wednesday, 30 april 1997 ministerial statement

30 Apr 1997 Ministerial Statement 1103

WEDNESDAY, 30 APRIL 1997

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. N. J. Turner, Nicklin)read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m.

PETITIONS

The Clerk announced the receipt of thefollowing petitions—

Prison, Wacol

From Mr Palaszczuk (2,516 petitioners)requesting the House to immediately stop theconstruction of any planned prisons at Wacoland ensure that the prisons are constructed inother more suitable localities, where theconstruction of such facilities will be welcomedby the community.

Pork, Labelling Laws

From Mr Healy (97 petitioners)requesting the House to introduce labellinglaws so the public is aware of what they areeating (local or imported pork); and/orintroducing a tariff that makes importedpigmeat the same price as locally producedpigmeat.

Parking Spaces, Thuringowa Drive

From Mr McElligott (1,308 petitioners)requesting the House to recommend to theMinister for Transport that he order the total orpartial restoration of parking spaces whichhave been eliminated as a result of recentimprovements to Thuringowa Drive.

Petitions received.

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on thetable—

(a) Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forthe Arts (Mrs Sheldon)—

Compulsory Third Party Premiums—1 July1997

(b) Attorney-General and Minister for Justice(Mr Beanland)—

Queensland Law Reform Commission—

Report No. 51—Consent to HealthCare of Young People.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTReview of Members' Interests

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (SurfersParadise—Premier) (9.33 a.m.), by leave: I risepursuant to the Parliamentary Committees Act1995 to give this House the Government'sresponse to the report of the Members' Ethicsand Parliamentary Privileges Committee on itsreview of members' interests. The Governmentwill not be adopting any of therecommendations of the report until theconsultation and detailed consideration thatthe Government wishes to give theseimportant matters has been completed in thenear future. I would expect this process to becompleted soon. It is the Government'sintention to involve the Opposition in thisprocess. I will inform the House of theoutcome of such consultation at that time.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Children's Commission, Submission toCommonwealth Standing Committee

Hon K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—Minister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: As honourablemembers are aware, the Children'sCommissioner and Children's ServicesAppeals Tribunals Act was agreed by theHouse on 22 November 1996. The Children'sCommission was established with theappointment of Mr Norman Alford asChildren's Commissioner on 19 December1996. The commission is now four months old.In that short time, I think it would be true tosay that the commission has already had asignificant impact. When members spoke tothe Children's Commissioner Bill, manyexpressed the desire that the Children'sCommission be pro-active as well as reactive. Iam pleased to advise members of such adevelopment.

The Children's Commission has, at shortnotice, made a submission to the inquiry beingconducted by the joint CommonwealthParliamentary Standing Committee onTreaties. The inquiry relates to Australia'simplementation of the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child. Theinquiry is taking place against the backgroundof considerable criticism of Australia's efforts inimplementing the convention. In this regard,Queensland's establishment of the Children'sCommission is widely acknowledged as apositive contribution.

The Children's Commissioner isindependent of Government. Consistent withthat independence, the submission to the

1104 Ministerial Statement 30 Apr 1997

inquiry notes that it "should not necessarily beconstrued as the views of the QueenslandGovernment or any department of thatGovernment". The submission warns of theneed to avoid the perception of a falsedichotomy between parents' rights andchildren's rights. The view is taken thatmembers of a family have mutual rights andresponsibilities. The submission suggests thatas Queensland is the only State with aChildren's Commissioner, it may well provide amodel for other States and theCommonwealth. The submission canvassesthe need for a change agenda and delineatesa range of issues which need to be addressedto implement the convention successfully. Thesubmission concludes with recommendationscentred on process, structural change andresearch considerations. As the submissionhas been under an embargo by the inquiryuntil yesterday, the Children's Commissionerhas today provided me with sufficient copies toenable distribution to all members.Accordingly, I table the submission formembers' information.

It is my intention to propose a committeeof Parliament consisting of Opposition andGovernment members. The Committee onChildren and Their Parents is to continue thisGovernment's pro-active approach tochildren's issues and continue our leading rolein this area. This committee would have amajor role in monitoring Queensland'scompliance with the United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child. It wouldalso liaise closely with the Children'sCommissioner to continue our State's progressin caring for children.


Australia/Indonesia Development AreaAgreement

Hon. D. J. SLACK (Burnett—Ministerfor Economic Development and Trade andMinister Assisting the Premier) (9.37 a.m.), byleave: I am pleased to inform the House ofsome exciting developments in Queensland'sfriendly and productive relations withIndonesia. I am pleased to announce thatQueensland will benefit from thisGovernment's promotion of business sectorinvolvement in economic developmentopportunities opening up in eastern Indonesia.Last week my senior international tradeexecutive represented Queensland at thelaunch of the Australia/IndonesiaDevelopment Area agreement in Ambon inIndonesia. Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister,Alexander Downer, and Indonesia's

Coordinating Minister for Foreign Affairs, DrHartarto, officially launched the agreement.Significantly, Dr Hartarto described theagreement as being equal to any signed byIndonesia and other regional nations. Both MrDowner and Dr Hartarto described it as anhistoric milestone in the bilateral relationshipbetween the two neighbours which will createreal benefits for the private sectors of bothcountries and enhance the regionaldevelopment of member areas.

Under the agreement, Queensland'sbusiness sector will benefit commercially aswell as from having a direct input intocommercial development strategies andcooperation in Indonesia's eastern provinces.AIDA, the Australian/Indonesia DevelopmentArea agreement, also provides Australian andQueensland business with a forum for raisingissues about constraints on doing business ineastern Indonesia and for devising solutions tothose constraints. To accomplish this, AIDAhas established working groups in agriculture,fisheries and animal husbandry, mining andenergy, tourism, transport, trade and industry,and education and training. To ensure thatQueensland's interests are represented, mysenior trade executive has been appointedQueensland's convenor on each of theseworking parties.

I am pleased to announce thatQueensland has been awarded chairmanshipof the very important education and trainingworking party. I am pleased to announce thename of the inaugural chairman of thatworking party. He is distinguished Professor ofEngineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor(Research and Advancement) at QueenslandUniversity of Technology, Professor JohnCorderoy. Professor Corderoy is also abarrister of the New South Wales SupremeCourt and a fellow of the Institution ofEngineers, Australia.

