mr BEATTIE: On previous occasions Ihave indicated to the House that I expect thehighest possible standards to be observed.Those highest possible standards require that Ibe properly briefed, as I have been. Anyinformation that is provided to me by publicservants is retained by me and only by me. Iwill act accordingly on it. That is theappropriate behaviour for a Premier. Unlike theOpposition's side of politics, I act appropriately.

I am happy to share the proceedings ofyesterday's meeting with the House. I met withBill Ludwig yesterday. I am happy to tell theworld that. I also met with Everald Compton.What did we discuss?

A Government member: National Partyfundraising.

Mr BEATTIE: Yes. As far as I am aware,Everald Compton used to raise funds for theNational Party and the Liberal Party. He is avery fine Queenslander and I am in no waycritical of him. Both of these men came to seeme. What about—the Melbourne to Brisbanerail link!

This Government is about jobs. It is aboutdoing things; it is not about talking. I thoughtthat the member for Toowoomba South wouldbe interested in this. A lot of the time wasspent talking about Toowoomba, about theroad connections and about rail links. A lot of itwas spent talking about Gladstone andmaking sure that we get infrastructure in thisState to drive jobs. Yes, I will sit down withEverald Compton and I will sit down with BillLudwig. If it means jobs for this State, then Iwill sit down and talk with them.

However, I have never sat in a Cabinetwith a mob of crooks like some have—forexample, people like Brian Austin, GeoffMuntz, Leisha Harvey and Don Lane.Remember him? We have never had peoplein Cabinet like—

Mr Schwarten: What about cashadvances?

Mr BEATTIE: I remember the cashadvances very well. By the way, the Leader ofthe Liberal Party needs to be very careful livingin glass houses and throwing stones. He

needs to be careful about who he sends torepresent him at inquiries like Connolly/Ryanand the inquiry into the Jacki Byrne case. Weare doing a check. I think we might havesomething to say a little bit later on about thatfor the benefit of the Leader of the LiberalParty.

But let me come back to the point. TheLeader of the National Party comes in hereand pretends that he is lilywhite. Let the recordshow that he sat in Cabinet with these corruptpeople who went to jail—Brian Austin, GeoffMuntz and Leisha Harvey. They were hismates. He sat in Cabinet. Did he sit there andhear nothing, do nothing, see nothing? Washe there like the three monkeys—hearingnothing, seeing nothing, doing nothing? Didhe get a free meal? Did he sit there and nothear any of these things? Did he not know thatthey were involved in this corrupt behaviour?Did he not know that there were illegal brothelsin the Valley, parts of the Gold Coast and allover Queensland? Did he not know that therewas corruption in the police force? Did he notsee anything, hear anything, do anything? Didhe just sit there and let all this happen? Washe sitting surrounded by corrupt friends andcorrupt mates? Did he not hear anything? I willsend him a hearing aid.

Mr Borbidge interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of theOpposition will cease interjecting. That is myfinal warning.

Bushfire Threat

Mr MICKEL: I ask the Minister forEmergency Services: can he provide theHouse with an updated forecast of the bushfirethreat that Queensland faces this summer andoutline what extra resources the Governmentis providing Queensland's urban and rural firebrigades?

Mr ROBERTSON: I thank the honourablemember for the question, particularly given hisconcern for the bushfire threat around theareas of both Greenbank and Park Ridge inhis electorate.

Queensland has already experienced anunusually early and dangerous start to thebushfire season. Urban and volunteer rural firebrigades have already been stretched to thelimit battling thousands of fires across theState, many of them deliberately lit. It is adangerous situation; property and lives are atrisk, especially those of firefighters, who puttheir lives on the line ever time they go out to ablaze.


Sadly, a life was lost in north Queenslandovernight when an elderly man died during anauthorised back-burn on his property at PindiPindi, north of Mackay. This tragic losshighlights just how dangerous the fire situationis in Queensland. The latest satellite imagingand on-the-ground analysis prepared for theQueensland Fire and Rescue Authority showsthat the bushfire threat has worsened over thepast month. Despite patchy rainfall in recentdays, risk assessment maps show thatQueensland remains tinderbox dry andextremely vulnerable to bushfire.

This map I have shows that duringSeptember 98% of Queensland received lessthan five millimetres of rain. That is less thantwo ice cubes. The second map highlights thecurrent potential grass fire threat to the State.It shows that 97% of Queensland's land massis subject to a dangerously high risk ofbushfire. In fact, the only two blue dots on thismap indicate not that this area is free frombushfire, simply that there is nothing left thereto burn. Under these circumstances, I urge allproperty owners to contact their local firebrigade for advice about the necessaryprecautions they can take to minimise the riskof fire on their land.

The Government recognises this threatand has accelerated approvals for themanufacture and deployment of 87 new firetrucks for our urban and rural fire brigades.Several weeks ago Executive Councilapproved $3.31m of funding to purchase 65new light and medium attack fire vehicles forrural fire brigades. Last Thursday approval wasalso given for the expenditure of over $7m topurchase an extra 22 medium pump tankersfor urban brigades. These additional vehicleswill significantly enhance the firefightingcapacity of Queensland's urban rural firebrigade.

I was reflecting on something that thePremier said earlier about the FederalGovernment's windfall with respect to fuel. Notonly is the Federal Government suckingmoney out of Queensland's consumers by notproviding any relief to Queensland motoristsfrom high fuel prices but it is also suckingmoney out of our emergency services. It issucking money out of our rural fire brigades, itis sucking money out of State EmergencyServices and it is sucking money out of themarine rescue body. We demand and need—

Time expired.

Native Title Claim

Mr NELSON: I ask the Attorney-General:can he advise what can be done to stop a

solicitor lodging a native title claim that heknew would fail and what punishment, if any,would he receive if he did lodge such a claim?

Mr FOLEY: There are several aspects tothe question. The first is that clearly the NativeTitle Act is not an Act which I administer. Thesecond relates to a question of ethics on thepart of a solicitor. Solicitors have an ethicalduty to their clients to act on the basis ofinstructions. On the other hand, there is alsoan ethical duty to the court not to putpropositions which are known to be false.

It would be idle to speculate on thecircumstances of the particular case to whichthe honourable member refers because I amnot aware of it. If the honourable member hasa complaint in that regard, he should draw thematter to the attention of the Queensland LawSociety and, if the honourable member isdissatisfied with the investigation of thatmatter, he may refer it to the LegalOmbudsman.

What is important in the conduct of thelegal profession is that there be maintainedhigh ethical standards. That involves a fiercecommitment to the rights of one's client, but italso involves certain basic ethical duties to thecourt and to the administration of justice. Thecourt ultimately has power to strike off from theroll of solicitors—or barristers, for that matter—persons who have engaged in unethicalconduct.

I make it plain that I make no commentwhatsoever in relation to any solicitor to whomthe honourable member's question mayimpliedly refer. I am not aware of any suchcase. If the honourable member is aware ofsuch a case, he should make a complaint tothe appropriate authority.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTCharles Perkins

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier) (11.30 a.m.), by leave: I wantto pay respects on the recent passing of aprominent indigenous Australian, ATSICCommissioner Mr Charlie Perkins.

Mr Perkins was born in Alice Springs in1936 on a table at the old telegraph station.From those humble roots he rose to be one ofthe most prominent and identifiableAustralians of the latter part of the 20thcentury. Mr Perkins excelled at sport, as asoccer player in Australia and England; in thePublic Service, to head the CommonwealthDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs; in politics,

18 Oct 2000 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 3767

becoming Deputy Chair of ATSIC in 1994 and1995; and in business.

But it was his youthful activism, as theleader of the Freedom Rides in the 1960s, thathelped define the Australia of the late 20thcentury by highlighting the confronting issue ofracial discrimination in rural New South Wales.Mr Perkins' long list of credits also includes:membership of the Olympic bid committee thatwon the Games for Sydney; Aborigine of theYear in 1993; Chair of the Arrernte Council ofCentral Australia; President of the CanberraCity Soccer Club in the 1970s and the 1980s;membership of the Federal Council forAdvancement of Aborigines and Torres StraitIslanders in the 1960s and the 1970s; andJaycees' Young Man of the Year in 1966.

He has made an indelible impression onthis nation, and I pass on our sympathies tohis family and his people.

PRIVILEGE

Question Time, Time Limits

Mr SPEAKER: Before moving on toGovernment business, I will address the matterof privilege raised by the honourable memberfor Broadwater during question time. As Iadvised at the time, I have made previousrulings on the use of the pause button duringquestion time.

For the record, I will remind thehonourable member, and others, of myprevious advice to the House in light of theoperation of the three-minute answer duringQuestions Without Notice. On 29 February2000, I stated—

"... I inform members that this year I willno longer accept the taking of frivolouspoints of order during question time. I amgoing to put the pause button on—stopthe clock. Time for questions will be lostthrough the taking of those points oforder."

Further, on 18 May 2000, the honourablemember for Broadwater rose on a point oforder. I quote from Hansard—

"Mr GRICE: I rise to a point of order.The time is jammed on three minutes.

Mr SPEAKER: It is, exactly, becauseI pressed the pause button. I gave aruling on that some months ago."

I trust that the memories of all honourablemembers, especially the member forBroadwater, have been refreshed.

NATURE CONSERVATION AND OTHERLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL

Resumption of Committee

Hon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP)(Minister for Environment and Heritage andMinister for Natural Resources) in charge of theBill.

Resumed from 17 October on Clause 3,to which Mr Lester had moved an amendment(see p. 3723).

Mr ROWELL (11.34 a.m.): Clause 3 isquite significant in the opinion of theOpposition. It is certainly significant to thepeople impacted upon by the RFA. I am justwaiting for the Minister to get into position.

Mr Welford: I am listening.

Mr ROWELL: I know the Minister says heis listening, but I believe he is not taking anynotice of the various concerned groups. Irealise that councils have been set up. TheMinister has had the opportunity to take noticeof what people are saying. However, it is onething to take notice of what people are saying;it is another thing to do something about it. Itis quite evident that the Minister is doingnothing.

We are faced with massive increases infees in the communications area.Communications equipment is placed on topof hills to improve reception. In the past,communications organisations have beencharged a small sum of money for the use of acertain site. They now face massive increases.Previously, an organisation such as Channel 7could set up operation in a particular area forlittle or no payment. However, that has nowbeen changed and each organisation thatuses a particular site—it may involve only 10 or20 square metres—is to be charged $5,280. Itis possible that 20 different organisations couldhave antennas and equipment placed on aparticular site. If we multiply $5,280 by 20 wecan see that it offers a very substantial windfallto the department. This sort of thing hashappened in north Queensland, and I am sureit will happen in south-east Queensland underthe RFA.

I would like to mention the matter of thecoastal management plan for Hinchinbrookand the Cardwell Shire. This was the first caboff the rank. In this House we have beenspeaking about jobs, jobs, jobs. Canefarmersare having enormous difficulty in dealing withthe coastal management plan. Such things asdrainage are being ignored. Money wasallocated to the SIIP package in 1993, but thatmoney is being spent on planning and more

3768 Nature Conservation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2000

planning. The work for which that money wasdesignated has not been completed.

I am speaking about the particulardifficulties that I face with regard to theDepartment of Natural Resources and theDepartment of Environment. The Departmentof Environment—

The CHAIRMAN: I refer the member forHinchinbrook to Standing Order 141. At thisstage we are debating a new clause that hasbeen proposed by Mr Lester. This sort ofdebate should take place during the second-reading stage of a Bill. I suggest that themember should not be addressing problemswith the Department of Natural Resources, butaddressing the amendment that has beenmoved by Mr Lester. I ask the member to dothat because I am not going to allowdiscussion on the clause to become anothersecond-reading debate. That is the danger inthis situation. The member had an opportunityduring the second-reading debate to raisethose matters. I ask the member to addressthe amendment before the Committee.

Mr Braddy: This is the filibuster.

Mr ROWELL: It is not a filibuster. I amtalking about people who are affected by whatis happening as a result of actions taken bythe Department of Natural Resources. I did nothave enough time during the second-readingdebate to deal with this matter because thewhole thing is a mile long—

The CHAIRMAN: The member forHinchinbrook has just done it again. I call themember for Gladstone.

Mr ROWELL: I think that is quite unfairbecause I was going to go on to other issues. Iseek leave to continue on for the time that Ihave been allocated.

The CHAIRMAN: I have called themember for Gladstone.

Mr ROWELL: Well, I will do it later, then.

The CHAIRMAN: You just told the Housethat you are really making points that youcould have made in the second-readingdebate. I call the member for Gladstone.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM: My comments tothis clause would relate also to a number ofthe other amendments. In my speech in thesecond-reading debate I spoke about theneed for balance, and I still support that need.I believe it is important that we recognise thefragility of some areas and treat those fragileareas with a great deal of respect, and thatcan include, in many instances, excludingpeople. However, this amendment allowsaccess for recreational use in appropriateareas. I also think that balance is necessary.

The Minister said in his reply that therewould be an examination of areas over time todetermine where recreational access shouldoccur. I do not believe this amendment wouldconflict with what the Minister is intending todo. On the basis of balance and the concernsexpressed to me in my electorate thatrecreational park users feel threatened by theBill, I will be supporting the amendment andsubsequent amendments that achieve thatbalance.

Mr SLACK: I rise to support the proposedamendment of the Opposition spokespersonon Natural Resources, and I do so on thegrounds of resourcing to the department toensure that the needs of recreational users areattended to. Basically, this amendment willprovide for the needs of recreational forestusers in particular to be recognised andattended to and will allow them to be involved.In some respects, it would also save theresources of the Natural ResourcesDepartment.

There is no doubt in my mind that thislegislation is "trust me" legislation. The Ministerhas admitted that in the sense thatassessments will have to take place of theareas where recreational users can use land.Obviously, those assessments will require theapplication of resources by the department.This is the area that really concerns me. Inrespect of my area of the Burnett, it is myunderstanding that people on temporaryemployment in relation to the RFA and otherissues related to natural resources have beeninvolved in the assessment process. Myunderstanding is that those temporarypositions within the department have not beenrenewed.

Mr Welford: This has got nothing to dowith the clause. You're just belabouring theissue.

Mr SLACK: Yes, it does. Myunderstanding is that some of those people intemporary positions were employed in relationto the RFA determination. This has a lot to dowith the clause, because the resources haveto be available. The Minister is clearly cuttingback on the resources of the Department ofNatural Resources. The evidence is quiteclearly there; the Minister has not renewed thecontracts of people who have been employedby the department for up to six years. Theexplanation I received is that these projectshave ended. Obviously, there should be moreprojects coming on. The Minister needs to beable to give an assurance in respect of theresourcing of the department in terms of itsemployment of the appropriate numbers of


people. Is it not a fact that the Minister has notrenewed over 20 temporary employmentcontracts in the Bundaberg area? Some ofthose people had been employed by thedepartment for up to six years. That hascaused a lot of concern in the area. One of theexplanations is that people within thedepartment on permanent employment willtake up the jobs done by the temporaryemployees.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the memberfor Burnett to come back to Mr Lester'samendment.

Mr SLACK: It is related; it is aboutresourcing. The reality is that if thisamendment is not carried we have a situationwhere the resourcing—

The CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to take 10minutes of the Chamber's time to do that?

Mr SLACK: I beg your pardon?

The CHAIRMAN: Do you want to labourthat point?

Mr SLACK: I am explaining how theactions of the department have cut back onresourcing—

The CHAIRMAN: You have spoken aboutthis for three minutes so far.

Mr SLACK: I can cite further instances ofthe department cutting back on its resourcing.In cutting back on the resourcing of thedepartment, for instance, by making peopletravel to Brisbane—

The CHAIRMAN: I have the responsibilityfor the processes of the Parliament. For myedification, could you tell me how that relatesto Mr Lester's amendment.

Mr SLACK: Can I read the amendment toyou?

The CHAIRMAN: I have the amendmentin front of me. I do not want you to do that.

Mr SLACK: It states the "cooperativeinvolvement of recreational forest users in themanagement of protected areas". That willsave resources, will it not? Is that not correct? Iam giving examples of how resourcing hasbeen cut back within the department. Is thatnot correct? I am supporting the amendment.

I can cite another example in theBundaberg area that illustrates that theresources of the department are underpressure. A memo from a departmental headin the area concerns people travelling toBrisbane for briefings. It states that they musttake the train, which means that they have toleave at 4 o'clock in the morning to catch atrain that departs Bundaberg at 5 o'clock. They

would not get back before 9 o'clock that night.A letter that I have in relation to the memostates—

"Maybe the name DNR should bechanged from the Department of NaturalResources to the Department with NoResources.

I have been in the Public Service for20 years and have never known a timewhen its productivity has been so high.There are many staff that donate inexcess of 10 hours a week, as theycannot be paid overtime and exceed thenumber of hours allowed under bankedtime.

This directive will now make a lot ofgood staff rethink their loyalty to theDepartment and will eventually cost itmore in lost productivity."

This is how it relates to what we are talkingabout.

When the recreational users askedwhether their use of the designated landswould be assured, the Minister said, "Yes, thatwill be taken into consideration. We willguarantee that you will." But at the same timethe Minister said, "We've got to makeassessments of this land." The Minister has toprove that the department has the resourcesto make those assessments. Does thedepartment have the resources to make thoseassessments? I have illustrated someexamples that suggest it does not. It hasceased to renew the contracts of over 20departmental officers in one area alone. Thatis an indication to me that the departmentdoes not have sufficient resources to do thework it has already been given. It is myunderstanding that the permanent staff arethen supposed to do the jobs done previouslyby casual employees, some of whom hadbeen employed for many years.

Can the Minister give us an assurancethat the staff will not be diminished such thatthe department will not be able to conductthese assessments? The evidence indicatesthat the staff numbers are diminishing. Doesthe Minister deny that? The Minister is silent;he is not prepared to comment on it, andneither are his officers. They have beenprepared to comment only to the extent thatthey deny what I am saying. Does the Ministerdeny what I am saying?

Mr Littleproud: The barber kept onshaving.

Mr SLACK: Exactly; the barber kept onshaving. I thank the member for WesternDowns for the interjection.


I cite as another example the length oftime taken to resolve land resumptions overthe Walla Weir. Land-holders were waiting forthe department to issue notices of resumption12 months after their land was flooded. Theywere also waiting for surveys to be done onland. There is obviously a lack of resources.How will the 20 to 30 staff members we weretalking about be replaced? Will they bereplaced, as I said, with existing officers?

This is effectively reducing the Burnettdistrict DNR work force by a third. If we look atthe figures for the DNR work force in theBurnett area, we see that there are 95 staff,according to an answer to a question on noticesome time ago, of which 33 are temporary andcasual staff. In other words, a third of the 95staff are temporary and casual. Their contractsare no longer being renewed. The Minister hasnot denied that in this debate. Effectively, theMinister is cutting the staff numbers in thatarea alone by a third. If we take that figure andapply it to the whole of Queensland, we seethat considerable cutbacks are taking placeunder this Government. Yet at the same timethe Minister is saying, "Rest assured that we'regoing to provide these resources. Take myword for it." This is "trust me" legislation, yetthe Minister wonders why we object to it. Thisamendment would be a way of helping out. Iask the member for Keppel to confirm that.That is why the amendment is before theChamber, but I assume that the Minister willuse his numbers to reject it.

Mr Lester: We are only trying to helpthem.

Mr SLACK: Exactly. We are trying to helpto ensure that these people are looked after,that they are provided for in a way in which theMinister should not object because of thesituation that he is facing. I do not know that Ican blame him for the resource cutback.Obviously he blames the Government for theresource cutback. But at the end of the daythe rhetoric does not match the actions. Thepromises that he is making in relation to theresource situation are not able to be delivered.That is a fact of life in relation to the examplesthat I have given him in respect of thisparticular clause that is before the Chamber.

For instance, is the Minister going to givethose people in Bundaberg or the Burnett areaan assurance that they are going to beconsidered for permanent jobs, or are theygoing to get other jobs? What is he saying totheir families up there when he has terminatedwhat were, in many cases, renewablecontracts that people had come to expect tobe renewed due to the period of time for whichthey had been employed?

Dr PRENZLER: I rise to speak in favour ofthis amendment proposed by the honourablemember for Keppel, Mr Vince Lester. Therecognition of interests of recreational forestusers formed the crux of my speech on thesecond-reading debate yesterday and in someof that debate the Minister had somedifferences of opinion with me. I have receiveda lot of representations to my office regardingthe locking out of those recreational users inthis Bill. There is no doubt that this is the cruxof one of our arguments with the Bill, that itdoes not recognise the interests of recreationalforest users. We believe that those people'sinterests have not been considered at all andwe also believe that the interests ofrecreational users are paramount when talkingabout any lands that are locked away fromregional forest uses or whatever use may beoccurring at the time.

It certainly was the basis of a petition thatwas presented to this Parliament by theEnvironmental Access for RecreationFederation Inc Foundation. Some 5,155persons signed that petition. This group is ledby Lou Wolf and Anne Barlow. They certainlyhave grave concerns about the fact that theyhave been locked out of any discussions inregard to recreational use of these proposedareas.

I wish to raise an interesting point today inmy brief statement on this amendment. In thesouthern States the interests of recreationalusers are always taken into account indecisions relating to national parks. I believethat, if this amendment is not accepted by thisChamber, that process will not occur in thisState. I think that is very, very unfortunate.Those people's interests must be looked after.The recreational users must have access tothese closed off areas. Recreational usersmust use it for the sake of their own wellbeing,and that is a proven fact. We will be supportingthe amendment before the Chamber today.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: In the same vein withregard to recreational use of national parks, Iseek some clarification from the Minister. Iapologise because I have a deputation at 12o'clock and I may not be in the Chamber whenthe response is made, but I will read it inHansard.

I raise the issue about the National Trail.That was a major project involving three Statesof Australia. It runs from Cape York, down theGreat Dividing Range to Melbourne with a fewspur trails branching off at different parts ofthat national horse trail. I can recall that backin the mid nineties there were occasions whennew pieces of land were bought and set aside


for national park. We insisted then that, if theNational Trail went through a piece of land thatwas going to be declared a national park, theNational Trail had dominance; it should bekept. I have read in the legislation that quite afew different types of protected areas areproposed. Can the Minister clarify for me thatthe integrity of the National Trail will bemaintained regardless of any new protectionareas that he brings in and that it will stillremain as it was created back in the midnineties?

Mr WELFORD: I will respond to themember for Western Downs first in view of histime constraints. As I understand it,arrangements can be made for the NationalTrail to be affected. We are very supportive ofthe National Trail and the Heritage Trails thatthe Government is currently working on. Weknow that there may be some locations wherethose trails potentially transgress areas thatare proposed for national park or are nationalpark. We are looking at tenure options toaccommodate that at present.

At this stage I do not propose to breachthe principle that national parks are notappropriate tenures for horse riding. That hasbeen a long-held principle of the managementof national parks in Queensland. I have not yetseen an argument that would justify anyGovernment—this or any other Government—moving away from that position. Let me justsay that I am very supportive of the NationalTrail proposal, and we will do whatever we canto accommodate the trail in different tenures inQueensland. Apart from the national parktenure, I think there is sufficient flexibility in theother protected areas tenure under the NatureConservation Act to accommodate the trail.

In relation to a number of other mattersthat members raised, firstly I will respond to themember for Gladstone and indeed othermembers who raised this matter. I amsympathetic to the principle of recognising thecooperative participation of recreational users,as is contemplated in paragraph (h) of theamendment, but I have a problem with theamendment as a whole for the reasons that Iwill now explain.

Firstly, as I see it, there are two problemswith the suggested amendment to section 5(c)including previous and potential uses. Firstly,"previous uses" happen to include logging."Potential uses" could mean anything at all. Itdoes not really provide any guidance to theprocess whatsoever. The legislation alreadyprovides in the Objects clause provision formanagement plans, and the whole purpose ofmanagement plans is to take account of

appropriate uses in appropriate parts of theareas that are in a protected area. My problemis less with paragraph (2) of the amendmentand more with paragraph (1), because I think itdoes open, in a sense, a pandora's box ofarguments about what potential uses shouldbe taken into account. Clearly, in the case ofsome tenures there are some potential useswhich should not be taken into account at all.But, in any event it, is my view that, in relationto the extent to which the general suggestionis put by the Opposition spokesperson, that isalready picked up in the provisions relating tomanagement plans.

In relation to the second paragraph, as Isay, I am more sympathetic to the proposition,particularly the second dot point relating tocooperative involvement of forest recreationalusers. However, if honourable members lookat the Act, again they will see that it specificallycontemplates that, in the process ofdeveloping management plans, there shouldbe consultation. It also provides for the use ofareas. So it contemplates that areas should beused in respect of both wildlife and thelandscape itself on the basis that the use isecologically sustainable.

The cooperative involvement of the land-holders is mentioned, and the other factor is,of course, that recreational users are not theonly ones with whom it might be appropriate toconsult. So if we were to add a dot point thereabout cooperative involvement, I do not seeany particular reason why recreational usesshould be confined, too. Obviously the reasonwe specifically have a provision currently forcooperation with land-holders is that adjacentland-holders are an integral part of theongoing management. They are not justcasual visitors, as recreational users are. WhileI do not have any objection in principle to thesecond dot point, I do not see that it isappropriate from a law making point of view tosingle out recreational users as the ones to beconsulted.

The second limitation of the dot point isthat it confines it to forest users. Of course,there are a number of protected areas whichare not forests but open landscapes. Again, toput this in the Object clause seems to me tobe unduly narrow in its perspective. Havingsaid that, I can understand why it is drafted theway it is. It is drafted in the context of theremaining suggested amendments put by themember for Keppel. The remainingamendments are specifically about makingpermanent the interim tenure of forestreserves and ensuring unfettered recreationaluser access to those forest reserves. Throughthe amendments as a whole, the member for


Keppel tries to give permanent authority forrecreational access to all 425,000 hectares offorest reserves.

Obviously, I cannot accept thoseamendments as a whole because the wholepoint of having an interim tenure of the forestreserve is to allow the management planningprocess and the tenure allocation process toproceed. So I am not about to make apermanent allocation of all of that area forrecreational use. That is entirely inconsistentwith the planning process. That is why the firstamendment of the member for Keppel isconfining in the way it is drafted. As I say, if itwere more broadly drafted in the way thatother elements of the existing Object clauseare drafted, then consultation with varioususers of protected areas would be the sort ofthing I would accept an amendment to.However, the current amendment is confinedspecifically to accommodate the remainingamendments. For that purpose, I do not thinkit is appropriate. I might leave my comments atthat, because the point is that the remainingamendments try to achieve something which Ido not think is appropriate.

Mr Slack interjected.Mr WELFORD: I am happy to give an

undertaking to the member for Burnett thatthere will be adequate staff resourcesallocated to conduct the managementplanning process and to manage the areasregardless of what tenures they are allocatedto as part of that planning process.

Mr Slack: What about the temporarypositions that I referred to?

Mr WELFORD: I am not aware of any ofthe temporary positions being specificallyrelevant to the RFA planning process. Sincethe honourable member insists on pursuing anissue that has nothing to do with the clause, Iam happy to say to him that most of thetemporary positions that are expiring will bereadvertised and filled in the normal way thatcontract positions come and go indepartments over time.

Mr LESTER: One reason we have beensomewhat specific is that recreational usershave had certain conditions and now thoseconditions may not apply. The Minister hasindicated that there hopefully will not be toogreat a net loss, or no net loss at all. However,these people are very uncertain as to wherethe alternative areas are to which they can go.That is what people keep saying to me.People who have used a certain recreationarea do not want to have to go to Wondai. Iknow that might be an exaggerated example,but those are the sorts of things that are

worrying them greatly. We have to rememberthat recreation is most important in this dayand age. People are cooped up and it isdifficult to find places to engage in theirhobbies or ride their horses. Also, activitiessuch as picnics are healthy activities from afamily point of view. Many people see theirhealthy outdoor life possibly being taken awayfrom them.

I know that the Minister has tried to giveassurances that he will try to help, but they arejust assurances. Therefore, it may not bebecause of the Minister that there is nodelivery of those assurances. Certain publicservants who have the role of implementingthe laws have different interpretations. That iswhere we seem to be getting into very serioustrouble. One only has to look at the filming ofthe Survivor program. Some very righteousperson from the EPA has put a number ofconditions on that. For goodness' sake, this isa very serious matter because it could mean alot to our tourism industry. However, thesethings are happening because of theinterpretation by officers of the department.

As I travel around the State I see somewonderful officers who are committed to doingall the right things, yet all of a sudden anofficer can make an interpretation that makesit so difficult for people. The Minister could tryto get a more friendly attitude from someofficers within his department, and I haveexperienced this in many different areas. Notonly that, people from DNR and environmentgroups have different opinions. Problems areoften sorted out with one group of publicservants. However, some of those publicservants may leave the area and be replacedby a new public servant who has differentideas altogether. Therefore, people are subjectto these types of interpretations, and I raisethis issue very sincerely. This has been part ofthe problem and one reason why there is somuch trouble with this issue. People are notconfident. They do not distrust the Minister oranything such as that—I am sure the Minister'sheart is in the right place—it is just simply that,at the end of the day, things do not seem tohappen.

The Minister has given all sorts ofassurances to my colleague by saying that,yes, there will be funding for staff. However,Minister, this has not happened. Hell HoleNational Park is down to a budget of about$6,500 a year for this most magnificent area.That is silly stuff. Those are a few very broadcomments on the issue. The Minister meanswell, but it is not working. It is as simple asthat. I suggest that we try to do something thatgets these things working. We are trying to


bring in amendments that will make thesethings work. That is what we are trying to do.

Mr SEENEY: I want to take the Ministerup on some comments he made in responseto the amendment moved by the member forKeppel. Some of the responses that theMinister has given are as a result of thebriefings he has had, which have been takenout of context. The difficulty with thisamendment is that it has to be seen in thecontext of the original Act. The Act this Billseeks to amend is the Nature ConservationAct. Section 5 of Part 2 of that Act deals withthe object of the Act and is the section towhich this amendment refers, that is, how theobject is to be achieved. The Act states—

"The conservation of nature is to beachieved by an integrated andcomprehensive conservation strategy forthe whole of Queensland that involves,among other things ..."

The Act goes on to give two pages of thingsthat the conservation of nature involves.

However, the point I am making and thepoint illustrated with this amendment is thatprevious and potential uses of those areas arenot amongst those two pages of things to beinvolved in the conservation of nature to beconsidered in the decision-making processregarding the conservation of nature in thoseareas. They are not there. The Minister said inhis response that they are dealt with in themanagement plans. I had a quick look at that,yet previous and potential uses are not dealtwith there either. When one looks at thesection of the Act which lists what has to beconsidered in drawing up the managementplans for those areas, previous and potentialuses are not listed there either.

As the member for Burnett said, what wehave here is a "trust me" situation. This is"trust me" legislation. That is a great termwhich encapsulates exactly what the Minister isasking this Parliament and the people ofQueensland to do. As I said in my speech atthe second-reading stage, that is a big ask inthis particular situation because the people ofQueensland simply do not trust theGovernment because of its track record.

The second part of the amendment seeksto insert recognition of the interests ofrecreational forest users into the two pages ofthings that need to be considered in thedecision-making process under the NatureConservation Act when the conservationprinciples are being drawn up. The Ministersaid that this was singling out forest users andthat situations could arise whereby opencountry users would be similarly affected. To

some extent that is a valid point, but theMinister needs to understand why it hasarisen. The Nature Conservation and OtherLegislation Amendment Bill seeks to take anarea of Crown forest and somehow insert themanagement of that into this Act, but themanagement of that area has beencompletely different from the management ofthe conservation of nature. A whole series ofissues arise when we try to do that.Recognition of the interests of recreationalforest users is one such issue.

This situation has arisen because of theGovernment's policy with regard to the forests.Because the Minister has taken the option oftrying to control what were State forests bytransferring the management of them to theNature Conservation Act, a whole series ofissues has to be addressed, and this is one ofthem. The reason this part of the amendmentis so important is that people fear that therights they have had will be taken awaybecause of the Government's policy on themanagement of those forests.

Once the management of those areas istransferred into the Nature Conservation Act,direction needs to be provided to the people ofsouth-east Queensland. The Government'sintent needs to be made very clear in regard tothe interests of recreational forest users. Thispart of the amendment seeks to formallyrecognise the interests of recreational forestusers and give them the assurances theydeserve and need in order to get away fromthis "trust me" situation that the member forBurnett quite rightly referred to.

Time expired.

Mr ROWELL: The issue of fossicking inthese areas is quite important. There aregroups and mums and dads who go out tothese areas, camp and do a lot of fossickingas a recreational activity. I think it is importantthat we recognise the ability of these groups togo out and do that. These groups werepushed out of the World Heritage areas. I referto Wooroonooran, formally known as thePalmerston National Park.

I think it is quite important that werecognise fossicking, because it is a very low-key type of activity. I assure the Committeethat this type of low-key social activity ofcamping out and digging up a few stones hereand there is quite important to these peopleon weekends, when they have holidays and soon. I would not like to see that activity denied.Really, that is a recreational use of theseareas.

I turn to the matter of grazing. I believethere will be some restriction on grazing in


these areas. Graziers stand to lose sections oftheir property upon the renewal of leases.They will be in jeopardy. They put fences upand they base their income on being able tograze the cattle. They really do not do anenormous amount of harm to those forestareas. In fact, they keep the grass down. Inthe areas in which grazing was allowed, themahogany glider advanced significantlybecause there were no hot fires. Grazingreduces the fuel load under trees and is quiteadvantageous in many areas. There needs tobe some discretionary power and somethought put into the future of the grazingindustry in these areas. If it is not going todetract from what the Government is trying toaccomplish—we do not necessarily agree withall of it—then certainly there is still a role forgrazing in these areas.

Another important aspect is native plants.The world market for Australian wildflowers wasworth something like $400m in 1999. Only 8%was produced in Australia. Unfortunately, whenpicking these flowers in the wild the product isfairly inconsistent. Ultimately, if we are reallygoing to get into the wildflower market to theextent of countries such as Israel, which isgrowing our native flowers and plants, weprobably need to take them out of theseareas. But we still need them as a gene stock.That is the important issue.

The Act currently requires that nativeplants be put onto a restricted list and usedunder licence. I cite the example of the foxtailpalm. While it might have been restricted, Isaw foxtail palms in nurseries all around northQueensland where they were not supposed tobe. There needs to be a will for this sort ofthing to happen, but we really want to be ableto control the situation. We do not want todeny opportunities to Queenslanders. It isabsolutely essential that we foster that industryin order to create jobs, jobs, jobs.

There has been an indication thatdepartmental officers have been obstructive,aggressive and discouraging of people. Theneed for licence books, record keeping and soon is making it so that growers do not want tobe involved. In fact, that prospect is going toour overseas competitors, and Queenslandersare not able to get involved and engage inthat particular activity as well and as easily asthey should. It is interesting to see that thePremier talks about being a flower powerbroker, that he is going to become the flowerpower broker in Queensland. That was in theCourier-Mail on 24 May. The Minister may beaware of that particular article.

Time expired.

Mr SLACK: I welcome the Minister'sassurance that adequate staff and resourceswill be made available to get the desiredoutcome from this legislation. Could theMinister outline whether these staff will beadditional to current staff within thedepartment? Will they be permanent staff orwill they be temporary staff? I am not lookingto filibuster—

Mr Sullivan: I'd hate to see you try.

Mr SLACK: I know.In the Burnett district there was a grand

total of 95.03 staff at 30 June 1999. On 30June 2000 there were 94.77 staff. That isactually a decrease. The Ministeracknowledged in his response to thecontribution I made earlier that temporary staff,casual staff and contract staff are not beingrenewed. He has acknowledged that. As of2000 I think there are 33 casual andtemporary staff. A third of the 95 people weare talking about are going out of the region.That is cutting back considerably in that area.If we are to have additional staff, will there infact be additional staff appointed or will theycome from the existing permanent staff? Inother words, will it go against the trend?

The CHAIRMAN: I might seek the adviceof the Clerk. We are talking about the Objectsof the Bill, and certainly resourcing of thoseObjects is an issue, but having a lengthydebate at the Committee stage about staffingthe department is not really relevant. I will seekadvice from the Clerk.

Mr SLACK: Mr Chairman, I take yourpoint. Just hang on a minute.

Mr Sullivan: No, you hang on.

Mr Seeney: Who put you in charge?The CHAIRMAN: The member for

Chermside is not in charge, but the memberfor Callide should cease interjecting.

Mr SLACK: Mr Chairman, I take yourpoint to a degree. However, in outlining thosenumbers, I am illustrating a trend that hasoccurred in terms of staffing. We have asituation—

The CHAIRMAN: The member hasalready done that in the first 10 minutesallotted to him.

Mr SLACK: But the Minister has given thisCommittee an assurance that adequateresources will be made available to implementthis legislation. I have asked him a directquestion as to whether those staff will beadditional to the numbers there currently orwhether they will come from the existingpermanent staff.


The CHAIRMAN: I am going to have to sitthe member down, unfortunately, because as Isaid before, we did allow the issue of staffingto meet the Objects of the Bill to become adebate, but it is drawing a longbow. TheMinister has responded to that, and I wouldlike to leave it at that. I ask the member toresume his seat. Do any other members wishto speak to this amendment? If not, I wouldlike to put the amendment.

Mr Seeney: Isn't he going to respond?

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister hasindicated that he is not responding. Thequestion is that Mr Lester's amendment beagreed to. Those of that opinion say "aye"—

Mr SEENEY: I had another five minutes.If the Minister is not going to respond—

The CHAIRMAN: No. The member willresume his seat. I have just stated that it wasdrawing a longbow with regard to elements ofthis. I have stated that the Minister has alreadyresponded to that, and I think that isadequate. I am now putting the question. Thequestion is—

Mr Seeney interjected.

The CHAIRMAN: I warn the memberunder Standing Order 124. I am on my feetand I am going to stay on my feet. I am goingto put this clause. The question is that MrLester's amendment be agreed to. As manyas are of that opinion say "aye".

Opposition members: Aye.The CHAIRMAN: To the contrary "no".

Mr Lester: No. Divide!The CHAIRMAN: I think we have got this

a little bit wrong. Are you saying "no"?

An Opposition member: We're saying"yes".

The CHAIRMAN: Mr Lester said "no". If Iwanted to be very technical, I could say that,because he said "no", I could not take thedivision, but I understand that he meant to say"yes". I will call a division. Ring the bells.

Question—That Mr Lester's amendmentbe agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 43—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott,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, Wellington. Tellers: Baumann,HegartyNOES, 43—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,

Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

The numbers being equal, the Chairmancast his vote with the Noes.

Resolved in the negative.Clause 4, as read, agreed to.

Clause 5—Mr LESTER (12.28 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 7, after line 8—

insert—' "recreation", for a protected area, meansa non-commercial use of the area byindividuals or groups of individuals forleisure purposes.'."

This is a simple and straightforwardamendment that simply seeks to provide thatrecognition of recreation as a legitimatestakeholder in the management of protectedareas and the Crown forest. It definesrecreation for a protected area as a non-commercial use of the area by individuals orgroups of individuals for leisure purposes. Icould go on and say a whole lot more, but thatreally says it in a nutshell. I will leave mycomments at that for the moment.

Mr WELFORD: The amendment so far asit goes is not objectionable, except that"recreation" is not used anywhere else in thelegislation, so there is no point having adefinition in there. What I will give anundertaking to do, though, in light of thesubmissions made by members of theOpposition, is to look at certainly the context ofthe first two amendments that the Oppositionis proposing and consider, in the course ofresolving the allocation of tenures that willcontemplate recreational use in conservationparks, perhaps a new tenure that we may lookat down the track. I am happy to give furtherconsideration to the question of reference torecreation and recreational use in protectedareas in the course of the discussions with allthe user groups about the various uses thatare going to be involved.

As I say, I may well at a future time beprepared to come back and be more thanhappy to accept—indeed, propose on my ownaccount—elements of the first amendment,which has just been defeated, and the secondamendment. But the second amendment issuperfluous if there is not any other referenceto "recreation" in the Act, which there is not.So I do not see any point in supporting the


inclusion of a definition of "recreation" whenthe Act does not currently address recreationanywhere else.

Mr SEENEY: I find the Minister'sresponse somewhat puzzling because I thinkthat the response he just gave reinforces theargument that we have been trying to put bothwith the previous amendments and perhapsthis amendment, too. The point he makesabout it being superfluous given that theprevious two amendments were defeated istechnically correct, I guess, but it fails toaddress the intent of the changes that theOpposition has tried to make to this Bill.

If we look at the Nature ConservationAct—and I just did a quick count—there areabout nine pages of definitions. Thisamendment seeks to add one more. It seeksto add the definition of "recreation". It seeks tohave the Act define what "recreation" is for thesake of that Act.

The Minister's point is correct. Becausethe previous amendment was defeated, itprobably has less relevance, but it couldcertainly be seen as demonstrating orproviding a direction for people as to the useof those particular areas. I welcome theMinister's assurance that at some future timehe may be prepared to come in here and, ofhis own volition, suggest amendments toencapsulate or encompass the thrust of theoriginal amendments that he just voted todefeat, but it begs the question: why shouldthe people of Queensland, why should therecreational users of those forest areas, takethat on trust?

Once again, the argument that weadvanced in support of the previousamendment applies to this one.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Fouras): Order! I willnot allow the member for Callide to put theargument that he put before. He is entitled todebate only the need for a definition of"recreation" in this amendment. It is sodiscrete that I will not allow him to go beyondthat. That is all this amendment does. He canargue the need for a definition of "recreation",but I would suggest that that does not requirean hour.

Mr SEENEY: With respect, I said it wasthe same argument as I put before. I did notintend to repeat it, but I do take the point.

The point I make is that there are eightpages of definitions. The point I was leading tois that if the Minister's assurances are genuineand if the recognition that the Minister gave inhis response to this amendment is genuine,that this issue needs to be addressed at sometime in the future, there is no possible

downside to including one more definition, thedefinition of "recreation", in eight pages ofdefinitions that already exist in the Act. It is anopportunity for the Minister to demonstratehow genuine he is. There is a real need forhim to do that because of the issues that Ioutlined in the second-reading debate andbecause of the issues that I outlined in thedebate about the previous amendment. Isuggest to the Minister that, if nothing else, itwould be a demonstration of good faith, somesort of assurance to the people who have verygenuine concerns that some of the floweryphrases and the highfalutin words that he hasgone on and on with have some meaning andthat he is fair dinkum to at least some extentto accept this amendment.

Mr LESTER: I do appreciate the Minister'sassurances. We would like it backed up,though, by his accepting our amendment.

Mr WELFORD: The first thing I want tosay is that if I thought the member for Callidewas acting in good faith, I would almost feelsorry enough for him to do it, and if I thoughtfor a moment—

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. Ifind the thought of the Minister feeling sorry forme offensive. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr WELFORD: I will never feel sorry forhim again.

The CHAIRMAN: Just withdraw.

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. I will not feelsorry for him.

The point is that if I thought for oneminute that the member for Callide would walkout of here and give me any credit whatsoeverfor allowing this amendment through, then Iwould be tempted to accept it. But I know whathe is like, so I will not.

There are two additional reasons for notaccepting the amendment at this stage. Thefirst reason is that if the honourable memberhad read any of the eight pages of definitionsthat he talks about, he would have seen that,in the definition of "nature based" in relation tothe use of a protected area, it includes, amongother things, recreational use. So recreation isalready recognised—

Mr Seeney: Define it.

Mr WELFORD: "Recreation" means what"recreation" means, but it is alreadyrecognised in the legislation as it is.

The second reason for not accepting theamendment is that, as the honourablemember will note from his very close reading ofthe amendment, this definition of "recreation"is confined to non-commercial recreation for


leisure purposes. As far as it goes, that soundslike a pretty good definition to me, but in thecontext of resolving the range of recreationaluses that will come out of the discussions andthe negotiation process with all the users inrelation to allocating tenures, it may be that wedo not want to confine recreation in that way;we may want to introduce provisions that dealwith recreational use of a range of tenuredareas that look at recreation differently to whatthis confines it to.

So the point I made before is that at theend of this process that identifies which areaswill be used for which types of recreation, Imay well come back here and, as thingscurrently stand, I do not see any particularproblem with coming back here and providingspecific statutory recognition for the kinds ofrecreation that the tenure resolution processwill provide for. But it is appropriate that in thatcontext we define which recreation we want tocover. To do that peremptorily now, while itmight, in the words of the member for Callide,be an indication of good faith, I do not havesufficient confidence in his good faith that mygood faith would be recognised.

Mr SEENEY: Once again, I find theMinister's comments extraordinary. I wouldsuggest to the Minister that he has, in hiscontribution before the one we just listened to,probably misled the House, albeit I concedenot deliberately.

I recall the Minister saying, that because"recreation" was not mentioned in this Bill,there was no need to define "recreation". Thatwas in the contribution the Minister madebefore the one we just listened to. In thecontribution that we just listened to, theMinister refers to a definition in the Bill thatspecifically mentions recreation and yet it doesnot define what "recreation" is.

Mr Welford interjected.Mr SEENEY:That is our very point; that is

what we have been saying. The Minister hasfinally cottoned on. That is what we are talkingabout. We need to define what "recreation" is.

There is a whole range of traditional usersof forest areas who are concerned that thetraditional recreational uses that they haveenjoyed of what was public land and Stateforest will be denied them. We are saying thatas part of this process of transferring themanagement of those areas from the ForestryAct to the Nature Conservation Act, what theyare allowed to do, what "recreation" is in termsof the Nature Conservation Act, has to bedefined. It needs to be defined so that peoplewill be assured that the traditional use thatthey have enjoyed will continue. That is the

reason why "recreation" needs to be defined.It needs to be defined clearly because there isa lot of doubt in the community. Many peopleare concerned and worried about this. Thatwas illustrated by the fact that they were hereat Parliament House yesterday expressingtheir concerns about this legislation.

This amendment, which seeks to havethe concept of recreation defined, is inresponse to those concerns. There is a needto define these things. As I said, there areeight pages of definitions—and so thereshould be. Things that are mentioned inlegislation should be clearly defined becauselots of terms mean different things to differentpeople. In this case, the term "recreation" willmean different things to different people.

In the Nature Conservation Act we findthat "nature based" is defined and part of thedefinition mentions the word "recreational".That means different things to differentpeople. I have previously acknowledged in thisHouse that there is a huge philosophical gapbetween the Minister and me. I acknowledgethat the Minister quite easily has a differentunderstanding from mine on what is"recreation". That simply illustrates the need todefine the term so far as this legislation isconcerned. That is the very basis of theargument.

Given the contribution that the Ministermade earlier today, he should make clear tothis House where he stands. As I said earlier, Ibelieve that the Minister did mislead theHouse—albeit not deliberately. I believe thatthe insertion of a definition would go a longway towards allaying the distrust of thislegislation in the general community. A lot ofpeople's fears would be allayed if the conceptof recreation was defined in the way that themember for Keppel has defined it in hisamendment. It encapsulates all the activitiesthat people have traditionally carried on inState forests. The coalition is saying veryloudly and very clearly that people should bepermitted to continue to enjoy their traditionalrecreation activities.

Question—That Mr Lester's amendmentbe agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—

AYES, 43—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott,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, Wellington. Tellers: Baumann,Hegarty


NOES, 43—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell


Resolved in the negative.Clause 5, as read, agreed to.

Clause 6, as read, agreed to.Insertion of new clause—

Mr LESTER (12.49 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 7, after line 16—insert—

'Amendment of s 11 (Meaning ofecologically sustainable use)'6A. Section 11(d), 'ensuring that thebenefit of the use to presentgenerations'—

omit, insert—

'ensuring optimal benefit to presentgenerations while at the same timeensuring the use by presentgenerations.'.'."This is a fairly simple and straightforward

amendment. The Nature Conservation Actcurrently provides that "ecologically sustainableland use" is in relation to the use of protectedareas and should ensure that the current useof these areas by people does not diminish itspotential to meet the needs and aspirations offuture generations. That is what we are about.

The coalition's amendment does not seekto alter the overall goal of protecting ourprotected areas to the best extent possible;rather, our amendment seeks to introducesome greater acknowledgment of the benefitthat these areas can provide to currentgenerations while still ensuring their protectionfor the benefit of future generations. It is asmall alteration that will help deliver optimumbenefit from the use of these areas to thecurrent generation and to future generations.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to support theamendment moved by the member forKeppel. As he said, it is a minor amendmentthat changes the meaning of "ecologicallysustainable development". It is a small changeto that definition, but I believe it has somewhatgreater importance than a first glance wouldindicate. This amendment illustrates onceagain the philosophical difference between theGovernment, the coalition and the great bulk

of forest users. This amendment tries toenshrine in legislation the right for presentgenerations to use these areas.

Mr Welford: It is already in there.

Mr SEENEY: The Minister said that it isalready in there. Yesterday the Minister stoodoutside the Parliament and tried to assurepeople that that right was already in there.However, the fact that those people wereprotesting yesterday means that he has notbeen able to assure the people of south-eastQueensland that it is already in there; that hehas not been able to convince people thatthey will have that right. He has not been ableto address those fears over the past monthsduring the consultation period and in the lead-up to the introduction of the Bill into thisChamber. He has not been able to assurepeople that that right is in the legislation. Thatis why they were protesting yesterday. TheMinister has not been able to convince peoplethat it is already in there. This amendmentseeks to address that failure to convincepeople that they have that right. It seeks toreassure people that they have that right. Itseeks to make it clear that the presentgeneration does have the right to use theseareas but at the same time ensures that theywill be preserved for future generations.

It arises from a fear in the community thatthere is a "lock 'em up and throw away thekey" approach to so many areas ofQueensland that are considered to be worthyof conservation; that there is a philosophicalbelief on the part of the deep green end of theconservation movement that these areasshould be locked up to the exclusion ofordinary Queenslanders, that it is only theelites of the dark green conservationmovement who really understand the value ofthese areas, that it is somehow not for theeveryday Queenslander, and that access tothese areas should be restricted only to thepeople who really understand their value or toacademics studying them as though they weresome sort of scientific exhibit.

This amendment is seeking, albeit in asmall way, to allay the fear that there is aphilosophic approach on the part of theGovernment to lock up areas and throw awaythe key. There are plenty of examples aroundQueensland of why that fear has arisen. Thoseexamples in themselves justify this sort ofamendment to this legislation and any futurelegislation. It is because of the track recordthat this Government has in relation to suchareas as the Daintree and the World Heritagearea in north Queensland, which the memberfor Hinchinbrook spoke about yesterday and a


number of times in this debate, that people insouth-east Queensland are genuinely andunderstandably concerned that this willhappen to the forest areas of south-eastQueensland. That is why this amendment—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I suggest that thehonourable member address how thisamendment does that. There are only acouple of words in it, such as "optimal" and"present generations". I will not allow him tokeep going. The shadow Minister said that it isa simple and straightforward amendment. Infour minutes the honourable member hasrepeated everything he said and is going backto issues in the community. I will not allow that.I am very close to sitting the honourablemember down. He should take that as awarning from me.

Mr SEENEY: Mr Chairman, I take yourpoint.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a very simpleamendment, yet the honourable member isturning it into a general debate. Thehonourable member is not addressing theamendment.

Mr SEENEY: I take your point, MrChairman, but I made the point at thebeginning that, although this is a simpleamendment, it deals with a big issue. Thechanges encapsulated in our amendmentmean that the people of south-eastQueensland who are concerned about this canbe assured that this legislation "ensuresoptimal benefit to present generations while atthe same time ensuring the use by futuregenerations". That is an important concept.Today for some reason, Mr Fouras, you seemto be in a hurry to get out of here, so I will notlabour the point. But I make the point verygenuinely that this addresses a genuine andunderstandable concern in south-eastQueensland. It is a genuine amendment thatshould not be trivialised.

Mr WELFORD: I do not accept theamendment. The reason I do not accept theamendment is that there is a nationallyaccepted definition of "ecologically sustainabledevelopment and use", and theintergenerational equity component of thatnationally accepted definition is what iscurrently in the Act. There is no basis forintroducing a confusing augmentation of thatdefinition of the sort proposed by theOpposition. We know what its agenda is byinserting the word "optimal" in front of"benefit". It is to facilitate what it believes"optimal benefit" means, and that does notnecessarily accord with ecologically sustainableuse. It is designed to be a backdoor way of

amending the concept of ecologicalsustainability in order for the Opposition to beable to do whatever it likes in protected areas ifit ever gets into Government, and I will notaccept it.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the shadowMinister intend to call a division on thisamendment?

Mr Lester: Yes. The CHAIRMAN: In that case, the

Committee will resume at 2.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.58 p.m. to2.30 p.m.

Mr WELFORD: In responding to thesubmissions made before lunch in relation tothis amendment, I think I have made it veryclear that it is premature to settle upon adefinition of what recreation we are referring toin the Objects clause of the legislation when,as a result of the process that we are nowgoing through in regard to recreational users,there could be a range of different types ofrecreation that need to be considered at theend of this process.


Mr WELFORD: I was responding to themember's previous criticism. When I saidbefore that "recreation" is not elsewhere in theAct, I meant that "recreation" is not dealt withelsewhere in the Act, and it is not. It is referredto only in relation to that nature based use ofprotected areas.

In relation to sustainable development,again I just really do not see the point of themember's proposition. It is all right for theOpposition spokesperson to stand up and say,"Well, it is a simple, straightforwardamendment", but he did not make clear whatthe purpose of the change is designed to be.The member for Callide attempted to help himwith that. He said, "Well, like the previousprovision in relation to recreation, this isdesigned to give comfort of some kind topeople who have concerns of some kind." Thereality is, of course, that this amendment doesnot give any more comfort to anyone than thelast amendment did. He knows full well thatneither of them of their own volition would giveany comfort to recreationists or would makeany difference to their concerns.

I know as well as the members on theother side what the concerns are. It may wellbe that, if all the amendments proposed bythe Opposition were passed and we were tolock in a permanent forest reserve tenure forthe whole 400,000 hectares which legislatedfor full recreational access to all of it, thatwould satisfy some of the concerns of some of


the people who are recreational users.However, that would be inconsistent with theimplementation program and the planningprocess that is being undertaken to identifyappropriate uses for appropriate locations. TheOpposition amendments collectively open thegate to inappropriate uses in a number ofinappropriate locations. Obviously, that is notwhat I would be prepared to concede, and I donot think that it is really what the Oppositionwould want to see occur. But that is what it isopening the gates to by proposing itsamendments.

Mr LESTER: We are saying that ouramendment seeks to introduce some greateracknowledgment of the benefit that theseareas can provide to current generations whilestill ensuring their protection for the benefit offuture generations. I believe that, if thisamendment were passed, we could build amanagement plan around it. In this day andage we need open spaces for our youngpeople to use for recreation purposes. Ibelieve that at the end of the day this Bill isgoing to curtail a lot of that. The Governmentis going about this in absolutely the wrongway. I firmly believe that we can build amanagement plan around the amendments.This amendment has been put forward in very,very good faith.

It is also a signal to those people who areconcerned that we are fair dinkum. TheMinister might have all the best intentions inthe world, and I know quite often he has, but itis up to those people who enforce the rules.Even the Minister is unable to keep a steadyhand on everything that goes on in thedepartment. It is a big department with a lot ofstaff. A lot of people want to do their ownthing, and there are a lot of different forms ofmanagement. The Minister's heart might be inthe right place and he might try to do it, but hecannot do it.

Mr Welford: This amendment won'tconstrain them.

Mr LESTER: I believe it can. Anyway, it isour view that we have a purpose in movingthat amendment, and we will certainly bevoting for it.

Mr SEENEY: The Minister's responseindicates just how mixed up he is about thiswhole piece of legislation and indicates theseriousness with which it has beenapproached. The Minister stood up after lunchand started to talk about the previousamendment, the one that we have alreadydivided on. This amendment deals with thedefinition of "sustainable use". That is thesecond or third major mistake that he has

made in the consideration of the clauses ofthis particular piece of legislation. It is anindication that this whole matter is not beingtaken seriously.

This amendment seeks to change thedefinition in the Act of "ecologically sustainableuse". That is important because "ecologicallysustainable use" is a key part of all of therequirements of the management plans for allthe protected areas later on in the Act. That isthe case. It is important that that definition beright. When the definition that is in the NatureConservation Act is applied to the new areasthat are going to be managed under this Act,when it is applied to the new areas that usedto be managed as forestry reserves, it can beused to exclude people. It can be used almostas a blanket exclusion of those people whopreviously used those forest areas for a wholerange of activities. It can be used in that waybecause subsection (d) is basically a catch-all.It is a catch-all that allows "ecologicallysustainable use" to be defined in a very broadway.

The amendment that the member forKeppel has put up changes the focus of thatdefinition. The first three words of theamendment of the member for Keppel are"ensuring optimal benefit" to the presentgenerations. Our amendment means that thepresent generation is able to use and benefitfrom those particular forest areas in the waythey have done for the past 100 years. That isthe difference. It has nothing to do with thedefinition of "recreation". That was theamendment that we divided on before lunch. Ithink the Minister's advisers should makesome effort to keep him up to date on thedebate. This has to do with the definition of"ecologically sustainable use". Ouramendment changes the thrust and thedefinition of the term "ecologically sustainableuse" to ensure that the present generation isable to continue to use those areas—and sothey should.

Mr Welford: That is already there.

Mr SEENEY: I take the Minister'sinterjection. He should concede to thisChamber that it is there so long as they meeta whole range of conditions, so long as theareas are used in accordance with themanagement plans, etc. An important part ofall of those management plans and the otherconditions is that they have to meet thisdefinition of "ecologically sustainable use".

Mr Welford: What is it again?

Mr SEENEY: It is not recreation. I was notas far off the mark as the Minister was. Theyhave to meet the definition of "ecologically


sustainable use", and that is the problem. Theway this definition is defined in the Bill ratherthan the way it should be defined as containedin our amendment means that presentgenerations can be excluded simply because itcan be decided that use by the presentgeneration has some impact on use by futuregenerations. The ludicrous position of theextreme Greens is the idea that the forest canbe used for recreation whereby people cancontinue to carry on their activities so long asthey do not have an impact and so long asthey do not change that area in some way thatwill reflect on the use of that area for people inthe future.

Our amendment is a much more sensibleapproach. It takes the view that the people ofthis generation have the right to use thoseareas. However, they also have a responsibilityto protect those areas as best they can for theuse of future generations. While this is asimple amendment, it is a big difference inphilosophy. It is a difference in philosophy thatthe Minister will never accept. He is a supporterof the definition as it appears in the legislationwhich gives him and other people at theextreme end of the conservation movementthe right to lock those areas up and say,"Because you're creating an impact, you can'tuse them and therefore you have to beexcluded."

Time expired.Question—That Mr Lester's amendment

be agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 41—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, Knuth, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler,Quinn, Rowell, Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Veivers,Watson, Wellington. Tellers: Baumann, HegartyNOES, 41—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell


Resolved in the negative.Clause 7—

Mr LESTER (2.47 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 7, lines 20 to 22—

omit, insert—

'(da)national parks (recovery); and(l) forest reserves.'.

'(2) Section 14(da) to (l)—renumber as section 14(e) to (m).'."

What the Beattie Government has soughtto do in this Bill is to provide a two-stagetransfer process for assigning 425,000hectares of the south-east Queensland Crownnative forest network to protected area status.The Bill proposes to transfer this area to aninterim holding tenure to be known as "forestreserve" for a period of no greater than fiveyears. In that time, the Government wouldprogressively dedicate these areas under otherpermanent forms of protected area tenure,such as national park, for long-termadministration under the Nature ConservationAct.

The assumption that it is the Parliament'sintention that each area of land dedicated asforest will become a protected area as soon aspracticable after its dedication as forest reserveis clearly stated in the Explanatory Notes.Given that the Minister has chosen to use theNature Conservation Act over the Forestry Act,the conclusion that can be drawn is that thetenure of this protected area will be a nationalpark or a variation of a national park. While theclaim has been made by the Minister inresponse to the legitimate concerns raised bythe likes of those recreational users outsidethis Parliament that there will be no net loss ofaccess, the omission of any such guaranteesin this legislation, or indeed anyacknowledgment of recreational users or theother low-impact industries, only serves tounderline the likelihood of that conclusion.Such an approach is, at best, ignorant of theneeds of those forest users and, at worst,completely foolhardy.

The additional reserves proposed—some425,000 hectares—are far in excess of thoserequired to establish a scientifically-basedCARR system. Advice from the FederalGovernment suggests the required reservearea would be more appropriately establishedat around 300,000 hectares. It is also worthnoting that there have been another 809,000hectares added to the reserve network overthe past 25 years. The implications of theexcessive area set aside by the BeattieGovernment will be potentially very serious forthis State and the taxpayer, particularly as timegoes by. The Beattie Government hasnegotiated a 25-year wood supply agreementwith the remaining native timber sawmillers. Onbehalf of the State, the Beattie Governmenthas undertaken to provide those sawmillerswith a guaranteed supply of timber at their


current levels or, if that supply cannot be met,to pay very generous compensation for theState's failure to meet that obligation.

Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order.What the member is saying has nothing to dowith the clause he has moved an amendmentto. I suggest he keep to matters of relevance.

Mr LESTER: I think I am getting a bitclose to the bone. That is why the Minister isso upset. In simple terms—

The CHAIRMAN: I will listen. I suggest themember speaks to his amendment.

Mr Welford: He is back talking about theRFA and logging. That has nothing to do withthis.

Mr LESTER: As a result of the Bill, theState could be left with a major financial liabilitythat the taxpayer would have to pay long afterMr Beattie and Mr Welford have gone.

The Opposition cannot support theframework proposed in this Bill and that flowsfrom this clause. We cannot support theexpedited transfer of this reserve area tonational park. We cannot support the five-yearsunset clause for the proposed category offorest reserve. Our amendment seeks torecognise the existing uses of the Crownforest, to recognise the need for an area ofadditional reserve—not an area of 425,000hectares—and to provide legitimate andsensible safeguards for the futuremanagement of the forest.

What this amendment and those that flowfrom it propose to establish is a new class ofprotected area under the Nature ConservationAct called "forest reserve". This amendmentseeks simply to acknowledge the tenure offorest reserve in the Act as a form of protectedtenure. However, this new forest reservetenure would not entail the same extent ofmanagement restrictions that are imposed onnational parks, conservation parks and the like.

As our subsequent amendments set out,such a forest reserve would be a genuinereserve without any sunset clause but withclear acknowledgment of the existing uses inthat forest and provision for those uses tocontinue to be carried out in those areaswhere their impact is of low or manageableimpact. This tenure would be a genuinereserve. It would allow for the wind-up oflogging in the reserve area, but it would alsoprovide the safeguard that, if necessary forwhatever reason, an area could be revisitedwithout the need to revoke a national park, asis the current intention of the Bill.

Very importantly, our amendment allowsfor a scientific assessment of the forest and

those areas that should be designated foradded protected status, but it also allows forthe continued use of the forest whereverpossible for other low-impact uses such asbeekeeping, grazing and various recreationalactivities. This approach provides theassurances that the recreational users and theother low-impact industries are asking for. Itprovides the security that the taxpayer needsand that the timber industry is also asking for.

The model proposed by the Opposition,to the best extent possible under theparameters established by the Government'suse of the Nature Conservation Act, seeks tomeet the objectives of a genuine RFA inproviding a balanced, long-term managementarrangement for the forests whichaccommodates the interests of all forest users.This is a reasonable and sensitive alternativeto the model proposed by the Minister. Istrongly urge members to support ouramendment. If it is passed I believe we willthen have some sensible, caring legislation.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to support theamendment moved by the member forKeppel. This amendment is the cornerstone ofthe Opposition's alternative approach to thislegislation. As the member for Keppel hasoutlined, this amendment allows for the landtitle of forest reserve to be a genuine title—atitle that can fulfil all of the needs of all of thepeople, all of the interest groups and all of thestakeholders who traditionally have used whatused to be forestry land.

We accept that we have probably lost theargument on logging that 425,000 hectares.We accept that this Government is going tomake that into some sort of reserve. Theargument now is about what sort of reservethat should be. The Government hasproposed one model for its legislation. In thisamendment we are suggesting anothermodel—a better model, a model that betterrecognises the needs of all the stakeholders inthe debate. The Government's model doesnot recognise the needs of all the stakeholdersin the debate. It does not even acknowledgethat the interests of those stakeholders shouldbe part of the decision-making process. Wetried with previous amendments to have thatrecognised, but it was not recognised.

This amendment seeks to have theGovernment's model changed so that it doesbecome more suitable to the needs of thosetraditional forest users. It allows that 425,000hectares to remain in a title that is somethingless than national park. It does not mean thatthe whole 425,000 hectares has to remain inthat title. The Minister made a number of


references to that earlier in the debate. It doesnot mean that at all. It means that at leastsome, or hopefully a major part, of that425,000 hectares can remain in this title calledforest reserve which is being inserted underPart 4 of the Nature Conservation Act, whichlists the protected areas. At the moment that isnot there. In the Government's model thisforest reserve title disappears. In the Minister'sown words—

The CHAIRMAN: I ask the member forCallide to wait just one second. I notice thatthere are other amendments which themember is, in a way, speaking to. I will be veryhappy to allow the debate to go on to includethose amendments if some considerationcould be given to withdrawing the otheramendments if this amendment does notpass. I would be happy for the member tohave a general discussion on those. We couldbring them in together, but we will vote on justthis amendment because, in my view, if thisamendment does not pass the others fall over.

Mr SEENEY: They are consequentialamendments.

The CHAIRMAN: As I said, I would behappy to allow the member to refer to thoseother amendments. The amendment we aredebating at the moment is very narrow, but theother amendments are consequential. So thatis fine. We will do it that way.

Mr SEENEY: This amendment calls forthe insertion of the forest reserve land titleunder the protected areas in Part 4 of theNature Conservation Act. I am trying to explainwhy the coalition has developed thisamendment and why we believe it is a betteroption. I would appreciate the opportunity todo that.

In his second-reading speech the Ministerquoted the legislation. I also quoted it in myspeech at the second-reading stage. TheMinister has made it very clear that it is theGovernment's intention for this 425,000hectares to be added to the national parkestate as quickly as possible. The coalition hasbuilt this amendment around the obvious needfor so many recreational groups to haveaccess to areas in order for them to continuetheir activities. That is going to be very difficultif those 425,000 hectares very quickly becomenational park.

So this amendment is a recognition ofthat need. It also accedes to theGovernment's requirement to have those425,000 hectares reserved, because it allowsthe forest reserve title to be given to theprotected areas but it sets it up as a land titlethat is something less than a national park. It

sets it up in a way that allows the area to beprotected from logging, which is theGovernment's main concern. As I said, wehave lost that argument and we accept that.However, this amendment allows theDepartment of Natural Resources to reservelarge areas from logging but still make themavailable for other uses on much easier termsthan they would be if they were national parks.It makes them available to the grazingindustry, to the recreational users—the horseriders and the four-wheel drivers—for all ofthose activities that probably, quite rightly in alot of instances, are not allowed to beundertaken in national parks.

As I have said a number of times, theMinister continues to oppose ouramendments. But if he was serious about theassurances that he has been giving to theinterest groups and if he was serious about theassurances that he gave to the protesters infront of the Parliament yesterday, he would beprepared to accept this amendment, becauseit is very reasonable and straightforward. Itaccommodates all of the interest groups, incontrast to the Government's model, whichcomes directly from the point of view of oneinterest group only, and that is the extremeend of the conservation movement that wantsto lock up all of these areas and turn them intonational parks as quickly as possible withoutany consideration as to how they are going tobe managed, without any consideration as tohow the management needs of those areasare going to be met.

As in so many other cases, if the modelthat is being proposed by the extreme end ofthe conservation movement is accepted ratherthan the more sensible model that thecoalition is putting up in this amendment andbecomes the code of practice on the ground,we are going to have the very real danger ofthose areas taking a backward step and beingtaken over by weeds and foreign species ofplants. We are also going to see those areasdevelop fire risks. During the second-readingdebate, a number of members referred tothese areas ending up in an unmanaged stateand eventually being almost destroyed by firesduring the hottest parts of the summer. Thatstems from a lack of understanding of landmanagement by the people who are puttingforward these models. In much ofQueensland's natural forest areas, every yearthere was a burn-off. That does not happenanymore, simply because fires are a lot morecontrolled now than they were when the landwas in its natural state. Unless that build-up ofmaterial is continually controlled and the firerisk is continually reduced, we are going to see


in the future—and we have seen a number ofexamples of this in the past—significant areasbeing very badly damaged by fires that do notoccur as part of the natural process.

So this amendment will allow grazing,especially, to continue. Although I know thatthe Minister and his compatriots regard grazingin these areas as undesirable, from a landmanagement point of view it has a lot ofbenefits in reducing that fire threat. It alsobrings a lot of benefits to the Government froma management point of view, because thegrazing leaseholders have an incentive tomanage those areas in terms of controllingferal animals and weeds—all the things thatare part of land management that those of uswho are practical land managers understandbut which do not seem to enter into theconsideration of those who are from the darkgreen end of the conservation movement whojust want to lock up areas and somehow letthem go back to nature because they thinkthat that is the solution to everything. Itcertainly is not. Those people certainly do notrecognise the practicalities of landmanagement in any way. They simply do notunderstand. So I commend this amendmentto the Chamber.

Mr WELFORD: The suggestion is that, byapproving this and subsequent amendments, Iwould somehow remain true to the assurancesthat I gave to the recreational users outsideParliament House yesterday. Nothing could befurther from the truth. The reality is that, if Ipursued this course, I would be doingsomething in direct contradiction to what I toldthe people outside Parliament Houseyesterday. I told them very clearly that we aregoing to be proceeding through a negotiatedprocess that assesses each forest area on itsmerits, identifies areas as appropriate forrecreational users of various kinds, identifiesthe best sites for each of those recreationalusers and creates a tenure for themaccordingly.

This amendment proposes that all of theforests be permanently declared in apermanent forest reserve tenure, not aninterim tenure, and that all the recreationaluses to be continued in all of those forests besubject to management plans at some time.

Mr SEENEY: I rise to a point of order. TheMinister knows that that is not right.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point oforder. Resume your seat. It is not a point oforder. Seriously, it is not. I can tell you that it isnot. Believe me.

Mr WELFORD: The Opposition membersdo not even understand their own

amendments, because that is exactly whattheir amendments do: they create apermanent forest reserve tenure that allowsrecreational use in forest reserves. That is whatthey are proposing. That is not consistent withthe assurances I have given not only to thepeople who attended Parliament Houseyesterday but also to other forest recreationaluser groups. It is clearly inconsistent with thecommitments that the Government has givento those people. So we cannot support them.

Furthermore, it is clear that the memberfor Callide is conspiring with the Oppositionspokesperson to ensure that this debate isdragged out for as long as possible and thatthey have now set upon a deliberate course tofilibuster this debate. Accordingly, so long asthat occurs, I will not be participating further.

Mr LESTER: I find that remarkextraordinary. All that I have said has beenresearched thoroughly. It has been done inconsultation with the affected groups. Is thatnot the role of a member of Parliament? Ifpeople have a problem, a member ofParliament meets with those people. If whatthey put up is reasonable, then a member ofParliament puts it to the Parliament. Really,that is what we are doing. The Ministersuggests that we are filibustering when, in fact,everything that I have said here today hasbeen researched.

The Minister should not think for onemoment that we just agreed entirely with therecreation group right from day one. They hadto come in and prove their case. They alsohad to show respect for the environment. Inrespect of all of those issues, more than oncethey have gone back and then come back tous with an improved presentation which wecould put to the Parliament and which wouldbe sustainable, sensible and retain their rightswhile at the same time caring for theenvironment.

The Minister suggests that we arefilibustering. Honestly, I thought better of theMinister. He is acting like a little puppy dog,putting his tail between his legs and saying, "Iwill not participate anymore if we carry on withthis." For goodness' sake, what is the Ministertalking about? He is a grown man, or heshould be. He holds a responsible position inthis Parliament. I have never heard a Ministersuggest that he is not going to participate inany more debate. Fancy a lawyer not beingable to participate in a debate. For goodness'sake, what has the Minister come to!Goodness me! Do not tell me that the bakerfrom Clermont has knocked over the Minister?That is what it looks like. The baker from


Clermont has knocked over the lawyer. Hecannot compete, so he is putting his tailbetween his legs. That is what the Minister isdoing. He is not game enough to say anymore because he knows damned well that weare right. He knows that we care for the peoplewho matter. He knows that we are thinking ofrecreation. He knows what that means tofamily life. He knows how people do not like tobe cooped up anymore. I really am getting tothe point where I am nearly going to have tobe as aggressive as Mr Seeney, and thatwould have to be something. I am simplysaying that I do not have—

Mr Schwarten: I think you may haveseen this before in the Bjelke-Petersen days. Ithink you were a Minister then.

Mr LESTER: One of the qualities that Iwas known for in the TAFE colleges and otherplaces was listening to people and helpingthem. I will relate to the member forRockhampton at another point many, manymore stories—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the memberfor Keppel not to allow the Minister for PublicWorks and Minister for Housing to divert himfrom his cause.

Mr LESTER: I thank the Chairman for hisprotection from the Minister for Public Worksand Minister for Housing.

Mr Schwarten: You didn't say that to methe other day when you wanted me to come tothe Cawarral school with you.

Mr LESTER: If the Minister would justhold that mouth of his for a moment, I wasgoing to say he is a good man, too. He does alot of good work for the people. That is what Iwas about to say; he should not anticipate me.

I will again make the call on behalf ofthese people and others. At some point morepeople will wake up and see what has beendone to them. So often after legislation haspassed through this place and the debate is allover people come to us and say, "Well, whydidn't you stand up for us?", and we say,"Well, why the heck didn't you get behind us abit more?" People are not fully aware of somuch that goes on in this world but, as theimpact of this legislation is felt five years downthe track and later, they will start to realisewhat has happened. I have to ask, "Where arewe going to be in 20 years' time?" That is mymain concern about all of this. In 20 years'time the impact of this legislation will not bewhat is now promised. The Minister talks aboutgrazing rights and so on. Any good grazierknows that in some of these areas grazingmore than anything else better protects theland from such things as weeds, excessive

rubbish that causes heat fires, burning and thissort of thing.

The people who give advice to theMinister do not always know that their advice isright. They might mean well but they havenever been out in the real world. They have noidea how it operates and they get everythingback to front. Unfortunately, quite often theadvice leads to environmental tactics gonewrong, as we saw with the fires that occurredoutside Sydney some years ago. Part of theproblem was that people were not allowed toclear the undergrowth that fuelled all of thosefires.

Time expired.

Mr SEENEY: I, too, want to respond tothe Minister's extraordinary outburst. For aMinister of the Crown to come in here and saythat he will not do his job because it is gettingtoo hard is quite extraordinary. The Ministeris—

Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order. Idid not say that I would not do my job; I saidthat I would not participate in a filibuster in thisChamber, as the member for Callide is doingright now.

Mr SEENEY: I put on record my absolutedisdain for the Minister's attitude in this wholedebate. He has come in here totallyunprepared, not knowing the detail of thislegislation and expecting it to be passedstraight through the Chamber without anyneed for him to provide clarification,explanation or justification. That is anabrogation of his responsibilities. He gets thebig money, the salary and the big flash car; itis his job to come in here and justify to thepeople of Queensland why this piece oflegislation is necessary. We have moved anamendment which we—

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I have allowedthe member for Callide to respond to astatement made by the Minister. I have saidthat I will allow him to speak broadly about theamendment. I suggest he gets back to that.

Mr SEENEY: I have only five minutes.Here we have an amendment that we believeprovides a better option than the model thatthe Government is putting forward. We haveexplained to this Parliament and to the peopleof Queensland why we believe it is a bettermodel than the one that the Government hasbeen putting forward.

The Minister stood up and very arrogantlydeigned to give the response that ouramendment is not necessary because in thefive years that this forest reserve title will existhe will look at and assess all these areas. Most


of them will go to national park, but he willcarve off little areas here for the horse riders,little areas there for the four-wheel drivers andlittle areas somewhere else for anotherrecreation user group.

What we are saying is that that is not thebest option. What we are saying is that ouramendment is the best option, that the425,000 hectares that will be reserved shouldbe left in this particular land title. If it be thatsome areas need to be converted to nationalpark, they can be. If the Government wants toconvert 200,000 of that 425,000 hectares tonational parks, then so be it, but the rest of itcan stay as forest reserve title. That is whatthis amendment does; it allows that title tocontinue. That is the better option because itallows all the stakeholders—all the groupswhich have used the State forests, in somecases for the last 100 years—to continue to dothat.

That is the crux of the issue; that is themost important part of this whole legislation.That is why there were people outside thegates of Parliament yesterday. That is whythere have been public meetings all oversouth-east Queensland. That is why therehave been meetings on the outskirts ofBrisbane—because this is an important issuefor a lot of people. It is sufficiently importantthat the Minister should take it seriously, buthe has not taken it seriously. Shame on himfor not taking it seriously. The childish dummy-spit of a moment ago when the member forKeppel and I pointed out the inadequacies ofthe Government's model will live with him for along time to come. It demonstrated to thepeople of Queensland just how inadequate heis in his role.

The amendment we have put forward is agood amendment. It is a good amendment inthe opinion of the people who have maderepresentations to us. In lots of cases it solvestheir problem. It reassures them that theirneeds will continue to be met, so it deserves abetter response than the childish five-year-oldtype response that it got from the Minister ofthe Crown who stood up and said, "Oh, I'mgetting sick of this. I'm not going to do it anymore. I'm going to take my bat and ball andgo home." The Minister has to do better thanthat. As the Minister for Environment andHeritage and Minister for Natural Resources,he is responsible for the administration ofthese areas that are so important to so manypeople. If he cannot do better than that, heshould take his bat and ball and go home allright; he should take his bat and ball and gohome and let some of his backbenchers have

a go at being the Minister for Environment andHeritage and Minister for Natural Resourcesbecause he is making an absolute mess of it.He is probably the most hated and despisedMinister in the whole Government, aGovernment that is hated and despised.Throughout regional and rural Queenslandand amongst the people who depend on thenatural resources of this State, he is hated anddespised like no other Minister in the past.Today we have seen why.

Time expired.

Question—That Mr Lester's amendmentbe agreed to—put; and the Committeedivided.AYES, 42—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,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, Wellington. Tellers: Baumann,Hegarty

NOES, 42—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell


Resolved in the negative.

Mr LESTER (3.23 p.m.): I have a numberof further amendments, but they wereconsequential upon the amendment whichhas just been defeated. In view of that, I seekleave to table those amendments in order toshow honourable members what theOpposition had in mind.

Leave granted.

Mr LESTER: I am still disappointed at theMinister's dummy-spitting a moment ago whenhe tried to suggest that members on this sideof the Chamber were filibustering. That was adisgraceful effort. I advise the Minister that hehad better pull up his socks.

Clause 7, as read, agreed to.

Clause 8—

Mr LITTLEPROUD (3.25 p.m.): I noticethat this clause deals with land that is to beacquired for redevelopment. I want to raise apoint that has been concerning me since thisMinister has held the portfolio. I am referring tothe sugar coast recovery plan and a piece ofland which was identified as a mahogany


glider habitat. The gentleman concerned wasLui Pajares.