AIDA, under the education and trainingchairmanship of Dr Corderoy, offersQueensland and Australia significantopportunities in the area of education andtraining exports. Professor Corderoy is wellqualified in this area. Currently, he isresponsible for the international marketing ofQUT's courses and the recruitment ofoverseas students, especially from South EastAsia. The number of Indonesians studying inQueensland has increased from 310 to 1,364in five years—an increase of 440%. I expectstudent numbers to accelerate further aseconomic development in Indonesia deliversgreater prosperity and increased educationalopportunities to millions of young Indonesians.


Two hundred Queensland companies arecurrently commercially active in Indonesia. Iencourage Queensland's private sector toparticipate in AIDA and, by doing so, profit andcontribute to the economic development andstability of a near northern neighbour.


Queensland Tourist and TravelCorporation Board

Hon. B. W. DAVIDSON (Noosa—Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: Yesterdayafternoon, I announced six new appointmentsto the board of the Queensland Tourist andTravel Corporation. These six vacancies arethe result of recent amendments to the QTTCAct and the resignation of three existing boardmembers. As a result, there are now ninemembers of the QTTC board and thechairman. The new members are Mr Bob Blair,Mr Grant Kenny, Mr John Menzies, Mr DavidPradella, Mr Vic Trimble and Mr Kerry Watson.

While some of these names will befamiliar to members, I would like to give a briefdescription of each. Bob Blair is the director ofRockhampton's Dreamtime Cultural Centreand one of the most respected members ofQueensland's indigenous tourism industry. MrBlair is a former Regimental Sergeant Major ofthe Royal Queensland Regiment and hasmade significant contributions to the centralQueensland region both through tourism andother community services.

Grant Kenny is one of Australia's bestknown athletes, but he is building an almostequivalent reputation for his business acumenand commitment to growing the tourism andbusiness economy of the Sunshine Coastregion. I am delighted that Mr Kenny acceptedmy invitation to join the board as I know he willmake an invaluable contribution.

John Menzies is well known to all in thetourism industry as chief executive officer ofWarner Bros. Movie World, Seaworld, Wet 'N'Wild Water Park and Seaworld Nara Resort.He is a board member of the Gold CoastTourism Bureau and is, in fact, one of itsfounding members. Mr Menzies is widelyrespected as one of the most experiencedand knowledgeable people in the Australiantourism industry and his unique understandingof our State's major international markets willbe invaluable to the board.

David Pradella is the chief executive ofPradella Services Pty Ltd, Brisbane's longestrunning accommodation operator. ThePradella family name has been associated

with accommodation in Queensland since1956 and the company has proven itself to beperhaps the most innovative and consistentcompany of its type in the State.

Vic Trimble is the managing director ofAustralian Bareboat Charters, one ofAustralia's oldest and best-known bareboatcharter companies. His contribution to thegrowth of that sector of the Queenslandtourism industry has been significant and Ilook forward to him bringing this uniqueexperience to the board.

Kerry Watson is the managing director ofPacific Global Corporation Pty Ltd, anindependent tourism advisory and propertymanagement company on the Gold Coast. MrWatson is also well known as chairman of theJAL Gold Coast Marathon and has heldnumerous senior positions on a number ofState and national tourism bodies.

I would also like to take this opportunity tothank the three retiring members of the board:Mr Paul Morgan, Mr Gary Baildon and MrDavid Hutchen. When I appointed these menand their fellow members last year, I gavethem the unenviable task of straightening outthe mess which the previous Government hadleft of the QTTC. Not only have theysucceeded in turning the corporation around,but they have done so in a way which hasseen the staff of the corporation embrace thechange and emerge with a renewedcommitment to being the best in Australia.This has been no small task. In addition, theyhave overseen the development of the newbranding campaigns which we are all confidentwill see Queensland retain its position as theNo. 1 tourist destination in Australia.

I commend these new board members tothe House and am confident they will worksuperbly with chairman Frank Burnett andfellow board members Wendy Morris, RobynToohey and John Osborne.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTYoung Unemployed Job Training

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (9.44 a.m.),by leave: I am pleased to inform honourablemembers that the Department ofEnvironment, in conjunction with the FederalDepartment of Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs, has implemented a$1.83m program to provide short-term on-the-job training for young unemployed people.Funding of $1.5m is being provided by theDepartment of Environment and theremainder by the Commonwealth department,


which nominated the areas where the programwould operate.

The Youth Conservation Corps/SpecialEmployer Support Program, managed by theDepartment of Environment, will provide 132unemployed young people in the Ipswich,Redcliffe, Caboolture, Maroochydore, Gympie,Maryborough and Bundaberg areas with theopportunity to gain new skills in landscapeconstruction, bush regeneration, maintenanceof small machinery, workplace health andsafety, and first aid. During the 20-weekprogram, participants will have the opportunityto work on 10 projects with a variety ofemployers in several industry areas, mostly inour national parks and conservation parks.Support will be sought from local employerswho are interested in giving young people theopportunity to work for them, with a view topermanent employment. It should be notedthat participants will be paid in line with thenational training wage awards.

This is a unique opportunity forunemployed people. As well as accredited on-the-job training in recreational infrastructure,participants will receive training incommunication skills, working as part of ateam, problem solving and planning, andorganising their own work activities. These areall skills identified by employers as necessaryin the people they employ. Training in the fieldof work provided through such a program doesnot restrict participants to working only in thatindustry area. The benefit of the program isthe tremendous confidence boost youngparticipants get from such a positiveexperience. Simply by increasing their self-esteem, this helps them apply for jobs with anew confidence and they are more likely to besuccessful. As Minister for the Environment, Iam pleased that my department can play itspart in providing a valuable experience foryoung Australians to help them in their questto find a secure future.


DPI Progression Scheme

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: I inherited adispirited and decimated department fromwhich Labor had retrenched almost 700 staffbetween 1990 and 1995. Career opportunitiesfor professional research and extension staffwere limited, so was recognition forprofessional excellence. I promised to takeDPI back to the bush, to increase thedepartment's focus on research, developmentand extension. I promised to provide career

paths for research and extension officers, andthe best of training. I promised DPI wouldproperly recognise and reward professionalexcellence.