Lui Pajares held a fair bit of land in thehinterland behind Innisfail. At the time when Ibecame Minister negotiations were continuingas to how much of Mr Pajares' land should betaken to provide a mahogany glider habitat.Those negotiations took some time at adepartmental level. About two or three monthsbefore the last election, I felt so frustrated thatI asked Mr Pajares to come to ParliamentHouse and speak to me about the problem.We eventually reached an agreement andsigned a map which indicated the amount ofland that we believed the department shouldtake for the purpose of preservation of themahogany glider. Both parties left thenegotiations in a happy frame of mind. I hadgiven a clear indication of ministerial intent andMr Pajares had an understanding that theGovernment would stand by its word.

I remind the Minister that when PremierBeattie took office he said that theGovernment would honour all undertakingsgiven by the previous Government. I gave asincere undertaking when I co-signed the mapindicating where the division of Mr Pajares'land should occur. It is now history that myundertaking and Mr Pajares' wishes have beencompletely disregarded. Mr Pajares has beenvery badly treated. I would like the Minister toput on record why his Government did nothonour an undertaking that was given by me,as a Minister of the Crown, to the owner of theland involved.

Mr WELFORD: I am happy to write to thehonourable member about it in more detailbut, in a nutshell, the area of land that theformer Minister conceded was unsuitable forcane farming. It was wetland and it was neverappropriate that it be conceded. Thehonourable member should have gone thereand checked the land himself before he did adirty deal over the desk at his ministerial office.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I rise to a point oforder. I take exception to the words "dirtydeal".

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. In any event,on more than one occasion Mr Pajares hasbreached interim conservation orders inrelation to other land, and in my view it wasutterly inappropriate to reward those breachesby granting him more clearing rights than healready had. The matter has now beenresolved and the issue is history.

Mr ROWELL: I would like to refer to whatthe Minister has had to say. I have been onthe property. Has the Minister been on theproperty?

Mr Welford: No.Mr ROWELL: No, the Minister has not

been there. I am a canefarmer, and I amsaying that the area that the Government isresuming is identical to the greater part of MrPajares' farm. There is no problemwhatsoever.

A Government member: I thought youwere a parliamentarian.

Mr ROWELL: I am a parliamentarian, butI understand a little about the canegrowingindustry. I have been in the industry for morethan 20 years. I can assure the Minister thatsome of the land that he wants to resume isprobably better than some of the land onwhich Mr Pajares is growing cane at thepresent time. What the Minister said wastotally—

The CHAIRMAN: After discussion with themember for Western Downs, I allowed him tospeak on a particular matter, and he did so.However, I am not going to allow the memberfor Hinchinbrook to continue with that. Thisparticular clause is not related to that matter. Iam sorry, but that was our agreement. I mustkeep to the Standing Orders.

Mr LESTER: I would be grateful if theMinister could outline to the Parliament theimpact on graziers who stand to lose sectionsof their property upon the non-renewal of theirleases. There are graziers who are veryconcerned about this issue. The Minister mightbe able to explain this issue once and for alland put their minds at rest.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the member forRedlands be speaking about this clause orsomething more general? I would be delightedif somebody spoke to the clause. In fact, Iwould be delirious.

Mr HEGARTY: I am bringing this matter tothe Minister's attention because I do not knowwhether anyone has highlighted the impactthe proposal will have on the areas around thegreater Brisbane area and south-eastQueensland in particular, even though thislegislation concerns the south-east corner.

There are restrictions on recreational usein the south-east corner, particularly in outerBrisbane areas. For example, in the Daisy HillForest and the Venman reserve areas horseriders, trail bike riders and off-road four-wheeldrivers seek land for recreational use. Thenational park designation has led to difficulty inaccommodating any of these activities. Theamendment that the honourable member forKeppel intended to move sought to recognisethat. I wish to bring to the Minister's attentionthe fact that—


Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order.This has nothing to do with clause 8. Themember for Keppel is not moving any furtheramendments. The member is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN: I have to agree with theMinister.

Mr Seeney: Why don't you try being theMinister. Let him be the Speaker.

The CHAIRMAN: I could see that as areflection on the Chair, but I will not; I am notthat thin skinned. Nevertheless, I have toagree with the Minister that the member is nottalking about management principles.

Mr HEGARTY: I am. Mr Chairman, if Imay just have one moment of yourindulgence? The amendment put forward bythe honourable member for Keppel simplysought to recognise and, if appropriate, protectan area's cultural, natural and recreationalresources. That is the very point I am comingto. In relation to land being changed to reservestatus as a preliminary move to designation asnational park, this is where recreational usersof private land—particularly the motorised sportenthusiasts, for example, four-wheel driversand trail bike riders—are currently coming intoconflict with local landowners. They are theones causing problems for local residents.Perhaps the Minister needs to look at the EPAon noise. That is because, unless people ownstock or are shift workers, they cannotcomplain when recreational users of motorvehicles cause nuisance and noise and upsettheir amenity.

Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order.The member for Redlands is not even talkingto the Act now. He is on completely differentlegislation. This person is totally lost. He doesnot know what he is talking about. He iswasting the time of the Parliament. TheOpposition is wasting the time of theParliament and wrecking it.

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister will resumehis seat. I take his point of order. I have beentolerant of the member for Redlands. I ask himto speak to clause 8 or to resume his seat. Ithink he has made his point.

Mr HEGARTY: Unless the recreationaluse is taken into account, the situation that wehave currently will be further exacerbated.

Mr SEENEY: The Minister's amendmentto clause 8 changes the wording from"commercial forestry operations"—

Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order.We are not on my amendment, we are onclause 8 of the amendment Bill. The memberis on the wrong clause. He does not knowwhat he is talking about. He is trying to wreck

the Parliament. That is the Opposition's tactic.It is trying to wreck and ruin the Parliament anddrag it into disrepute.

Mr SEENEY: That is nothing new; theMinister has been on the wrong clause a half adozen times today.

Mr WELFORD: It is no wonder the peoplein the gallery think the member is a disgrace.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I will put thequestion on this clause and then the membercan speak to the Minister's amendment.

Clause 8, as read, agreed to. Insertion of new clause—

Mr WELFORD (3.35 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"At page 8, after line 11—insert—

'Amendment of s 21 (Managementprinciples of resources reserves)'8A. Section 21(2), 'Commercial forestryoperations'—

omit, insert—

'The felling of timber for a commercialpurpose'.'."This amendment clarifies the felling of

timber for a commercial purpose as being theproper definition of "commercial forestryoperations". There was a lack of clarity whichmeant that some quarrying operations that arecurrently in resource reserves might have beenaffected by the original definition. Thischanges the definition to make it clear.

Mr SEENEY: I did not enter into aslanging match with the Minister before,because he is quite clearly on the point oflosing control totally. I did know that we weredealing with clause 8, but I wanted to make apoint about the amendment that we have nowmoved on to. Just to set the record straight, asI said, the Minister is on the point of losingcontrol totally. I apologise to the Minister if themember for Keppel and I have driven him tothat point. These points need to be made andthese issues need to be explored. If theMinister cannot hack the pace, he should getout of it and let someone else have a go.

The amendment moved by the Ministerchanges the definition by omitting the words"commercial forestry operations" and insertingthe words "the felling of timber for acommercial purpose". At first glance and tosomeone who does not understand the issuesinvolved and the problems that lessees face,that seems a pretty innocuous sort of achange. But in reality there are some concernsthat have to be explored. There are some


issues that the Minister has to make clear tothe Parliament. He needs to explain to theParliament why it was necessary to makethese changes at this point, after the Bill hasbeen drafted and introduced into theChamber. Why does he then have to amendhis own Bill?

The danger that I see with thisamendment is in the change that the Ministeris proposing—"the felling of timber for acommercial purpose". The significant part is inthe last two words. What is "a commercialpurpose" defined as? I went to the NatureConservation Act. As I mentioned earlier in thedebate, there are about eight pages ofdefinitions within it, but "a commercialpurpose" is not one of them. There was nodefinition of "a commercial purpose". Let ustake it to a practical level.

Mr Welford interjected.Mr SEENEY: Once again the Minister is

showing his disdain for the points being raised.

Mr Welford: You are wasting our time. Mr SEENEY: This is a genuine concern

for someone who has the lease of a forestryarea at the moment and will find his forestryarea turned into one of these resourcereserves. What will happen to his grazingactivities—the types of activities that he hascarried on for the past 100 years? Thisamendment is suggesting that he will not beable to fell a tree, depending, of course, onthe Minister's definition of "a commercialpurpose". That is what I am bringing to theMinister's attention. It needs to be defined.

Is the felling of timber for a commercialpurpose restricted to mill timber that will becarried away and milled somewhere or does itrestrict a person who holds a grazing leaseand who wants to cut down a tree to make afence post, to cut down a tree that isthreatening to fall on his infrastructure or to cutdown a tree that is in the way of a road? Is thecarrying on of grazing on that lease thecommercial purpose? Will it be interpreted thatthe holders of those grazing leases cannot cutdown a tree on that piece of country that theyhave managed and held the lease over for100 years in some cases? These are thethings that have a direct impact at a practicallevel. They are the direct impacts at a practicallevel that the Minister consistently fails tounderstand, not just in this piece of legislationbut in a raft of legislation that he brings beforethe Chamber.

The Minister sits in the coffee shops withhis dark green compatriots and dreams upthese great ideas. They all sound wonderfulwhen he is sitting at a table on the pavement

drinking cappuccinos. But if he went out intothe bush and onto forestry leases and spoketo the people who have to try to live and workwith this legislation, he would find that thereare lots of things that are not as they appearat first sight.

That is the point that we have consistentlytried to bring to this Parliament this afternoon.That is the point that the member for Keppeland I have been pursuing for most of today.That is the point that the Minister refuses toeven acknowledge. He now refuses to evenacknowledge it to the point that he refuses toeven talk about it. He is a disgrace. It is adisgraceful response to very genuine concernsthat have been brought to this Chamber bypeople who are representing interest groupsthat have very sincere concerns.

For the sake of this Bill I suggest that theMinister stand up and define—put on thepublic record—what is a commercial purpose.There is no definition, as I said. It is importantthat there is a definition. There has to be adefinition so that the people who are affectedby it, the people who never get to sit in thecoffee shops and drink cappuccinos, knowwhat it is. They need to know. They need tohave a direction and they need to havesomething on the public record to which theycan refer so that they know what sort ofrestrictions and limitations are going to beplaced on them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 41, as read, agreed to.

Schedule—Mr WELFORD (3.40 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"At page 36, after line 5—

insert—

'2. Section 36(2)—

omit, insert—

'(2) A member's appointment undersubsection (1) is for the term, of not morethan 3 years, stated in the member'sinstrument of appointment.'.'.'3. Section 36(3), ', in respect of anytriennial appointment,'—

omit.

'4. Section 36(5)—

omit.

'5. Section 40(1), 'each triennialappointment of members'—

omit, insert—'the members are appointed undersection 36(1)'.'."

3790 Food Production (Safety) Bill 18 Oct 2000

These are minor amendments to theSchedule which are self-explanatory. They arecorrections.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third ReadingHon. R. J. WELFORD (Everton—ALP)

(Minister for Environment and Heritage andMinister for Natural Resources) (3.42 p.m.): Imove—

"That the Bill be now read a thirdtime."

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (3.42 p.m.): Icannot let this debate conclude without puttingon record my disappointment at the Minister'sperformance, particularly in respect of theamendments he moved. I raised verygenuinely a number of points. The Ministerrefused to even acknowledge those points. Ithink that is a despicable performance. Itmakes a mockery of the parliamentary debatewhen the Minister introduces into this placeamendments to his own legislation—amendments that have been made after thelegislation has been drafted—makes noattempt to explain or justify why thoseamendments are necessary, and makes noattempt to respond to the points that areraised by Opposition members in regard tothose particular amendments. Those pointsthat I raised were genuine points.

At the conclusion of this debate I want toplace on record my disappointment at thecontemptible way in which the Minister hastreated this whole debate, especially his ownamendments. He came in here, sat over thereand giggled and carried on like an overgrownschoolgirl, and he has made no attempt toseriously address the serious issuesencompassed in this legislation. If nothingelse, this legislation has demonstrated for all tosee the incompetence of this Minister. I hopethat there is enough talent on the backbenchto ensure that this is the last piece oflegislation that this Minister brings before thisHouse.

Question—That the Bill be now read athird time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 43—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Elder, Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,Welford, Wellington, Wells. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

NOES, 41—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,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.

FOOD PRODUCTION (SAFETY) BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 18 May (see p. 1206).

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call thehonourable member for Hinchinbrook.

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr Welford interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCallide will cease interjecting across theChamber—


Mr SPEAKER:—and the Minister.

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I said "and the

Minister".

Mr Seeney interjected. Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need your

arguments, thank you very much.

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook—NPA)(3.50 p.m.): Food safety has emerged as oneof the most important consumer issues inrecent years. Increasingly food safety isbecoming a more dominant consideration inthe minds of consumers when they purchasefood for themselves and for their families.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those memberswithout their coats on will please leave theChamber.

Mr ROWELL: In his second-readingspeech, the Minister quoted statistics fromANZFA which estimated that the annual costto Governments, industry, consumers and soon of food-borne illnesses could be as muchas $2.1 billion. I can understand that, too.ANZFA has also estimated that 4.2 millioncases of food poisoning occur in Australiaeach year, although this figure has beendiscredited by other authorities which put thefigure at one million cases per year. TheCentre for Disease Control estimates that thenumber of cases is 2.3 million per year.Whatever the real figure is, there is universalacceptance of the seriousness of food safetyand universal acceptance that there must besystems in place to ensure the provision ofsafe foods to consumers.

18 Oct 2000 Food Production (Safety) Bill 3791

We all know of the recent and, thankfully,relatively isolated instance of fatalities as aresult of food poisoning. No-one wants to seepeople getting sick, let alone dying, as a resultof unwholesome food. It is the responsibility ofevery person producing food to ensure thatthat food is produced safely. It is also theresponsibility of Government to ensure that thelaws, policies and institutions it presides overensure the production and supply of safe andwholesome food to consumers. As a jointresponsibility, it is up to the Government andindustry to work together to ensure that thereare effective and efficient standards for theproduction of safe food and that thesestandards are adhered to.

Any legislation relating to food safetyshould set out to achieve exactly that. That iswhat this Bill should be about. It should not beabout setting up another Governmentbureaucracy to create ways of imposing moreunnecessary red tape and costs on foodindustries. Primary producers and foodprocessors already operate on slim margins.The issue of food safety should not be abusedby making those margins even slimmer. As Isaid, no-one wants to create a food safety risk,least of all those who produce food and whoselivelihoods depend on that.

This Bill principally relates to the primaryproduction sector and, in part, to theprocessing and retail sectors of the meatindustry, which can certainly be the source offood safety problems. There have been casesin the past where that has happened.However, the primary production sector iscertainly not the only source of risk. It is, inmany cases, not the major source of risk. Thatis a statement I do not make lightly or withoutfoundation. It is a statement borne out byANZFA, the Government quango the Ministerhas quoted. In fact, ANZFA has stated thatbetween 60% and 80% of food poisoningcomes from the food services sector. While theBill concentrates on the production sector, Iremind the Government of the statistics.

I also ask the Minister or his colleague theMinister for Health to indicate exactly whatprogress, if any, is being made in food safetyin the food services sector. It seems that everysix months the public is confronted with a storyon programs such as A Current Affair or TodayTonight where food from retail or food serviceoutlets is tested and found to be well outsidethe acceptable and established food safetystandards through poor temperature control,bug counts and so on. It also seems that theHealth Department has been dragging thechain in administering even the current

standards, let alone developing any newstandards.

I understand from the Minister's second-reading speech that it will be some six yearsbefore the new HACCP-based standards,which the meat industry has been operatingunder for years, will be introduced. In no waydo I intend my comments to be taken as anattack on the food services sector per se.However, as I understand it, the progress inimplementing food safety schemes is farbehind that being achieved by many primaryindustries, such as the meat industry.

All I seek to do is put the issue into somecontext. I feel that is more than necessaryafter some of the grandstanding and chestbeating the Minister and his press secretaryhave engaged in on food safety standardsemployed by our primary industries. They haveeven stooped to accusing the Opposition,when it raised the legitimate concerns of theindustry over this Bill, of wanting to seeanother Garibaldi incident. That is absolute rot!What a downright stupid accusation to make.If the Government cannot defend its legislationwithout resorting to making scurrilousaccusations, it will be in deep trouble when itcomes time for it to defend the implications ofthese laws in front of primary producers.

The Minister's second-reading speechwas laden with sensationalist examples of foodsafety breakdowns. There was also an implicitclaim that the establishment of the new SafeFood quango will, of itself, fix all food safetyproblems. Let us put this into someperspective. Food safety is a serious issuewhich Government and industry must addressand are already addressing. The meatindustry, which is the first to be covered by thisAct, has led the rest of the food industries inthe adoption of HACCP-based qualityassurance schemes and state-of-the-art foodsafety programs. It has been doing so foryears. It now has an enviable reputation whichhas come at considerable cost. Butcher shopsand the like have had to spend considerableamounts of money to get around particularproblems relating to food safety. They havedone it well in many cases, but it has costthem a lot of money.

This Bill provides a framework for theestablishment of a new quango which will, inthe future, be responsible for delivering thosefood safety schemes. The new bureaucracymust be set up right. It must be set up toensure that it is effective, efficient and thatfood safety schemes over which it presidesensure the production of safe food without theunnecessary imposition of more red tape and


more cost on primary producers and theirindustries. Let us ensure that Queenslandkeeps producing the safest food in the world,but let us also ensure that our primaryproducers are not sent broke in the process.That is my challenge to the Government in theimplementation of this Bill.

Throughout Queensland a range ofprimary products are being produced bysignificantly different methods and under anumber of different climatic conditions. A largeproportion of primary products are producedfor food purposes. There are a range of cropsand animal products being used for clothingitems, hence the buzzwords "food and fibre"that have been coined to give a warm, fuzzyfeeling to this portfolio. While the Bill does notrelate to clothing apparel, animals such assheep and cattle contribute to food production.

There is an even larger range of animalsinvolved in food production. They are toonumerous to mention. I will segregate animaland fish products from plant products, as thereare a number of important areas in whichthese products vary. Generally, animalproducts have a higher probability of breakingdown and attracting a range of bacteria andpathogens when they are processed. I believethat bringing fresh plant food under the sameumbrella shows a poor understanding of theprimary industries involved in the measuresrequired to improve food safety. Eating apeach that is overripe or a banana that is pastits prime is not likely to lead to hospitalisation. Icannot comprehend why this clumsy piece oflegislation adopts a one-hat-fits-all approach.

Penalties of two years' jail or a $150,000fine and costly audits are examples that arebeing implemented across-the-board. Weneed to go to the Criminal Code and comparethese penalties with the threat that currentlyfaces rural producers of plant and animalproducts. What it says to a lifelong lettucegrower is, "You have been producing lettucesfor over 30 years. There is something youmight do in the future that will attract a penaltyof a jail term of two years or a fine of$150,000." The $150,000 fine is likely to beworth more than the grower's savings or thesold-up value of the property.

It is logical to group the QLMA, the QDAand the seafood industries together. Theseindustries require similar hygiene and foodmanagement methodology to ensure foodsafety. They are classified as high-risk foodand require a sound regime, particularly afterprimary producers pass the products on to aprocessor or a manufacturer for value adding. Istress that point very clearly, because there is

very little likelihood that the people whoactually grow the beef, sheep or even goatmeat will have any impact on food safety.Provided they adhere to the requirements forinsecticide use and so on, there is probablylittle likelihood that they will impact on foodsafety. It is when that meat is processed thatwe run into particular problems in relation tothe need for temperature controls, pathogens,bacteria and so on.

In the Minister's second-reading speechreference was made to the death of a fouryear old girl and 17 others who werehospitalised in 1995 from eating contaminatedsalami. Then in 1997 a 77 year old New SouthWales man died from hepatitis A that wastraced back to oysters from the Wallis Lakearea. The second-reading speech goes on tooutline how two elderly Victorian men diedfrom salmonella poisoning traced back toproducts at a Melbourne smallgoodscompany.

The Minister did not mention anytragedies that had occurred as a result ofpeople eating bananas, apples, cucumbers,pineapples, tomatoes, sweet corn or any otherhorticultural product or cereal crop. As I saidearlier, the problems quoted by the Ministerhave predominantly related to those high-riskfoods and predominantly been in theprocessing and food service sectors. Theseproducts can attract a range of pathogens andhave some history of causing severe healthproblems for consumers when there has beena breakdown in food safety systems. There isa need for stringent requirements for thiscategory, as that is when the issue of foodsafety is raised, but there is a tendency to usethe cases the Minister has raised to make anissue of the need to increase the surveillanceof food items in general.

In the legislation bulletin NQ 8/00 thereare some interesting observations on whatother countries have done by way of changingand improving these systems. It states—

"In Canada for example a delay increating a new personnel system in thenew agency was partly due to the fact thecost and expertise required wasunderestimated by relevant parties. Thereneeds to be organisational flexibility to beable to move resources to the areas ofgreatest risk."

I think that is quite important. There needs tobe flexibility where there is great risk. If we aregoing to set up a system, we need flexibility toshift resources to wherever they are needed.

There is no question that it is absolutelynecessary to take all the measures possible to


improve Queensland's record of providing safefood to consumers, but if there are elementsthat are overly prescriptive and that imposecosts that have doubtful benefits, these alsoneed to be considered. In fact, I understandfrom the same bulletin that Victoria woundback the effect of its 1997 food hygienelegislation, which established a single,integrated framework applying to all stagesfrom paddock to plate. This legislation, whichwill be more defined when the regulations arespelt out, would have been better received bymany of our primary industries if more gradualtransitional arrangements had been instigatedin close consultation with producers.

The existing measures relating to high-riskindustries that are being transferred from otherlegislation and the necessary improvementswhere problems are occurring have beenadopted. In general, previous legislationadequately covered all the high-risk typeprimary industries, but those industries that arelow risk and others in ANZFA's medium-riskcategory—I believe that is contestable—couldhave been phased in over 12 months to twoyears.

Fruit and milk are in the same medium-risk category. If we left a glass of milk and anorange on a table for three days at ambienttemperatures, I know which would deteriorateand which would be unsuitable forconsumption. It is ridiculous that both of theseare put in the medium-risk category. I ask theMinister to take note that I think thecategorisation leaves a lot to be desired. Itneeds to be more closely examined because itdoes not really reflect the different problemsthat may occur with products in this category ifsimilar conditions are applied, particularly inrelation to ambient temperature.

A phase-in would provide those proposingthis legislation with the time to work throughsome of the concerns raised by producers tohave a more cooperative outcome. It wouldhave been more appropriate to deal with thecategories individually in the legislation—tohave the same effect at a reduced cost to theproducer while still ensuring that the criteria forsafe food were adhered to.

There has been concern in somejurisdictions that there would be an additionalcost with risk-based management plans thatwould impact on small business and ruraloperations to the extent that they may bedriven out of business. I do not want theMinister to construe the fact that I have raisedissues with this legislation as my not beingsupportive of safe food. I come from the

pragmatic side of having to work with this typeof legislation, and there is a need to ensurethat there is a positive gain from producingsafe food without unnecessary costs and timeconsuming procedures.

Sectors of the horticulture industry haveraised concerns with the requirements of thisBill. They have made it clear that there is nointention to compromise food safety but simplyto provide a mechanism that will effectivelyimprove the current situation of providing aclean, green product to the marketplace. Therequirement to go through an accreditationcourse is in itself a good initiative and wouldgenerally focus producers on sound principlesof food safety. The keeping of spraydiaries—the frequency of use of insecticides,fungicides and herbicides—is accepted toensure that registered chemicals are used asrequired.

Chemical accreditation for operators wasalso seen to be important to ensure the safeuse of chemicals. In other words, there is aregime under the NRA whereby certainchemicals are used for certain applications.There are withholding periods and so on.Providing all of those requirements areadhered to and the grower of the horticulturalcrop furnishes the statutory declarationdeclaring that these issues have beenaddressed, then the audit would no longer berequired. If in the event a test in themarketplace indicated that there wereirregularities with the product, then thestatutory declaration provisions would beexamined and corrective action enforced.

Many horticultural crops have harvestperiods of less than one month and it is notclear if the auditing requirement that this Billwill ultimately impose has to be carried out inthat period. If it is considered that theharvesting period is the most important time tocarry out the audit, will it be necessary toobserve other activities? What needs to beunderstood is that the harvesting of a crop isonly the culmination of a season's work. Thecost of producing a crop is quite substantialand for many small operators, if seasonalconditions are adverse, the cost of auditingagainst the declaration is an imposition thatwould have an effect on what they earn fromthat crop.

The system of a statutory declarationrather than an audit would reduce the numberof personnel to target other activities that areimportant in improving the requirements offood safety. The markets themselves need tobe monitored more closely, and I am talkingabout all sorts of markets—the fruit and


vegetable markets, the Paddy's markets andso on.

The produce trading section of theBrisbane Markets at Rocklea was constructed40 years ago. Recently, the Governmentcorporatised the operation. Although the publicsector and new sections were developed forcommercial activities not related directly to theselling of produce, the actual market facilitiesare 40 years behind the times and I doubttheir ability to comply with the requirements ofthe Safe Food accreditation that the farminggroups have to go through.

If farming operations need to beaccredited, then the facility that conducts theselling transactions should also receive scrutinywith the observance of the cold chain andhandling procedures. Pallets of fruit andvegetables have to be off-loaded from trucksthat are often bringing this produce from longdistances away. There have been occasionswhen the pallets have been left out in the sununtil the agents, who pay good money for theirstands, can place them within their premises,within their coldrooms. Some of this producerequires refrigeration, but the likes of potatoesand pumpkins can be kept at ambienttemperatures.

Under this legislation, a grower is requiredto carry out the procedures of being accreditedand pay good money for the audits. Monitoredrefrigerated rail or road transport can delivergoods to the market in sound condition.However, after all that care and attention, theproduct then enters an archaic system in theBrisbane Markets at Rocklea, which is on a parwith many market facilities that I have seen inthe Third World. The Minister should drop intothe markets unannounced at a critical timewhen transport operations are occurring to seefor himself how produce is handled and tounderstand why some growers are veryconcerned.

Produce that needs to be kept at 5degrees Celsius and less can be left out in theopen for up to half an hour. During this time,the temperature increases and the quality canbe impaired. It is not uncommon for produceconsigned to the domestic market to bebought for export sale. If after the besttechniques are adopted in picking, packingand transporting a crop to market and then atthe point of sale for domestic or exportmarkets the produce is treated poorly throughdeficiencies in the selling system, then all thebest-quality standards demanded of thegrowers are of absolutely no consequence. Ihope the Minister takes that point intoaccount, because it is quite important.

I have become aware of activities in majorchain stores where purchases are being madefrom agents and difficulties are beingexperienced in moving the product. After somedays when the sales have been slow and theproduce has been difficult to sell, it is returnedto the agent for disposal. Usually by this time itlacks a fresh appearance and if there is a glutof that produce in the market, which mayaccount for the sluggish sales at the chainstore, the produce is sold at a very reducedprice, or there is a fire sale, as it is known.There is an increasing tendency with the majorsupermarket chains to consolidate theirdistribution centres in locations close to themajor cities. That can mean that consignmentscan go to one end of the State and backagain. Inevitably, fruit and vegetables will bedamaged through lengthy transport andhandling. These modes of distributions may besuited to countries that have short haulrequirements, but they are certainly not in thebest interests of primary producers withproduce that can be damaged by theextensive handling and distance travelledbefore they are sold to the consumer.

I was given the example of mangoesconsigned to an agent. Part of thatconsignment was sold for $13 a tray and therest was sold for $3 a tray. That variation inprice was attributed to unethical practices atthe supermarket. Some time had elapsedbetween the sale dates. Perhaps the agentmay not have had an option when handlingthe transaction for the returned produce. Inother words, the supermarkets are saying tothat agent, "If you don't want to handle it, ifyou don't want to sell this produce that we arereturning to you, we won't be buying from youagain." The supermarkets' marketing cloutcertainly impacts very heavily on that agent'sprospects. So he says not a lot about it. I amabsolutely certain that the Minister has comeacross this problem, because during the timethat I was in the Minister's position I ran into it,too.

It is interesting to observe displays of fruitand vegetables at retail outlets. Generally, thedisplays are designed to give the fruit andvegetables maximum exposure rather than tomaintain their quality. In many instances, theretailer has no understanding of the bestmethod of retaining the quality of the fruit andvegetables. Certainly, with meat, milk andprocessed products, refrigerated displays aregenerally adequate. The retailers have nice,cold display cabinets with doors and all of thatsort of thing for those products, but for displaysof a lot of other produce, they are totallyunaware or not interested because it costs


them money. So they do not do it. Thesedisplay cabinets are costly but are necessaryto maintain hygiene standards as thesefoodstuffs are vulnerable—and I am talkingabout milk, beef and all sorts ofsmallgoods—to E. coli and pathogens andhave a limited shelf life if they are not handledcorrectly.

However, certain lines of produce thathave to be kept in specific refrigeration aredisplayed in a manner that causes rapiddeterioration and reflects poorly on the appealof the product. I would be pleased if theMinister could point to the section of thislegislation that rectifies that particular problem.Will retailers be required to go through thesame stringent process for all the products thatthey purchase to ensure that their handlingprocedures do not detract from the product'squality? At present, although the retailers mayown the produce or have it sent to them froman agent or a supplier, their treatment of theproduce reflects poorly on the image of theparticular crop and consequently is notattractive to the consumer.

I refer to an article in the Fruit andVegetable News of August 2000 titled"Frequently Asked Question's from GrowerMeetings". One of the questions in that articlewas—

"Why is my product returned wellafter I thought it was sold?"

The following answer is given—

"This is one of the commonquestions that still remains in our industry.Too often growers are expected to meetthe credit that has been claimed from themarketplace—following statements that aretailer has returned the product—wellafter the grower thought the product hadbeen sold. In fact, many growers speak ofproduct being returned weeks after a saleand find it hard to believe that they are inthe business of producing a product thatcan last so long on the shelf. A lack ofclarity in respect to returns whenownership transfers and just what agrower is prepared to pay for in the way ofreturns remains a common concern ofgrowers.

Some growers stated that they wouldnot accept returns three days or even lessafter the sale. Other growers stated thatthey would extend greater latitude.However, they wanted their wholesaler toalso share the pain of market returns.Either way, a lack of clarity andunderstanding about the rules of the

game led to uncertainty about the sale ofproduce."

I think that is quite important. It is not comingfrom me; it is coming from the peak bodyresponsible for the sale of those products inthis State.

Can we expect a substantial improvementin treatment of the retail outlets compared withwhat is taking place now? Can we presumethat they really will, like rural producers, betaken by the scruff of the neck and have thisBill spelt out to them? Can we presume thataudits will occur and fines imposed on retailersor the Brisbane Markets, for instance, for themishandling of produce? What I am saying isthat if the market infrastructure is inadequateand the produce cannot get into thecoldrooms and so on in a reasonable time, willwe say to the Brisbane Markets, "You have tobe held responsible for this product not beingput on sale at optimum condition."?

It is interesting to see consumers handlingfruit and vegetables. The product is picked up,picked over and sometimes dropped on thefloor until the last remnants of the display—what is left on the shelf—are bruised andsquashed from handling. Often this produce isplaced in a trolley along with hair spray,kerosene, the odd packet of cockroachinsecticide, laundry detergent, bread, butterand milk. It then finds its way out to the boot ofa car that has been left in the sun for an houror so for its journey home.

Under the requirements of the legislationa 20 litre container of chemical—or even a fivelitre container—cannot be carried in the boot ofa car. It is an offence, but after the impositionof this stringent requirement on the ruralproducer, consumers can carry out activitiesthat have the potential to be even moredetrimental to their wellbeing. I say "moredetrimental" because in the hands ofproducers these containers are well sealedand so on. It is possible to have cockroachinsecticide, kerosene and all sorts of things ina shopping trolley. Another possible source ofcontamination could be a consumer droppinga plastic bag, the contents of which couldcontaminate food produce. Let us hope thatwe do not get a case of contaminated foodwhere a farmer is dragged before the courtsfor a circumstance that he had no participationin or control over.

There is a range of products imported intothis State. Some of these products, whethermanufactured or fresh, come from countriesthat have lesser standards than are beingspelt out in this Food Production (Safety) Bill2000. Normally apricots turn a dark colour


when they are dried, but I have seen importedapricots that are almost the natural colour ofthe fresh fruit. Have they been treated with apreservative like sulphur to retain their naturalcolour?

With imports of fruit and vegetables, whatguarantee can be given that similarrequirements to this Food Production (Safety)Bill have been applied in the country of origin?I do not believe that growers in those countrieshave an accreditation process and audits toensure the adherence to the same stringentprocess that is to be imposed on the ruralindustries of Queensland under this legislation.

I ask the Minister: under his Bill willproducers suffer a cost disadvantage with ourtrading partners and competitors because thecosts being incurred to meet the standards arenot incurred in countries where thosestandards do not apply? In other words, what Iam saying is that, if importers can get awaywith a lesser standard in their country, with allthe things that we have to do to ensure a safefood regime in Queensland, will our producersbe cost competitive?

I am not suggesting that in many respectsthe proposal in this legislation will not make theproducers of food in Queensland moreprofessional and more focused on a saferproduct, but the point I again wish to make isthat it does appear that there has beenexcessive attention focused on some sectors.The cost of establishing Safe Food isestimated in the green paper to cost theGovernment $6.8m over a four year period.There is a heavy emphasis on training andassistance for programs for the developmentof the seafood catching sector. I think thatneeds to be done because I have witnessedsome people who have come from overseaswho are probably not as diligent in theirhandling of products such as prawns and thatsort of thing when they bring them in forprocessing. I am absolutely certain that theseprograms will be a major benefit of this Act.There are some very good operators, however,who are doing the right thing. We must be verycareful that we are not imposing stringent,extremely costly conditions on them. Seafoodis very vulnerable to contamination; we musthave a good handling regime.

What is the estimated cost to fishermenand others in the industry of training programsfor accreditation and auditing? That is not clearin the Bill. What will be the cost to otherproducers such as dairy farmers, beefproducers, grain farmers and the butchers andmeat processors who have already paidconsiderable sums to pursue food safety

programs? It is not clear how many audits areto be carried out on each business every yearand if the full range of each producer'sactivities have to be audited each year. Inother words, it is fine to be talking about theharvesting period, but that stage is really theculmination of a lot of things that happen inprimary industry production.

There are farming operations that in thepast have given a farmer a competitiveadvantage. How much is going to be requiredto be disclosed in the auditing process? Inother words, if a producer has had a particularadvantage with a process that he might haveadopted, will the auditor have the capacity tounderstand what it is all about? Mustproducers expose that process? Very oftenconfidentiality arrangements mean that thatsort of thing cannot be disclosed. So there aresome complications there. Will the auditor befully conversant with the procedures that theyare auditing as there are differences betweenauditing for specific outcomes such aschemical dips where specifications for time anddip and concentration of chemical is critical. Iknow that during the time of the papaya fruitfly problem we had to be very careful of thatbecause the other States had very stringentrequirements.

What exactly will the auditor beconsidering other than hygiene standards andcrop protection application? In other words,what will be audited? Will there be aconsideration of the quality of the productother than that it is safe for the consumer?What is the estimated cost to all sectors of thelegislation and what benefits have beenestimated for each individual industry? Whatuniformity is expected across Australia with thistype of legislation, as there is very little point ineither carrying on with the requirements orimposing measures that are marginal in theirbenefit if other States and countries thatproducers trade with do not require them? Ithink that needs to be taken intoconsideration, too.

How do these standards compare withexport trading requirements as increasinglymore products go into these markets? Howmany additional personnel will be involved inenforcing the requirements of the legislationand, where travel is required for activities suchas auditing, who will be responsible for payingthat cost? Sometimes considerable distancehas to be travelled to get to isolated areas. Ifthe Government insists on audits being carriedout that will be a heavy imposition onproducers if they have to carry the cost. That isone of the principal reasons why we are veryinterested in the use of statutory declarations


for areas where there is minimal risk toproducts.

On the question of substitute foods, suchas ice-cream that has nothing in itscomposition that resembles a dairy product,what scientific process will be used toadjudicate on its safe food requirement? Inthis day and age of clean, green product, howwill the prevention of consumer deception bespelt out? In other words, if we have ice-creamthat does not contain milk do we have toadvertise the fact that it does not contain milk?Very often there is deception in the marketingof that sort of thing. That needs to beaddressed. Are we going down the track with arange of products that are devised in a testtube for human consumption whilst stringentrequirements that may have questionablebenefits to consumers are being placed onrural industry?

Transport to market is improving, and theservices now being provided by rail, road andair, for the most part, are seeing goods gettingto their destinations on time and in goodcondition. One of the difficulties with a Statesuch as Queensland is to provide thenecessary infrastructure to facilitate thetransportation of primary produce to its marketdestination which, in many cases, is over2,000 kilometres away. The northern andwestern regions of Queensland, when sendingproduce interstate, would be looking atjourneys of over 2,000 kilometres in distance.

Rail can be used for stock as well as forheavy produce and is effective in keepingbruising to a minimum. In the past, one of thedrawbacks with rail transport has been thelength of time that it takes to reach far awaydestinations. For some produce, which doesnot necessarily require refrigeration, the lengthof the journey is not a problem. Products thathave a shorter shelf life are not suited to railtransport. This is changing with the introductionof well-constructed refrigerated containers withhigh capacity refrigeration units that canmaintain low temperatures. Q-Rail is makingrefrigerated transport more competitive than ithas been in the past.

In the total scenario of providing a betterproduct for market, there is an urgent need totake stock of Queensland's infrastructure.Improvements to both road and rail will assistgreatly in enabling better access facilities to allforms of primary produce and allow thatproduce to arrive at markets faster and inbetter condition. This will also assist in theobjectives of this Bill. If the Government issincere about improving the delivery of a betterproduct to market, this factor has to be taken

into account. Better infrastructure is absolutelyessential.

This Bill contains a number of keyfeatures and, as the Minister pointed out, doesnot of itself impose new regulatoryrequirements on industry. What it does,however, apart from establishing the new SafeFood agency, is provide the framework for theintroduction of new regulatory requirements onindustry—food safety regimes, as the Ministerrefers to them.

These schemes will cover particularindustries—initially the meat industry, then thedairy industry and the seafood industry and,ultimately, other lower risk industries such asthe horticultural, livestock and grain industries.These systems are apparently to be based onscientific principles in consultation with therespective industries. They will be introducedas regulations under this Bill.

Whilst the Minister points to therequirement for a regulatory impact statementin the development of such a regulation assome form of protection for industry, we allknow that, if this Beattie Government has thenumbers, and it has made up its mind, there islittle that anyone can do to change its will bysending in a submission to that process. Theindependent trawler operations have provedthat very point in their attempts to securesome acknowledgment of their situationthrough changes to the East Coast TrawlManagement Plan.

This is a problem that the Minister faces. Iknow it will not be easy to get around it.However, it is necessary that it be done. I knowthe Minister has some particular problems withthe East Coast Trawl Management Plan. Thesystems that we have devised, such as VMS,will lead to a better product as time goes onbecause we will be able to sell the product offthe boats. There will be more rapid transit fromthe catching process to the product arriving atthe marketplace. I believe that augurs well forthe industry. At an earlier stage the peopleinvolved were concerned about it, but I believethere is now a high degree of acceptance of it.

The people involved in these industriesare sick and tired of endless so-calledconsultations. They are also sick and tired ofmaking submissions that are not heeded. Wehave to get around that process. We cannotkeep grinding away at it. Decisions must bemade. If the Government does not like theanswer it receives, it keeps asking the samequestion until it gets the answer that it likes,otherwise the Government does not listen.That is what I see happening with this Bill.


The Bill foreshadows this Government'sintention to ignore the results of anyconsultations that are undertaken. I will makefurther remarks on that subject during theCommittee stage. What we are effectivelybeing asked to do in passing this Bill is to signaway much of the Parliament's ability toimpose checks and balances on theseschemes in order to ensure that they do notpose an undue regulatory or financial burdenon our food producers. Primary producers arealready suffering declining terms oftrade—rising costs and falling incomes. ThisBill should not add to that decline.

The Bill potentially allows the Governmentto impose mandatory quality assuranceschemes on our beef producers, our grainproducers and our fruit and vegetableproducers. The definitions in the Bill clearly setout that the Government will have the ability, ifit wishes, to regulate every single element ofprimary production, including the growing ofseed crops, the mustering of livestock, theharvesting of sugarcane and every facet ofproduction right through to the manufacture ofsuch products as dairy products, smallgoodsand cooked prawns.

Many of these industries are exporting. Alot of our beef goes overseas—some of it inthe live cattle export trade. Very little of oursugar is used domestically. We are trading withthe rest of the world. We must be doing itcorrectly. I do not think there is any reason whywe should impose more restrictions on industrywhen we have a high degree of acceptance ofour product in the market. In many instanceswe do as well as anyone else in the world.That must be acknowledged. If it ain't broke,why fix it? In most cases these industries havealready introduced their own schemes whichhave been developed by industry, the uptakeof which has been market driven. Primaryproducers do not want the dead hand ofbureaucracy putting further impositions on theirability to conduct their businesses.

I appeal to the Government and to allmembers to address this issue in its properperspective. If the Beattie Government is fairdinkum about working with industry, it shouldbe ensuring that any food safety schemeenhances food safety standards withoutimposing more costs. It should be working toenhance our industry's clean and greenreputation on our domestic and export marketsand, by virtue of that, enhance the producers'terms of trade. I believe that is probably themost important issue. We have to make surethat we have a clean and green image, thatwe are producing a good product and that weare enhancing our terms of trade. As we go on

and produce more product we will be lookingat export markets.

The Government should be working withindustry to acknowledge the effort that ourproducers are making, and have made, inensuring the maintenance of food safety. I canreport that the Opposition sees merit incombining the functions of the QueenslandLivestock and Meat Authority and theQueensland Dairy Authority. I believe that hadthe Opposition remained in Government wewould have done exactly that. This is asensible move which should produce costsavings to those industries. If it does not, thenquestions will need to be asked.

The Opposition supports also theconsolidation of audit and inspection functionsfor those situations where multiple auditsand/or inspections are now being performed.Again, this should deliver cost savings inparticular to high-risk industries. They will bevery dependent on that. The provision ofindependent or third-party auditors is anecessary and overdue step that will introducecompetition to that sector and again shoulddrive down costs for the industry rather thanjust contain them, as the Minister appearscontent to do judging by comments made inhis second-reading speech.

I have already touched on the scale ofthe penalties proposed in the Bill for foodsafety standards, and I accept to a point theMinister's argument about posing a deterrent.The trouble is that we cannot have one hatthat fits all situations. The penalties at the topof the range are far too high. This aspectshould probably have been addressed inanother way, with different penalties fordifferent standards. But it is difficult tochallenge this, because we want to ensurethat people do not do the wrong thing.However, the courts should take note of thatand not take the extreme step of throwing thebook at people for minor offences. We need tomonitor that very closely.

I would have preferred to have seen ascale of deterrence for different risks withinindustries. For high risks there could havebeen a higher scale and for medium risksthere could have been a lower scale and soon. The structure that ANZFA has proposed isquestionable. It would have been difficult forus in Opposition to put forward suggestions,because the Bill would have had to have beentotally reworked to accommodate them. Wewill not oppose the legislation, but I would likethe Minister to take note of the fact that thereis the potential for problems. The last thing Iwould like to see is somebody getting a


penalty or a fine that does not warrant thesituation.

Mr Palaszczuk: The penalties are up to amaximum amount.

Mr ROWELL: I understand that they areup to a maximum amount. That is what I amconcerned about. Perhaps different ceilingsshould have been set for different riskcategories. The fervour with which theGovernment appears to embrace the big stickin introducing any reform, whether it isvegetation management, water resources orfood safety, is extremely disturbing andindicative of the Government's attitude towardsprimary industries. I do not think theGovernment needs to do this. By implication,at the very least the Government is suggestingthat primary producers and others in thebusiness of food production do not haveregard to the need to produce safe food.

Mr Palaszczuk: No, that's not true.

Mr ROWELL: Some of the penalties areequivalent to those in the Criminal Code. Dowe need to go to those extremes? Byimplication, at the worst the Minister issuggesting that these people need to bebludgeoned with regulations and fines in orderto make them comply.

Mr Palaszczuk: The penalties in this newBill are no different to the penalties in the meatindustry Bill.

Mr ROWELL: But how can you includethe fruit and vegetables and grains? Whatwould a grain grower have to do to attract a$150,000 penalty or two years in jail? It wouldhave to be something serious, wouldn't it?That is the point I am making. Perhaps theMinister did not understand what I was gettingat. There are different tiers—

Mr Palaszczuk: I know what you'resaying.

Mr ROWELL: That is okay.

It is this sort of heavy-handed approach,which is the root cause of the Minister's failingon many issues of real concern to primaryindustries, that has forced the QueenslandFarmers Federation to declare war on theGovernment. It is not happy about what theMinister is doing in a lot of areas.

Mr Palaszczuk: They're my friends.

Mr ROWELL: They are declaring war onthe Minister. Hasn't he seen the newspaperreports?

Mr Palaszczuk: No. Mr ROWELL: I will have to give them to

the Minister. I will fax them through to hisoffice. I assure the Minister that it is declaring

war on him. Primary producers are willing towork with the Minister——

Mr Palaszczuk: Thank you very much.

Mr ROWELL: They are willing to work withthe Minister, but the way things are going it isbecoming extremely difficult.

Mr Palaszczuk: Don't worry about it.We're working really well.

Mr ROWELL: I can assure the Ministerthat that is not apparent from what I amreading.

Mr Palaszczuk: You're reading the wrongthing.

Mr ROWELL: I read the samenewspapers the Minister writes to.

Mr Palaszczuk: You're probably readingthe papers in New South Wales.

Mr ROWELL: No. The Minister must bewilling to work with them in a genuine way togive them some credit and to cut them someslack, instead of just offering lip-service and anexcuse for consultation and introducing hisideas about what should be done withoutregard for the impact on people and thenthreatening those people with heavy fines andother penalties if they do not comply. Althoughthe intent of the Bill is to ensure that food issafe—something everyone and every industrysupports—some of the methods proposed toachieve the intent of this Bill serve only toundermine that effort.

The Opposition will be moving a series ofamendments aimed at improving this Bill withinthe parameters imposed by the Governmentand at correcting what we believe areshortcomings or even mistakes. We will beconsidering our support or otherwise for the Billon the basis of the Minister's response to theissues we raise on behalf of the people whoseactivities these laws will administer.

This Bill is very important. The primaryindustries in this State are worth about $6billion at the farm gate. A number of industriesare coming under the umbrella of food safetythat have not come under it before. I havepointed out some of the concerns of theseindustries with respect to food safety. It isimportant that the Minister notes the issues Ihave raised. If the Minister is proposing tomove amendments, we will be very interestedin what he is intending to do in those areas.

Mr Palaszczuk: Would you like a copy ofthem, too?

Mr ROWELL: Ours are coming out, too. Ido not know that we will be going throughthem today.

Mr Palaszczuk interjected.


Mr ROWELL: Our amendments are quiteimportant. One of the main amendments thatwe would like to see is low-risk category groupsbeing able to have some method of auditingthat is not as demanding. If they are doing theright thing, a statutory declaration in the initialstages should be sufficient in terms ofaccreditation. I will be moving an amendmentto that effect.

Mr PITT (Mulgrave—ALP) (4.47 p.m.): Isupport the Food Production (Safety) Bill 2000,which establishes Safe Food, a statutoryauthority. It aims to ensure that primaryproduce is fit for human and animalconsumption. It covers all aspects of foodproduction, from the paddock to the plate. Toachieve this objective, Safe Food has astatutory responsibility covering four mainareas—

to manage and implement food safetyschemes for industry;

to accredit businesses that produceprimary produce;

to manage the food safety auditing ofprimary production businesses; and

to accredit auditors.

Safe Food will phase in food safetyresponsibility for the major primary industriesover the next four years. In the process, itwould allow time for a genuine partnership tobe established. This measured approachallows for a smooth and effective transition tothe new arrangements.

The Bill provides a Queenslandinfrastructure to implement a truly nationalfood safety regulation. The Australia NewZealand Food Authority—ANZFA—recentlydeveloped draft food safety standards to beimplemented over six years. These standardsrequire preventive programs to be in place atall points in the food supply chain wheresignificant food safety risks may arise. They willhave a marked and positive influence on ourdomestic and export markets.

There has been developed a carefullystructured regime of accreditation and auditingthat is vital to the success of the Safe Foodprogram. The process makes room for somedegree of choice on the part of the primaryproducer. For example, each accreditedprimary producer may chose their ownaccredited auditor to audit their primaryproduction business to make sure that itcomplies with the Act and that an adequatefood safety program for the business is inplace. The auditor will then report to Safe Foodon whether the business has complied.

The Bill provides for a number of seriousfood safety offences, with maximum penaltiesranging from $65,000 to $225,000. The majorserious food safety offences are the supply orproduction of unsafe primary produce and theunauthorised production of primary produce.The penalties are high to strongly deterindividuals and corporations from producing orsupplying unsafe primary produce. ThisGovernment is determined that a Garibaldi-type food safety crisis, as occurred in SouthAustralia, will not occur in this State. Theprevious speaker likened these penalties topenalties contained in the Criminal Code.Surely the failure to maintain high standards ofsafety equates to a criminal act.

There is an urgent need to reduceduplication in the area of food safety. This Billaccommodates a solution to this concern.Safe Food will initially draw together andmanage the food safety programs andaccreditation audit programs of animal proteinproducts—meat, dairy and seafood—underthe jurisdiction of a single food safety agency.The authority may implement similar programsand audits in relation to other primary industrysectors such as eggs, fruit and vegetables andgrains if these are in fact required.

Safe Food will establish close linkageswith the primary industry bodies and primaryproduction groups by taking food safetymanagement back to the farm and the fishingvessel and will include activities such as feedsupply. It will ensure that the production ofprimary produce is safe for human and animalconsumption. This is not about creating redtape, as suggested by the previous speaker. Itcreates a uniform set of standards. In fact, itreduces duplication and, if embraced by thoseinvolved, it will not only streamline the processof accreditation but will have a positive effecton the ability to market produce.

Widespread consultation with industryorganisations has been conducted and thereis a recognition that improved regulatoryarrangements are needed. There is also anexpectation of cost savings and administrativeefficiencies in combining food safety functions.The key to this legislation is that it provides aframework to maximise the opportunity todevelop a partnership between the authority,food industries and consumers in thedevelopment of food safety schemes. Eachfood safety scheme must establish a structurefor continuing consultation with the relevantindustry sectors on the operation of thescheme and any changes to it. To assist inthat process, a Food Safety AdvisoryCommittee will be established.


This committee will have representativesfrom each industry that operates under a foodsafety scheme, along with a representativefrom the Departments of Primary Industriesand Health. Provisions have also been madefor the appointment of people with appropriateexpertise in areas such as food technology,human nutrition, environmental or publichealth, microbiology or epidemiology. The Billallows the Minister to appoint subcommitteeswith technical and industry expertise to assistthe members of the advisory committee. Withthis partnership approach, Safe Food will takesafety management back to the farm and thefishing vessel and will include scrutiny ofactivities such as feed supply. In so doing,Safe Food will form an integral part of theQueensland framework for the managementof food safety from source to consumer.

In my capacity as a local member, I havereceived some inquiries about the way in whichthe authority is to be funded and concern hasbeen expressed that some additional costs willbe imposed. It is anticipated that onceoperational, Safe Food will, within the four-yearphasing-in period, be self-funding and willgenerate sufficient revenue from fees andcharges for the services provided to covercosts. There will be both cost savings andadministrative efficiencies in combining thefood safety functions of the existing regulatoryagencies into a single regulatory body. Therewill be major benefits in terms of funding whenthe food safety functions of the QLMA andQDA are amalgamated and merged into thenew authority.

The legislation proposes a partnershipbetween all levels of Government, industry andconsumers to achieve a well integrated,streamlined and cost effective co-regulatorysystem based on risk to public health andsafety across the whole food supply chain.This is achieved through the implementation ofco-regulatory preventive food safety regimescalled food safety schemes. Because eachfood safety scheme is a regulation understatute, a regulatory impact statement needsto be prepared. This is a cost benefit analysisof the scheme's provisions and alternativeoptions. An RIS ensures that food safetyschemes are soundly based, effectivelytargeted and do not impose unnecessarycosts on business. They guaranteetransparency and will maximise the opportunityto develop a partnership between theauthority, food industries and consumers in thedevelopment of the food safety schemesthemselves.

Safe Food will be managed by a chiefexecutive officer who will report directly to the

Minister for Primary Industries. Safe Food'saccountability is assured through a number ofstatutory measures. Firstly, within the Billclause 32 provides that the chief executiveofficer must prepare a business plan each yearand that the plan must cover such things asany food safety schemes being developed,projected cost structures and fundingarrangements for each food safety scheme,Safe Food's funding arrangements for thefood safety activities carried out by Safe Food,Safe Food's administrative costs and how SafeFood intends to ensure its activities aremanaged on a cost recovery basis. The chiefexecutive officer must give the Minister a copyof the business plan by 31 March each year.

Secondly, clause 17 of the Bill providesthat the Minister may give Safe Food a writtendirection about the performance of SafeFood's function, exercise of its powers orwritten notice of a public sector policy, andSafe Food must ensure the direction or policyis complied with. Thirdly, contained in clause26 the Food Safety Advisory Committee, asconstituted by industry representatives andfood safety experts, may give advice orrecommendations to Safe Food or the Ministerabout food safety schemes or Safe Food'sfunction. Prior to a food safety scheme beingmade, consultation must take place with afood safety committee.

In conclusion, the Food Production(Safety) Bill 2000 is an excellent and timelypiece of legislation. It will provide consumerswith a level of confidence in the quality of foodproducts. There have been sufficient examplesin recent years of illness and death as a resultof food being consumed which has not metacceptable standards. In addition, primaryproducers and retailers have a genuine vestedinterest in maintaining the highest of safetystandards. Only by achieving this willconsumers have the necessary confidence inthe product that will protect and increaseexisting levels of sales. I congratulate theMinister on his initiative, and I commend theBill to the House.

Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—NPA)(4.56 p.m.): I, too, wish to take part in thisdebate on the Food Production (Safety) Bill2000 because obviously quite a number ofpeople in my electorate are food producersand have a vested interest in any legislationrelative to food safety and anything else thataffects their production. As other speakershave said, the coalition will be supporting theBill. It is one that has been coming for quitesome time, and quite a bit of work has beendone on it over the years.


I want to mention some of the productiveparts of my electorate, which includes theBrisbane Valley, Lockyer Valley and theLaidley area. That is considered to be thesalad bowl of south-east Queensland. It ishighly productive and is reliant on irrigation,particularly for the horticultural industries. As Isaid, it is very productive. Some people thereare involved in the dairy industry, as are othersup on the downs, in the shires of Rosalie,Jondaryan, Crows Nest and Esk. Also in thehorticultural area on the downs are peopleinvolved in growing wheat and beef cattleproduction. So it is a very highly productivepart of the State.

It is rather heartbreaking to see thedifficulties that a lot of those people are facingright now because of the drought, particularlythe dairy industry, which has copped thedouble whammy of the drought andderegulation. Anyone who knows anythingabout it and who actually goes out and notonly talks to those people but also goes ontotheir properties to see what they are goingthrough—especially those suffering the impactof the dairy industry deregulation—knows thatit is soul destroying and heartbreaking. Thosepeople know that their livelihood andproductivity are at stake; nothing could bemore serious than that. I know that we have alldecried the effects of deregulation, but Iwanted to make that point.

Today I want to set out for myconstituents the main objects of this Bill,because most members like to let theirconstituents know what certain legislation isabout and how it will affect them. The mainobjects of the Food Production (Safety) Bill areto establish Safe Food ProductionQueensland, to ensure the production ofprimary produce is carried out in a way thatmakes it fit for human or animal consumptionand maintains food quality, and to providefood safety measures for the production ofprimary produce consistent with other Statelaws relating to food safety. As we know, thisBill is part of a model Bill for the rest of thenation.

Safe Food's responsibility for ensuringfood safety will occur at the beginning of thefood chain, that is, the paddock or the ocean,or at retail premises where raw meat is furtherprocessed such as butcher shops andsupermarket meat departments. QueenslandHealth and local government's responsibilitieswill commence where produce enters themanufacturing sector for transformation or theretail restaurant and take-away sectors. TheQueensland Government believes it isnecessary to define food safety responsibilities

in Queensland between the Health andPrimary Industries portfolios before the foodsafety standards are introduced.

This Bill accords with the philosophies ofrecent national reviews such as the FRR reportand picks up the principles of the food safetystandards developed by ANZFA for inclusion inthe Food Standards Code. In particular,prescriptive regulations give way to outcomes-based measures where food businessesassume responsibility to develop programs forminimising and controlling food safety hazardsin their production and handling processesbased on HACCP principles and theGovernment assumes an approval and auditrole. I do not think anyone can argue with theneed to maintain high standards as far as foodsafety is concerned. As pointed out by theOpposition spokesman, the member forHinchinbrook, there are approximately 4.2million cases of food poisoning each year. Ofcourse, that is far too many. We cannot takeenough care with food safety.

Safe Food will take over the food safetyfunctions of the QLMA, the QueenslandLivestock and Meat Authority, and the QDA,the Queensland Dairy Authority, in order to bethe one body responsible for the regulatoryoversight of the meat and dairy industries. TheMeat Industry Act 1993 and the Dairy IndustryAct 1993 will eventually be repealed. In time,the seafood industry will also be covered.Unlike the meat and dairy industries, seafoodindustries have not yet been subject tostatutorily mandated quality assurancesystems and inspection procedures at thevessel stage. Eventually, the FPS Bill may beextended to cover products such as fruit andvegetables.

Further to that, the FPS Bill establishesSafe Food under the Primary Industriesportfolio managed by a CEO. Safe Food'smain role will include regulation under foodsafety schemes of the production of primaryproduce from the source—paddock orocean—to the point where the product entersthe manufacturing or retail sectors to ensurethat it is safe for human or animalconsumption; advising or makingrecommendations to the Minister about foodsafety matters relating to the production ofprimary produce and the development orimplementation of food safety schemes;monitoring the hygiene and operatingprocedures relating to the production ofprimary produce; encouraging food businessesin development of food safety programs andquality assurance measures; approving foodsafety programs of producers; accrediting theproduction of primary produce; and managing


auditing procedures, accrediting and training ofauditors.

Funding is an issue which was mentionedby the Opposition spokesman for PrimaryIndustries. When I was shadow spokesman, Iwas concerned about the funding aspect. Wedo not want to see the people at thebeginning of the food chain wearing all thecosts of these various authorities. If we lookafter the safety and hygiene of the people ofthe State, quite obviously they are thebeneficiaries. Therefore, it is fair andreasonable to assume that they will absorbany costs involved so that the producer doesnot have to wear all those costs. If that were tobe the case, that would be extremely unfair.

The FPS Bill has no express provision fora fund to be established for Safe Food or toenable it to levy contributions from personssubject to the schemes under it. However, itwould appear that most of Safe Food'soperating expenses, as is currently the casewith the QLMA and the QDA, would besubsidised by fees levied upon applicants foraccreditation to produce primary produce or forapproval as an auditor. In addition, there maybe a source of funding from any charges itmight impose for providing services such astraining for auditors. The funding side of it isimportant. As has been said, there is supportfor funding in the provision of Safe Food, butlet us not load the production sector with allthe costs.

When the Government announced itsintention to establish Safe Food, someconcern was expressed at the time by this sideof the House that this might bring with it anincrease in fees and red tape. The warning wegave is to try to get these things to flow andwork. It is all very well to have expertise withthe various committees and advisory bodies,but that expertise should also includeproducers. They are the people who actuallyproduce the food. They might not have astring of degrees after their name, but theymost certainly do have a commonsenseapproach and an understanding of their ownindustries. Also, the FPS Bill will reduceduplication in food safety regulation and cutcompliance costs for producers. However, thatremains to be seen.

We realise that there has been a generalpush at a national level for new food safetystandards under the Model Food Bill broadlybased on the introduction of the HazardAnalysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) qualityassurance (QA) systems. We understand thatthe Bill establishes a new statutory authoritycalled Safe Food Queensland which will

oversee the development and maintenance offood safety programs in the primary productionsector and at retail premises where raw meat isfurther processed, such as butchers andsupermarkets. Initially, Safe Food will assumethe functions of the Queensland Livestock andMeat Authority, then the food safety functionsof the Queensland Dairy Authority, and thenintroduce a food safety scheme for theseafood industry. However, the Bill alsoprovides Safe Food with the legislativeframework to introduce food safety schemesfor each industry right back to the farm level.

As I said before, some industries havealready introduced food safety schemes andothers are in the process of introducing theirown quality assurance based systems. TheQLMA introduced the Q-Safe program in themeat industry in 1993. Butchers, meatprocessors and slaughterhouse operatorshave expended considerable time and moneyupgrading their operations. The industry isarguably now at the forefront of the foodindustry in terms of food and safety hygiene. Ayear ago we debated the massive costincreases to those in the meat industry andbutchers. As far as we are concerned, theyhave made their contribution. Those peoplewould be extremely concerned if this again ledto another round of increases.

The QDA, the Queensland DairyAuthority, has been introducing a qualityassurance based food safety scheme in thedairy industry. Dairies are rated at one of fourcompliance levels depending on theirperformance and receive regular auditsaccordingly. At the farm level, the beef industryhas introduced its own Cattlecare program.The sheep and wool industry has introducedFlockcare and the horticultural industry iscurrently introducing its Freshcare program.

There have been varying levels ofresistance in some quarters with theintroduction of these programs, but thedifference between those programs in themeat and dairy industries and these farm-levelprograms is that the farm programs havelargely been market driven. For example, aftera slow start, some processors are now payinga small premium for Cattlecare-accreditedcattle to supply the European Union market. Itis not easy to become accredited. It is only asmall market, but it is a fairly lucrative one.Some producers say, "Why bother trying to getinto that market?" I say that producers shouldbother about everything in this game,especially primary production. Even if themarket is small, exclusive and unique,producers should go for it if they meet therequirements.


One reason for that would be to take theopportunity to amalgamate the functions ofthe QLMA and QDA to save money. We wereconsidering that earlier. Currently bothauthorities run their own offices, staff and cars.As their roles have gradually been reducedback to food safety functions—withderegulation the QDA no longer has any rolein maintaining the price of supplymanagement system in the dairy industry—itcertainly makes sense to combine the two.

Another major concern for all industries isthat any food safety system should not imposemore costs on their operations, particularly inthe light of producers' already declining termsof trade. The Government should be workingwith producers to support their efforts ratherthan further hindering their operations by theimposition of red tape. It is one of those thingsthat we just have to watch constantly. Wehave to listen to those who are affected bylegislation, because they are the ones whocan say pretty well in advance just whatproblems these things can cause.

I will not dwell too much more on thelegislation. As the Opposition spokesman hassaid, there will be further comments made toour amendments. I note that the Minister alsohas amendments. We can take these mattersfurther when we consider the amendments atthe Committee stage.

I mentioned previously the difficulties thatthe productive sector is facing from drought.We talked about this about 10 days ago. Imentioned then the difficulty producers havewith bureaucracy when it comes to droughtdeclaration. This has everything to do withfood production, because that is exactly whatpeople are trying to do in the midst of drought.We are trying to make life a little easier forthose people by trying to get droughtdeclarations. I said at the time that there washindrance on the part of some people in theDPI, who were making it difficult for droughtdeclarations to be made.

Mr Palaszczuk: I'm not denying that.Mr COOPER: I will table this document for

the Minister because it is proof positive of whatI was saying. I table part of the minutes of adrought committee meeting relative to theKingaroy/Nanango area. The members of thedrought committee were asked to give a yes orno answer as to whether they thought theirshires should be drought declared. Thiscommittee comprised various people from theKingaroy, Nanango and Rosalie shires. Therewere eight yes votes, all from farmers, and fourno votes, all from the DPI. That is proofpositive.

As I said before, we know that DPI hasbeen under instruction to take a hard line ondrought declarations. This group has nowmoved to have their shires of Nanango andKingaroy declared, which they should be. Iknow that Jondaryan Shire has moved thisway also. They know, I know, we allknow—one only has to go through that countryto see—that whether we talk about the self-reliance factor, rainfall deficiency or whatever,we have a drought on our hands.

We have said before that these droughtdeclarations are not going to break theGovernment. These people are getting onlythe crumbs off the table. It is not asking muchto alleviate some of the stress that thesepeople are under—these people are underenormous pressure when they feel as if theyare going down the tube—to give some smallrecognition that they are in trouble and thatthe Government will do all it can for them. Yethere we have this classic example of DPIpeople voting no and the farmers voting yes inthose absolutely droughted areas. I think thatsays something. I sincerely hope that we willnot waste any further time on something thatshould have been declared quite some timeago.

Mr Rowell: It is interesting to note thatthe trees are starting to die off.

Mr COOPER: One only has to take a runthrough that area to see that. We do see indrought times that the trees start to go.Producers know very well that when the treesstart to go they are in trouble. That is a perfectindication.

We do not have to get all of the criteriaright, such as the scientific stuff that I havementioned before. That is not going to savefarmers, but it will certainly help them in theirbattle with drought. They have enough on theirhands as it is. We have only to visit thosepeople at their places and see the poverty thatexists there to know that we should doanything we possibly can to assist them. As Isaid, they are not getting much out of it; it isthe very least we can do.

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—NPA) (5.14 p.m.): I welcome theopportunity to speak to the Food Production(Safety) Bill 2000. I do not intend to restate thecomments already made today, except to notethat there seems to be general agreementthat there is a responsibility on the part ofGovernments of the day right across thenation to ensure that the food that peoplehave access to is safe. I will make a fewcomments about how we go about ensuringthat. This parallels my experiences with the


Environmental Protection Act and associatedregulations and the way they were put inplace.

In May of this year I attended a meetingin Chinchilla. John Mickel represented theGovernment at that meeting of theQueensland Country Meat ProcessorsAssociation. These people are the smallprocessors of fresh meat across Queensland.They have been part and parcel of the QLMAfor quite some time. The experiences of thatgroup of people are worth considering. Thoughwe can go about things with the best ofintentions and get the best of advice, weought not shut out people who have practicalexperience. I will go through a few points thatthese people raised.

John Mickel made an announcement onbehalf of the Government that it would meethalf the cost of microbiological testing in all theshops and slaughter yards of the meatprocessors across Queensland. Thatannouncement was welcomed. But theargument is that the community benefits fromgood quality food; if the community benefitsthen the community as a whole shouldcontribute part of the cost. It had been arguedfor a long time by this organisation of smallmeat processors that they were being asked tocarry all the costs in their line of production. Ifthe benefits are felt by the whole community,then the whole community should contributethrough the Government. I think the Ministerhas made some sort of acknowledgment thatthere is a role for the Government tocontribute, because the whole communitybenefits. I think those involved in all levels ofproduction of food are going to put the samesort of argument.

The member for Crows Nest spoke aboutthe poor level of viability in primary production.Primary producers cannot carry those sorts ofextra costs on their own because they do nothave the capacity to bear them and they donot have the capacity to pass them on.Governments have a responsibility to act onbehalf of the community and pay on behalf ofthe community.

The next thing they raised was that theycould recognise that some of their memberswere complying extremely well with all of theconditions of Q-Safe and that others were not.It was agreed that the QLMA would separatethe annual licence fee and the audit fee.Everyone agreed that there has to be alicence, but the number of times a processorhas to be audited varies depending on theperformance of the individual processing plant.

That is similar to the experience I hadwhen I was Environment Minister. I took over aset of regulations and an Act that was puttogether by Molly Robson, a Minister in theGoss Government. There was uproar becausethe people in the workplace were adamantthat all the costs and things associated withcomplying with the Act were over the top. It ison record that I put a moratorium on that. I gottogether a group of advisers—people inindustry and people with expertise—and wewent through it all. I brought in new legislationand new regulations. The sky has not fallen in.The current Minister for the Environment hasnot changed the things I put in place. I thinkwe proved that by listening to people out therein the workplace we can still reach highstandards but in other ways, rather than byadopting world's best practice. We have tohave some ear for what is practical and what ispossible. I ask the Minister to take that intoaccount.

These people also said, "The fellows whodo not perform well have to be expected topay more. The blokes who have a good showshould not be audited too often. They getaway with it because they look afterthemselves—self-regulation."

Mr Rowell: I think you wrote to me at thattime.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I wrote to the memberfor Hinchinbrook about this. One of therecommendations of that meeting—I wrote tothe member for Hinchinbrook as shadowMinister—was that the country processorswanted the QLMA to focus on outcomestandards because small works could gethigher quality results by doing things differentlyfrom the larger works. They say, "Come andsee the standard of the product we put outand judge us on that. Don't judge us on theprocess we go through and all the things wehave to do."

They argued pretty strongly—I thought itwas a valid argument—that the conditionswere written to suit a large processor, wherethere would be 200 or 300 people in the workchain. Then there are the country processorswho have maybe only two workmen out therein the slaughterhouse. The quality of the meatcoming out the other end is the same. Thesmall processor does not have to have all thesteps in the processing. They said, "It will befairer if you just judge us on the quality of thefood that we send on from there, rather thanon whether we have all the steps that the bigfellows such as ConAgra might have."

I thought that was a pretty validargument. I will make a comparison. Again,


going back to my day when I was trying tomake the Environment Protection Act work, Iput in place an advisory council. I wrote to allthe various industry organisations and theenvironmental groups saying, "Send along arepresentative." Those representatives used tolook at all the legislation and give me adviceon it. I had appointed to that council a fellowfrom Dalby, who was a small metal fabricator.One day he said to me, "Brian, I am the onlybloke there who is an owner-operator. All theother people who have been sent along byindustry organisations are highly qualified, butsalaried people." He said further, "It isinteresting that when we start debating things,invariably I can come up with a point of viewthat is very much oriented to the bloke who isan owner rather than being oriented to thetheory and the academic training that isnecessary."

I impress on the Minister that I think that itis imperative that, when this Safe FoodProduction QLD gets up and going, there isinput from the small operators who aremeeting the standards but doing it in differentways, that judgments are made on anoutcomes basis, and that regard is given tothese people who have had a lot ofexperience. Although those people may takeshort cuts or employ more efficient ways, theyshould not be disregarded if their methodslook different or a bit shoddy, because theproduct has to be judged on an outcomesbasis.

The other thing that I impressed on thesepeople—and I think that the Minister willprobably receive the same sort of pressurefrom the various food processing groups—isthat there is a necessity on their part to makesure that they are on any advisory committees.Otherwise, the type of advice coming forwardcan be skewed. There are well-intentionedpeople who have been in the really big placesand have received plenty of qualifications, butthey have not been right at the coalface tryingto make a quid, trying to meet standards. So Isuggest to those people that they shouldpress the Minister to make sure that they getrepresentation on Q-Safe.

Without prolonging the debate anyfurther, I want to say that I think that we allsupport the idea of having these standardsright across Australia. I understand the needfor the Queensland Government to play itspart in that by introducing its own legislation.However, it is just how we go about it.Although we should be very careful that wemeet the standards, I think that sometimesthere are ways in which we can go about doing

that in a better way than those proposed froma purely academic corner.

Dr CLARK (Barron River—ALP)(5.22 p.m.): The Australian New Zealand FoodAuthority—ANZFA—has estimated that everyday 11,500 people contract a food-bornedisease, costing the Australian communityover $2.6 billion every year. However, thatfigure needs to be put in perspective, becauseof the 20 billion meals that are served everyyear, only 0.02% of them result in food-borneillnesses, indicating that, in fact, the vastmajority of food businesses operate at a veryhigh standard. Nevertheless, the Australiancommunity, consumers, industry andGovernment will benefit from a furtherreduction in the current level of food-borneillnesses through less pain and suffering, lowerhealth care costs, less absenteeism, improvedbusiness productivity, increasedcompetitiveness on world markets and areduction in business failure and associatedcosts, including civil litigation.

The tourist industry in Cairns knows onlytoo well the damage that can be done to areputation when safety procedures break downand food poisoning occurs. The limitations ofthe current fragmented food hygieneregulatory system were investigated in 1995and Commonwealth, State and TerritoryHealth Ministers asked ANZFA to developnational uniform food safety standards forAustralia as part of the Food Standards Codethat was to become law in each State andTerritory. Five years on, significant progresshas been made with respect to achieving acomprehensive paddock-to-plate approach tofood safety in Australia, and the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill is part of that progressin Queensland.

In Queensland, we have opted for theapproach of complementary legislation toensure food safety, with this Bill applying solelyto primary industries under the responsibility ofthe Minister for Primary Industries. Similaroutcomes-based food safety reform is underway for the manufacturing, retail and servicessection of the food industry, which will remainthe province of Queensland Health, regulatedby the Food Act and subject to food safetystandards developed by ANZFA, with theexception of retail butcher shops andprepackaged meats to be sold insupermarkets, which will remain regulated byFood Safe. On the other hand, ultimately, theresponsibility for the regulation of themanufacture and sale of milk products andsmallgoods will become the responsibility ofQueensland Health. Officers from PrimaryIndustries and Queensland Health have been


and will continue to work together closely toavoid duplication or gaps and ensure aconsistent risk-based management approachto food safety in legislation in their respectiveportfolios that will satisfy the intent of theANZFA food safety reform agenda for nationaluniformity.

I commend the Government for adoptingthis model, because we need to be mindful ofthe experience in the UK with the so-calledmad cow disease, which highlighted the needfor health authorities to have a strong role inregulating for food safety. I understand thatNew South Wales is considering giving theirsafe food authority responsibility for all foodsafety matters. However, I personally think thatthere are some dangers in this approach thatneed careful consideration.

So in Queensland, Safe Food, thestatutory authority established by this Bill, willhave the responsibility to manage andimplement food safety schemes for each ofthe major primary industries of meat, dairy andseafood over the next four years. Food safetyschemes for eggs, horticulture and grain will bedeveloped in future years. The safety schemeswill cover the where and how of the handling ofprimary produce up to the point of retail ormanufacture from where the food safetystandards, which will be subordinate legislationunder the Food Act, will take over. The safetyschemes may also provide that accreditedprimary production businesses must develop afood safety program that is tailor-made foreach business, setting out the potential foodsafety risks and how they are to be monitoredand controlled.

The new risk-based managementapproach will also require the introduction ofan auditing system to ensure that places andactivities associated with the production ofprimary produce comply with the Act and thatan adequate food safety program for thebusiness is in place. The environmental healthofficers employed by local government mayperform these food safety audits, as it isintended that the retail, manufacturing andservice sectors of the food industry or primaryproducers may choose their own accreditedauditor.

No doubt the key to the success of thislegislation is a strong partnership betweenSafe Food, industry, technical and foodscience experts. The legislation does this byestablishing a food safety advisory committee,which has representatives from each industrythat will or does operate under a food safetyscheme; a representative from DPI andHealth; and room for the appointment of

experts in food technology, human nutritionand public health. It is also important to notethat food safety schemes cannot be madeunless Safe Food has consulted with the foodsafety advisory committee.

A similar consultative approach is beingadopted in Queensland with theimplementation of the three ANZFA foodsafety standards that were gazetted lastmonth and cover food safety practices,premises and equipment. An informationpaper regarding these standards has beenproduced by Queensland Health and hasbeen forwarded to local government andindustry for comment.

The production of food safety programsby individual businesses, as required by foodsafety standard 3.2.1 under the FoodStandards Code, has not yet been gazetted.In fact, it has been deferred by theCommonwealth until a cost-benefit analysishas been completed. However, Queensland,along with a number of other States, hasresolved not to wait but rather to work with theindustry to implement all four food safetystandards, including standard 3.2.1. To thatend, in my role as parliamentary secretaryassisting the Health Minister in the area offood safety reform, I will be chairing a foodsafety stakeholders forum. I look forward toupdating the Parliament with respect to theprogress of the stakeholders' forum, which Ibelieve will make a significant contribution toimplementing the ANZFA food safetystandards in a practical, cost-effective andindustry friendly manner.

In conclusion, I congratulate the Ministerfor Primary Industries on bringing forward thisimportant legislation, which is the firstmilestone in the introduction of a new era withrespect to food safety in Queensland. Icommend the Bill to the House.

Mr HOBBS (Warrego—NPA) (5.28 p.m.): Iam pleased to be able to speak to this FoodProduction (Safety) Bill. In doing so, I wish torefer to an issue that has been outlinedalready by other members who have spoken inthis debate. Obviously, it is an issue thataffects everybody. Nobody wants to see thesituation arise in which food, whether it isprepared in a cooked state or a raw state,could have a serious impact on others withinthe community, such as has happened in thecases of severe food poisoning that haveoccurred in the past.

In many instances we wonder how onearth those situations occurred in the firstplace. One possibility is that there wassomething wrong with the hygiene of the


particular premises. In many instances thatprobably is not the case. In some situations Ithink that it is more a case of bad luck causedby a turn of events such as the weather;sometimes it is just the way things happen.We have to be cautious, but what worries meis that in some instances we might be over-cautious.

The national legislation that is perhapsthe forerunner to the Bill before the Housetoday is looking at putting in place food safetystandards across the nation. We need to havea good look at where that is going. Whatconcerns me greatly is the fact that in the pushfor safety and the highest possible standardswe put in place standards that are far too highfor our community to meet and in manyinstances are just not necessary.

People do this for various reasons. Onereason is litigation, which is always on ourminds. But the reality is that in a lot of cases itis a case of buyer beware. People need tohave confidence that what they are buying,whether it is in a corner store or a butchershop, is a good product. But we need to makesure that we do not go overboard, as so oftenhappens. One good example that I often giveof going overboard with the setting ofstandards relates to the transportation ofbullets. It is not possible to send a packet of.22 bullets with a mailman because it isagainst safety regulations. For heaven's sake,they have been carting bullets on wagons andall sorts of trucks and other modes oftransport—in saddlebags and motorbikes—foryears and years and years, but now the mailcarrier cannot carry a packet of bulletsbecause someone thought it might endangersomeone's safety.

Mr Lucas: This is a food Bill.

Mr HOBBS: I know, but it is a goodexample. This could happen here as well. Wehave to make sure that we do not gooverboard and make things too difficult.

Two good examples are the production offood and the farming of grain. This legislationtalks about developing food safety measuresfor the production of primary produceconsistent with other State laws relating tofood safety. For instance, there will have to beaccreditation for all sorts of activities—formustering cattle, drafting cattle andtransporting cattle. There must beaccreditation for the planting of a crop, theharvesting of a crop and the transport of acrop—everything.