Today I am pleased to report I havedelivered on each and every one of thesecommitments. We have acted to fill over 400new positions, including 200 permanent ones,as well as over 300 vacant existing positionsacross Queensland. That is more than 700positions focused on research, developmentand extension services to primary producers,which in turn benefits the Queenslandeconomy and community as a whole.

We are not resting on our laurels. We willcontinue to create more industry-focusedpositions in the next year. DPI has re-established links with universities andagricultural colleges to enhance ourrecruitment of graduates. Training prioritieshave been identified and are beingaddressed. Of particular note, the departmenthas developed and implemented a strategy torecognise and reward its highest achievingprofessional staff—the DPI progressionscheme. Today, we announce the 72successful applicants from the first round ofthis new scheme designed to retain the bestresearch and extension staff in DPI andprovide career paths for professional staff.

Under Labor, these people were unableto progress far past the mid levels in the payscales. To be promoted, people had toabandon their chosen careers and move tothe administrative stream. I promised change,and the progression scheme delivers. Panelsof their peers can now assess applicants whobelieve the excellence of their work deservespromotion within their discipline and thosepanels, rather than management, can grantpromotions. This unique scheme has drawnapproaches from public services throughoutAustralia, as well as private enterprise, andhas been endorsed by the State PublicServices Federation of Queensland. Theprogression scheme is a tribute to DPI staffwho took the idea and ran with it. Theseinitiatives have boosted morale and willcertainly help us retain our greatestresource—our staff.

It is ironic that Labor members bleatabout how well they look after the interests ofworkers. They could have introduced such ascheme during the six and a half years thatthey brutalised DPI's scientific workforce, butthey did nothing. I am proud to say it was thiscoalition Government which took the step todo something worth while for the self-esteemand dignity of this department's hardworkingprofessional staff.



Rural Training Initiatives

Hon. S. SANTORO (Clayfield—Ministerfor Training and Industrial Relations)(9.48 a.m.), by leave: The Government'scommitment to the rural sector and, inparticular, to rural training is clearlydemonstrated by a number of rural traininginitiatives that I have overseen since becomingthe Minister for Training and IndustrialRelations. The four agricultural colleges—Burdekin, Dalby, Emerald and Longreach—have traditionally been the major sources ofentry level training for the rural industries.

To assist agricultural colleges to respondpositively to rapid changes in the trainingmarket, I announced a number of measuresas part of my "Year of Training" initiatives. Iwas able to confirm progress on thesemeasures during my recent visit to Longreachto participate in the Agricultural Colleges Co-ordinating Committee's meetings which areheld twice a year. In the first instance, Iannounced in December last year that theGovernment would implement an enterprisebargaining agreement which would see staff atthese colleges receiving a wage increase of12% over two years, effective from 1 October1996. The enterprise bargaining agreementwas ratified by the Queensland IndustrialRelations Commission on 2 April this year.

Let me add that the enterprise bargainingagreement that this Government has finalisedshould have been concluded before thecoalition came to power, but the previousadministration unfortunately sat on its hands.Given that this agreement was the first time inover five years that the colleges received anyincreases in remuneration apart from safetynet adjustments, one would have thought thatthe Labor Party should have tried harder toratify the agreement. Labor's pitiful efforts infinalising the colleges' first round of enterprisebargaining are an indictment of the ALP andthose opposite for their neglect of agriculturalcolleges under Labor. The Government hasalso rectified the totally inequitable practice ofthe previous Government which resulted inagricultural colleges not receiving entitledfunds. In future funding allocations, agriculturalcolleges will receive their full funding escalationfrom Treasury to ensure that colleges are ableto keep pace with at least the cost of livingincreases.

My department has also establishedprocesses whereby agricultural colleges will beaccommodated in the capital developmentplan for 1997 and 1998 and therefore haveaccess to the capital development grants in

the vocational education and training budget.This will ease existing pressure on colleges tofund capital development by way of loan fundsand release revenue from college commercialactivities for training and curriculumdevelopment purposes. To ensure effectivelines of communication between my office andthe agricultural colleges, a dedicateddepartmental liaison officer has beenappointed to service the needs of collegesand related rural sector issues and to be asource of independent advice to me. Oneneed that has been conveyed to me as aresult of the better lines of communication thathave been established is the need to moreeffectively promote the good work that thecolleges do. One outcome is that mydepartment, in January of this year, funded anadvertising campaign to attract city kids to thebush. This campaign is only an initial step.Indeed, next week the directors of all fouragricultural colleges will meet withdepartmental officers in an effort to formulatea comprehensive marketing plan.

At Longreach, I was informed that myparticipation in the Agricultural Colleges Co-ordinating Committee meeting was the firsttime since 1991 that the responsible Ministerhad travelled to such a meeting. Again, that isa sorry indictment of the previousadministration's lack of concern for the ruralsector.

In February this year, as part of the Yearof Training initiatives, I set up a Rural IndustryTask Force whose role is to examine thetraining and vocational education needs ofrural industries. This is in recognition of the factthat the rural sector is so diverse and so vitalto Queensland's economic wellbeing that itwarrants special attention—the sort of specialattention which I fear was sadly lacking untilthe advent of this Government. I am pleasedto inform the House that the Rural IndustryTask Force held its second meeting inLongreach on 6 April, and I was able toparticipate in its deliberations. Issues currentlybeing reviewed include the appropriateness ofpresent rural sector vocational education andtraining, rural training in schools and thedevelopment of an industry-led grassrootstraining culture.

Members of the task force are notacademics. They represent primary producerswith a huge range of knowledge of ruralindustries' needs, the agricultural colleges,TAFE and the Queensland Rural IndustryTraining Council. Although members representpeak rural industry organisations, their terms ofreference are such that the needs of smallerproducers or emerging industries will not be


overlooked. I have asked the task force toundertake information and consultationsessions around the State to ensure that theviews of rural constituents at all levels arecaptured. This is absolutely vital to guaranteethat the Government has the best possibleadvice on the type of training needed and thebest methods of delivery.

I am sure that all members wouldappreciate that rural industries are undergoingconstant technological change. Today'sprimary producer has to know more than howto operate machinery or look after stock.Today's farmer is a manager, a marketer, ascientist, and many things besides.

The rural sector plays a significant role inQueensland's and Australia's economy, andits competitiveness in a global marketplace isallied to its capacity to be at the leading edgeof industry advances. Training and educationwhich is relevant to rural industry will helpbridge the training gap and see a successfultransition into the 21st century. I have not puta restrictive timetable on the Rural IndustryTask Force, but I anticipate that somepreliminary findings and advice would beforthcoming by October, with more detailedfindings by early 1998. This will ensure that weget a good result rather than just a quick one.I again reiterate that this Government is trulycommitted to the wellbeing of the rural sector.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTBicentennial National Trail

Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—Minister for Natural Resources) (9.53 a.m.), byleave: The Bicentennial National Trail is theworld's longest multi-use recreational trail, overhalf of which is in Queensland. Since itsopening in 1988, the trail has been used bythousands of people, and many moreconsider the concept to be exciting, even ifthey have no intention of ever walking or ridingalong it. There is a great sense of nationalpride in knowing that such a facility exists. TheQueensland Government supported theconcept up to 1991, when the GossGovernment disbanded the National TrailCommittee. Development has not progressedsignificantly since and, in many places, the trailhas regressed significantly.

Ministerial responsibility for mattersaffecting the trail has recently passed to me asMinister for Natural Resources. I believe thatthe trail can be made into one ofQueensland's great outdoor recreationattractions with some basic improvements infacilities and image. I will be seeking to raise

the profile of the project, which has thepotential to become an asset of internationalrenown. The trail has had little developmentover its 2,650 kilometre length in Queensland.The work done in marking the trail andcompiling information has relied upon theinput of unpaid volunteers. The only externalassistance has been a small grant fromJupiters Casino Trust.

I have instructed my department to liaisefurther with the Bicentennial National TrailAssociation to sort out the major problemsfacing the project and get the basic frameworkright before we look for some capital fundingfor improvements. I am looking to ruralcommunities to become further involved,possibly in the construction of facilities, inplanning and construction of local loops and inmaintenance of sections of the trail. TheBicentennial National Trail Association will bethe point of contact with users and thoseinterested in assisting. It is my aim to seeQueensland playing a part in a properlyestablished and well-maintained national trailwhich runs the full length of the country.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Addendum to Report

Mr HARPER (Mount Ommaney)(9.55 a.m.): I lay upon the table an addendumto the publication tabled yesterday titled"Review of Financial Reporting Requirementsfor Aboriginal Councils and Torres Strait IslandCouncils, Volume 1: Submissions". Icommend this document to the House.

NOTICE OF MOTION

Leading Schools

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (9.56 a.m.): Igive notice that I will move—

"That this House condemns theBorbidge Government and the Minister forEducation for their incompetent handlingof the restructure of Queensland'sEducation system 'Leading Schools'.

We note that the Minister hascaused deep divisions within theeducation community as he hasdeliberately sought to fragment andisolate key stakeholders in education tothe long-term detriment of the relationshipbetween parents, teachers and theEducation Department.

We call on the Government to haltthe implementation of 'Leading Schools'and to negotiate with all education

30 Apr 1997 Private Members' Statements 1109

stakeholders before implementing any ofthe proposed changes."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

Performance of Coalition GovernmentMr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leader

of the Opposition) (9.56 a.m.): Today'sMorgan poll shows that disillusioned coalitionvoters have given Pauline Hanson's party 20%support in Queensland and shows a massivedrop in coalition support. Why? The answer issimple: the coalition Government's deplorableperformance in Queensland is dragging downthe Federal coalition vote. TheBorbidge/Sheldon Government has betrayedQueensland and, most importantly, betrayedthe bush. The bush is burning with anger—theanger of coalition betrayal. The Queenslandcoalition has failed on Wik. It has failed oncompetition policy. It has failed on law andorder. It has failed on education. It has failedon health. It has failed to deliver on capitalworks. It has failed to create jobs. It has failedon the environment. It has failed to stand upfor Queensland or stand for anything. But it isgood at turning back the clock and lookingafter its mates—putting its hand in the publictill for its friends.

Let me take one example this morning:the scandal in emergency services. Domembers remember when Minister Veiverstold us that his Gold Coast mate Lyn Staibwas a highly qualified lady employed to reviewthe Queensland Fire Service at a really cheaprate? What is a cheap rate for a Veiversmate? Last night we discovered the cost totaxpayers so far: $52,265 in fees to Lyn Staiband $106,493 for her office and travel andother costs, making a total of $180,531. Thatwas in the Fire Service. Now she is into theAmbulance Service. To date, she has received$40,237 in consultancy fees alone. Thatrepresents a grand total of $220,768 for justover a year's work. And Mr Veivers calls thatcheap! The total of this review is $757,181,but 23,000 Queenslanders have lost theirjobs.

Time expired.

Australian-Italian Festival

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (9.58 a.m.):It is pleasing to see that the Government isgetting behind an event which has thepotential to become one of the State's biggestcultural festivals. I am referring to the financialassistance which the Department of Tourism,Small Business and Industry is providing forthe 1997 Australian-Italian Festival at Ingham.

The Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry, Bruce Davidson, informs me thatfinancial assistance of $9,600 has beenprovided by his department to enable thefestival organisers to prepare a developmentplan for this annual event.

The festival is not only an importantcelebration of Ingham's strong connection withItaly and the Italian community but also avibrant tourism event attracting significantnumbers of visitors to Ingham and northQueensland in general. There is no doubt thatthis Government funding will provide atremendous boost for this event. TheAustralian-Italian Festival will be held from 8 to11 May. Highlights of the event will include theBrisbane Opera Company, the StrictlyBallroom dancers, accordion and choircompetitions, some 200 street performers,and Brisbane, Cairns and Townsville bands.

I am sure that with this Government'sbacking and continued support from theIngham community, the Australian-ItalianFestival will become an event of whicheveryone can be proud and one that bringsboth entertainment and significant economicbenefit to our State. I am very pleased to besupporting this event because it has a widedegree of acceptance within the community inIngham.

Capital Works ProgramHon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich)

(10.01 a.m.): Yesterday I drew the attention ofthe House to the incompetence of thiscoalition Government and its inability to deliverits Capital Works Program. By the end ofFebruary, two-thirds of the year havingelapsed, less than half of the ConsolidatedFund capital works had been delivered. Who,apart from the Treasurer—whoseincompetence in budget management is wellknown—is responsible for the fact that capitalspending at the end of February was runningover $414m behind budget? Ray Connor, ofcourse! Yes, it is easy to blame Mr Connor,the recently resigned Public Works andHousing Minister. Just look at how his Liberalcolleague Education Minister Quinn dumpedon him and his department's performance.Ray's former ministerial colleagues are happyfor him to take the rap. Look how smug theyare now that he is sitting at the back of theChamber and they are still sitting on theministerial leather!