There has to be a limit to how farlegislation can go. Primary industries haveaccreditation processes for cattle for the

European and Japanese markets. We acceptthat there are niche markets that provide afinancial benefit to people who wish to pursuethose lines. If the Government wants to putaccreditation in place in the Barkly Tablelandor Cooper Creek or whatever, that is its choice.However, if a producer is getting accreditedbecause he has to, he has to find someone todo the accreditation for him. That may be aneighbour, or it might be the stock inspectorwho may live at Thargomindah or Charleville. Itmight be a day's drive away. Once he is thereon those big stations, it could take another dayor a couple of days to drive around and look ateverything—the cattleyards, the fences andthe mustering program. So there are all thesecosts. Members can bet their boots that to getthis accreditation—which some people mightnot even want—could easily cost thousands ofdollars to attain. There could be other caseswhere a neighbour could come across and doit and it might cost less. So we have to becareful that we do not put in place a processthat is a costly encumbrance and totallyunnecessary.

We might say on a broader aspect that,yes, this will be good for our sales. In manyinstances these accreditations do not mean adamned thing. I am a wool grower and myshearing shed is accredited and everythingelse before I sell my wool, but I do not get onerazoo extra for that. I do not mind doing itbecause it gets rid of all the rubbish, the balingtwine and so on lying around the place, which Iought to do anyway, but it really is of nofinancial benefit to me at all. That is oneexample.

Take the case of a farmer. Of what greatbenefit is an accreditation for someone whowants to grow wheat at Roma? Does thismean that how he greases his plough or howhe ploughs his paddock is going to be animportant part of the provisions of thislegislation? Do we need that type of thing? Ido not think we do. There are strict standardsthat are set in relation to the storage and soforth of foodstuffs. We understand that. Thetransportation and storage of meat fromlivestock and feral animals, particularly thoseshot as game, is another issue. I understandthat there are certain needs and that it isimportant that we do have a lot of cleanliness,but by the same token we just do not hear ofcases of people suffering food poisoning orhaving a problem from fresh meat in itstransportation from the property to the butchershop. The only instances that I have everheard of have occurred after the meat getsinto the production chain. That comes fromprepackaged meat and that type of thing. That


is further down the process line where thereare already quite a lot of regulations and rulesensuring food safety in the presentation offood. We must be careful not to go down thattrack. I think it is very, very important that welook at that.

I want to move on to the butcher shops. Iunderstand there has been a lot of discussionwith the Minister. There may have been somechanges, but I certainly know that at one stagethe butcher shops were most unhappy withthis Bill because the corner stores were tohave a different set of standards to butchershops. Has that been resolved?

Mr Palaszczuk: Yes. I think theOpposition's amendment covers myamendment.

Mr Rowell: It's good to see he recognisedthe need to do it. We had to raise it with theMinister.

Mr HOBBS: The member for Hinchinbrookis obviously a very astute shadow Minister.Obviously the Minister is very responsive to theOpposition and the Opposition is veryresponsive to the Minister. So I think that weboth had a win out of that one. That is good.

Honourable members interjected.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Kaiser):Order! This is not an opportunity for aconversation. The member will resume hisspeech.

Mr HOBBS: I thank you, Mr DeputySpeaker, for your protection.

There is an important issue here,particularly in relation to butcher shops. I thinkthat the butcher shops really have had a fairbit of a caning in recent times. It isdisappointing that they have had to gothrough quite a process to get to where theyare. I know that is the way Government workswith the bureaucracy and everything else.Ministers tend to send their departmentalpeople or advisory groups out to look atsituations and come back to try to resolve thatissue. The solution makes things just ascomplicated as before. But we really must workharder as members of Parliament and asMinisters of the Crown to make sure thatindustry does not go through the pain that thebutcher shops did go through. They had terrificproblems. They had to travel all over thecountry for meetings. It was disappointing thatthe butcher shop operators found themselvesin that situation.

The other aspect that concerns me is thetable of Australian Standards. I believe thatthis will perpetuate the problem. We will findthat the caterers at such gatherings as pony

clubs and P & Cs will not be able to serve foodunless it is properly accredited. That is coming.The Minister needs to nip that in the bud. TheMinister needs to realise that the widercommunity accepts the current situation. Ihave seen the draft proposals. All food that issold to the community must be preparedthrough an accredited processor. Mum makesa cake and takes it to the P & C or the ponyclub, but it cannot be sold.

Mr Rowell: What about cake stalls?

Mr HOBBS: Cake stalls and all similarthings would be out. This matter is terriblyimportant.

Mr Lucas: The member for Woodridgeused to slaughter pigs when he was young.His father had a pig farm.

Mr HOBBS: Did he? That will be out. Hewould not be able to do that in the future. Allthese groups raise money by running suchthings as food stalls. This occurs at everyfunction that one can think of, whether it be arodeo or a polocrosse meeting. Everyorganisation has a canteen. The peopleinvolved would have to buy prepacked foodand sell it at the canteen. I do not believe thatis fair.

The quality production area is politicallyimportant. We must ensure that we do notallow accreditation to get out of hand. TheMinister has said that he will leave it up toeach individual group to undertakeaccreditation. What happens when themajority of the people do not supportaccreditation? This could occur with suchorganisations as Agforce or variouscattlemen's associations.

Whilst we hope that all people areinvolved in industry groups, the reality is that alot of people are not involved at the grassrootslevel. Some people will say that we must haveaccreditation, but the wider community doesnot agree. A good example of that is whathappened in the dairy industry. The people atthe grassroots level were not in agreementwith the industry body. The same thing willhappen here. When people discover that theyhave to have their property accreditedbecause they want to muster in Septemberand truck their cattle away they will come backand bite us. It does not concern them that theindustry body supported accreditation.

Mr Rowell interjected.

Mr HOBBS: I think it is fairly regular, but Ido not know. There would obviously be costs.Perhaps it is a question for the Minister. TheMinister might tell us how often properties willneed to be accredited. Will there be an annual


fee? Will the fee have to be paid every twoyears or every five years? Could we havesome idea of the cost involved? I would expectthat stock inspectors would undertake theaccreditation inspection in the first instanceuntil qualified people were appointed. Thestock inspectors have to be given a vehicle inorder to inspect the property. It is necessary toensure that they have enough fuel in their carsto travel to the properties. That is an extra costthat the industry will have to bear.

I believe we need to look cautiously at thislegislation. I am pleased to know that theamendment which will be moved by theshadow Minister will gain the support of theMinister.

Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA)(5.45 p.m.): I rise to speak on the FoodProduction (Safety) Bill, which is one of themost important pieces of legislation to comebefore this House. I notice that the Minister isnodding his head.

One thing I want to mention is that Ibelieve this legislation is probably in theQueensland House before its time. We willhave national accreditation legislation wherewe will be looking at the processing of foodand the importance of the quality of the foodthat we produce in this nation. If legislation isgoing to be introduced in the State Parliamentahead of the Federal legislation, or legislationin the other States, we must have parallels.When we consider these parallels we have tolook at a situation in relation to transportationin this nation. I notice that the Minister forTransport is in the House. We have to considerroad rules and other rules associated withtransportation.

The point I make is that we must haveparallels across State jurisdictions. I do notknow whether the Minister has had a previewof legislation which could be introducedfederally or in the other States, but the realissues here—and the issues I want to talkabout this evening—are issues relevant to myown electorate. As the Minister is well aware, Irepresent an area that covers a huge part ofQueensland, and a huge part of the primaryproduction areas of this State.

The member for Warrego touched on thequestion of quality assurance. I rememberthat, when quality assurance came to be partof reality in the area of attempting to captureGovernment contracts, we saw that a lot of thecompanies that took out quality assurancewere never able to gain Government contracts.I hope that with this legislation people whospend thousands of dollars in gainingaccreditation will have obstacles put in their

way which will either force them out ofbusiness or put them in a predicament wherethey cannot function as a business.

I want to refer to the livestock transportindustry. Over the years, transport operators,pastoralists and farmers have spent hundredsof thousands of dollars on better yards, betterfencing and better crates in an attempt toallow livestock to be better managed on thefarm so that the producer can gain maximumdollar for his product. Queensland Rail is aclassic example. QR has spent millions ofdollars in recent years on its cattle trainconcept in an attempt to provide a good, safeenvironment for the passage of livestock,whether they be store stock or whether they befat stock, from the place of production to theplace of marketing, whether it be the saleyardsor the abattoir.

It is important to remember that we arespeaking of food production from the farm tothe marketplace. An important factor toconsider is the cost involved. I think manypeople would not be aware of the costs thatare involved. In today's market, the cost of thefreight of materials alone to whatever part ofQueensland we live is an horrific expense—whether it be to the pastoral industry, themining industry or to someone else.

One issue that I wish to touch on thisevening is that of country butcher shops. Inoticed the member for Warrego also touchedon that issue. Over recent days,representations have been made to me byconcerned businesspeople in my electorateabout Department of Primary Industriesinspections of butcher shops in the westernareas of the State. I understand that thebutcher shops in question are at Winton,Blackall and Aramac, in my electorate, and atJulia Creek.

Back in about 1993 the QLMA introduceda Q-Safe program into the meat industry, andbutchers, meat processors andslaughterhouse operators have expendedconsiderable time and money upgrading theiroperations. The industry is arguably now at theforefront of all food industries in terms of foodsafety and hygiene. I do not think anyhonourable member would say there is abutcher shop in this State that does notpresent good-quality meat. One thing that weas Queenslanders and Australians look forwhen buying meat processed in rural areas orin the city is a quality product—something wehave always had.

Going back in time, I was told by one ofmy constituents that an inspector once toldhim, "You're a long way out. But it won't be too


bad. If you do this and do that, you'll be allright." Officers in the Minister's departmentnow tell me that all requisitions will be compliedwith within 28 days. Although I do not have aproblem with the period set for compliance, Ibelieve we need to adopt an approach ofgiving these people the opportunity to complyand remain viable. These businesses employlocal people. For example, Kelly Davis, hiswife, Lyn, and the boys run a magnificentoperation. They are killing meat at BarcooMeats at Blackall in western Queensland. Theyare producing a fantastic product. The nexttime the Minister is in Blackall he should havea look at Kelly's shop and look at the quality ofthe meat he is producing, which is all locallykilled. He is supplying shops in Barcaldine,Longreach, Emerald and as far east asRockhampton with the product he is killing inthe west.

Things would be a lot better if theGovernment showed some understanding inrespect of these operations. If they do nothave the $5,000 or $6,000 needed to complywith the regulations put in place by theMinister's department, the Government wouldbe better off giving them that money so theycan comply. We are not talking about a lot ofmoney. By doing so the Minister would beguaranteeing a service to the people of theregion and promoting employment throughthese shops. When speaking aboutcompliance, we have also to consider thecontinued viability of these people—and I donot say that lightly.

This morning I had a long talk with one ofthe officers from the meat and livestockdivision of the Department of PrimaryIndustries and we canvassed many areas inrelation to the meat industry. In SouthAustralia there have been some fatalities as aresult of processed or blended meats. But weare talking here about good, wholesome meatproduced through country abattoirs. We arenot looking to fragment the inspection servicesuch that people in regional Queensland aretold, "You can have a less stringent inspectionof your business, whereas big companies,such as AMH or CMG, have to have a morestringent inspection." That is not the point atall. I will stand by country butchers all day andnight. We do not need legislation that willcripple their operation to the extent that the bigfellas take advantage by supplying meat torural and regional areas at a price that will beprofitable to them. In relation to the meatproduction in those regions, we have to givethose rural areas the opportunity to be thebenefactors of their own processingoperations.

In speaking about the processing of foodfrom the farm to the plate we are talking notonly about meat but also all other foodstuffs.We know about the problems that the dairyindustry has been confronted with recently.There is probably no industry that has put inplace more stringent safety standards than thedairy industry, which has refrigerated vats andcontainers for transportation. Over a longperiod it has carried out a very sophisticatedoperation to produce a quality product for thepeople who purchase it off the shop shelf. It isno different from any other processed food.

Fruit and vegetables are no exception inthat regard. Whenever I go to Emerald I notethe potential of that region. Fruit andvegetables are transported daily out of thatregion by companies such as Harker andLindsay Brothers. They load out of thoseplaces all the time. Every time we travel theroad between Barcaldine and Emerald we seea refrigerated container truck transporting fruitfrom north Queensland to marketplaces inAdelaide, New South Wales, Victoria and soon.

It goes without saying that we have aquality system in place in this State, from thefarm operation to the manufacturing industryand the processors. It is important toremember that we are living in times whenquality is expected. People expect quality. It isundeniable that we have the best farmers andlivestock in the world. We have the best wooland cotton industries. In every horticultural,vegetable or other agricultural industry,including sugar, our farmers are in the highestechelon. We have a top-quality productionsystem in place, and that is providingQueenslanders with the best product available.

As I said earlier, the real problem with thislegislation is that it is ahead of its time. I hopewe do not see with this legislation a repeat ofwhat happened when Ed Casey was theMinister in this State. I am speaking aboutsome of the compliance measures put in placewith respect to bakeries and the egg industry.

We need to have in place a system thatconforms with those in other States, but we donot need to be ahead of the other States inputting restrictions on farmers, and theindustries and businesses that support them,and impeding the generation of employmentthrough the hard yards put in by our farmers.At the end of the day, the flow-on effectsproduce benefits for both city and regionalareas.

On many occasions I have cited theequation that, for every beast produced inwestern areas and transported to the coast,

3812 Moreton Bay Islands 18 Oct 2000

three jobs are created every day. Each beastis creating jobs for three people per day. If wetake into account in that analysis the hundredsof thousands of cattle that are slaughteredhere, we see that the 3,000 head a day beingkilled at places such as AMH and the cattlebeing slaughtered at Dinmore and elsewhereare producing jobs for Queenslanders.

The important issue is the quality of theproduct. At the end of the day, the real issue issafeguarding the food industry. I am wellaware of that. But at the same time, we shouldnot be putting in place impediments that retardan industry that we are trying to make the bestin the country. The other day the Ministerraised the issue of tick inspection services onthe northern line.

Debate, on motion of Mr Johnson,adjourned.

MORETON BAY ISLANDSMr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ) (6 p.m.):

I move—

"That this House calls on the BeattieLabor Government to order an immediateindependent judicial inquiry into the plightof the landowners of the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands, with terms ofreference to include suspect land dealingsin the original subdivision, the low level ofinfrastructure provision in comparison torate revenues collected, and possiblecollusion between State Governmentsand Redland Shire Council to resumeland by deceit under the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands Planning Study."

Mr Speaker, it would probably please youto know that tonight City Country Alliancemembers are getting on with the business ofthis Parliament. It has taken me about twoyears to get this issue brought on for debate. Iknow that a lot of members in this House havebeen lobbied by various people who live onthe southern Moreton Bay islands. Little hasbeen done for those people. In terms offunding improvements to the southernMoreton Bay islands, Governments haveabandoned those people for more than 20years and they have turned a blind eye tocurrent land rip-offs affecting 14,000landowners in 30 countries around the world.

This inquiry should also finally bring tojustice Hugh Robert Nichols and his cohortswho were originally involved in raping RussellIsland and ripping off unsuspecting landbuyers. Redland Shire Mayor, Councillor EddieSantagiuliana, has revealed that his councilhad to buy 1,000 swamp blocks off Nichols at

the southern end of Russell Island to protectbuyers from being ripped off by this monstrousland criminal, Hugh Robert Nichols.

I have visited the southern Moreton Bayislands many times. My last trip back in Augustwas when I flew to the islands in the SevenNightly News helicopter. I was met by RedlandShire Mayor, Eddie Santagiuliana, at RussellIsland. The mayor joined with me in calling foran inquiry into the whole sordid mess that wascreated by the Queensland Government,which back in the late 1960s and early 1970slet this criminal Nichols subdivide RussellIsland. The Queensland Governmentregistered the titles that Nichols' surveyorcreated. Then Nichols absconded after failingto provide proper development infrastructure.Nichols was charged but escaped justice to doit all again.

Now the Redland Shire Council and theland-holders of Russell, Macleay, Lamb andKarragarra Islands are left with a legacy ofdespair. This legacy includes poor funding,nervous breakdowns, bankruptcy, andshattered dreams and lives. I call on PremierBeattie and his Government to stop ripping offpensioners, retirees, battlers and their families,whose property valuations have been artificiallyreduced to ridiculous levels. For example, aconstituent of mine, a Mr Mike Atkin of NorthIpswich, has seen his significant Russell Islandwaterfront land at Wahine Drive drop from$52,000 to $500 in six months.

Now Mayor Santagiuliana says that theBeattie Labor Government's Department ofNatural Resources has created new rules toprevent people such as Mike Atkin frombuilding on their island waterfront land. This isan absolute disgrace from a LaborGovernment that pretends to care aboutworking people and their families in areas suchas Ipswich, Logan and the western suburbs ofBrisbane. The Minister for Local Government,who should be known as the Minister formisinformation, should stop his cruel land lottowhich duped 14,000 island landowners in arecent ministerial mail-out. Maybe the Ministershould disappear to his own personal fantasyisland and leave it to a fully independentjudicial inquiry to unearth the truth.

But I do not intend to let the Minister getoff that easily. The Moreton Bay Islands ActionGroup has thoroughly discredited the draftSouthern Moreton Bay Islands Land Use andDevelopment Strategy. Back on 29 May thisyear, State Cabinet set up a new set ofstudies. After nearly three decades of neglectand aborted studies, island landowners do notwant yet more studies and fob-offs. The

18 Oct 2000 Moreton Bay Islands 3813

landowners on those beautiful southernMoreton Bay islands want their islands to goahead. Instead, the Minister has institutedfresh studies, a statutory land use plan and aninfrastructure charges plan. How many more?

In a mail-out from the Minister'sdepartment after the 29 May Cabinet meetingthis year, land-holders were told that two newplans were being prepared under theIntegrated Planning Act. While I supportanything that brings some certainty to land-holders' land tenure, I would hope theGovernment will not use the IntegratedPlanning Act to seize islanders' property. In aletter from the Minister for Local Governmentto one landowner, he said—

"Whilst the government is committedto the achievement of sustainablepopulation levels on the islands, theactual population level will be dependenton the more detailed planning to beundertaken in the preparation of the localplanning instrument."

Wonderful stuff! The local planning instrumentis the statutory land use plan which theRedland Shire Council is being directed toprepare with the assistance of StateGovernment agencies.

It is interesting to note from the Minister'scorrespondence that the Redland ShireCouncil is required to prepare a new planningscheme for its whole local government area by2003. He says that the statutory land use plan,otherwise known as the local planninginstrument, must also address core matters ofland use and development, infrastructure andvaluable features. This is airy-fairy rubbish. It isimportant to note how much of a role theIntegrated Planning Act plays. I only hope thatthe Minister can achieve what he tellslandowners. I have my doubts. This will go on.

The Minister says that the local planninginstrument will provide clarity and certaintyabout the range of land uses and the level ofinfrastructure and services to be provided tothe islands. Land-holders are told that oncethese details are finalised, including the typeand location of the proposed development,funding for the development of the islands willbe determined through further consultationbetween council and State Government. Thathas not happened.

What I find particularly unfair from theState Government's viewpoint is the idea ofthe infrastructure charges plan. Thelandowners of the southern Moreton Bayislands have suffered at the hands ofunscrupulous developers and the StateGovernment for inappropriately registering title

deeds. Nearly three decades later the StateGovernment, through the Minister for LocalGovernment, wants to inflict more pain andfinancial suffering on innocent landowners whoreally just want to build their dream home fortheir retirement.

Now the State Government wants to passthe financial buck to the poor, unsuspectinglandowners by making them pay forinfrastructure. The State Government shouldpick up the tab for infrastructure improvementson the southern Moreton Bay islands. Instead,the Minister is asking the Redland ShireCouncil to prepare an infrastructure chargesplan. He says that the plan allows localgovernments such as the Redland ShireCouncil to apply charges. These charges willforce landowners to cover the cost ofinfrastructure for a particular lot, work or use inan area. The Minister has told the landownersthat infrastructure charges are a "user pays"charge which is usually applied at the timedevelopment occurs. That might be okay fromthe Government's perspective, but landownershave paid rates to the Redland Shire Councilfor almost three decades and they are stillwithout mainland standard infrastructure.

It is a disgrace over there. I tellhonourable members in this place to go andhave a look at those Moreton Bay islands;they are a disgrace in terms of infrastructure.Redland Shire Council Mayor,Mr Santagiuliana, disagrees with the StateGovernment's assistance package to hiscouncil in the form of subsidies. On my visit tothe islands, Mayor Santagiuliana complainedto me that the State Government was leavingRedland Shire Council with the full $46mcapital works to sewer the islands. Heestimates that it will cost a total of $63m tosewer the four islands, but his council receivesonly dollar for dollar funding of $17m.

This funding gap represents a differencebetween capital and reticulation works toconnect landowners' blocks to sewerage. I canonly hope that the State Government does theright thing by landowners and pays for theinfrastructure itself so that people are not leftwith an unjust financial burden after shellingout for rates all these years with little benefit.Members should go and look at the islands.Why not instigate a new council for theseislands? Make no mistake: I believe it willhappen sooner rather than later.

Time expired.

Mr BLACK (Whitsunday—CCAQ)(6.10 p.m.): It is a pleasure to rise tonight tosecond the motion moved by my City CountryAlliance colleague the member for Ipswich


West. Indeed, the stench of deceit andcorruption with the whole southern MoretonBay islands land scandal is irrefutably runningrife. This land scandal extends over 30 yearsof Queensland's history, commencing underthe Bjelke-Petersen Government andcontinuing to this day. Ordinary citizens andinvestors have had to contend with high rates,lack of infrastructure, dirt roads, pollution andmassive devaluation of their properties. On topof all of that, the Southern Moreton BayIslands Land Use and Development Strategy,the strategy that was supposed to fix all theproblems, has resulted in a large-scaleresumption of residential A classified freeholdland by the Redland Shire Council at a fractionof its value and original purchase price.

City Country Alliance has met with severalrepresentatives of the Moreton Bay IslandsAction Group on numerous occasions. Wehave heard countless stories of how individualsare being substantially affected by what hasbeen termed the "bay island land scandal".The only way to get to the bottom of all of thismess for the benefit of the land-holderscurrently being affected by this 30 year oldordeal is for an immediate, independentjudicial inquiry to investigate the conduct of theQueensland State Government and theRedland Shire Council.

Thousands of freehold land-holders onthe southern Moreton Bay islands have losteverything—their dreams, their hopes, their lifesavings, everything. For many years theseland-holders have consistently raised theirconcerns over the rapid devaluation of theirland, the lack of infrastructure on the islandand the lack of rates money being spent onthe islands. They want an independentinvestigation into the matter to gain answers totheir questions. I cannot see any reason whythis Government would deny this request,unless of course it has something to hide.Russell Island, the largest of the southernMoreton Bay islands, has been said to haveconditions equivalent to a Third World country.Its destitute appearance is as a result of howlittle Redland Shire Council has done toimprove services and conditions on the islandsince the island came under the shire'sjurisdiction in 1973.

It would be appropriate to note at thistime that, when the State Governmentdecided to include the islands in the RedlandShire, the then mayor of the council said thatno mainland rate money would be spent onthe islands. He also said that all money fromthe islands would be spent in the islands'interests. However, residents have complainedtime and time again about the diversion of

many millions of ratepayers' dollars that havebeen collected from the islands for over 25years. In a Courier-Mail article four years agodated 16 September 1996, the Russell IslandDevelopment Association Secretary, YvonneSostheim, said that from a rates base of morethan $7m that year Russell Island would haveless than $1m returned to it. Where did theother $6m go? It certainly did not get spent inthe islands' interests.

This is just one example of how theresidents and land-holders of Russell,Macleay, Lamb and Karragarra have beenduped, and they are angry. They wantanswers as to why they have been treated likesubclass citizens by both the Redland ShireCouncil and the Queensland Government.They want answers, and it is time they gotthem. In an effort to bring accountability backto Government, Government departments andlocal authorities, I urge all members to supportthe motion before the House.

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Minister for Communication andInformation, Local Government and Planningand Minister for Sport) (6.14 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"Delete all words after 'That thisHouse' and insert the following—

'acknowledges that—1. During 1996-97 the Borbidge

Government and the Redland ShireCouncil undertook a Land UsePlanning Study of the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands.

2. The Beattie Government releasedthe study in January 1999 for publiccomment.

3. Following Cabinet's consideration ofcomments received, the StateGovernment released a modifiedimplementation plan for the SouthernMoreton Bay Islands.

And further, the House requests theMinister for Local Government to report tothe Parliament on its implementation.'."

I listened to the comments made by themember for Ipswich West, particularly when Ithought I heard him talk about—and I know heis an old copper—the "Interrogated" PlanningAct. However, it is really the IntegratedPlanning Act. The people who own land on thesouthern Moreton Bay islands came to see meabout their concerns in relation to the land usestudy that had been done, the mandatory waythat drainage problems and conservationareas were put over their land and the fact thatthe council was then using that when


considering whether or not to give buildingapprovals. I looked at ways in which we couldbest deal with that issue. I decided that thebest way to deal with those issues is to requirethe council to do a land use plan. We havenow required it to do that, and that is what itwill do.

The Act is very clear as to how a statutoryplan is done in that the plan will be put onpublic display. If the council wishes to put aconservation value or drainage problem onsomeone's land, that person will have theopportunity to object. They will have anopportunity to have a say in relation to theirown land. Landowners have never had thisopportunity through the land use plan. Theywill have that opportunity. We are givingpeople who own land in that area theopportunity to do that.

Further to that, Cabinet has said that, ifunder this land use plan the rights of peoplechange, it will enact special legislation toenable them to keep the development rightthey would otherwise have if the plan was notimplemented. That right will be available tonobody else in Queensland, only those peoplewho own land on the southern Moreton Bayislands. I did that because so many of thesepeople said to me, "I only bought this block ofland not to try to make a profit, not to try tospeculate but to build my home on for when Iretire." I have taken those people at face valueto come up with a way to provide them withthe opportunity to do that. I think that that isimportant.

To be honest, after speaking to manypeople involved with the southern MoretonBay islands, they have one very real problem,that is, that the value of their investment hasdecreased.

Mr Paff: They want an inquiry.Mr MACKENROTH: An inquiry will not do

anything. My colleague the member for Lyttonwill tell the House why, but an inquiry will notachieve anything. Those people have boughtland and its value has gone down. People buyshares and their value goes down. Blame canbe laid on the council in relation to drainage orconservation areas, and we will deal with that.However, the value of land on those islandshas gone down progressively since the early1990s as a result of market forces. There isnothing Governments can do in relation tointerfering with market forces. Land values goup and land values go down. I understand theconcerns of these people, but there is nothingthe Government can do to change thatsituation.

Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (6.19 p.m.): Isecond the amendment moved by theHonourable the Minister. I cannot support themotion as moved by the member for IpswichWest. The reason I cannot support it is that,unfortunately, like most One Nation and CityCountry Alliance initiatives, it tells of problemsbut offers no solutions. The Minister indicatedin this debate some of the solutions we areattempting. This motion gives false hope and itis cruel. I want to work towards gettingsolutions to the problems of my constituentswho are landowners, not give them falsehopes.

When we look at the history we have togo back to the late 1960s and early 1970s,when these problems began. I had just startedprimary school in the late 1960s. That is howfar back this matter goes. Russell Island wasoutside local government control. It wassubdivided. Many blocks were under water. Itwas an absolute scandal. The plan ofsubdivision is just a disgrace. It is like someoneput the island through a slicer. Few or noservices were offered, and it was left like that.What happened? People were charged inconnection with the fraud in relation to theRussell Island land.

Mr Mackenroth: Biggest Fraud Squadinvestigation ever in Queensland.

Mr LUCAS: It was the longest trial inQueensland criminal history. It went from 20July 1981 to 19 March 1983—317 days. Thejury deliberated for thirteen days and the trialwas aborted when a juror was incapacitated.There was no retrial. The conservativeGovernment of the time indicated theproblems. In 1985 the police officer who wasthe chief investigator died. I table relevantpress releases from those times. The surveyorwho originally undertook a lot of the work wasdealt with for incompetence in relation to theplan of subdivision. Again I table a pressclipping about that. That was in 1979. I wasdoing senior that year.

So what would the judicial inquiryproposed by the member for Ipswich West do?He wants to get evidence with respect to illegalpractices at the time. We know it! People werecharged. They went through the longest trial inQueensland criminal history. Unfortunatelythey were not convicted, but that is a fact oflife. We do not need another royal commissionto tell us that there were problems. Therewere. What the City Country Alliance is doing iscruel to people. The situation was outrageousand those responsible were put to trial. Thechief investigating police officer is now dead.


I have spoken to a number ofconstituents who are bay island land-holders.All are concerned about aspects of the bayislands at the moment, although some differ intheir problems and solutions. On 29September I went to the island with a numberof my constituents and inspected it. I foundthe visit incredibly beneficial with respect to myunderstanding of the problem. I have to saythat, having been there, I now realise that theproblem is probably even greater than before.

There is no doubt that it is not sustainableto develop the island in the manner of itsoriginal subdivision. There is no doubt thatsome land is unsuitable to build on, just asother land is beautiful and pristine. I went tosome lovely areas. The bushland thatsurrounds most of the blocks at the momentwould not be there at all if the land weredeveloped in accordance with the originalsubdivision, because there is a block of landnext to another block of land next to anotherblock of land. I went through various areas,looking at the map, with my constituents. As Isaid, I found it very beneficial. There wereconcerns about whether they could build oncertain blocks. Those are the sorts of things Iam happy to make representations about.

There has been discussion about thelevel of rates and low level of services. I canunderstand people being very concernedwhen their block is worth $1,000 or $2,000 onunimproved capital valuation and the minimumrate level is $41,000. The fact is that,unfortunately, in some of these cases that wasreflected in the original cost of the land. Inotice from a press clipping sent to me by thegroup that one man bought a block of land onLamb Island in 1973 for $1,395. According tothe Parliamentary Library, in today's prices thatis $7,906. That would not, unfortunately, havepaid the capital contribution for the roads, theheadworks and those sorts of issues. But thatdoes not fix the problem and I think it is notunreasonable for us to have a look at whatrates were raised and how they have beenspent, just as it is reasonable to have a look atwhat the capital cost originally reflected.

There does not appear to be evidencethat the study reduced values of land. The factis, as the Minister indicated, that values hadbeen reducing for a while. But let us have alook at working towards some sort of proposalthat does something to increase the values ofthe land. A royal commission into who did whatin 1969 will not affect that. We need to workwith the Minister to solve it.

Time expired.

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(6.24 p.m.): There are two words that come tomind when one thinks of the southern MoretonBay islands situation: fraud and deceit. Theword "scam" also comes to mind, probablybecause this has been labelled as one of thebiggest land scams in Queensland's history. Iwas getting over a headache, but after someof the rhetoric I have heard I think it is gettingworse. I have decided to look at some of thehistory surrounding this situation and theevents that contributed to the southernMoreton Bay islands land scam. However, dueto time constraints my contribution to thisdebate will be on how this whole mess began,the subsequent inquiries and the cover-ups bythose involved.

I guess it all started back in 1969 whenHugh Nichols, a Brisbane real estate agent,instructed Victor Nichols to subdivide the 1,340acres he acquired on the southern part ofRussell Island. In order for Nichols to gainregistration of the subdivisions he had to dealwith the State Government and the Land TitlesOffice. Seven thousand, three hundred andthirty-five allotments were created. Twothousand, four hundred and ninety-three ofthem were subjected to a water problem. Thestaff surveyor expressed concerns when heinspected the land and later testified that hecould not find survey pegs as they were toodeep under the waters of Moreton Bay.However, Nichols' solicitors smoothed the wayand the surveyor's objections were overruled.The new subdivisions were subsequentlyregistered and Nichols began marketingthroughout Australia and overseas. The validquestion now is: how did the StateGovernment allow this to happen, knowingthat nearly 2,500 blocks were subject to waterproblems? A question we would all like theanswer to is: why was it allowed to happen?

To continue, in May 1973 the islandsbecame part of the Redland Shire. In March1994 the council's consulting engineer gavethe council's building department maps of theMoreton Bay islands on which the drainageproblem areas were shown. These maps wereto be kept confidential. Another question thatneeds to be raised here is: why did theRedland Shire Council not act regarding whatthe developers were selling?

In June 1974 a publication by D & PGibbons titled Russell Island: A Real EstateDevelopment Rape was circulated to localauthorities and Government departments,along with the Commissioner of Police. By theend of 1974 the State Government authoriseda fraud investigation into the matter. DetectiveSergeant P. Mahoney was in charge of that


investigation. In the following years manyquestions were raised about the land'ssubdivisions as well as the evidentmisappropriation of public and taxpayers'funds by Redland Shire Council.

In August 1975 the Redland Shire Councilrequested an urgent review of assistance fromthe State Government, as council had usedTreasury loans to meet the costs ofresumption of land on the islands. Capitalworks had been severely curtailed. In October1975 a letter from the Local GovernmentMinister, Russ Hinze, was written raisingquestions concerning the manner in which raterevenue from the islands had been used. Healso asked for financial statements thatidentified the various funds that had beenmade available to the council and the mannerin which they had been disbursed. Ten monthslater, the Redland Shire Council responded tothe Minister's request.

In 1976 Fraud Squad Detective SergeantMahoney began investigations at the Valuer-General's office and did not get anycooperation due to the confidentiality of thesefiles. They were marked confidential and couldnot be exposed. Two years later, afterinterviewing up to 150 complainantsAustraliawide, his investigation report wasavailable, and it suspected major fraud.

In October 1979 charges were laidagainst 16 individuals for conspiracy betweenJanuary 1968 and October 1979. Committalproceedings took more than 90 days andseven walked free. One accused wasdischarged on a technicality. Proceedings wereinterrupted several times and the trial lastedsome 20 months. As the Minister and themember for Lytton rightly stated, it was one ofthe longest fraud trials in history. And wewonder why! After these 20 months thebreakdown of a juror brought the proceedingsto an end. The Attorney-General of the time,Sam Doumany, said there would be no retrialin the Russell Island case. The question is:why? Why was a retrial not ordered after some20 months of work in the courts?

Since then the stench of fraud and cover-up has continued to this day, with both theRedland Shire Council and the StateGovernment being key players in these issues.This whole sordid mess needs to be resolvedimmediately and independently, as per themotion of the member for Ipswich West. Weneed in this case a judicial inquiry—not a royalcommission as the member for Lyttonsuggested.

Time expired.

Mrs ATTWOOD (Mount Ommaney—ALP)(6.29 p.m.): Soon after I became elected asthe member for Mount Ommaney, Brian Fuller,a resident of my electorate, visited me aboutthe issue of the Moreton Bay islands. Sincethen he has visited me on a regular basis tokeep me up to date on what is happening inrelation to the islands. I have made a numberof representations to the Minister for LocalGovernment on behalf of affected residents. Anumber of other people living in my area havealso called to see me about properties thatthey own on the island.

The main issue of concern seems to bethe valuation of their properties. Originally, theowners purchased their properties asinvestment properties in the hope that one daythey could build and retire there. It was theirlittle nest egg. Some people spent their entirelife savings on the properties thinking at thetime that the value of the property could onlyincrease over time. What has happened is thatover time the properties have been devaluedfor various reasons. Some, I have been told,have been given the reason that their propertyis subject to flooding. This is something thatthey were not aware of when they purchasedtheir properties. It seems that that came tolight only when the Borbidge Government'sMoreton Bay islands study was released bythe Beattie Government in early 1999. Someproperties have been devalued to less thantheir yearly rates bill. As a result, a lot ofpeople have sold their properties.

There are approximately 5,000 peoplefrom places all over the world who havepurchased land on the island. In many cases,the purchases were speculative in theanticipation that infrastructure—roads,reticulated water and sewerage, stormwaterdrainage and a bridge connection to themainland—would be provided. Who knowswhat these decent, hardworking citizens weretold when they purchased their properties withtheir life savings? Now they find that they areout of pocket and are continuing to pay rates,the amount of which is higher than the valueof their property. These people are extremelyangry and feel that they have been ripped off.

I do not blame them for feeling that way.Through paying their rates, they are paying forinfrastructure that does not exist. Brian Fuller,the president of the Moreton Bay IslandsAction Group, has worked really hard on thisissue. He has established great respect and anetwork of affected landowners across theworld. He is extremely passionate anddetermined about the fact that ordinarybattlers have been ripped off. One residentpurchased a block in 1973 for $1,395. In


1996, his land valuation dropped from $3,400and in 1997 was valued at $500. His annualrates are $478.10. That person invested hislife savings and a lot of hope in that property,only to end up with less than nothing.

In the 1970s, the State Government ofthe time allowed the subdivision of the islandsinto 22,500 small blocks, of whichapproximately 16,800 were potentially able tobe developed, without the provision of physicalinfrastructure such as sewerage, water androads, or social infrastructure, such as schools,health facilities, adequate transport, or ease ofaccess to employment. Up to 5,000 of thoseblocks were also subject to tidal inundationand flooding. That is the problem and how it allstarted. That was the point in time when land-holders were ripped off.

But it was not until the study wascompleted that people were made aware ofthis. The draft Southern Moreton Bay IslandsLand Use and Development Strategy is theoutcome of the joint study between theDepartment of Local Government, theEnvironmental Protection Agency and theRedland Shire Council. The study was toexamine ways of addressing longstanding landdevelopment and servicing problems thatarose as a result of inappropriate subdivisionapprovals in the 1970s.

The damage done in the 1970s hascaused landowners a lot of hardship. ThisGovernment agrees that landowners' concernsin relation to the draft strategy should beconsidered and has modified theimplementation strategy. This includes thepreparation, in consultation with landowners, ofa statutory planning instrument and associatedinfrastructure charges by the Redland ShireCouncil in accordance with the requirements ofthe Integrated Planning Act 1997. That meansproviding advice and assistance to land-holders, increasing Government subsidycontributions for infrastructure and specialarrangements for existing land-holders at thevery least. The State will work with the councilduring the preparation of the statutoryplanning instrument to help the councildevelop an integrated approach to rating andcharging regimes that supports the final formof development and service expected on theislands.

While I admire the tenacity of the MoretonBay Islands Action Group and sympathise withtheir cause, I believe that the State is doingwhat it can to ensure that land-holders'concerns are taken into consideration.Considering the lack of services on the island,the rating system certainly needs to be

reviewed. However, I feel that another inquiryinto the matter would not resolve properly theissues of land-holders, considering that theCJC has already looked into the matter indetail. That would be costly and not achieveresults for landowners. It would be moreappropriate for the Redland Shire Council, withthe help of the State, to look at individual land-holders' circumstances in relation to theirproperties in order to establish a fair andequitable approach in this regard. That wouldinclude the examination of valuations onproperties in relation to specific areas.

I urge the Redland Shire Council to enterinto genuine communication with the StateGovernment and land-holders over this veryimportant matter. I support the Government'samendment to this motion.

Time expired.Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—CCAQ)

(6.34 p.m.): I rise to support the motion movedby the member for Ipswich West, Mr Jack Paff,calling for a full and open judicial inquiry intothis whole sorry saga of the Moreton Bayislands. This has indeed become thebenchmark for land scams not just in this Stateor Australia, but in the world. I say "the world",because this is the land scam to beat all landscams. The people who purchased that land ingood faith are now seeing their dream turnedinto a nightmare.

Many people bought their land for whatwas a good price for island land. Instead ofwatching their investments accumulate andadd value for their retirement, most of thosepeople have seen their dream dissipate. Ashas been said before, this was the work of verygrubby and very unethical salesmen. Not onlydid those salesmen work against these peoplebut also these people's own representatives inlocal and State Government have done so.Moreover, it seems that there is some form ofcollusion between the State Government andthe Redland Shire Council, which oversees theconstituency in the southern Moreton Bayislands.