What is the truth of the matter? Yes, theformer Minister for Public Works and Housingwas an incompetent manager of his capitalworks budget. Look at his performance to the

1110 Private Members' Statements 30 Apr 1997

end of February. With two-thirds of the yearelapsed, this Minister had delivered only42.9% of his capital works program—a shortfallof $90m. I have not risen today to condemnpoor Ray Connor. I want to obtain somejustice for him. When it comes to incompetentbudget management, Ray was no RobinsonCrusoe. The Treasurer's figures speak forthemselves. Mr Horan in Health spent only34.5% of his capital works budget—a shortfallof $82m. Under Mr Johnson, in Transport andMain Roads capital spending lagged byalmost $68m. Let us not forget Mr Quinn, theMinister who dumped on his former colleague;only 48% of his capital works budget wasspent—a shortfall of almost $48m. Shame onthe members opposite; shame on them all!

That occurred despite the Premier'swarnings that failure to spend the capital worksbudget would mean a loss of the money. MrConnor should not take the rap for theincompetence of this administration. ThePremier shows no leadership. The Treasurerdoes not deliver on budget management. Thekey Ministers responsible for delivering theGovernment's Capital Works Program aresimply not up to the task. Mr Connor deservesmore friends on the back bench—friends withwhom he used to sit around the Cabinet tableonly couple of weeks ago.

Far North Queensland Institute ofTAFE

Mrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (10.03 a.m.): Ihave always been someone who believes thatwe should encourage innovation, ingenuityand a commitment to excellence in all thingsthat we undertake. One of the best ways toencourage the entrepreneurial spirit amongQueenslanders is to formally acknowledge andrecognise those people or organisations whoare taking on the challenge. Only in that waycan we as a community, as a society, raise thestandard. One such organisation of peoplewho have raised the bar, and should berecognised for doing so, are the staff of theFar North Queensland Institute of TAFE, ofwhich I am proud to have been a member andwhere I have taught for a number of years.

I would like to inform the House that,through a lot of hard work and the ability tothink innovatively, the Far North QueenslandInstitute of TAFE has just won a contract todeliver training in Papua New Guinea. Thatdoes not happen easily; that happens througha lot of hard work, networking, visits andconsultancies. We in Cairns are very proudthat that has happened. The ability to identifynew markets and expand into them is perhaps

the most valuable resource that anorganisation can have. The people of the FarNorth Queensland Institute of TAFE haveshown that they have that resource. As aresult, they and the north Queenslandcommunity will reap the benefits. This contractwill not only bring greater revenue into TAFEgenerally but will also generate more exportincome for Queensland across-the-board. Themembers of this House are all too aware thatthe generation of export income is thelifeblood of the State's and the nation'seconomic prosperity. Today I wish toacknowledge the innovation of the Far NorthQueensland Institute of TAFE and theingenuity of the people of north Queenslandfor adding to our prosperity.

The Far North Queensland Institute ofTAFE does have the support of the Minister.He has been supportive of that college sincegaining office. Certainly that has been anindication of the way the college hasexpanded. I am proud to bring that to theattention of members in this House, becausethe north will benefit, as will the people ofPapua New Guinea.

Woodford Prison RiotMr BARTON (Waterford) (10.05 a.m.):

On Saturday in the Courier-Mail, we sawanother selective leak from the inquiry reportinto the 1 April riot at Woodford Prison. Itrevealed that the prison was far from readywhen prisoners were shipped in and thattraining programs were not in place. What ahuge surprise! When the findings of the reportwere published on 18 April, they cited acocktail of reasons for the riot. Primarily, it wascaused by the ridiculous smoking ban, foodcomplaints and the poor and hurriedpreparation of the prison before its opening.

For most members of the public, that maycome as a complete shock, but for those whohave taken a keen interest in CorrectiveServices in Queensland, unfortunately it will beno surprise. Every single one of those reasonshas been raised by a multitude of people,including the Opposition both publicly andprivately before and after the opening of thegaol. Those people could justifiably say to theMinister for Police and Corrective Services: wetold you so. However, this is an issue thatgoes to the heart of the problem with aMinister who has consistently run away fromhis responsibility. Mr Cooper was told abouteach of those problems weeks before the riot,but he continued to pass them off as rumours.For starters, when the smoking issue wasraised, Mr Cooper's contribution was to say


that the smoking ban was a ridiculous idea.That is another insightful display of reasoningfrom our Minister. Did he try to halt thesmoking ban? No!

In early March before the prison opened,prison officers warned of problems about thegaol being underprepared and trainingprograms not being in place. Did the Ministerhold off opening the prison until thoseproblems were fixed? Again, no! He pushedahead. At every new prison opened inQueensland, prisoners have attempted tochristen it with a riot. Did the Minister putmeasures in place to ensure thatQueensland's worst prisoners, the dirty 30, didnot have an opportunity to christen Woodford?No, he ignored the advice. As pressuremounted at Woodford, Mr Cooper continuedto sit on his hands.

Time expired.

QE II Hospital

Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (10.07 a.m.):During the regrettable days of the formerLabor Government, the QE II Hospital servingthe Mansfield electorate was seriouslydowngraded. It was so bad that at one stageduring 1995 only nine patients were present inthe hospital. Minister Mike Horan has broughtthe QE II Hospital back from the doldrums. On25 March 1997, 106 in-patients were admittedto the hospital—its busiest day in years. Thatwas clear proof of the community's new-foundtrust in Queensland Health.