I refer to a couple of those people on thatisland, John Abrahamson and his wife, June.In their earlier life they were farmers. They lefttheir farm and bought five blocks of land inWahine Drive on Russell Island, whichamounted to about one acre of land. I am nottalking about one small block; I am talkingabout five blocks of land that were purchasedin one block—one huge acre block upon whichthe Abrahamsons wanted to build their dreamhome and retire. They wanted to start a smallcrops farm to sustain them in their retirement.One cannot blame them for wanting to do


that. They were good farmers. That is whatthey wanted to do: to retire on a block on theisland overlooking the bay. Just as the Ministersaid, those people wanted to retire there.

Now, three of those blocks have beenresumed for $1,000. The unfortunate thing isthat that is happening to about 99% of thoseblocks over there that are being resumed.During the time that that resumption wasoccurring, there were blocks all around theAbrahamsons' block selling for $20,000,$25,000 and $32,000. The Redland ShireCouncil is telling people that some of theseblocks have drainage problems. On some ofthese blocks there are houses that have beenbuilt side by side and some of them havebeen valued at over $200,000, yet the block inthe middle of them, which the Abrahamsonsown, has been devalued to less than $1,000.How can houses, valued at a high rate, bebuilt side by side around this block of land,which has been devalued? This blockoverlooks Canaipa Passage. It is in the samearea and at the same height as those otherblocks that have houses on them, yet thecouncil says that it has drainage problems. It isabsolutely ridiculous.

These people want the shire councilbrought to task over what it is doing over there.Land is being devalued, people are beingforced to sell up, and some land has beenresumed. Some people have been told thattheir land has been devalued because septictanks could not be put on them. Councillorsfrom the Redland Shire Council have actuallybought blocks of land on the island and I havebeen told that they have built them up almostone metre, and suddenly houses and septictanks are being built on them when otherpeople were denied being able to do that.

These people want a judicial inquiry aboutwhat is happening now—not just about whathappened in the past—to their land. Theyhave not been allowed to build on them.These people want an inquiry that will coverevery one of those aspects, not just whathappened 30 years ago. They wanted to buildhomes on their land. They were expecting tobe overlooking Canaipa Passage for the restof their lives. But no, their dream has beenshot to pieces by a council that is devaluingtheir land and saying that it cannot be built on.

These people deserve better than that.Some of them have been paying their rates for30 years, to find suddenly that the council willnot let them build on their land. These peoplewant an inquiry into that. They want to find outwhy this council is allowed to do that, when

other people are building on land without thatsort of restriction.

Time expired.

Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland—ALP)(6.40 p.m.): I rise in support of theGovernment's amendment to the motion. Thesouthern Moreton Bay islands of Russell,Macleay, Lamb and Karragarra are located inone of the most beautiful parts of Queensland.

This whole issue is clearly a vexed onewith a long and very complex past. Many ofthe up to 5,000 problem blocks were sold offthe plan to unsuspecting purchasersthroughout Australia and overseas who werenot aware of the topographic or other physicalconstraints applying to their purchased lots.The purchases in these cases werespeculative. For many there was of course anot uncommon expectation that appropriateinfrastructure would be provided. After all, thesubdivision of the islands was approved.

The fact is that this is an extremely sorrychapter in Queensland's history. The questionthat has often been asked is: where was theprotection of these people's rights at the time?How was it possible that this could havehappened? Who was protecting the interestsof those who were spending their hard-earneddollars on land that could never be built on?Were not the laws of the land capable ofprotecting the rights of these innocentcitizens? Where was the Government of theday when these innocent citizens were beingdudded? Did anyone care? Clearly not!

The sad fact is that the Government ofthe day was a co-perpetrator of this grossdeed. It was those opposite in theNational/Liberal coalition who stood by whileinnocent taxpayers were dudded. People in ademocracy are entitled to expect theprotection of Government in these matters. Aclear measure of good government and anundoubted responsibility of a Government isthat Government's ability to protect people'sbasic rights. This was not a measure that wasfamiliar to the Bjelke-Petersen Governmentand we should never forget that. The friends ofthe wealthy, the top end of town and thosewho could not make it on their own acceptedthe patronage of the mates of those opposite.

Many people who purchased blocks ofland on the southern Moreton Bay islandswithout inspection were sold a dud. Thesouthern Moreton Bay islands, with amaximum capacity of just over 22,000residents if ecological sustainability andinfrastructure needs are taken into account,are not capable of supporting the 30,000 to40,000 residents who could stem from the


maximum development of the lots sold. Whereto for the unfortunate landowners?

The Bjelke-Petersen Government failed atest of responsible Government when it cameto the islands of the southern Moreton Bay.The subsequent Governments did not.Although it was never going to be possible toentirely unscramble the egg in relation to thismatter, the Goss, Borbidge and BeattieGovernments have done all possible to rectifythe wrongs.

The southern Moreton Bay islands arelocated in a truly beautiful part of the world.Although these islands are not located withinthe boundaries of my electorate—as themember for Redlands when first elected in1989 they were—the wrongs that we aredebating tonight were frequently raised withme. It is immensely important that we do theright thing, that we do all we can to retainthose elements of the islands that make themtruly special. Whilst we need to have regard tothe rights of those wronged in the past, weneed also to focus on the future of theseprecious assets. The clear challenge for theGovernment has always been to arrive at asolution that is the fairest possible to allinvolved.

In May 1973 the southern Moreton Bayislands, as we have heard, were included inthe Redland Shire. The first town planningscheme for the bay islands was prepared in1976. In 1995 the Government agreed to funda major study to determine the ecologicallysustainable population for the islands anddetermine appropriate measures for managingdevelopment impacts. The study, a joint studybetween the Honourable Minister'sdepartment, the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Redland Shire Council, led tothe draft Southern Moreton Bay Islands LandUse and Development Strategy. The studyinvolved extensive consultation with a range ofGovernment agencies and a range ofscientific, water quality, habitat, vegetation andtransport experts.

In limiting development, the rights of landowners need to be carefully considered—andthey have been. Existing developmententitlements are to be preserved. When anapplication comes to council for approval, thecouncil will need to take into account the usualconsiderations relating to the suitability of theland for development: is the land too steep,capable of sustaining construction, able to besufficiently drained and so on.

As the draft study was undertaken inconcert with the local community, theGovernment and the council in an open and

consultative way, the outcomes I believe arefair and take into account the reality of thecurrent situation.

As to the original motion, this matter hasbeen investigated to death. Even the CJC hashad a go, conducting an investigation intolandowner complaints and allegations ofcorruption and dropping land values as a resultof the study. The CJC advised in March of thisyear that there was no evidence ofinappropriate activity. We need to move on.

Time expired.Mr DALGLEISH (Hervey Bay—CCAQ)

(6.44 p.m.): I rise to support the member forIpswich West. Much of the anger displayed byland-holders of the southern Moreton Bayislands is the result of many issues—rapidlydevaluing properties, stringent buildingrestrictions, lack of infrastructure and servicesand few services for ratepayers' dollars.

This land is possibly the very lastundeveloped waterfront land on the eastcoast. This land should not be going down inprice. There must be a reason for it. TheMinister is hiding behind the bureaucracy whenhe says that everything is okay and that all isabove board. He can intervene; he can dosomething. That is why he is the Minister. He isthe most powerful person when it comes tothis issue.

These people have their livelihoods toconsider. The most valuable asset that anyone of us as Australian citizens have is ourproperty, our land, our freehold title. What rightdo we have to let these people suffer and losethat asset? Mention has been made of sellingproperties and that the people are gettingdifferent prices for their land. They are notselling their properties; in the majority of casesthe people are actually giving their land backto the council in exchange for paying off theirrates notices. Can the Minister imagine what itwould be like to have to hand over his propertyto pay out his rates? These are senior citizens,elderly people who have worked all their livesand paid their taxes for this Government to dothings in central Brisbane. What about thepeople—the battlers, the working-classpeople—who have been putting away a littlebit for their nest egg? Now their nest egg hasbeen smashed to pieces.

We have seen the investigations and theinquiries. How about using a little bit ofcompassion and common sense for thesepeople? How about showing some strengthand doing something positive? To say that wehave no solution to the problem is anabsolutely pathetic statement. We havesolutions, we have ideas and we are saying to


the State Government and the council , "It istime to stick your hand in your pocket and startto support these people." Their propertiesshould be going up in value.

Right across Queensland we see propertydevaluing. The majority of the property in theelectorate of Hervey Bay has gone down invalue but the Crown land seems to bemaintaining or increasing its value. Isn't thatamazing?

These people deserve better. They arebeing treated like Third World citizens. Wehave the ability in this House to make achange. We have the ability to do somethingpositive for those people. That may meansetting up a separate council so that they canrun their own show over there. That is justanother option that could be made available tothem. Maybe the Minister needs to talk to thepeople on the islands and see if they areinterested in going along that path. Maybethey should be given some opportunities tovoice their opinion in regard to these issues.

Mr Feldman: Use their own rates money.

Mr DALGLEISH: As the member forCaboolture says, they could use their ownrates money to carry out development on theislands.

When the landowner of a vacant blocklocated between two houses wants to build hisdream home but is told, "No, it's not suitable tobuild on", that is a load of crap. That is all it is.It is absolutely disgraceful. It cannot go on.These people need to have this issue put tosleep—finished, no more. It is their mostvaluable asset.

Mr Mackenroth: Obviously you've beenlistening to Harry Black for too long.

Mr DALGLEISH: It is their most valuableasset. The Minister has a house and ifsomeone tried to take it off him he would notbe sitting down there smiling about it, he wouldbe pretty annoyed.

Mr Feldman: Especially if the council justtried to resume it for $1,000.

Mr DALGLEISH: If the council offered theMinister $1,000, would he be happy to letthem take his property off him? No, he wouldnot be. So these people have a right to bedisappointed, too. When they are paying aminimum rateable amount on their propertythat bears no relationship to the propertyvaluation, that is another insult. That is a wholeseparate issue. Those people are gettingnothing, absolutely nothing, for their ratemoney. Maybe they should get a refund forthe 30-odd years that they have been payingrates; maybe then they could start to build a

life somewhere else. This is not a very positiveway to treat the people of Queensland.

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP)(6.49 p.m.): As a young boy I spent many aschool holiday on Macleay Island. I hadgrandparents who lived on and farmed theisland for a large number of years in the 1950sand the early 1960s. In those days the islandswere really settlements rather than what theyare today. They were devoid of anyinfrastructure at all apart from a dirt road thatwent from one end of the island to the other.They were serviced by a couple of barges aweek which picked up fruit to take to themarkets. Occasionally, one would crank thephone, ring the mainland and order one'sgroceries, and they would come across on theboat. That was the way the island was in thosedays. However, time moves on and thingsmove on.

The cruellest thing that we have heard inthis debate today is the false expectations thatthe honourable members from the CityCountry Alliance have given to the ratepayersof the four islands, Karragarra Island, LambIsland, Russell Island and Macleay Island. Theeasiest thing for us as politicians to do is to tellpeople what they like to hear and to give themfalse expectations. That is the easy option.That is the easy side of politics. The hard sideof politics is sometimes having to tell peoplethe realities of life. Sometimes we have tomake decisions that do not necessarily agreewith what people want. That is unfortunate andsad.

However, the City Country Alliancemembers stood here tonight and said, "We willhave a judicial inquiry into this." What will ajudicial inquiry solve? What will it bring? Howwill it increase the value of the investment thatthose people have put on the islands? It willnot change one single, solitary dollar value toany block of land on those islands.

The members of the City Country Alliancestood here tonight and said to those people,"We want a full judicial inquiry. We will get tothe bottom of this"—as the member for HerveyBay said—"We want to put it at an end." If wedid that, what would it solve? What would itachieve? Nothing!

The senator representing One Nation inCanberra put forward his solution. What is hissolution? His solution is a Senate inquiry. So,we have a Senate inquiry and we spend moremoney, but solve nothing and achieve nothingfor those people. We have had inquiry afterinquiry. We have seen the members of theCity Country Alliance stand up in thisParliament time after time and talk about

3822 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2000

conspiracy and how people are being rippedoff. However, they do not have a solution.

Mr Paff: We are standing up for thosepeople who are suffering.

Mr NUTTALL: The member for IpswichWest says that those people are suffering. Iagree; of course they are suffering. Some ofthem are their own worst enemies. In reality,some of the people who bought land on theisland, and who do not live on the island,bought the land on speculation. None of uscan control that. Each and every one of us hasa free choice when we elect to buy or sell.None of these people went into this with theireyes closed.

It is unfortunate that some people aresuffering. However, a number of people wholive on those bay islands are quite happy. Alarge number of those people are very happywith their investment. A large number ofpeople have made the decision to build ahouse and live there, and they are happy.

Mr Dalgleish: But what about those thatcan't build a house?

Mr NUTTALL: Yes, it is unfortunate forthose people who have bought there and aresuffering, but the CCA offers them no solution.

The State Government and the councilare trying to work with the residents of theislands. There have been a number ofmeetings in the last few months to try to workthrough the issues, to try to get the planningright and to try to make sure that what hashappened in the past does not happen again.They are trying to do something about thevalues of those lands by closing some blocksand increasing some values.

To stand up in this House and say thatthere will be a judicial inquiry is a fallacy, and itis something that will achieve nothing for thoseresidents. We need to be doing what we aredoing now, and that is working with the counciland departmental officers and sitting downwith the residents who live there. As I said,there have been a number of meetings in anattempt to try to find a solution so that thesepeople do have an enjoyable retirement.

Time expired.

Question—That Mr Mackenroth'samendment be agreed to—put; and theHouse divided—AYES, 42—Attwood, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Elder, Fenlon, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser,Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel,Miller, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers,

Welford, Wellington, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan,PurcellNOES, 40—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson,Feldman, Gamin, Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan,Johnson, Kingston, 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.Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 7 p.m. to8.30 p.m.

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 4 October (see p. 3466).

Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)(8.30 p.m.), continuing: The other night I wasspeaking in some detail about young childrencommitting violent crimes and about thedifficulties other jurisdictions have had inprosecuting them. They really should betreated in a different manner. Recently inEngland two very young children—again, I amnot sure of their ages; I think they were aged 9and 10 years old—committed murder. Theirswas a well publicised case. The courts inEngland found themselves stuck in a verydifficult situation. Basically, the public werebaying for blood and there was very little thecourt system could do to bring these twoyoung people, who were obviously guilty of theoffence of murder, to account for their actions.

As many honourable members wouldrightfully say, theirs was a one-off case. It isnot very often that people of that age commita crime of that nature. However, this casehighlights the need for these issues to beaddressed at an early stage so that we, as aParliament, do not find ourselves stuck in asituation in which we have to pass laws at alate stage, which could be perceived by thecommunity to be a knee-jerk reaction. As alegislature, we have to look at issues in thepublic spotlight, including those in other placesaround the world, and assess their relevanceto us and the State of Queensland. We needto deal with those issues before they becomecovered by the media and highly politicised.

Everyone knows that one of the biggestissues in people's minds is crime, and much oftheir fear is based on a perception of crime intheir area. Crime is a live issue in most places.At some time or another, most honourablemembers would have had people makingrepresentations to them on issues of law and

18 Oct 2000 Criminal Code Amendment Bill 3823

order. In relation to juvenile crime in particular,there are a lot of sad instances of youngpeople committing crimes only to have theircases blown out of all proportion in the mediaand turned into a farce. The media ends upbasically being judge and jury in relation tothese issues, and the people involved losetheir rights before a valid court of law.Therefore, as a legislature we need to takethese issues into account before they reachthe public arena. We need to look at them in asensible light without having the mediabreathing down our necks.

In relation to this Bill, there are no casescurrently before the courts that are big enoughfor the media to report on. Therefore, we cansit down and look at this issue sensibly andsay, "Yes, we do have problems in society.One of those problems is youth crime." I wouldbe the last honourable member to demoniseyouth. Having recently turned 27, it is not longago that I was a youth myself. I can vouch forthe fact that most young people are law-abiding citizens trying to go about their day-to-day business. But, as with every sector ofsociety, there is a criminal element.

Unfortunately, people aged 14, 15 or 16years old can get themselves into troublethese days, especially in a society that hassuch a large incidence of family breakdown.There are certainly a lot more problems inhomes around Queensland today than therewere, say, 20 years ago. There are a lot moreteenagers who are looking for quick fixes tothe problems of society, whether they beunemployment or family breakdown. Theseare the issues of the day that are problematicand they are the generators of youth crime insociety.

I put it to honourable members that theseyoung people become, as has been stated inthis debate by other honourable members, theprey for criminal elements within society,whether they be organised gangs or whetherthey just be a few criminals who are looking tosell a bit of pot on the street and make surethey do not get into trouble. This does nothappen so much in my electorate as in the cityelectorates.

Again, this is one of the big issues that weneed to think about. We need to look at theroot causes of crime. We cannot forget that.We need to look at why these things happenand why people get themselves into asituation where crime becomes an option forthem. We have to remember that, in doingthat, we cannot be soft on the crime itself.There is no such thing as a victimless crime.We cannot say, for example, that offences

such as the selling of drugs and so on arevictimless crimes. Every crime has a victim,even if that victim is the perpetrator of thecrime.

It is my ideological belief that crime mustbe punished in the harshest possible way soas to send a clear message to people whowould commit crimes. An argument oftenraised in many circles in which I travel is thatwhen we go soft on offences against societywe just encourage more offending. Althoughthis is a bit off the subject, I point out that theoffences of speeding is relevant to the topic. Ifwe really wanted to stop people speeding onQueensland streets, we would make the finesfor speeding horrendous. If we are going to go15 km/h over the speed limit, we should besmacked with a $1,500 fine and lose 10 pointsoff our licence. I guarantee honourablemembers that if that were the penalty forspeeding I would never go over the speed limitagain as long as I lived, and I am sure manyother people would think twice about it.

However, when we make punishmentsvery light—and this is where this Bill addressesthe issue—so as to be no valid deterrent tosomebody, all we do is encourage crime; allwe do is encourage people to flout the law andsay, "The penalties for what I am going to doare very light." Let us take the case of a 13year old who is approached by an unsavouryelement in society and told that they can makea bit of money if they do a break and enter orsomething like that; that they will get a certaincut. They have to weigh up the odds. They willget taken before a court and they will be luckyto get a slap on the wrist, but they might make$150. For some desperate people insociety—and there are many people in the 13,14 and 15 year old age bracket who aredesperate—these options become valid ones.

That is a sad indictment on society. It isalso a sad indictment on the law. It should notbe fear of the law that keeps people in order,but they should certainly know that theiractions will be punished. Should they betempted to offend, they should be able toreason that the punishment far outweighs anygain they could make. That is not the case atthe moment with people in that age bracket. Inmy opinion, there is no real deterrent forpeople in that age bracket; they can easily fallvictim to unsavoury elements in societybecause there are no checks and balances.

When checks and balances are removedfrom societies, we end up with what webasically have at the moment, which is asociety that has all the hallmarks of collapse.We have moved so far away from the moral


boundaries that our society has been broughtto the level we have reached today. Whenmoral boundaries are removed and when thefences are lowered for people to hurdle over,society is not made better; it plummets, andthen there are no longer boundaries for peopleto push against.

The member for Whitsunday gave aninteresting speech in which, in one part, hetalked about his childhood and theboundaries. He said in that speech that it wasgood for him as a young—

Mr Palaszczuk: Was it at the CCAconference?

Mr NELSON: No, it was not at the CCAconference. I assure the Minister for PrimaryIndustries that I am an Independent and that Iwill run at the next election as an Independent.He can hold me to that one.

Mr Palaszczuk: I would not use themember for Whitsunday as an example.

Mr NELSON: No.

In one part of his speech—and I wouldask members to reflect on this—the memberfor Whitsunday pointed out that it was good foryoung men to test themselves against theboundaries of society because that gave themsomething to rail against. I cannot rememberthe exact words he used, but if members readHansard they will see what he said. I supposethe thing he was trying to get at was that it wasgood to have boundaries because it gaveyoung people—he was talking about youngmen in this case—something to rail againstand it also kept them in check. At the timewhen he was a young man, in the fifties andsixties, that was very certainly true.

Mr Palaszczuk: It was a long time ago.Mr NELSON: It was a long time ago.

I was very fortunate that I grew up with arural background. To some extent thosechecks and balances still existed in the societyin which I grew up. I see a lot of young peoplethese days—and I suppose I do hang out witha younger set than do most members of thisHouse. The problem in society today—and Iknow that many members of this House wouldhave children my age and that some of themwould even have grandchildren my age whowould basically be saying the same thing—isthat we lack some guidance from ourforebears. It seems to me and to a lot ofpeople to whom I talk not only in my electoratebut wherever I go throughout the great Stateof Queensland that the things that made oursociety great, the things that put Australia inthe advantageous position it enjoyed in the1980s, have certainly been taken away from

us. This comes as quite a shock to a lot ofpeople, even though I look at it from thatmoral ground. I do not have the same sort ofreligious tendencies as my good friends on myright. I have no religious background. I am nota religious person, but I still believe thatborders need to be in place in order for oursociety to operate properly.

Mr Feldman: The Youth Parliament.

Mr NELSON: The Youth Parliament was agood example. There was a great mob ofyoung people here recently, and they did verywell.

The point I am trying to make is that,ultimately, we need these barriers in society.That is why we have laws. I believe that ourlaws—and I am sure everyone knows myopinions on this—and the punishment,sentences and penalties in our society nolonger reflect the damage that some peopleinflict on society. We must remember that it isonly a small number whom we are talkingabout, but that small number should be madeeven smaller by us becoming very harsh oncriminals who commit crimes against society.Society becomes impossible to live in whenthere are no longer boundaries for people tofollow or those boundaries slowly but surelyerode away to the point at which criminalelements can operate almost with impunity.

Again, I am going to harp on thepoint—and I think it is my right to harp on thepoint—that I spent the past 19 years of my lifegrowing up in a police family. I watched notjust my father but many other police officerswork day and night to arrest people for crimes.My father started his working life in the suburbof Woodridge where in the old days the policestation on the top of the hill was affectionatelycalled Fort Apache because it was quite arough area.

Mr Mickel: It is not anymore.

Mr NELSON: It is a lovely area, I am sure.

Mr Hamill: When did you move, Shaun?

Mr NELSON: When I was in Year 11. Iwent to Kingston State High School. I can tellhonourable members that I saw my fair shareof the criminal element down there at KingstonState High School.

Mr Mickel: It improved when you moved.

Mr NELSON: The member for Logan isbeing quite ungracious. The point is that policeofficers have an incredibly tough job to do, asthe member for Caboolture could vouch.

Mr Mickel: They do, too. I tell you what,they do a great job at Browns Pains.


Mr NELSON: Yes, they do a great job.They try their hardest day and night to keep ussafe and we all know that. Recently we haveall seen the things that they have to put upwith. I have been told by many police officersin my electorate that the hardest thing theyhave to deal with is youth crime. Young peopleare taken before the courts and they are luckyif they get a slap on the wrist. One person inparticular about whom I have been told—and Iknow this for a fact—has gone before themagistrate six or seven times and has justbeen sent back with a warning or a slap on thewrist each time. Never once has he evenflinched when the old man said to him, "Look,mate, I am taking you before a magistrateagain", because he is thinking, "Every othertime you have taken me before themagistrate, the magistrate lets me go thatafternoon."

Mr Lucas interjected.

Mr NELSON: I would say to the memberfor Lytton that he should get up and speak onthis Bill if he has an opinion.

The simple point remains that, as I said,back in my day when I was a young fellowpolice officers were supposed to be respected.I would never have thought to talk back to apolice officer because 9 times out of 10 it wasmy old man or the sergeant and I would havebeen in more trouble than it was worth.

Mr Mickel interjected.

Mr NELSON: Exactly. But in this day andage—and I hear it ad nauseam and I haveseen it—

Mr Mickel: What did your old man saywhen you threw the milk on the Parliament?

Mr NELSON: He was heartily proud—veryproud indeed. The member for Logan doesnot want to know what he thinks about someof the people in this House.

The point of the matter remains that thereare criminal elements within the youth culturewho have absolutely no respect for policeofficers because they know that the police andthe law are no threat to them at all. They canact with impunity. The member for Inala, themember for Woodridge and the member forLogan would know this only too well becausetheir areas are affected by crime a lot morethan mine. We need to arm our police officerswith the ability to protect our society so thatthey can do their job well and also, as Isaid—and this is the main point I tried tomake—protect the youth themselves fromending up in a criminal environment. If thelaws were effective and powerful enough to

save one young person from committing acrime, it would be worth it.

I support the Bill because I believe that isthe intent of the Bill. I believe that it should notbe thrown out simply because it is not anagenda item for the ALP at the moment. Itwould be good if the Government would lookat it and perhaps amend it to make it work,because these sorts of things need to beaddressed. We cannot be soft on crime. It ismy belief that we are too soft on crime. I willprove to the House how soft on crime we arewhen I bring in my private member's Bill beforethe end of the year.

Mrs LIZ CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone—IND)(8.48 p.m.): The material contained in the Billbefore the House has particular relevance tomy electorate at the moment, and I will becommenting on that further down the track.However, the provisions of the current Actwere, I believe, drafted at a time when kidsremained kids for much longer than they dotoday.

Under common law they are presumed tobe innocent until the age of seven. Prior to theage of seven they cannot be charged withcriminality at all, and in Queensland thatpresumption of innocence is extended to theage of 10. This Bill is intending to address thetwilight zone between the ages of 10 and 14.Most of us here would agree that 30 or 40years ago children between the ages of 10and 14 were nowhere near as well informed orexposed to issues that confront adults aschildren are today. They remained children formuch, much longer and were relativelyinnocent in comparison with today's children.

There are many reasons for that, such asthe electronic media, easy access to films andbooks and exposure to violence; even violencein the nightly news is a significant component.Today's young people see things that previousgenerations did not see while growing up. ThisBill intends to cover the ages between 10 and14. At present, for a charge to be successful, ithas to be proven that a person between thoseages was fully aware that the action they tookwas wrong. The Bill proposes to reverse that; itwill have to be proved that they did not know.

As I said, this issue is particularly topical.At least 95% of young people in my electorateand most other electorates are good people.That high percentage of young peopleachieve, are good workers in the communityand often do voluntary work with communitygroups such as service groups and homes forboth the young and old. They have a highlevel of achievement. They set high goals.They achieve highly. The need for this


legislation is brought about by the 4% or 5% ofyoung people who do not. My regret is thatthose kids who achieve and who are honest,reliable and contribute to our community donot get enough coverage in the media and inother publications. However, the smallpercentage of young people who do the wrongthing get a lot of coverage.

Currently, there is a significant problem inmy electorate with large groups of youngpeople out on Friday and Saturday nights.Some of them have been to blue light discos.When the disco finishes at 9.30 p.m., they areready to party. They may then go to an openinvitation party at which they can drink. It is notillegal for them to consume alcohol in a privatehome. They become inebriated to varyingdegrees and set off in fairly large groups tosee what sort of action they can find. A lot ofthose young people fall within the 10 to 14year age group. They are young. They havenot learnt to control their drinking. They havealso not learnt how devastating it is for olderpeople to have them come into their yard andthrow rocks on the roof or through thewindows. They do not realise—not becausethey are innocent but because they do notthink—the terror and worry that they inflict onthose residents.

Last week a number of these residentsvisited my office. Those people wereconcerned that the police appeared to haveno power to be able to intervene in theseincidents. As was interjected by memberswhen the previous speaker made hiscontribution in this debate, we have a verygood police force. It is always challenged forresources. It is challenged in the number ofcars it can have on the road during peakperiods. Its officers are also excellent. They doeverything they can to protect the community.They are responsive. They are cooperative.They are decent people.

I was able to connect an officer via phonelink with the constituents in my office in orderto discuss this issue, that is, police powersversus the actions of these young people.Many people's concerns were able to beaddressed. However, this Bill would go someway in allaying their fears. I give the followingexample to illustrate this point. Say a personaged between 10 and 14 has been throwingrocks into somebody's frontyard and that whenthe owner comes out and asks them to moveon they give the owner a mouthful of languagethat would turn the air blue. Those youngpeople are not innocent and deserve to bedealt with by the courts in a way that equalsthe behaviour they have dished out. What thisBill intends to achieve reflects what those

residents in my electorate have said theywould like to see the law achieve. It isparticularly on that basis that I support it.

The police do have some constraintswhen it comes to dealing with minors. Some ofthose constraints are necessary. They areprotections to ensure that young people donot agree to something or concedeinformation that is against their best interests;that is, if they are underage, the police cannotquestion them until they have an adult, anadviser or a person of cultural significance withthem. Therefore, there are constraints on thepolice which are understandable. They may befrustrating for the community, but they areunderstandable protections for not only theyoung person who is in trouble but also thepolice. However, this Bill gives an opportunityto allay the frustration in the community.Young people who are repeat offenders haveto be shown to know the difference betweenright and wrong rather than being required toshow that they do not know the difference.This legislation will go a great way to relievethe frustration that these residents feel.

I reiterate that the vast majority of youngpeople in our community are excellent youngpeople. If one goes to the graduationceremonies of Years 7 to 12 one can see whatthose young people have achievedacademically and socially in the community. Itis beyond dispute. They are excellent youngpeople. This Bill is aimed at the smallpercentage of young people who choose to dothe wrong thing, but that small percentage cancreate a significant concern in the community.On that basis, I support the Bill.

Mr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ)(8.56 p.m.), in reply: It is indeed a pleasure torise tonight to commend to the House the CityCountry Alliance Criminal Code AmendmentBill, which I introduced last year. The Bill seeksto address section 29(2) of the QueenslandCriminal Code Act by reversing thepresumption of the doli incapax rule. Firstly, Iwish to thank our small staff and myparliamentary colleagues who have worked sohard in this 49th Parliament, which is the firsttime City Country Alliance has been in theHouse. That is a credit to the people ofQueensland.

In Queensland the doli incapaxpresumption applies to persons between theages of 10 and 14 years, determining thatchildren between these ages are incapable ofknowing right from wrong. It is presumed thatchildren between these ages are incapable ofwrongdoing because of the presumption at lawthat they do not know right from wrong. Of


course, in today's age it would be relativelydifficult to find a child between 10 and 14 whodoes not know the difference between rightand wrong. Most children between these agesare capable of distinguishing right from wrongand should be held criminally responsible fortheir actions.

The basic principle of acceptingresponsibility for one's actions has been on thedemise over the years. The age-old saying,"You do the crime, you do the time", carrieslittle weight with our Government andGovernment authorities. One only needs tolook back at last year's Hansard record of thedebate in relation to truth in sentencing to seethe views of Government members on thematter. However, the doli incapax rule appliesto section 29(2) of the Queensland CriminalCode Act by sending a message to ourcriminal youth that if they do the crime they willnot do any time because it is presumed theyare incapable of any wrongdoing. This is aprecarious presumption, especially when oneconsiders the amount of crime currently beingcommitted by children aged between 10 and14.

Let us look at the crime figures relating tothe numbers and types of offences committedby children within this age group. I refer to theQueensland Police Service Annual StatisticalReview 1998-99. A total of 13,728 offenceswere committed by children aged between 10to 14 years, comprised of 10,241 offencescommitted by males and 3,487 offencescommitted by females.

Approximately 7.5% of these offenceswere made against the person, includinghomicide, assault, sexual offences, robbery,extortion, kidnapping and abduction. Themajority of offences, totalling approximately76.5%, were made against property. Offencesagainst property include unlawful entry, arson,motor vehicle theft, fraud and handling ofstolen goods. The remaining approximately16% related to drug offences,prostitution—although this percentage willdecrease since the Beattie Governmentdecreed that anything goes in regard to oursons and daughters selling their souls—liquor,trespassing and vagrancy, Weapons Actoffences, good order offences, traffic andrelated offences and other miscellaneousoffences. As members can see, the types ofcrimes being committed by those in this agegroup are serious, and the frequency of thesecrimes is even more serious.

As I mentioned earlier, 13,728 offencescommitted in 1998-99 were by children aged10 to 14 years. This equates to 7.63% of the

total crime figures—quite a large percentagefor this age group. Persons aged 15 to 19years, however, commit the majority of crimes,totalling 27.62%. From this age group up thenumber of offences committed seems todecrease with age, down to 1.7% for crimesbeing committed by persons over the age of55. One needs to wonder whether such alarge percentage of crimes being committedby 15 to 19 year olds has something to do withthe majority of them being repeat offenderswho have gone without punishment in theiryounger years.

I refer to comments made by the lateJudge McGuire, former president of theChildrens Court of Queensland. His fifth annualreport states—

"On taking up the position ofpresident of the Children's Court ofQueensland, I stated that I harboured abelief for a long time that the presentapproach to combating crime generallywas not proving very effective and wasnot producing the desired results. Therewas therefore something fundamentallywrong with the approach.

Experience in the Courts over manyyears told me that adult professional orcareer criminals persistently causing thegreatest damage in our society startedtheir careers as juveniles and thatperhaps we were expending too muchtime, effort and money at the wrong endof crime control. It was, I thought, a caseof closing the gate after the horse hadbolted."

Bless his soul. The judge showed that he wasa person of commonsense when he said"closing the gate after the horse had bolted".The report continues—

"What was needed was to attackcrime at the right end: at its beginning,with the incipient young offender, and nipit in the bud, if possible, there and then,before it burgeoned out of control. So Iconcluded that the juvenile courts wereprobably the most important courts in theland.

Long and bitter experience in thecriminal courts had taught me that a highpercentage of persistent professionalcriminals started as juvenile delinquentswho made repeated appearance in theChildren's Court. If their criminaltendencies could have been curbed orcontrolled through a judiciousmanagement of the judicial system,society would have benefited beyond


measure and would have been spareduntold anguish and expense."

Between the two of us, the member forCaboolture and I have over 50 years of policeexperience. I go along with what the judgesaid, and I know that the member forCaboolture would support me in thatstatement.

The doli incapax rule has been thesubject of criticism for several years now. Thetwo most popular options for addressing therule are removing the rule altogether andreversing the onus of proof. As members areaware, we have taken the second option withthis private member's Bill.

Children, just like adults, need to be heldaccountable for their actions to the extent thatis reasonable and appropriate. Under thecurrent law, a child can walk away havingtaken no responsibility for their actions andwith no regard for the law, simply because it isperceived that the child did not know right fromwrong. In many cases this perception allowsyoung criminals to drift into a life of crime,because intervention is prevented in all forms.It undermines their welfare and denies themthe opportunity to develop into fullycontributing members of society.

To prevent offending and re-offending byyoung people we must stop making excusesfor youth crime. Children between the ages of10 and 14 who commit crimes must be heldaccountable for their actions, and the lawshould recognise this. I will conclude by furtherquoting comments made by Judge McGuireon the issue of juvenile crime. He stated—

"Despite what one hears from certainquarters, juvenile crime, with some yearlyfluctuations for certain types of offending,is, on the whole, on the ascendant.

We search for answers to theproblem of juvenile crime and juveniledelinquency. Despite the best efforts ofgovernments, the welfare and socialsystem and juvenile courts, juvenile crimepersists. Everyone agrees that preventionis better than cure. But it has to be facedthat the present elaborate paraphernaliafor dealing with juvenile delinquency andjuvenile crime—the welfare system, socialworkers, the police, the courts—hasnoticeably succeeded.

I am convinced that there is a highlevel of public concern over the failure ofthe established system to eliminatejuvenile crime, or at least bring it underreasonable control. There are two aspectsto this concern. On the one hand, there isconcern for the destructive nature of

juvenile crime both to the community andto the offender. On the other hand, thereis deep concern that the prevalence ofjuvenile crime portends a crumblingsociety, a society in danger ofdisintegration.

It is generally recognised—certainlyby the sensible, silent majority—thatpervasive juvenile crime is symptomatic ofa decadent society, a society cracking atits foundations."

I could not agree more with that old, learnedjudge. Indeed, I think we all agree that we areliving in a society cracking at its foundations.Something positive has to be done to addressthese issues.

The Criminal Code Amendment Bill is aworthy and necessary Bill. It will not makejuvenile crime automatically disappear, but itwill be a positive step in the right direction foraddressing the problem of crime where itshould be addressed: at the very beginning.Former Judge McGuire, president of theChildrens Court of Queensland, shared thisopinion and clearly voiced this opinion in hisannual reports over the last six years. Now isthe time for this Government to act on hisadvice. I cannot see any reason why theCriminal Code Amendment Bill should not gainthe support of all members of the House.

I will address some issues raised byprevious speakers. The Attorney-Generalstated during the last sittings that theDepartment of Families, Youth andCommunity Care looked after these matters.That is not so. He spoke about sweeping awaythe laws for protection of children. We are notsweeping away the laws for protection ofchildren; we are protecting the honest society.The Attorney-General talked about lockingthese children up. This Bill has nothing to dowith corrective services or punishment. It isabout whether the person committed the crimeand whether they knew that what they weredoing was wrong. I think the Attorney-General's contribution to this debate was quiteambiguous. It surprised me that a person ofsuch long standing in the legal professioncould go so far off the track. He was talkingabout the legal protection of children andabout taking away children's rights.

I concur with the points made by themember for Warwick. He did quite well. Ithought the member for Nudgee did very wellin his speech. He spoke very well about thejustice system. However, he talked aboutdetention centres. This has nothing to do withdetention centres. This is all to do with: did youknow what was right and what was wrong?


That is what it is about. The member forNudgee did not speak to the subject we aresupposed to be debating tonight.

Section 29(1) of the Criminal Code statesthat a person under the age of 10 years is notcriminally responsible for any act or omission.We do not have a problem with that. Section29(2) states that a person under the age of 14years is not criminally responsible for an act oromission unless it is proved that, at the time ofdoing the act or making the omission, theperson had the capacity to know that theperson ought not do the act or make theomission. That is the doli incapax rule aboutwhich the judges are so critical in this CriminalCode.

Another section of the Criminal Codewhich has been overlooked during this debateis "Justification and excuse/compulsion", whichis section 31(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), subsections (ii)and (iii). I commend that to those memberswho do not know much about this.

Another document I would like to bring tothe attention of the House is the QueenslandLaw Reform Commission report that deals withthe evidence of children. In England, underthe Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act1999, any person is competent to giveevidence at every stage in criminalproceedings provided that the person is ableto understand questions put to the person asa witness and to give answers to them whichcan be understood. In South Australia, awitness of any age is presumed to becompetent to give sworn evidence in anyproceedings, unless the judge—and it goesback to the court there—determines that theperson does not have sufficient understandingof the obligation to be truthful which is entailedin giving sworn evidence. In Western Australia,the traditional test of competency to giveevidence on oath has been modified forcertain child witnesses. Section 106B(2) of theWestern Australian Evidence Act 1906provides that a child under the age of 12 yearsis competent to give sworn evidence if thechild understands that the giving of evidence isa serious matter and that, in giving evidence,he or she has an obligation to tell the truth thatis over and above the ordinary duty to tell thetruth.

What I am trying to illustrate is thatQueensland is behind the times. We are beingleft behind in our law. In Queensland, a childwho is competent to take an oath, irrespectiveof his or her age, gives sworn testimony.However, in some jurisdictions—and the reportrefers to England—a child under a certain agemay give evidence on oath in criminal

proceedings. This is right throughout theWestern World. The report goes on to statethat the oath ceremony fulfils three functions:evidentiary, to provide a record for subsequentpotential prosecution for perjury; cautionary, toremind the witness of the requirement to betruthful; and ritual, to establish the solemnity ofgiving evidence and to underline thecautionary function.

The commission's report goes on to talkabout impaired ability to communicate. Itstates—

"Although the common law oathcompetency test is restricted to the abilityof a witness to understand the nature ofan oath and does not take intoconsideration the ability to understandand answer questions, a witness whoseability to communicate is significantlyimpaired can be declared incompetent togive evidence. In one case, for example,it was held that a deaf mute could nottestify.