The QE II redevelopment has continuedwith the recent opening of the new $400,000level 1 intensive care unit and upgradedemergency department. The new intensivecare unit contains five beds and has the abilityto treat patients who were previouslytransferred to major tertiary hospitals, thusrelieving pressure on these hospitals andinevitably leading to increased patient care.The coalition's $2.7m phase 1 redevelopmentwas completed in February of this year. Itinvolved the upgrading of outpatients andallied health areas, renovations to the hospitalentry and refurbishment of the day surgery.The $4.4m phase 2 redevelopment is due forcompletion in mid July 1997 and will increasethe number of operating theatres from four tosix, establish a preadmission clinic and a 30-bed medical ward, and provide for anupgraded rehabilitation area. Planning is welladvanced for the $1m phase 3 for aged care,community health and breast screeningfacilities. That illustrates the coalitionGovernment's commitment to theredevelopment of the QE II Hospital and the

entire health system of Queensland. Thatcontrasts starkly with what did not happenduring the Labor years.

I pay tribute to the hard work of the QE IIHospital auxiliary who not only fought to seethe hospital retained and restored butthroughout the dark Labor years continuedalso to contribute small profits from theircafeteria to provide for much-needed medicalequipment. The local newspaper, theSouthern Star, also was a strong campaignerfor the reopening of that hospital.

Time expired.

Bowen State High School, CommunityRecreational Centre

Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (10.11 a.m.): InFebruary 1996 I received a letter outliningfavourable consideration from the Clem JonesAdvisory Council for a community recreationalcentre at the Bowen State High School.Subsequent to this, the P & C wrote to thenew Minister, the Honourable Mick Veivers,inquiring about the status of the project. MrVeivers, with a great deal of media fanfare,announced the approval of $300,000 for aproject which he said will add significantly tothe community recreational resources inBowen and cater for the young people.

Imagine the dismay of the Bowencommunity when the P & C were advised bythe Minister that he had withdrawn fundingand that the school was not now eligible underthe National Standard Sports Facility Program,especially when the P & C had not appliedunder that program. The Premier's man innorth Queensland, the honourable MrStoneman, announced in the BowenIndependent that it was the Government, andspecifically Mr Veivers, who were at fault andthat the funding may still or could still go toBowen. Despite letters from my office andfrom the council to the Premier, MinistersVeivers, Quinn and Sheldon on 13 March, wehave received no response from anyone.

The people of Bowen are getting used tothe rug being pulled out from under them bythis Government. First it was Comalco, then itwas the failure of the Minister for IndustrialRelations to respond to the Borthwickssituation, and now the P & C. At the firstmeeting of the new Bowen Shire Council,under the leadership of the new MayorMichael Brunker, council moved very quickly tosecure the funding for Bowen. However, theyare adamant that they will not rest now untilthe commitment of funding for the Bowencommunity centre is realised.


Olympic Flag

Mr TANTI (Mundingburra) (10.12 a.m.): Itake great pleasure in informing the Housethat the Olympic flag will tour Queenslandthroughout this August. My colleague BruceDavidson, the Minister for Tourism, SmallBusiness and Industry, has told me that hisQueensland Olympic 2000 Task Force hasbeen informed by the Sydney Olympic GamesOrganising Committee that the journey of theflag throughout Australia will include a numberof Queensland cities and towns.

The journey of the Olympic flag aroundAustralia is SOCOG's first official event in thethree-year journey to the 2000 OlympicGames. Whilst the Games will be held inSydney, they are Australia's Games. Thejourney of the flag will bring this messagehome to all Australians. The Olympic journeywill comprise street parades, family picnics andinteractive Olympic exhibitions at shoppingcentres throughout the country. At this stagewe understand the Queensland leg proposesto travel to Townsville, Rockhampton, the GoldCoast and Brisbane. I join the Minister inencouraging all Queenslanders to embracethe Olympic spirit and to turn out in largenumbers to these events.

As the year 2000 approaches,Queensland will play an increasingly importantrole in the success of the Olympic Games. Notonly will hundreds of international athletesbase themselves here for pre-Games trainingbut also we will be holding some official eventshere. A number of matches for the officialsoccer competition will be played at LangPark, making Brisbane an Olympic city, too. Iurge all members to encourage theirconstituents to make sure Queensland makesthese our Games.

Department of Environment

Mr PURCELL (Bulimba) (10.13 a.m.): Iwish to bring to the attention of the Parliamenthow the Department of Environment has goneto sleep since Labor is no longer inGovernment. The department had a 24-hourhotline which was set up specifically to handleurgent environmental matters which happenedoutside ordinary working hours. How manycompanies and developers break the lawduring working hours? I can assure members:not many from where I come; that all occursoutside working hours.

The current system is that if residents ringthe department on a weekend or at night—butit is mainly on the weekend when companies

or developers get up to their nonsense—withan urgent environmental problem, they aretold that they will be sent a form in Monday'smail. Upon receiving the form and thedepartment receiving the form back, thedepartment will put the matter in a queue anda job number will be allotted. That means thatit will be some three or four weeks before aninspector is sent to investigate the problem.

Recently, I have personally attempted tocontact inspectors three times outside ofnormal working hours with constituentcomplaints regarding urgent environmentalmatters. In each case I was asked by theperson on the other end of the line to put mycomplaint in writing. In each case I have askedfor a follow-up from the inspections detailingthe results of the investigation, how it wasdealt with and whether the company will beprosecuted. To this date, I have not received areply.

Ordinary residents have a right to expectthat this Government department will carry outits brief as required by Parliament to protectthem and their families. They do not expect tobe told to put their complaints in writing.Residents have become totally disillusionedwith this response and cannot see any point inmaking a complaint. That must certainly cutdown on an inspector's workload—inspectorsmust have nothing to do.

An excellent example is Hornibrook, whichis a business that is located right in the middleof Bulimba. Residents live all around thatcompany. At the moment, Lyn Mathieson iskeeping me up to date with the operations ofa trucking company in my electorate.Yesterday, she rang me and gave me anupdate. The company works until 11 or 12o'clock at night and then at 4 o'clock in themorning starts banging and bashingcontainers for the port. It is no wonder localresidents see no point in taking up the matterwith the department when they have beentrying to do something about it for the last twoor three months. I am still waiting on a writtenreport.

Retail Sector

Mr HARPER (Mount Ommaney)(10.15 a.m.): I wish to inform members of thisHouse of the significant work being done bythe Minister for Tourism, Small Business andIndustry and his department to ensureQueensland retail firms have an opportunity toincrease their wealth and create furtheremployment for Queenslanders. I am surethat, although members opposite are


laughing, they must be interested in thatparticular facet of Queensland's industry.