However, that case was decided in1866. Since then there have beensignificant developments in technologieswhich assist people with communicationdifficulties. There has also been a changein community attitudes to people whohave disabilities which affect their ability tohear and speak. This change has beenreflected in the attitude of courts to thereception of evidence from people withdisabilities.

Nonetheless, despite any attitudinalchange, the position has not beenmodified by legislation in Queensland.One of the submissions received by theCommission in response to the DiscussionPaper criticised this situation. TheQueensland Director of PublicProsecutions"—

and if the Attorney-General were here to listento this, he could well be educated—

"commented, with respect to thelegislative provisions relating to theevidence of children in Queensland:

All these provisions presupposethat the child is able to communicateverbally. Special provision needs tobe made to the effect that if awitness (a child or otherwise) hasdifficulty in verbally communicatinghis or her evidence by reason of aphysical or mental disability, the courtmay order that the witness bepermitted to give evidence by anymeans that enables the evidence tobe intelligible ..."

3830 Defamation Amendment Bill 18 Oct 2000

There are reams of paper that go on about theability of people to give evidence.

I believe that when Sir Samuel Griffithwrote the Criminal Code in 1899 he was takingcognisance of the position of children of thetime. Times have changed. Children areeducated. They have computers; they candrive motor cars; they have very goodschooling. This is not 1900, and we are notdealing with a child who might have beenbrought up in the bush somewhere, who didnot know the difference between right or wrongand who got on the wrong side of the tram inBrisbane or something like that around theturn of the century.

Mr Feldman: They don't live shelteredlives any more.

Mr PAFF: Children don't live shelteredlives any more. The police are having a terribletime trying to control the current situation.

Children are more psychologically matureat a given age than was the case in previoustimes, and they are better educated, both ofwhich make it more likely that they will becapable of distinguishing right from wrong. TheScrutiny of Legislation Committee's reportstates—

"The Bill's reversal of the currentonus of proof—the current onus mirrorsthe common law position—will diminishthe safeguards for persons aged between10 and 14 years in that it will remove thegeneral presumption at law that childrenlack the developmental maturity of adults.On the other hand, the victims of criminalactions by these persons and thecommunity in general also have alegitimate interest in young perpetrators ofcriminal acts."

I cannot understand why we cannot moveforward in the law of this State.

I heard the member for Gladstone talkingabout particular cases in her electorate. I haveno doubt that it would happen in Inala also.There are children breaking into cars andstealing money from centre consoles. Thepolice collar these kids and ask them, "Did youknow right from wrong?" Kids are pretty wellschooled up these days in what is going on.They turn around and say, "No, I didn't know.Was there something wrong in doing that?"The police say, "Well, get out of here. I will seeyou later." Those children just go on and onand on committing offences. This is what isgoing on in the community today. There isquite a public outrage against what isoccurring.

I could go on and on, but I would like towind up by commending the Bill to the House.I hope that everybody in Parliament takescognisance of what is happening in ourcommunities. We are not trying to take awaythe rights of children. Good heavens, I thinkthat the majority of the members in the Househave children of their own. It has nothing to dowith the detention of children. It has everythingto do with knowing the difference betweenright and wrong.

Question—That the Bill be now read asecond time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 38—Beanland, Black, Connor, Cooper,E. Cunningham, Dalgleish, Davidson, Feldman,Gamin, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Kingston,Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, Malone,Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell,Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Springborg, Stephan, Turner, Veivers, Wellington.Tellers: Baumann, HegartyNOES, 38—Attwood, Barton, Bligh, Braddy,Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, J. Cunningham, Edmond,Fenlon, Fouras, Hamill, Hayward, Kaiser, Lucas,Mackenroth, McGrady, Mickel, Miller, Mulherin,Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce,Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts, Robertson, Rose,Schwarten, Spence, Struthers, Welford, Wells,Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell

The numbers being equal, Mr Speakercast his vote with the Noes.

Resolved in the negative.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORSMr SPEAKER: Before calling the Clerk, I

welcome to the public gallery the executivemembers of the Hamilton Bowls Club.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

DEFAMATION AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingResumed from 26 August 1999 (see

p. 3586).

Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (9.26 p.m.): Imove the following amendment—

"Omit all words after 'Bill' and insert'be referred to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee forconsideration and report back to theHouse.' "

I move that amendment because thereare some components of the Bill that I thinkare worthy of consideration in the environmentof bipartisanship that the committee isrenowned for.

The Bill, as I am advised, contains somedeficiencies. The proceedings in Parliament

18 Oct 2000 Defamation Amendment Bill 3831

attract an absolute privilege. "Absoluteprivilege" means that no legal action can betaken in respect of the proceedings if theproceedings cannot be questioned orimpeached by a court or tribunal.

Mr Palaszczuk: That is correct.

Mr MICKEL: I am pleased that I have thesupport of the "Acting" Attorney-General in thisregard, my learned friend the honourablemember for Inala, who I know has studied thisin grave detail.

The questions regarding whether theinformants or constituents of members whoprovide them with information or makecomplaints are protected by parliamentaryprivilege and the types of transactions that areprotected have long been a matter ofcontention. I think that this goes to the heart ofwhat concerns honourable members. When aconstituent comes in to make a complaint andthat complaint may, of its very nature, bedefamatory, it is of grave concern to allparliamentarians who are acting on behalf ofthat constituent. Most of the time the questioncomes down to whether the informant, inproviding information to a member, is comingwithin the definition of "proceedings inParliament".

Of related concern is the uncertaintyattached, as I said, to the correspondence ofmembers of Parliament. Members regularly acton behalf of their constituents and write lettersto Ministers, Government departments andother public bodies on their behalf. If this typeof correspondence becomes public, there is areal possibility of legal action being takenagainst the informant or even the member. Asa consequence, members may find theirinformation sources drying up due to fears oflegal action. This would significantly affectmembers' abilities to discharge theirparliamentary duties and potentially impedetheir ability to raise matters in Parliament. Infact, in my view, it would strike at the heart ofrepresentative democracy.

There appears to be merit, as I said, inaddressing the issue as to the protection ofpersons who provide members of Parliamentwith information or who make complaints tomembers of Parliament. However, this is a verycomplex area of parliamentary privilege andlaw. Whether the Bill actually achieves this inits current form is a more complex question.This Bill is seeking to establish a qualifiedprivilege and it may be that there is a mischiefthat needs to be addressed by legislation, thata qualified privilege may not be sufficient.

There have been recent court cases—andsome of those cases are still active in the

courts and, therefore, are inappropriate for meto deal with tonight. Those cases need to beconsidered in addressing this matter. Some ofthe court decisions were made after themember for Ipswich West introduced the Bill.They cannot be discussed tonight because ofthe sub judice provisions.

This Bill concerns not only the DefamationAct but as I said, also the powers, rights andimmunities of the Legislative Assembly,committees and members generally. We havea committee of the House established with thisarea of responsibility and it is that committeethat should be called upon to review the issueprior to final consideration of this Bill. Thecommittee will be able to look at this issue indetail with all the seriousness that it merits.

I do not want to disclose the nature of ourconversation, but the honourable gentlemanfrom Caboolture asked me for an assurance.He wondered if it went off to a committeewhether it would ever surface again. I gave thehonourable gentleman—and I do so againpublicly—this assurance. I cannot get back tohim by Christmas with a final answer. However,I have sought assurances from other membersof the committee that we will have thesecretariat advise the honourable gentleman,as the leader of a party, about our processesin relation to this matter, and let him know howwe are going with this provision.

I cannot be any more definitive than that.I give the honourable member this assurance:the secretariat will be available to thehonourable gentleman so that he can see, asa keen observer of these events, the progressthat the committee is making. I do thatbecause the committee has looked at thisissue on a previous occasion. I invitehonourable members to look at report No. 26titled "First Report on the Powers, Rights andImmunities of the Legislative Assembly, itsCommittees and Members", tabled in January1999. Under the heading "Matters for futureconsideration and Report", the committeestated—

"The committee also inquired into anumber of significant issues which are notreported here, but which the committeebelieves deserve further attention andpossible future report. These issues arebriefly outlined below.Members' correspondence

The status of a member'sconstituency correspondence, andcorrespondence between a member andministers/departments was canvassed insome detail in the issues paper. The issuewas also addressed in a number of


submissions. Related matters, such asthe impact of defamation proceedings onsuch correspondence, were also raised insubmissions. These issues have beendebated comprehensively elsewhere,particularly at the Commonwealth level,but are complex and remain contentiousand the committee believes warrantfurther consideration by this committee.

Members' sources of information

There is some doubt about theextent to which the powers andimmunities of Parliament protecttransactions between members and theirsources of information. A number ofsubmissions also questioned the impactof 'whistleblower' legislation on personswho provide evidence of official corruptionto members of Parliament, and whetherprovisions within the civil and criminal lawoffer adequate protection to such personswho may not be public servants. Onceagain, these matters are extremelycomplex and potentially contentious anddeserve further consideration."

The amendment proposed is to enablethe committee to finish the job it has started. Itinevitably invites the question, "Well, if that iswhat you reported, why have you not donesomething about it?" I guess that is a fairenough point, but the reality is this: acommittee gets caught up in what comesbefore it.

The Bill introduced by the member forIpswich West provides a perfect opportunity torevisit that issue, and to revisit the issue in away, I think, that members of the public whomay be in the gallery now expect us asparliamentarians to view an issue, that is,without the argy-bargy. By sending it off to thecommittee, perhaps we can do that in a verydeliberative way, which is what I think thegeneral public requires of us from time to time.

With all that, and with all the goodwill Ican muster, not to mention the flu tablets thatI should be taking—

Mr Springborg: You should go and getyourself some onion and lemon.

Mr MICKEL: I reject that vile interjectionfrom the honourable member who has nomedical experience at all to be offering to meon this matter. With those few words, Icommend the amendment to the House.

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP)(9.39 p.m.): I second the amendment movedat some length by the member for Logan. Thequestion of whether any immunity is affordedinformants, constituent complaints and

members' representations to Government,such as any correspondence, has long restedon whether or not the information concerned is"a proceeding in Parliament".

Proceedings in Parliament attract anabsolute privilege. "Absolute privilege" meansthat no legal action can be taken in respect ofthe proceedings if the proceeding cannot bequestioned or impeached by a court ortribunal. Qualified privilege, on the other hand,means that the matter is immune from libelaction so long as the communication is withoutmalice.

This Bill seeks to give qualified privilege todefamatory matters published to membersand members' staff by a constituent. I do notdoubt the member for Ipswich West's intentionin introducing this Bill. However, this is adifficult area of law and privilege and I havesome doubts as to whether the Bill as it iscurrently drafted adds to the current law in thisarea.

In his second-reading speech, themember read the following quote—

"The Defamation Amendment Bill isnecessary to uphold the true reason forthe existence of politicians—representation of the people."

However, the Bill attempts to achieve thispurpose by providing a qualified privilege.There have been cases, some quite recent,which have stated that this type ofcorrespondence, information and so on isalready protected by qualified privilege. Theissue of whether qualified privilege is adequateprotection for members' informants isaddressed to some degree in a paper by HarryEvans, Clerk of the Senate, entitled "Members'Informants: Any Protection?"—The Table Vol.65 1997. Harry Evans rightly notes that thepeople who generally come forward withinformation to members are those who maynot always be afforded a qualified privilege. Hewrites—

"The problem with this is that thekinds of persons who supply informationabout corruption or malfeasance tomembers of parliament, the kinds ofperson commonly known as whistleblowers, are often persons who can berepresented as having an impropermotive ... Qualified privilege is not asatisfactory substitute for parliamentaryprivilege in such cases."

In short, I believe that there are questionsto be asked as to whether the Bill is adequate.For this reason, I support the amendment toenable the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee of this House to


investigate this whole area and report back tothe House accordingly. I would urge allhonourable members to support thisamendment and to contribute to thecommittee's inquiry. As deputy chairman ofthat committee, I say that we would valuecontributions from any honourable member.

Mr SPRINGBORG (Warwick—NPA)(Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (9.40 p.m.):I rise to support the motion moved by themember for Logan—who was somewhatuncharitable when I was trying to assist himthrough an interjection—and seconded by themember for Caloundra.

Mr Palaszczuk: You have changed overthe past three weeks. You are not the niceperson you were before.

Mr SPRINGBORG: We were just trying tomake the Primary Industries Minister aware ofsome issues in his portfolio. Fortunately, hehas become aware of them, to the extent thathe is now a complete convert and is alsoseeking to make the Minister for EmergencyServices aware of the real extent of thedrought in Queensland. We commend him forbecoming aware of those issues over the pastthree weeks. I will give the Primary IndustriesMinister credit where it is deserved.

In relation to this Bill, I think the mostsensible thing we can possibly do is refer it tothe Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee to look into the issuesraised in a fulsome way. Although theproblems identified by the honourable memberfor Ipswich West are very definite and obvious,the solutions may not be as easy and assimple as outlined in the private member's Billbefore the Parliament.

Having said that, I commend thehonourable member for Ipswich West forbringing this Bill before the Parliament,because I think he was motivated by goodreason and good determination in doing so.He has sought to address what I believe is asignificant issue of concern to the functioningof our democratic institution in this State.

I have held these concerns for a longtime. Without divulging issues discussedbefore the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee, it is fair to say that Ihave raised my concerns about these sorts ofmatters before that committee and haveindicated that it is something that we shouldbe looking at doing. It certainly is a view whichis shared by the committee as a whole, as waspointed out by the chairman of thatcommittee. He has said that the committee, ina paper released about 18 months ago,outlined some of the issues that needed to be

considered in more detail by the committee.That is something which, as the chairman hassaid, we will be able to do now that the way iscleared.

The committee has had a lot ofresponsibilities over the past few years, ashave many other parliamentary committees.There have been many references to thecommittee in the area of alleged contempt byvarious members of Parliament. Also, thecommittee has been very motivated by therecent report recommending a document onethical standards for members of Parliament.Now that the way is clear, I can assure thehonourable member for Ipswich West, as afellow member of that committee, that thiscommittee will be able to give this matter thetime it needs to ensure that the aspirationsand concerns that the member has, whichhave been entrenched in his Bill before theParliament, are considered properly anddeliberated on by that committee. I believe itwill come back before this Parliament in a waythat addresses those issues and what I believeis a glaring deficiency that we have anobligation to look at.

The issue of parliamentary privilege is onethat often generates a degree of public debateand sometimes a degree of public cynicismand condemnation by certain people in themedia and outside. My experience is thatmembers of Parliament generally take theissue of parliamentary privilege very seriously.Although I very much appreciate the audienceof the deputy chairman and the chairman ofthe committee, I know that the chairman issuffering from an ailment and I would notexpect him to have to sit through my speech.Therefore, he can take his leave.

Parliamentary privilege is something that Ibelieve most members of Parliament use veryjudiciously. It is generally used to do the rightthing by their constituents and the State. Inthe time that I have sat in this Parliament therehave probably been very few occasions whenparliamentary privilege has been activelyabused by members of Parliament. Werespect that we are given a power, aresponsibility and an opportunity that does notnecessarily rest with the community at large,and that brings with it much responsibility.

The genesis of that is Article 9 of the1688 Bill of Rights. It had relevance then.Perhaps that relevance is not quite the sametoday. Certainly in 1688 members ofParliament faced some life-threateningcircumstances. Today that is not so much thecase. At that stage it was important toenshrine protections and privileges for


members of Parliament that prevented theirbeing impeached outside of Parliament. As Isaid, the circumstances were such that theysometimes did not live to come back into theParliament. Therefore, it stands to reason thatmembers of Parliament in doing their jobshould have that protection so that they canadvocate on behalf of their constituent and theconstituency at large without fear or favour.

A real concern is what happens to aperson who goes to a member of Parliamentwith an issue they believe requires addressing.Often that involves their sitting down inconfidence with their member of Parliament orthe staff of the member of Parliament andproviding information which, if released, maybe considered to be potentially defamatory,but the intention of that information is not todo malice and it is not necessarily to bereleased. The issue might be of genuineconcern to the constituent interacting with amember of Parliament. Nothing could be moreshocking or disturbing to that constituent thanif they find out subsequently that theinformation they have provided in confidenceand in good faith to a Minister, their memberof Parliament or the member of Parliament'sstaff somehow turns up in the hands of theperson they are complaining about and thatperson takes offence. Sometimes I supposewe could say that is justifiable, but sometimesthey might wish to do malice to the personwho has complained about them. Theconstituent the member for Ipswich West, MrPaff, talked about found themselves with asignificant potential defamation liability andthat scared them away from pursuing theissue.

Mrs Sheldon interjected.

Mr SPRINGBORG: I thank the memberfor Caloundra for her gratuitous advice.

I have a number of issues that I wish toaddress during this debate. A number of ushave probably found ourselves in situations indealing with Ministers where we have felt thatthe information we have provided to theMinister may be potentially defamatory if itwound up in the hands of the person beingcomplained about. Just after I was elected toParliament I had occasion to write to a Ministerof the Crown about a concern that had beenraised with me by a council. Only a couple ofweeks after I raised that issue with the MinisterI found myself in receipt of a letter from a firmof solicitors acting on behalf of the person whowas the subject of the complaint by thecouncil. I set out with no malice to raise thatissue with the Minister on behalf of thatcouncil, because I felt it was a genuine issue.

There was no desire on my part to take thatissue public.

I can tell honourable members that Ifound it extremely intimidating to receive aletter from a solicitor advising that their clienthad instructed them to take defamationproceedings against me and also to seekdamages. We also know that in many casesthey are stopper letters. I am sure that manymembers of Parliament have received those.However, they can be very disconcerting. Theycan certainly take our focus off our job. Isuppose at the end of the day we look at itand think, "They really do not have any case.We have to pursue it and we have to carry outour duties on behalf of the constituent."Knowing a little bit more about it, we feel thatwe are somewhat more protected by theprivileges which have been given to us and theopportunity to be able to express our concernsin Parliament, but the constituents themselveswho raise these particular issues have noprotection.

The aim of the Bill introduced by thehonourable member for Ipswich West is toprovide an opportunity for the constituents whowithout malice raised these genuine concernsto have qualified privilege in the dealings withtheir member of Parliament and also for thatqualified privilege to extend beyond that to thedealings with the parliamentary staff of thatmember and a little bit beyond that. I think thatthat is extremely sensible because what hasbeen proposed by the member is the followingrider: "information that may be defamatory butis provided without malice". There is adifference, of course, if information is providedwith malice. To ensure that we can have thatinteraction between members of Parliament sothat members of Parliament can get to thebottom of issues on behalf of theirconstituents, it only stands to reason thatconstituents are able to have the qualifiedprivilege that they require to be able to reportissues which, in many cases, can be the tip ofthe iceberg that is a major problem.

We all receive information from people atlarge which in some cases provides anopportunity to expose some major scams. Ifthat was nipped in the bud early on becauseof a fear to provide that information, thingswhich should be exposed may not necessarilybe exposed. I think that is why it is importantfor this Bill to go to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee. It willprovide the committee with an opportunity tolook at not only the issue which thehonourable member has raised, which is avery legitimate and valid one, but also thebroader issue as to how far this qualified


privilege should extend to assist members ofParliament in carrying out their duty on behalfof their constituents.

On that basis, I simply say that I supportthe sentiments of the legislation. I think,though, that there is an opportunity for theissues it contains to be better brought beforethe Parliament. Those issues have beenoutlined by previous speakers—the memberfor Logan and the member for Caloundra.Therefore, it is only appropriate that this matterbe referred to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee so that itcan look at precedents from other places andissues that have come to hand and also sothat it can seek advice from other experts andeven take public submissions on the issue.Therefore, I support the motion that has beenmoved by the member for Logan.

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—CCAQ)(9.53 p.m.): I rise to speak on the proceduralmotion that was moved by the honourablemember for Logan. He pointed out that heand I had a conversation about this a littleearlier. I, too, will allude to some of thatconversation. I note that the Members' Ethicsand Parliamentary Privileges Committeelooked at this subject for some time andproduced a report back in January 1999. Whatconcerns and worries me is that, when thismatter is referred to a committee, it could getshelved and locked away forever and a daybefore it is reported on.

As I say, the committee's report wasproduced in January 1999. It is now October2000. This issue has been with the committeefor a long time. I guess that is why I wasseeking from the honourable member forLogan some sort of firm date on which thecommittee's report could be made to theHouse to be addressed in the proper forum,which is of course the floor of the Parliament.That is where it should be discussed andwhere the content of this Bill should bedecided.

I again raise that issue with thehonourable member. I know that he has giventhe commitment that from time to time thesecretariat of the committee will report back tome and the honourable member for IpswichWest, who brought this Bill to the House. Iguess we will get reports on how it isprogressing in the committee. An issue asimportant as this, which actually coversprivilege not just for the member but for themember's staff in his electorate office, the staffunder his control in his parliamentary officeand the constituents who bring matters to himor to his staff, is too important to just leave

lying unresolved in a committee and waiting tobe addressed.

Perhaps there should be an onus—I saythis to the honourable member for Logan—onthe committee to report to the honourablemember for Ipswich West and me on this Billat least once a month so that we actually knowthat this Bill and the issues that it raises arebeing brought up and discussed—and I intendto talk about those issues shortly. An issue asimportant as this, which has the ability to affectthe lives of members, their staff andconstituents, is just too important to let lie withno-one overseeing it or ensuring that it is beinglooked at, reported on and brought back to thefloor of this Parliament so that we know whatthe position is. It is with those comments that Iseek that assurance from the committee andfrom the member that that will be part of theprocess that will be adopted once it goes tothe committee for consideration.

This Bill was presented to this Parliamentin August last year by the member for IpswichWest. Our simple intention in putting thislegislation forward was to extend the protectionfrom defamation beyond proceedings in theHouse to also cover constituents and staff of amember of the Legislative Assembly in thecourse of their duties. The Defamation Actdoes not cover the circumstance of aconstituent making an inquiry to a member orhis staff and the transfer of that informationfrom the member to a Minister, the Premier orthe relevant Government department. As mostmembers of this House would be aware, aconstituent, if making any defamatory claims,can be held liable for defamation by theperson referred to in the complaint. A staffmember who passed on the complaint in thecourse of their duties would similarly be veryvulnerable.

This situation occurred in 1995 under theGoss Government. For those who are notaware of the case, a constituent forwarded aletter to the Premier of the time complainingabout the actions of a member of theDepartment of Transport in relation to a newbypass project. I am sure that there are quite afew members looking down the barrel ofbypass projects in their electorates. Thatapplies to me with regard to a project in Ningi.Therefore, this has special relevance to me inparticular and to the member for Burdekin,who has already tabled petitions in relation tothat matter. However, this female constituentwas upset that the project was going aheadwhen landowners were previously told that itwould not. In her letter she referred to arepresentative of the Department of Transportand said that he "bullies and uses standover


tactics to humiliate and degrade the owners inhis way". Apart from expressing her grief overthe bypass project and its impact upon thefamilies affected by the project, she alsoclaimed that the Department of Transportofficer "disputes lots of things he knows verylittle about".

The constituent forwarded a letter askingfor help to the Premier of the State and to MrBorbidge and Mrs Sheldon. What resulted wasrather ludicrous. The Premier had forwardedthe letter to the Department of Transport andthe person referred to in the letter sued theconstituent for damages to the value of$10,600. When one looks at this in its pureform, the woman had written to the Premier ingood faith to ask for help. Rather thanreceiving a letter of response from the Premier,she received a letter from a solicitor and then asummons. Although at the end of the daysome type of agreement was worked outbetween the Government and the publicservant involved and the action was stopped,the trauma this woman must haveexperienced was inexcusable. This situationraised some serious questions at the timeregarding the coverage of parliamentaryprivilege and the liability of constituents whotell a politician of their concerns or theircomplaints.

In a Courier-Mail article dated 21 October1995, the injustice of this circumstance andthe serious question of privilege were raised. Iquote a few of the comments from differentpeople referred to in the article. The 61 yearold pensioner involved commented—

"It has come to the day when thepublic can't even turn around and saytheir piece ... this will frighten off otherpeople from writing to the Government."

A spokesman for Mr Goss said—

"The Premier gets hundreds andhundreds of letters every week ... allletters of complaint are forwarded directlyto the specific department."

And fair enough. I am quite sure that thePremier is not able to answer each letter andsolve each problem personally. Of course hemust forward them to the relevant departmentand seek advice or action.

The then President of the Council for CivilLiberties, which is not an organisation Igenerally agree with, but in this case I have tosay that I do—and I do not hope that anothercaricature is drawn of me in a position with MrO'Gorman which leads people to thinkunsavoury things—said—

"Perhaps ordinary people will have tostop writing to the Premier, or ministers orMPs and take their complaints to the CJCinstead. That way at least citizens will notget taken to court for complaining."

Associate professor of politics Ross Fitzgeraldsaid that the defamation action seemeddraconian "and would stifle freedom ofdebate". In a Courier-Mail editorial on 21October 1995 the author rightly states—

"There can be no doubt that it oughtto be the right of ordinary people tocomplain to their political representativesabout the way those employed by theGovernment—as public servants, police,teachers or judges—behave towardsthem. They should be able to do sowithout any fear that they might be suedfor defamation and face crippling costsdefending themselves, as well as thepossibility of paying damages. If that isnot the law, it ought to be."

That is what this Bill does. It amends theDefamation Act so that situations such as thisdo not occur again. It even goes a step furtherand ensures that a parliamentary member'sstaff are also protected from that defamationshould they publish something by relaying it tothe member. We have to understand themeaning of the word "publication". We have tolook at the way "publication" is defined. Ofcourse, "publication" refers to the conveying ofinformation. It is irrelevant whether this occursvia a fax machine, is personally handed toanother, is printed in a newspaper or is mailedin a letter.

A member's job is to follow through withconstituent complaints or concerns. If their jobis impeded by a threat to a constituent or tostaff members for relaying the concern to therelevant Minister, then the system is definitelyrendered useless. Members are often facedwith complaints or concerns that specificallyrefer to another person. During the course ofhis job, it is necessary for him to forward theseconcerns to the appropriate people and toseek some form of explanation or redress. Thefailure of the Defamation Act to protect aconstituent, the member's staff or the memberis a serious issue that requires correction. Ibelieve that this Bill achieves that correction.

I have no problem with this Bill beingforwarded to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee because Ithink it will come to the same conclusion in thelong run, that is, that this Bill definitely doesthat even though it may require a little tinkeringaround the edges. I take on board the factthat not every Bill that comes before this


House is perfect, otherwise there would not bethe need for so many amendments tolegislation which comes before this House.This Bill is self-explanatory and attempts tocover the process from the constituent rightthrough to the Minister.

Proposed section 15A(1) of theamendment Bill makes it lawful for aconstituent to publish defamatory matter to amember or to a member's staff if it is madewithout malice. Proposed section 15A(2)makes it lawful for the staff member to publishthe defamatory matter to the member if thepublication is made without malice. Proposedsection 15A(3) allows the member to publishthe information to the Minister or to one of hisstaff if the publication is made without malice.Proposed section 15A(5) places the onus ofproof that the matter was published withmalice upon the party alleging that it wasmade with malice. This is necessaryconsidering the practical event of this occurringand is the most rational way of approachingthe issue of pursuing for defamatory reasons.

Members of this House supported achange to protect constituents from situationssuch as that faced by the pensioner in 1995.Mr Lingard spoke in the House on 19 October1995, saying—

"How the heavens are we ever goingto carry out our job as members ofParliament? How can I be assured thatany letter of mine to the Premier whichmight contain the word 'bully' will not resultin that sort of action?"

Of course, the action he referred to wasdefamation action. He also rightly stated—

"It is a ridiculous situation because,as the solicitors said, the Premierdistributed the letter to the Department ofTransport—as clearly all Ministers woulddistribute letters—and from that we havedefamation action."

It is obvious that the comments referred tohere are relevant points with which I am suremembers of this House also agree.

It was clear that the Goss LaborGovernment agreed with Mr Lingard, becauseit stepped in to help resolve the issue. TheDeputy Premier, Mr Elder, the then TransportMinister, stated in a Courier-Mail article on 24October 1995 that "people should feel free tocomplain to politicians about public servantswithout fear of legal threats". What we aretalking about here is that real fear. People arescared enough when they approach amember of Parliament. We see it time andtime again. It is usually only when they areaffected to such a degree and they feel such

rage that they generally come to see their localmember in relation to a particular issue.

I am glad that the Deputy Premier agreeswith the purpose of the Bill. It is necessary fora member's staff and his constituents to feelsafe from the threat of litigation in order for themember to conduct his job. Therefore, it isnecessary for the privilege of Parliament to beextended to this extent. This Bill achieves thatpurpose.

An increase in parliamentary privilege isnot something the City Country Alliance wouldgenerally support, as it is necessary that thependulum should not be allowed to swing toofar and that members of Parliament are notput too far above the law. However, membersof Parliament and their staff do require certainprotection, according to a set of specificguidelines, from legal responsibility in thecourse of doing their jobs. The Members'Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee, in its Issues Paper No. 3 of 1997,referred to this same issue. In referring to thecommunication between constituents, staffand members it states—

"There is a strong argument that thistype of correspondence should havesome qualified privilege."

Mr Neal, the member for Balonne, in aspeech delivered by Mr Lingard in this Houseon 18 June 1992, although referring toparliamentary privilege in general, sums it up inappropriate terms. He stated—

"The officers and staff of theParliament, and others on whom ... theprocessing of various papers and reportsdevolves, must be able to carry out thoseduties with total confidence in theknowledge that they will not incur civil orcriminal responsibility."

This Bill ensures that constituents andstaff of a member of the Legislative Assemblyare safe from defamation should they pass oninformation to the member or to the Minister. Itis clear that this Bill is necessary to ensure thatthose involved in the process of representingthe people are free to do their job without thethreat of legal action hanging over their heads.Without this Bill, the foundations upon whichParliament is established and the purposes formembers to be in this House are underminedseverely.

I can recall a matter coming to me in1998. The matter concerned a gentleman whowas not a constituent of mine but who felt thathe needed me to speak on his behalf becausehe felt he would not receive the same degreeof support from his local member. He handedme a great wad of documents—letters he had


written and information he had transcribed intobasically what was his story. What he had andwhat he had written were clearly defamatory.Although I felt in my heart of hearts that hewas doing this without malice, what he hadwritten was clearly defamatory.

I had to tell him that I could not pass onthat information because of the way it waswritten and that, until he came to be of aframe of mind such that he was not going towrite those things in a clearly outrageous anddefamatory manner, I could not actually takethose matters and forward them on to anyMinister for fear that the people he was talkingabout would actually sue him. He left ratherupset, but he has not been back to advocatefor and push the matters he came to me with.So one tends to think that what he was doingwas malicious, rather than trying to address alegitimate concern.

The Defamation Amendment Bill isnecessary to uphold the true reason for theexistence of politicians, that is, to represent thepeople. If we are not going to represent ourconstituents and we are not going to do ourjobs to the best of our ability—at times thatmeans trying to protect them fromthemselves—then we are not doing our jobsas true representatives. We will be supportingthe procedural motion but, clearly, we do needcertain—

Time expired.

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—CCAQ)(10.14 p.m.): I had intended to speak with a lotof pride in support of the DefamationAmendment Bill 1999. An amendment wasmoved and now there is a procedural motionbefore the House to send this Bill off to theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee—something I will support. I realisethe hard work committees do, and I suspectthat this committee will do the right thing withthis Bill—look at all aspects of it, look at itsimplications on the parliamentary process andensure that it does come back to the House inan approved and, if necessary, amended way.This is certainly a very important piece oflegislation. It is very important that we allowparliamentarians to do their jobs properly andsupport their constituents in the best way theycan. As I said, I was going to outline mysupport of the Bill, but now I will outline mysupport for this procedural motion to ensurethat this Bill is looked at in a proper and correctmanner.

It has taken a great deal of time for thisBill to reach this stage. It has had to overcomemany obstacles, including an investigation by

the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, whichwas very critical of some points in the Bill andwhich queried a number of aspects of it.Tonight I will discuss some of the points raisedby the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. I willdo that so that correct information can bepassed on to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee and sothat it will do the best it can to get this Bill right,I hope.

As many members of this House wouldknow, this Bill was drafted in response to aterrible incident which occurred during the timeof the Goss Labor Government. A womanwrote to the then Premier of Queensland, MrGoss, to complain about some matters inrelation to the construction of the Camirabypass. This lady criticised the Government,the Department of Transport and an individualpublic servant who made criticism of her. Theupshot was that she found herself the proudrecipient of a letter from a solicitor and asummons. That situation is the origin of thisBill.

By presenting this private member's Bill tothe House, City Country Alliance memberswere hoping to advance the cause of goodparliamentary representation for all ourconstituents. As I said, tonight I wish toaddress some of the concerns raised by theScrutiny of Legislation Committee and putthem on record so that members of theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee can take them into consideration inits deliberations on the Bill.

It is pleasing to see that the committee inits overall view has acknowledged that theclear intent of the Bill is to facilitatecommunication between constituents,members of Parliament and their staff. It rightlymakes the point that if parliamentary staff werenot included in the protection it would benecessary for the member to make publicmention of any potentially defamatory mattersin the House. Such public mention wouldobviously distribute the said material to a muchwider audience than would otherwise benecessary had this legislation been in place inthe first place to protect these people. AlertDigest No. 12 of 1999 at paragraph 1.7claims—

"There is already a defence of truthin Queensland's defamatory law (s.15,Defamation Act). Accordingly, in theory,this proposed legislation would onlyextend protection to those accusationsthat are false (though not malicious)."

In the way of all good lawyers, this commentappears to have been worded to confuse and


mislead rather than inform or clarify. Section15 of the Defamation Act 1889 states—

"It is lawful to publish defamatorymatter if the matter is true, and if it is forthe public benefit that the publicationcomplained of should be made."

The fact is that the principal Act allowstruth as a partial defence, as long as thereason for publishing the truth is also "for thepublic benefit". We have seen public benefittests used and abused for many years inrelation to the implementation of the flawedNational Competition Policy, among otherthings. To my knowledge, not once has one ofthese tests produced a very satisfactory result.It does not take much imagination at all to seehow much fun a courtroom full of QCs wouldhave with such a delightfully ambiguous littlephrase. What is "for the public benefit"? Is thepublication of the misdeeds of a public servantin relation to some aspect of his job for thepublic benefit? As you can see, Mr DeputySpeaker, the public benefit test is one whichwould keep a courtroom of hungry lawyers fedfor many, many months, while effectivelybankrupting almost any ordinary citizen whowas unlucky enough to have been fed into theterrible jaws of our legal system as we know ittoday.

The obvious effect of the public benefitrider on the defence of truth in section 15 is toallow the law and the fear of financial ruin tosilence all but the bravest or the richest. This isprecisely one of the reasons we have putforward this legislation which is proposed to bereferred to the committee. The reason is thatthis can be used to ward off people if theydare to say anything that can be used againstthem under these Acts. Under the current Act,as soon as someone makes even the slightestsuggestion that they may be intending topublish information relating to misconduct by apublic servant, they are slapped with adefamation action or at least the threat of adefamation action. The onus is then on theperson accused of publishing the defamatorymaterial to firstly prove that the material is infact the truth, which in itself can be a verydifficult task, and then to prove that itspublication is or was in the public interest.

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, manypeople come into our electorate offices fromthe street with complaints about publicservants and different departments and theGovernment. Some of the things they saycould certainly be construed as defamatory. Ibelieve that as a member of the public theyhave a right to air their grievances. However,the vast majority of Queenslanders are not

financially able to defend defamatory suits thatmay be brought against them, even if they areright in what they have said. Furthermore, theyare rightly frightened of becoming entwined inthis State's legal system. The legal systemsimply frightens a lot of people.

The sad truth in fact is that for theaverage Queenslander there is no effectivedefence against a defamation action. TheAlert Digest continues at 1.7—

"Accordingly, in theory, this proposedlegislation would only extend protection tothose accusations that are false (thoughnot malicious). In practice the protection iswider as it also protects those who arereasonably confident of the truth of theirallegations but do not have the resourcesor stamina to defend those allegations incourt."

We disagree with the committee'sinterpretation of the situation that currentlyexists. The defence of truth is inadequate inthe situation we are addressing tonight. Themere reference to "defence" implies that it canonly be invoked after one has been sued.

If this Bill is passed—and we hopecertainly in the future that it will be—it willbecome lawful to publish defamatory matterunder certain circumstances. Then, whensomething is lawful, one cannot be sued fordoing that thing, as the Parliament has madeit lawful and there can be no argument to thecontrary in court. The committee appears tohave completely missed or ignored the pointthat truth in isolation is not a defence, and alsothat the difficulty of proving that a statement isin fact true is in many cases virtuallyimpossible, even when it is almost self-evidently true. It is a very difficult situation.

The Bill seeks to reverse the onus of proofin this situation so that a person cannot sueanother for defamation without being able toput up a prima facie case in the first instance.The complainant must allege malice and mustestablish a prima facie case before a court willentertain any further action. In other words, theperson accused of acting with malice will nothave to spend money they probably do nothave until such time as a prima facie case isestablished. The complainant has to provemalice while the defendant only has to rebutthe arguments put forward. It is important thatthe defendant is not fed into the jaws of thelegal mincing machine. It is also important thatthe person alleging malice has to put up first,thereby allowing the defendant to prepare itsrebuttal case.

Under the current legislation, where one issued for defamation, the accuser is not forced


to declare their arguments, and therefore thedefendant is unable to develop rebuttalarguments in advance. If it were consideredthat this new law might be open to someabuse by unscrupulous politicians, then itwould be appropriate for a body such as theparliamentary ethics committee to establishguidelines for its practical implementation. Thatis one of the reasons that we agree with thisBill being referred to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee, to beclosely scrutinised and, if necessary, anyamendments added to it.

A parliamentarian has two primaryfunctions. The first is to be a good legislator,making laws for the good governance of theelectorate. The second—and it is probably oneof the most important and time-consumingacts of a parliamentarian—is to act as a typeof ombudsman for the people they represent;in other words, working in the electorate. Theirrole in this capacity is not to be a judge or anadvocate, but they must take the concerns oftheir constituents to the appropriate Minister,hopefully for a solution.

The Alert Digest in 1.8 states—"To have sufficient regard to the

individual's rights to their reputationcurrently protected by the law ofdefamation, any curtailment of that rightshould be as clear, unambiguous andprecise as possible. Given the potentialcost of defending a defamation action,such clarity is also in the interests ofconstituents raising their concerns withtheir members. Wherever the balance isstruck, Parliament must be as precise aspossible so that, as far as possible,Parliament determines the balance ratherthan leaving it for the courts to determineafter extensive litigation."

It goes on to state—"Although no Bill can be so precise

as to eliminate the need for courts todetermine ambiguities, Parliament shouldnot leave any ambiguities that can beidentified before its passage. Whereindividual rights and liberties areconcerned, the Legislative Standards Act1992 imposes a positive duty on theParliament to identify and clarify suchambiguities."

In this section, the committee goes to greatlengths to point out that this and otherlegislation should be as clear, unambiguousand precise as possible. The trouble is that indoing so the committee makes the accusationby insinuation that this Bill is unclear,ambiguous and imprecise but then fails to

identify any evidence or examples of any suchshortcomings in the Bill.

The search for clarity, precision and lackof ambiguity is one of the reasons we areproposing this amendment to the Act. We arevery conscious that the threat of financial ruinholds back many people who may otherwisebe able to provide valuable information to theParliament through its members. In otherwords, they are scared of litigation, and thishas been used on many occasions againstthem.