The retail sector is Queensland's largestemployer and employs nearly one half of the15 to 25 age group in this State. That certainlyis a key factor in this Government's thrust tohelp young people. It is a major employer inmany regional areas. It may interest membersof the House to know that one in sixestablishments in the State is a retailbusiness. This Government is committed toensuring that this sector has every opportunityto grow, and the aim of the retail strategy is tolook at ways of solving the issues andproblems faced by the sector.

The Minister has just released a progressreport on the Government's retail strategybased on consultation with 33 differentindustry bodies and Government agencies. Iam sure that interested parties will be morethan happy with some of the suggestions andwill welcome the chance to have an input.Rather than release a policy, which will nodoubt meet with criticism from some sectionsof the retail sector, the Minister has released adiscussion paper for comment. The progressreport highlights 22 major initiatives forconsideration, covering such areas asproliferation of shopping centres, excessiveregulation, retail leasing arrangements,increasing business skills, franchising andtechnology.

I reiterate that this report has beendistributed to gain the views of interestedparties on the responses suggested. Out ofthis discussion process will come the bestpossible strategy for retailers in Queensland.This strategy is only the first step in a long lineof initiatives that this Government has for thissector and confirms this Government'scommitment to retail firms to help them toincrease their wealth and create furtheremployment for Queenslanders.

Time expired.

Leading SchoolsHon. J. FOURAS (Ashgrove)

(10.17 a.m.): I would like to read from Hansardof 26 October 1994, which states—

"At the moment, the system suffersfrom a lack of certainty because of theconstant changes being made to it. Everytime another change is introduced, theteachers have to adjust. Then the peopleat the top bring in another change—another directive. The system has been ina constant state of turmoil for the past fiveyears. That is a direct result of the policies

of this Government. In those five years,we have had a focus on theadministrative and management systemswithin the schools. They have beenturned upside down without regard for theeffects on classroom teachers, who havehad change right up to their ears."

Who made that statement? The then shadowMinister for Education, Mr Quinn. What doeshe do now that he is Minister? At that time hesaid that in five years there had been a focuson the administrative and managementsystems and that the schools had been turnedupside down. What does he do? He becomesMinister and introduces Leading Schools.What do teachers have to do? Exactly whathe complained about in October 1994.Teachers will have to focus on administrativeand management systems at the cost ofstudent outcomes.

In the United States, all the research onschool-based management showsunequivocally that, as a result of schoolcommunities having to concentrate onorganisational matters rather than educationaloutcomes, organisational matters havepredominated and educational outcomeshave suffered.

I support the principle of school-basedmanagement. I support the right of parentsand teachers in school communities to have asay in the running of their schools. However,Leading Schools is a divisive weapon. It is adivision program—it is dividing our schoolcommunities. It will have outcomes that aregoing to result in gross unfairness. In relationto every school in bands 4 to 7—as everymember who visits such a school would know,when $100m of the budget is given to schoolsin bands 8 to 11, they are going to be worseoff. They are going to suffer.

Time expired.

One-stop Apprenticeship Shops

Ms WARWICK (Barron River)(10.19 a.m.): Recently, the Minister forTraining and Industrial Relations launchedthree one-stop apprenticeship shops as part ofthe Queensland Government's response toreforming the way in which services areprovided to employers who take onapprentices and trainees. Of the threedemonstration projects, one is located inCairns and is known locally as the CairnsApprenticeship and Traineeship Service.

The concept behind these agencies is toprovide a range of Commonwealth and StateGovernment services to employers,


apprentices, trainees and job seekers througha one-stop apprentice shop facility. Thecurrent system for providing services toemployers when taking on a trainee orapprentice is seen by some unfamiliar withentry level training as being too complex,involving multiple layers of Government. It isnot uncommon to hear employers describethe task of employing an apprentice or traineeas like being trapped in a maze ofbureaucracy, buried in paperwork, lost in thesystem and confused by conflictinginformation. The end result is often "Neveragain".

Having listened to numerous employers, Ibelieve that the concept of the one-stopapprenticeship shops has the potential toredress all of their concerns and is a majorstep forward in assisting business and industryto create real and meaningful employmentopportunities. The one-stop apprenticeshipshop in Cairns is the only demonstrationproject in Queensland that has the capacity todeliver the full range of services proposed forother one-stop shops.

The one-stop apprenticeship shop willcombine Commonwealth and State servicesand functions, ranging from receivingvacancies and matching job seekers to thosevacancies to providing all the administration ofthe training agreement, including the paymentof subsidies and allowances. No longer willemployers in Cairns need to go from onedepartment to another. The one-stop shopeffectively consolidates six potential client-service centres to just one. That is what theemployers want and I am committed toensuring that the Queensland Governmentplays its part in ensuring that those wantscontinue to be met.

The involvement of industry is paramountto the success of the one-stop shop.Therefore, I am pleased to acknowledge theQueensland Chamber——

Time expired.

Bouldercombe State School

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (10.21 a.m.): Onbehalf of the Bouldercombe State Schoolcommunity, I wish to express my disgust at themanner in which the Education Minister hashandled the issue of staff numbers. TheMinister has not listened to what has beensaid.

In a letter dated 25 March, the Ministerexplained to me the options put to the schoolprincipal and the P & C association, based onwhether the school would have an early

education centre with preschool in Year 1 orwhether the preschool students would be aseparate group. In that letter the Ministerstated—

"I am advised that the schoolcommunity indicated a preference foroption 2 and this was put in place for thebeginning of the school year."

However, I said to the Minister that the schoolmade a decision based on information thatwas incomplete.

The people advising the Minister haverefused to tell him that the parents are upsetbecause they were conned and officers of thedepartment in Rockhampton have failed toadmit that they did not properly explain the fullimpact of the options put to the schoolcommunity. The school now knows that itchose the wrong option and the schoolcommunity is angry that the situation was notproperly explained to them. All they ask for is afair go. The department, supported by theMinister, has denied them that. If this is howschools are going to be treated under theLeading Schools Program, it is no wonder thatthat program is being rejected. The Ministerwill regret his arrogant approach to dealingwith education issues.

Despite the Minister's rhetoric, the moralein State schools is at its lowest in the history ofthe State. Cleanliness in schools is on thedecline as the department continues itsagenda to privatise school cleaning, despite itsfailings in other States. Teachers and parentshave lost faith in the Minister, who is nowbeing referred to as "Peachey's Puppet".