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committeemakes much of the supposed ambiguities inthe Bill, but once again it has failed to identifythem. According to the committee, theLegislative Standards Act 1992 imposes apositive duty on the Parliament—and, byextension, committees of the Parliament—toidentify and clarify ambiguities. Unfortunately,in this case we believe the committee hasfailed to do so. We believe that this Bill is notambiguous, and now it will be up to theMembers' Ethics and Parliamentary PrivilegesCommittee to look at it and concludeotherwise, if possible, or amend the Bill. Infact, we believe that this Bill will introduce apreviously unheard of certainty to at least onepart of what is an ancient and outdatedprincipal Act.

It is the role of Parliament to state the lawand thereby determine what is lawful. The roleof the courts is to determine if malice exists inthe material in question. Paragraph 1.10 of theAlert Digest refers to clause 3 of the Bill andstates that the proposed new section 15A—

"Would precede the other, existingprovisions for qualified privilege containedin the Principal Act. The problem is thatthese sections use different terminology.To attract existing forms of qualifiedprivilege, publication must be made 'ingood faith'."

This section appears to argue that this wouldprecede the other existing provisions forqualified privilege contained in the principalAct. The problem is that these sections usedifferent terminology. The fact is that theproposed new section 15A, which wouldprecede existing provisions in the Act, hasabsolutely no relevance to the debate heretonight and the reason for this Bill that we weregoing to bring before the House. We are nowtalking about the procedural motion to refer iton to the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee.

One very simple principle that appears tobe escaping the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee is that, according to the Acts


Interpretation Act of 1954, Part 3 section 10states that—

"Every section of an Act has effect asa substantive enactment withoutintroductory words."

In other words, the proposed section 15A is apiece of legislation in its own right and can andmust be able to stand alone. Therefore, itdoes not matter what precedes it. Eachsection of an Act must be capable of standingalone. It also does not matter that differentterms are used in different parts of the Act. Inplain English, that means that the Bill that wewere going to debate tonight could have beenintroduced as an Act in its own right.

It was only introduced as an amendmentto the existing Act for simplicity. There is noneed for mental gymnastics to understand thisBill. Perhaps the preponderance of legaleagles on the committee has had an undueinfluence on its collective clarity of thinking.

The Alert Digest in paragraph 1.11questions the meaning of "without malice" andwhether or not it is intended to have the samemeaning as "in good faith". It seems evidentto me that if it were meant to have the samemeaning, then the same words would havebeen used. As they were not, it is safe toassume that a different meaning wasintended.

The meaning of the words "withoutmalice" appears to be abundantly clearlydefined both in common law and in theAustralian Oxford Dictionary. "Malice" isdefined as "the intention to do evil or a desireto tease, especially cruelly", or "wrongfulintention" and "without" is defined as "withfreedom from".

Members of Queensland's LegislativeAssembly, their staff and constituents must befree from the fear of litigation or they cannotoperate effectively which, in turn, paralysesParliament and public affairs. The committee,by its own acknowledgment, accepts that theterm "malice" is not a new concept to the lawin general or to the defamation law inparticular. Why then does the committee seemto have so much trouble coming to grips withthe meaning of the word or the use of theword in either common law or statute lawtests? Perhaps it is a sign of a poor, simpleand uneducated mind that has not beenscrambled by years of legal training. It seemsto me that the meaning of the word "malice" ispretty clear and it should not take hundreds ofcourtroom hours to sort it out.

In paragraph 1.14 the committeeconsiders that the proposed section 15A isinsufficiently clear, precise and unambiguous

and that it is not clear what precise meaningshould be given to the term "without malice"and how it would relate to other tests in the Actand in other law. This is legal gobbledegook atits worst. The meaning is clear. It is, as I havesaid before, not a new concept in law andtherefore our legal system must surely be ableto deal with it. The answer to the committee'squestion is that the Bill departs from the goodfaith test because using the good faith testallows a person to be silenced—

Time expired.

Mr TURNER (Thuringowa—IND)(10.34 p.m.): I rise to support the DefamationAmendment Bill 1999 put forward by themember for Ipswich West. As members ofParliament, we are regularly placed insituations that this Bill, if passed, wouldaddress.

When a constituent comes to a member'selectorate office or advises in writing of aconcern that they need help with, then thesituation could arise where information ispassed to members' staff and then passed onto various departments for comment oraddress.

I must confess that it had not occurred tome that our staff and constituents could face adefamation claim in certain circumstances. Ibelieve that protection laws against suchdefamation claims should be put in place inthe interests of staff, constituents and justice.

I support the amendment put forward bythe member for Logan. However, I would liketo have seen a time frame put in place forreport back to Parliament by the committee.

Mr NELSON (Tablelands—IND)(10.35 p.m.): I rise to speak to the motion thatis before the House. I do support the idea ofsending it to the Legal, Constitutional andAdministrative Review Committee. I would liketo assure the members on this side of theHouse that the committee will deal with it in amost expedient manner. I hope that it willcertainly come to a conclusion that will bebeneficial both for the House and for theconstituents who have a need to air theirgrievances with members on all sides of theHouse. That is the issue at the heart of thematter.

As has been said—and I suppose I willrehash the issue—as members of Parliamentwe do sometimes deal with issues that arequite contentious. I daresay that most of ourwork and the correspondence that we receivefrom our constituents is at times contentiousand in a fair few cases the issues that areraised in letters to us could very easily belibellous. People write to us because they want


to get something done about a matter thathas been raised. When people write to theirmember of Parliament, I think that very few ofthem would believe that they may be put in asituation where they could be taken before acourt because of what they have said in aletter or even what they have said on tape orin person in an interview with their localmember of Parliament.

I suppose it is a very interesting point oflaw. I am not a lawyer, but it is a veryinteresting case that we have in society now. Itis very unfortunate that we live in a society thathas gone down the path of litigation and lawsuits at every turn. All that does is feed Laborlawyers and people in the legal profession—people who sometimes do not need feedingbecause they look as though they have morethan enough food under their belts.

A Government Member: Sharks.

Mr NELSON: Not that I can talk. Sharks,sharks!

Mr Lucas: Obviously not referring to me.

Mr NELSON: I could not possibly refer tothe member for Lytton. My question thismorning goes to show—and there will be moreon that subject—that, though there are manyvery good people in the legal profession andmany of them are represented in thisParliament, there are many people in the legalprofession who can be considered less thanethical in the manner in which they do theirbusiness.

Mr Lucas: It's no different from any otherprofession.

Mr NELSON: No different from any otherorganisation or any other employment in theworld, but we must admit that lawyers are oneof the most maligned groups of professionalsin the world and, as some former servingpolice officers might say, deservedly so. Thefact of the matter remains: we do live in asociety that has gone down the path oflitigation and sometimes very vexatious claimsare made.

Another very valid point that should bemade is that Australians are known for theirsense of humour and are known for beingstraightforward and coming to the point. Welive in a society where that has been thenormal thing for people to do, butunfortunately with the advent of litigation andpeople being able to sue for defamation, it canquite often be a dangerous character trait forsome people to have. If they go around tellingthe truth, they can find themselves in a fair bitof trouble. We live in a society where someone

could end up getting into a fair bit of trouble fordescribing something the way it is.

To me, this is a sad indictment on society.It is very much a part of the Americanisation ofour Australian culture where we see peoplebeing taken to court for very trivial things. I donot want to see a situation arising where wehave such things as Judge Judy on television.I do not want to reach the stage where wehave personal claims that are so outrageousthat they become the subject of TV shows.

Society needs to be protected from thisrampant use of the defamation laws. Everyonewould agree that a person has legitimatecause for complaint if he is maligned in public,particularly if he is maligned to the extent thatit is going to affect his livelihood or his income.It is especially a problem if the claims are nottrue. A citizen should be afforded the right todefend himself.

This raises the interesting point ofparliamentary privilege. I know that during mytime on the committee this was a matter thatwas raised on many occasions. Parliamentaryprivilege is afforded to parliamentarians toguarantee that we have the right of freedom ofspeech. That is something that is fundamentalto a democracy. It guarantees the Australianpeople the freedom that I believe theysometimes take for granted. As members ofParliament, we are afforded this protection inorder to allow us to do our job. It enables us toraise issues, whether or not we agree with theissues and whether or not they are palatableto us. We are able to raise those issues in thepublic arena.

On a few occasions I have received letterswhich I thought should be taken further.However, I thought that if the letters werepassed on to the relevant authorities therecould be ramifications. People could takeoffence at what was written in those letters andcould use the letters as a political tool againstthe writers of the letters.

This raises another issue which I think isvery important. I am referring to peopleworking for Government departments whowant to raise issues. In my electorate I havemany Government employees who come andtalk to me personally and pass on reallywonderful little juicy tidbits that I use when Icome down here and work my magic. Ofcourse, we have the whistleblowers legislationand such things if the matter gets out of hand.

However, there are cases where peoplemake claims in letters against their employers.If such a letter was to be made public andcirculated throughout the relevant Governmentdepartment there could be ramifications.


Regardless of which side of the Chamber weoccupy, these issues are of genuine concernto all honourable members. They genuinelyaffect the way we do our work.

I wish to return to the subject of freedomof speech. Freedom of speech guarantees usthe right to come into this Chamber, regardlessof our political persuasion, and air views thatwe feel are important in our electorates.Members of Parliament are protected fromlitigation that may arise from the valid airing ofa grievance on behalf of a constituent.

Mr Feldman interjected. Mr NELSON: The name "coward's castle"

is quite a nasty term. I do not think it is veryfair. I believe that anyone who comes into thisChamber is far from a coward. To put one'sname on a ballot paper and run for election issomething that not many people in societywould do. I think that anyone who comes intothis Chamber, regardless of his or her politicalpersuasion, has had a bit of guts at least toput his or her name on a ballot paper andhave a go. It is too easy for people in oursociety to sit down and malign politicalrepresentatives. I used to do that quite a bit.However, I have now discovered that it is notall beer and skittles. It can be a very hard job. Ihave maligned a few members of Parliamentin the past. I look back now and think that theywere probably not so bad; it was probably justmy opinion.

We are afforded protection underparliamentary privilege. This allows us to air thegrievances of our constituents. However, let ussay that a Minister raised an issue in thisHouse in a ministerial statement and healluded to the fact that he had received certainletters or documents. Say, for example, acitizen thought, "Wait a minute, one of thosedocuments mentions my name. I am prettysure that Joe Bloggs wrote a letter to theMinister." That person can obtain thatdocument under freedom of informationlegislation. I do not know quite how Cabinetconfidentiality works—perhaps the actingAttorney-General could pick me up onthat—but that person could then use that letterto launch litigation against the person whowrote the letter. Therein lies the heart of theproblem.

We have a situation where a person hasraised a legitimate concern with his localmember of Parliament. The local member ofParliament has then done his job—

Mr Feldman: All in good faith.

Mr NELSON: All in good faith, as amember of Parliament. The member believesthat he has done the right thing by raising the

issue. Suddenly, this guy finds himself beingdragged before a civil court under theDefamation Act and having to fork outwhatever amount of damages is set by thecourt.

Regardless of how one looks at thesituation, that is wrong. As far as I amconcerned, it stifles freedom of speech in a defacto manner. It also stifles the ability of amember of Parliament to work with hisconstituents and raise issues that areimportant to him and to the area that herepresents. As I read it, that is the heart of theBill that is before the House.

I believe it is a very good idea to take thisBill to the Members' Ethics and ParliamentaryPrivileges Committee because the committeewill be able to look at the Bill. Quite often whenBills are brought before the Parliament theyneed amendment. Lately, we have seen a lotof Bills being amended in the House. A lot ofwork needs to be done on Bills to ensure thatthey are correct when they come before theHouse.

It is my hope that this Bill will go to thecommittee and that the committee, in itsinfinite wisdom, will look at the Bill and makethe necessary changes promptly andefficiently. The all-powerful Members' Ethicsand Parliamentary Privileges Committee is theheight of efficiency when it comes tocommittees of the House. It would beimpossible for the committee to do anythingbut expedite its work on this Bill.

Mr Feldman interjected.

Mr NELSON: I am not trying to curryfavour any more, or anything like that. I believethat the committee will do the best thing by theBill and will do it expediently. If one looks atthe notice paper, it is evident that thecommittee does not have too much on itsplate at the moment. I think the committee islooking for work now that the Olympics areover. I believe this Bill will be a good thing forthe committee to consider. I am pleased tosee that the committee will take this Bill intoconsideration. It will be an opportunity to havea matter of great importance addressed in anappropriate manner.

Mr PAFF (Ipswich West—CCAQ)(10.48 p.m.), in reply: The procedural motionmoved by the member for Logan andseconded by the member for Caloundra is anindication that this is a good piece oflegislation. We are encouraged by thisbipartisan show of support for at least someelements of our Bill, but we have concerns thatreferral to the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee will delay

3844 Adjournment 18 Oct 2000

the implementation of this much-neededlegislation.

This Bill seeks to amend the DefamationAct of 1889 and to extend the protection fromdefamation beyond the House to also coverconstituents and staff members of theLegislative Assembly. The current DefamationAct does not cover the circumstance of aconstituent making an inquiry to a member orhis staff and the transfer of that informationfrom a member to a Minister, the Premier orthe department involved. The constituent, ifmaking any defamatory claims, can be heldliable for defamation by the person referred toin the complaint. A staff member who passedon the complaint would similarly be vulnerable.For example, a woman who had written to thePremier in good faith to ask for help, ratherthan receiving a letter of response from thePremier, received a letter from a solicitor andthen a summons.

A member's job is to follow through withconstituents' complaints or concerns. If theirjob is impeded by the threat to a constituent orto their staff members for relaying theirconcern to the relevant Minister, the system isrendered useless. Often members are facedwith complaints or concerns that referspecifically to another person. During thecourse of his job it is necessary for him toforward these concerns to the appropriatepeople and seek some form of explanation orredress. The failure of the Defamation Act toprotect the constituent, the member's staff orthe member is a serious issue that requirescorrection, and this Bill achieves thatcorrection.

Mr Deputy Speaker, this Bill is very self-explanatory, but you will see that we haveattempted to cover the process from theconstituent through to the Minister. This Billensures that constituents and staff of amember of the Legislative Assembly are safefrom defamation should they pass oninformation to the member or to the Minister. Itis clear that this Bill is necessary to ensure thatthose involved in the process of representingthe people are free to do their job without thethreat of legal action over their head. Withoutthis Bill the foundations upon which Parliamentis established and the purpose for membersbeing in this House is severely undermined.The Defamation Amendment Bill is necessaryto uphold the true reason for the existence ofpoliticians—representation of the people.

I note the comments by the member forLogan, who has suggested that the Bill wouldreceive express consideration by thecommittee. I note also the assurance by the

member for Caloundra, who is also a memberof that committee, that the Bill would not beunduly delayed. I accept those assurances butstill have concerns about any delay. Until thislegislation is in place, there remains theopportunity for any corrupt person in publicoffice to continue their corrupt activities withimmunity, confident in the knowledge that adefamation writ will effectively silence anyonewho attempts to expose corruption. If a furtherdelay in the implementation of thisamendment is responsible for the continuanceof just one act of corruption or, alternatively, ifjust one public-spirited citizen suffers a maulingin the legal system simply by trying to do whathe sees as his public duty and moralobligation, the cost caused by any delay is toohigh a price to pay.

This Bill is long overdue. The incidentwhich prompted this legislation occurred in1995, that is, five years ago almost to the day.And still this Parliament has not taken action tocorrect the situation. In August last year Ipresented this Bill to the House. It has taken15 months to arrive at the position it is intonight. And now we are looking down thebarrel of another extensive delay if this Bill isreferred to a committee. It is vital that this Billbecomes legislation as soon as possible, and Iurge all members of the Members' Ethics andParliamentary Privileges Committee to honourtheir promise to expedite the process. TheDefamation Amendment Bill is necessary touphold the true reason for the existence ofpoliticians. I commend this Bill to the House.

Amendment agreed to. Motion, as amended, agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth—ALP) (Leader of the House) (10.54 p.m.): Imove—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Police Resources, Noosa ElectorateMr DAVIDSON (Noosa—LP) (10.54 p.m.):

I rise in the Adjournment debate to raise theissue of police numbers in the Noosaelectorate. There are four police stations in myelectorate—Coolum, Noosa Heads, Eumundiand Cooroy. The assigned strength of policeofficers at these police stations is as follows:Noosa Heads, 26; Coolum, seven; Eumundi,two; and Cooroy, four. The Noosa HeadsPolice Station has had an assigned strength of26 officers for the past decade. There havebeen improvements in the police numbers at

18 Oct 2000 Adjournment 3845

Coolum, Eumundi and Cooroy, albeit thatthese increases have been only marginal.

When one looks at the total number ofpolice officers serving in the Noosa electorateand surrounding areas, one sees that thepolice officer to population ratio is well over1,000 people to every police officer. Whenconsideration is given to the Sunshine Coastas a whole, the Minister's own figures,released only last week, suggest that there isone police officer to every 760 residents. Thatis one police officer to every 760 residents onthe Sunshine Coast.

When one makes a comparison withother regions—and I will use the Gold Coastand Cairns as examples, because theSunshine Coast, Gold Coast and Cairns aresimilar in that they are all major tourismdestinations—we see that the Gold Coast hasone police officer to every 602 residents andCairns has one police officer to every 443residents. When one compares thesefigures—the Gold Coast, with one police officerto every 602 residents; Cairns, with one policeofficer to every 443 residents; and theSunshine Coast, with one police officer toevery 760 residents—one can conclude onlythat the Sunshine Coast has been neglectedin relation to the assignment of police officersin the State of Queensland. The SunshineCoast has been neglected.

In relation to the Noosa electorate, as Isaid before, under the current assignment ofpolice officers to my electorate we have apolice officer to resident ratio of one policeofficer to every thousand residents. I canhighlight the issue further by advising theHouse of the fact that Gympie, which borderson the Noosa electorate, has a police officer toresident ratio of one police officer to every 526residents. I will also highlight the policenumbers in the Minister's own police region,where the ratio is one police officer to every652 residents. Noosa has one police officer toevery 760 residents, yet the Minister'selectorate has one police officer to every 652residents.

I have no doubt that the Sunshine Coastis being both neglected and ignored in theallocation of police officers in this State, and Iurge the Minister for Police and CorrectiveServices to raise this issue with theQueensland Police Service and thatconsideration be given to an overhaul of thepolice staffing model to ensure that theSunshine Coast and the Noosa electorate aretreated fairly in relation to the allocation ofpolice officers in this State.

Every Queenslander has an expectationthat the security of their lifestyle will beprotected. Every Queenslander has anexpectation that, when they need the PoliceService in an emergency situation, their call willbe answered. Queenslanders pay taxes andcharges with an expectation that this servicewill be delivered by the Government. Therehas been much rhetoric from both sides of thisHouse on the funding for the QueenslandPolice Service and the number of policeofficers graduating from our police academies.I acknowledge the enormous advances by mycolleague Russell Cooper on this issue in histime as Police Minister in this State throughensuring, when we were in Government, thatthere was a plan for the future of the PoliceService and a commitment to providingincreased police numbers over a 10-yearperiod.

I acknowledge the commitment of policeofficers in my electorate to providing the bestpossible service they can with the limitedofficer power and resources they haveavailable to them. Their partnerships withcommunity groups and organisations are wellrecognised and respected. It is not theircommitment to their work that has ever beenquestioned but the lack of a sufficient numberof police officers to service the needs of ourcommunity.

Recently, the 000 number was dialled bya mother of a son who had been assaulted atNoosa Heads. That 000 number rang outtwice. I have written to the Minister asking himto investigate why the women's call to the 000number was not answered when sheattempted to alert the Police Service and otheremergency services to the life-threateningsituation her son was in.

Time expired.

Redlynch State School

Dr CLARK (Barron River—ALP)(10.59 p.m.): This morning I lodged a petitionfrom 311 parents who are seeking support forthe construction of additional facilities at theRedlynch State School, in particular a secondpreschool unit. This school is located in theheart of the rapidly growing Freshwater Valleycommunity which will become part of theBarron River electorate after the next electionfollowing changes to electoral boundaries. Theprovision of adequate facilities at the RedlynchState School to cope with rapid growth is themost significant State issue in this communityand my highest priority.


To illustrate the problem, I will quote fromthe petition prepared by the Redlynch P & CAssociation. It states—

"The Petition of citizens ofQueensland would like to draw to theattention of the House the over crowdingproblems the Redlynch State School ishaving with its Pre-school, Library andAdministration Block. We are a growingschool that has gone from 250 studentsto over 600 in five years. To date thesefacilities have not kept up with the growthof the rest of the school. We haveprioritised the need for these facilities tobe upgraded and decided the Pre-schoolwith its waiting list of over 120 students forthe year 2001 is the most important.Currently our Pre-school only takes 50students. We are very concerned thatstudents will miss out on pre-school alltogether because of the lack of placesavailable."

Whilst the priorities of the parents are clear, itshould not be thought that the Governmenthas ignored the needs of this growing school.Just last month I attended the official openingof another new teaching block, comprising fourclassrooms, which follows the construction ofsix classrooms in blocks E and F just last year.Funding has also been approved for anadditional undercover area and toilets forsenior students, which should be completedthis year or early next year.

The growth of the Freshwater Valleycommunity as evidenced by the increasedenrolments at Redlynch State School hasresulted in the need to plan for secondaryschooling on land that has been set aside fora high school adjacent to the primary school.Community consultation has begun withrespect to the preferred model, and it appearsat this early stage that there is support for anintegrated campus, with a middle school atRedlynch and Years 11 and 12 to becompleted at one of the existing high schools.

Whilst there is a recognised need foradditional administration and library space inthe primary school, the location and size ofthese facilities should reflect the finaloutcomes of the master planning process thatis under way. However, it is critical that theplanning phase be completed in time forprovision to be made in the 2001-02 Budget ifadditional facilities are to be ready in time forthe 2002 academic year. I am pleased to learnthat Education Queensland will appoint asenior person to coordinate the preparation ofthe master plan.

Whilst broad consultation is verynecessary in planning for secondary educationfacilities and curriculum, the voice of thecommunity is clear with respect to the need foranother preschool unit. The present waiting listof 128 children means that, even if a secondunit is built to accommodate a total of 100children, there will still be parents who will needto make alternative arrangements if they wishtheir children to benefit from preschooleducation. Local alternatives do exist in theCatholic system, and a State preschool islocated some distance away. However, theseoptions are not acceptable to parents who liveat Redlynch and who want their children toattend that State primary school. As Redlynchparent Sue Fincham, who has already had toutilise other preschool facilities, said in a recentCairns Post article—

"This huge upheaval of having tostart from scratch, settling in and makingnew friends is not fair to small children."

Clearly parents understand, as do teachers,that it is far preferable for children to movefrom preschool to Year 1 within the sameschool, with the least possible disruption totheir education. Apparently, the reason that itwas not possible to build a second preschoolunit for the beginning of next year is that thereare even longer waiting lists elsewhere andbudget funds were directed to those areas.However, I have sought the support of MinisterDean Wells to provide funds in next year'sbudget so that the second preschool unit canbe built and opened in January 2002.

Unfortunately, the only hope for parentson the waiting list for 2001 is if the school isprepared to convert the music room to atemporary preschool classroom, but even thenstaffing cannot be guaranteed at this stage.The waiting list at Redlynch and elsewheredemonstrates very clearly that it is time thatpreschool became part of compulsoryeducation, as is the case in other States andas was recommended in the EducationQueensland strategic planning document2010: The Next Decade released earlier thisyear.

In conclusion, I commend the P & CPresident, Danielle Bowthorpe, for hercommitment to and leadership of the currentcampaign on the part of the Redlynch parents.May I reassure the entire school communitythat I will continue to advocate on their behalfuntil we achieve our goal of providing a qualityeducation in the best possible facilities for allthe Redlynch children who need it.


Police Resources, Mooloolah Electorate

Mr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP)(11.03 p.m.): I rise yet again to join mycolleague the member for Noosa in bringing tothe attention of the House, and in particularthe Minister for Police, the situation regardingpolice numbers and certain law and orderproblems on the Sunshine Coast. It certainly isnot the first time and it certainly will not be thelast that I bring this concern to this place. Iknow it is easy to beat the drum on law andorder issues to seek public support, but let meassure honourable members that we do havewhat appear to be unique problems on theSunshine Coast.

The first is that we are particularlydisadvantaged by the current police staffingallocation model. Let me say at the outset thatan objective mechanism to allocate police soas to avoid the log rolling in politics is essential.But the question is: how objective is thecurrent model? How objective is to it allocate40% of the staff in relation to the givens, suchas existing police stations, which for historicalreasons might not have been allocatedobjectively historically? In addition, thedemographics might have altered sodramatically that the givens no longerrepresent an objective measure of policingrequirements. By that, I mean that if it isdesirable to have an objective staffing model,then should it not apply across-the-board froma zero base? I think so.

Having established that, how objective isthe current model? The weightings forpopulation would seem to be reasonable andone can see the reasoning behind weightingsfor the various levels of offences recorded. Iwould, however, suggest that the weightingsfor DVAs are probably not adequate due tothe time consumed in this activity. But if thepopulation and crimes are accounted for, whyadd another layer for youth, ATSI, tourists andurban populations? If these considerations dohave an effect on crime, would this notbecome apparent in the crime figuresthemselves?

I do not profess to know the answers tothese questions, but what I do know and whatmy Sunshine Coast colleagues know and whatSunshine Coast residents are realising is this:for some reason the north coast region andthe Sunshine Coast district in particular aremissing out on their fair share of the State'spolice resources. It is no use the Ministerchecking the statistics and claiming that wehave our entitlement; that is wrong. We haveour entitlement only according to the model,which is flawed. In fairness to the system, I will

firstly address regions as a whole rather thanthe smaller districts.

Why should the model come up with suchwidely different police to population ratios inour coastal regions of 1 to 402 in the NorthernRegion and 1 to 705 on the north coast?Looking at it another way, if the model wasconsistent, one would expect the regions tobenefit equally over time as extra policeofficers became available, as their input shouldnot vary too much over, say, two years. Sowhat has been the case? From June 1998 toSeptember this year police to population ratioshave improved by 5% across the State. Agood allocation model would have spreadthose officers fairly across the regions. Did it?No. The increase ranged from 3% inMetropolitan South to 13% in the NorthernRegion.

One would hope that districts, too, wouldhave followed the general pattern. Not so! InJune 1998 the Logan District in the PoliceMinister's backyard had exactly the samepolice to population ratio as the SunshineCoast at 1 to 766. If the model was consistent,the two districts should have benefited equally.Did they? No! The Sunshine Coast, probablythe most stressed district in Queensland,improved 0.8% over the two years, whileLogan jumped a massive 15%. Good luck forLogan; tough luck for us!

It is not the statistics that grate on me; it isthe fact that, despite the great work of theofficers posted to our region and the SunshineCoast in particular, we do not have thenumbers on the ground over a protractedperiod to address the problems in various partsof the Sunshine Coast caused particularly byhoons, many of whom are visiting from otherareas. Their numbers are not even taken intoaccount in the staffing model. I call on theMinister to address the issues that I haveraised here tonight. I raise them in fairness tothe Sunshine Coast residents.

Community Consultation Conference,Townsville

Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP)(11.08 p.m.): Tonight I would like to commendthe recent community consultation conferenceheld in Townsville entitled Making it Work,which of course you, Madam Deputy Speaker,and I attended. This was a wonderful exampleof organisations willing to come together inorder to achieve laudable outcomes. Inkeeping with the concept of consultation as aprocess of building partnerships, five verydiverse organisations representing community,Government and industry sectors chose to


host the conference as a collaborativeendeavour. The organisations involved in thisconference were, first of all, the NorthQueensland Conservation Council, the peakconservation body for north Queensland. TheNQCC has been representing the communityfor 25 years in actively protecting andpromoting the natural environment.

The idea for the conference wasgenerated from discussions between me andthe NQCC. The second organisation wasHoneycombes Property Group, a Townsville-based company offering all facets of propertyservice. The Honeycombe family, which wasoriginally from Charters Towers, moved to thecoast in 1913 and has been building anddeveloping residential property since 1994.The third group was the Stanwell CorporationLtd, the Queensland-based utility company.Stanwell has a commitment to becomingAustralia's foremost provider ofenvironmentally responsible energy solutionssuch as the new wind farm recently developedin Ravenshoe in north Queensland. The fourthgroup was the Environmental ProtectionAgency, our Government's dedicatedenvironmental arm. The EPA has as its goal tosecure Queensland's role as a leader inenvironmental protection and conservationmanagement and is committed to buildingpartnerships with the community and industry.The fifth group was Queensland NickelIndustries, which has an international standardrefinery located at Yabulu north of Townsville.QNI is a major producer of nickel and cobalt,with operations and products reaching aroundthe globe.

From the outset, the conferenceacknowledged the integral role of indigenouspeople in the community partnership process.Members of the Southern Great Barrier ReefSea Forum Working Group, Bob Muir, HansPearson and Shirley Johnson provideddelegates with an Aboriginal view on seacountry and consultation. Sea Forum is acommunity alliance of traditional owner groupsfrom the southern Great Barrier Reef locatedbetween Cooktown and Hervey Bay. SeaForum is working towards achieving thetraditional owners' aspirations for themanagement of the southern Great BarrierReef area. Sea Forum is made up of and runby the traditional owners with support fromQueensland ATSIC and CSIRO.

Making it Work brought together nearly200 Government, industry, indigenous andcommunity group delegates. There were thosewho consult and those who are consulted. Theconference was both a practical look at howeffective consultation can benefit industry,

Government and community and anopportunity to explore major questions aboutthe social and political roles of consultation. Itaimed to examine existing approaches toconsultation and to develop more effectiveprotocols and models. A key speaker was DrWendy Sarkissian, who provided delegateswith a mind-expanding look at consultationand where it fits into our systems ofgovernance. Wendy is an Australian plannerspecialising in social planning and research,housing and community participation.

A highlight of the conference was a livelyand interactive plenary session which Ifacilitated. This session looked at Arnstein'sladder of participation and agreed thatpartnerships, delegated power and citizencontrol were degrees of citizen power thatshould be aimed for. To maximise theopportunity for collaboration and to draw onthe experience and expertise of delegates, aninnovative participatory process known asopen space technology was used. Openspace technology is an effective andproductive way of conducting meetings. It is apowerful tool for creating an environment forinnovation, problem solving, creativity,inclusiveness and rapid change. Attributes ofthis approach are self-managed work groups,sharing of leadership and seeing diversity as aresource. In fact, the greater the diversity ofstakeholders the better. So this process washighly successful with this varied group ofdelegates.

The process generated topics such asgetting industry and the local communityworking together, how to develop a goodcorporate relationship with one's community,communicating negative messages tounreceptive ears, compromise and the optionof saying no and incorporating intangiblevalues in the communication process. On thethird day, four workshops were held. Theseexamined communicating between cultures,facilitation skills and how to use the openspace technology process, and Governmentand community protocols and practical advicefor community participation approaches.

One of the major outcomes of the Makingit Work conference will be the production of acommunity policy and guidelines booklet foruse by Government and business. This will bean extremely valuable tool for communitiesand industries to achieve effective partnershipsin future consultations. I would like to publiclycongratulate all those involved in thisgroundbreaking concept of bringing togethersuch diverse groups in a true spirit ofcollaborative endeavour.


Forde Inquiry

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP)(11.13 p.m.): When it comes to services forchildren, this Government lacks goals andadequate focus for services. This is supportedby the report of September 2000 to theParliament by the Government's own FordeImplementation Monitoring Committee. Thereport comes after the Beattie LaborGovernment has been in office for more thantwo years and highlights the can't do attitudeof this Beattie Government. In more than twoyears, the Government has not even beenable to decide what it wants to achieve forQueensland's young people. Furthermore, theForde Implementation Monitoring Committeehas identified that the Government is deficientin the areas of data collection, performancemonitoring and complaints processing. In otherwords, not only has the Government failed toidentify what it should be doing, it cannot evenproduce figures to adequately show what it isproviding and the level of dissatisfaction in thecommunity with its services. Taken together,these two observations are an absoluteindictment of the Government. It sets up ahigh-profile inquiry at huge expense toQueensland taxpayers, receives therecommendations from the inquiry with greatfanfare, makes grandiose claims to implementall but one of these recommendations and infact is found out by the umpire to be doing nosuch thing.

Even in areas where there has beensome specific undertaking to act, the inabilityof this Government to get things done ispathetically evident. Surely the humiliation ofthis Government in respect of services toyoung people must be complete in the face ofthese findings. What it says is that, even inthose cases where the inquiry reported in suchdetail as to spell out what needed to be done,that is, where the objective of the proposedchange was identified for the Government, thisGovernment is not even capable of workingout a time frame for the needed reform. Itcannot so much as work out how long it willtake it to carry out a specified administrativetask. That is pathetic.

I do not intend to elaborate on thecommittee's continuing area of concern inrelation to recommendations 2 and 3. Sufficeto say that the bumbling ineptitude of theGovernment in having the tragic past of somepeople aired and relived during the inquiry andhaving their hopes and expectations raised bythe recommendations of the inquiry and thendashed by Government inaction is cause forshame on the part of those charged withresponsibility of implementing those

recommendations. We on this side of theHouse are not prepared to use the personaltragedies of Queenslanders for political gain,but the Minister and the Government know justwhat depth of personal distress some of thoseinvolved have gone through during and sincethat inquiry. This Government must takeresponsibility for what it has done and for whatit has failed to do in relation to those people.

I note further the committee's commentsin relation to the Government's failure inrelation to recommendation No. 26. The reportof this committee stands as part of themounting volume of evidence that this BeattieLabor Government is simply not up to the taskof Government in a modern democracy.

In one of the other key areas of socialpolicy, an equally stinging criticism waspublished earlier this year. The March 2000edition of the Journal of the Domestic ViolenceResource Centre Inc. carried an editorial thatwas a powerful rebuke of the Beattie LaborGovernment's failure to consult in any realisticway with stakeholders in the community. Weall know about the claims of consultation thatare trotted out with each piece of legislationwhenever it is convenient for Government tomake such claims. But how does the Ministeranswer the director's observation in thateditorial that—

"... this piece of reform has caught manyin the community and in the nongovernment (and government) sector onthe hop, and has chagrined at the lack ofnotice that this move was on the cards."

She goes on to make other criticisms relatingto the lack of identified resources tooperationalise this reform.

It is the same story over and over again.Loads of talk but no consultation. Plenty ofpromises but no funds to implement them.New services but no more people to providethose services. The editor drives home thepoint—

"... the issue of lack of resources lies onthe lap of the government and no-oneelse's. Let's not lose sight of whom weshould be holding accountable."

These are the reported and documented viewsof people who are far from being antagonistictowards a Labor Government, yet it is thesepeople who have looked objectively at theperformance of this Government and of thisMinister and have delivered these damningjudgments on the Beattie Government's failureto meet even the basic standards ofcompetence in the administration of theDepartment of Families, Youth andCommunity Care in Queensland. There are


reports and rhetoric, but one only has toscratch the surface to see that this is aGovernment that is chronically incompetent.The Beattie Labor Government can makeclaims and laugh off Government shortfallsand incompetence, but it is simply a can't doGovernment.

Mobile Telephones

Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (11.17 p.m.):Tonight I want to warn Queenslanders about agrowing problem in our community, that is, thehigh-pressure selling of mobile telephones topeople who do not need them, such as theelderly and infirm. There is no doubt thatmobile telephones have been a great boon toour society. They have revolutionised theability of small businesses to be in contact withtheir customers and of people who aretravelling to stay in contact. They have evenbeen useful for people trapped in strandedsituations to seek help. But they are not astatus symbol and are not a necessity,particularly for those in society such as theelderly and infirm who are probably retired fromthe work force and who might not do so muchdaily travel as others.

I am also very disturbed by the alarminggrowth in consumer debt that has plagued thiscountry in recent years. I understand that theproliferation of mobile phones is responsiblefor a significant aspect of this debt. Theproblem is that, unlike with the purchase of aconsumer good such as a television or arefrigerator or even groceries, mobiletelephone users do not know how much theyare running up in phone calls until they get thebill much later. Moreover, calls to other mobilephones or at peak times attract higherfees—not the flat rate that a telephone callfrom a public phone or home phone mightattract. It is against these dangers in the useof mobile phones that current unfair marketingtechniques of certain unscrupulous phonebrokers are shown up for what they are.

I refer to a 69 year old constituent ofmine, whom I will call Mrs D. Mrs D, who is in illhealth, lives by herself in a rented flat in myelectorate. Some time in July this year, Mrs Dreceived a telephone call at her home and wasadvised by the male caller that she had won amobile telephone. That is right: she was toldthat she had won a mobile phone. This wassurprising to Mrs D as, to the best of herknowledge, she had not entered anycompetition. In any case, she was gratified bythe good news that she had won what was toher an item of apparent value.

The male caller provided Mrs D with atelephone number for her to ring to find outmore about collecting the phone. After somedifficulty she got in contact with the people atthe end of the telephone number, who madean arrangement to come to her home anddeliver her "prize" to her. It was at this timethat she was then told she would have to paya $1 deposit fee on her "prize"—the monthlyphone fee of $39.

In late July a young man called to see herto deliver the phone. Just before I get ontothat part of the story, I should note that shortlybefore that a female person had called at MrsD's unit to take details of her electricityaccount, her Medicare number and herpassport number. They told her that this wasfor a credit check. I wonder whether she wouldstill have been given the mobile phone "prize"if she failed the credit check. I suspect not.

In any case, when the phone wasdelivered the young salesman asked Mrs D topay a dollar and he made out a receipt in thename of the marketing company. For reasonsI will talk about later, I will not identify thecompany at this stage, though I table a copyof the receipt dated 28 July 2000 from which Ihave deleted the name of my constituent andalso the name of the marketing company.

The problem with the phone was that itsuse was never properly explained to her and,indeed, its operation was totally userunfriendly. She could not connect the chargerto the telephone. I must admit that I tried to doit myself and found it extremely difficult.

Not long after collecting the phone andpaying $1, she received a letter from thetelephone broking company, which I woulddescribe as well known at a secondary levelthroughout Australia. I table this letter with thedetails of the company's actual identitydeleted. Honourable members should noticethat it refers to her "purchase" of her newphone.

Eventually Mrs D came to see me afterreceiving bills for $39 per month when she didnot use the phone at all. In fact, she did notknow her telephone number straight away. Iam reliably told that her so-called free prizewas far from free at all. The price of $39 permonth is significantly in excess of what shewould pay under free phone contract dealsadvertised widely in our community.

Mrs D did not enter a competition. Shedid not really win a phone. She did not knowshe was purchasing it. In my opinion, the onlyreason they got her to pay a $1 deposit wasthat they knew that in legal terms they requiredwhat is known as consideration to support a


binding contract so that they could force her topay the $39.

I wrote to the Minister for Fair Trading, theHonourable Judy Spence, MLA. I wasdelighted that the Minister referred the matterto the investigations branch of the Office ofFair Trading. The director of the marketingcompany advised the investigations branchthat they had a 10-day cooling off period. Ihave read the fine print of the contract and Icannot see it. Certainly Mrs D has not told meof this.

To the credit of the marketing company,however, they agreed to cancel the contractand the matter is therefore resolved from MrsD's point of view. But what worries me is howmany other people might be tempted to fall forthis trick. There is no such thing as a free lunchand there also appears to be no such thing asa free phone. If the law does not outlaw suchoutrageous bait tactics as advising pensionersand battlers that they have won "free" phonesthat are anything but free, then we shouldchange the law to make sure that it does.

I call on any members of the communitywho have been contacted by mobile phonemarketing companies to contact the Office ofFair Trading. I would also like to hear fromthem. If this procedure is repeated, I will bemore than happy to name the companiesinvolved and also the telephone brokingcompanies who make their profits out ofmarketing companies signing up people tosuch unfair contracts.

Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.

wednesday, 18 october 2000

Documents