The Minister is incapable of making adecision, and he has no respect for teachers,students or parents. If he did have respect forthem, he would have consulted with schoolcommunities before attempting to forceLeading Schools on the people ofQueensland. Promises of bags of money area con because the Minister does not have thecourage to spell out the additional costburdens that will be handed back to schoolsunder Leading Schools. What impact willLeading Schools have on rural——

Time expired.

Richmond Fossil Fields

Mr MITCHELL (Charters Towers)(10.23 a.m.): It is my pleasure to inform theHouse of an initiative of the Minister forTourism, Small Business and Industry, BruceDavidson, to protect Queensland's rich fossilheritage. Over the past 12 months the Ministerhas had the opportunity to visit some of


Queensland's remarkable fossil fields,including Richmond in my electorate.

The treasures found in Queensland'sfossil fields are of enormous value, not only toscientific study but also as a potentialeconomic boost for the various regions inwhich they are found. Like areas surroundingHughenden, Muttaburra and Riversleigh, theRichmond fossil fields have provided uniqueopportunities for the community to diversify itseconomy into tourism. Many of the fossils areunique to the world and are a major attractionfor people from all over the world.

To protect this potential, the Minister hastaken the first steps to draft legislation toprevent unwarranted commercial exploitationof significant Queensland fossils and to ensurethat appropriate tourism development canoccur. A reference group representing theUniversity of Queensland, the QueenslandMuseum, the Office of Arts and CulturalDevelopment, the Department ofEnvironment, the Department of NaturalResources and the Department of Mines andEnergy has been established. This group willlook at a number of issues relevant to thedevelopment of the legislation. ShouldQueensland pass the proposed legislation, itwill be one of the first Australian States to doso. Western Australia is currently in theprocess of developing similar legislation.Queensland's reference group will liaise withthe Western Australian authorities on relevantpoints.

I would also like to announce thatRichmond is holding its inaugural FossilsFestival. That festival starts tomorrow and willrun for the next five days. I commend theMinister for this initiative on the fossil fields.

Rural Bank Closures

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt)(10.25 a.m.): The Labor Party is extremelyconcerned at the current direction of changestaking place in the banking system which arehitting rural communities and disadvantagedconsumers hardest. This week a Coopers andLybrand report stated that rural regionsthroughout Australia will see the closure of alarge number of branches, particularly incentral Queensland. Bank mergers such asthe recent Suncorp/Metway merger, which wasengineered by the Government, mean branchclosures and staff cuts, particularly in rural andregional Queensland. The major banks havealready signalled their intention to close furtherbranches to maximise their profits. This comes

at a time when banks are under pressure tosustain the record-breaking $1 billion profit ofthe past two years and when annual reportsshow top executives at the banks earn morethan $1m a year, some for the first time.

Banking is an essential service, asnecessary to modern life as water, power andambulances. Pensions, pay packets andalmost everything else are now paid into bankaccounts whether we like it or not. They haveour money and they help themselves to it. Arecent study by the Centre for AustralianFinancial Institutions at the University ofSouthern Queensland found that, withoutdirect access to banking, rural people haddifficulties managing their access to cash. Thecost of getting loans from distant financialinstitutions has increased at the communitylevel and there has been a substantialspending drain as local people start to shop inother towns when they go to do their banking.

What do we hear from the StateGovernment, which purports to represent theinterests of rural Queensland? There has beena disappointing lack of comment, a lack ofconcern and a lack of action from theTreasurer and the Minister responsible forconsumer affairs to the threat to theseessential services in central Queensland. I callon the Ministers to take some action, and hereare some ideas: firstly, tell the FederalTreasurer, who is currently preparing aresponse to the Wallis inquiry, that the needsof rural Queensland must be considered;secondly, establish a telephone hotline to takepeople's comments and complaints aboutbanking services, particularly in the bush——

Time expired.

2001 Paediatric Oncology ConferenceMr HEGARTY (Redlands) (10.27 a.m.): I

take great pleasure in informing the Housethat Queensland will host the 2001 PaediatricOncology Conference. The State beat the UScity of Detroit to hold the $3.8m conference.This prestigious conference has previouslybeen held in Austria, Turkey, Japan, Canadaand the Netherlands.

When the Honourable Minister forTourism, Small Business and Industry madethe announcement, he said thatapproximately 1,700 delegates and theirpartners from overseas and throughoutAustralia will be expected to travel to Brisbanefor the conference. However, the benefits willspread far beyond the capital city limits.Conference delegates are well known fortouring both before and after the conference

1116 Questions Without Notice 30 Apr 1997

proper. Considerable effort will be put intoattracting these people to Queensland's manyregional tourist destinations.

The bid was led by the Brisbane Visitorsand Convention Bureau and assisted by theBrisbane Convention and Exhibition Centreand the QTTC. Congratulations should beextended to all involved. Conventions are vitalto Queensland's tourism industry, generatingaround $360m annually for our economy.Convention delegates are high-yield visitorswith the strong potential for repeat visitation.Convention business into Australia is growingat more than 27% per year. The QueenslandGovernment, through the Department ofTourism, Small Business and Industry and theQueensland Tourism and Travel Corporation,is increasing its focus on this burgeoningsector. The QTTC has a Conventions andIncentives Unit in its head office and specialiststaff located in Munich, Los Angeles andSingapore. The QTTC also provides fundingfor the State's five regional conventionbureaus in Brisbane, Cairns, Townsville, theGold Coast and the Whitsundays. Under thisGovernment, Queensland can expect moreannouncements on major conventions andevents in the future.

This announcement, in conjunction withBrisbane's recent success in attracting the$7.5m Fifteenth World Congress of Sociologyin the year 2002, proves our growingreputation as an international conferencedestination. I am sure that the Minister, theHonourable Bruce Davidson, will be pursuingmore of this type of business——

Time expired.

Australian Constitutional Reform

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga)(10.29 a.m.): Reform of Australia's Constitutionis an historical imperative if we are to celebratethe centenary of Federation with theproclamation of an Australian republic.Unfortunately, serious constitutional reform isbeing hampered by the lack of a formalcompulsory ballot for the election ofcandidates for the constitutional convention inDecember. The Federal Government'sdecision to allow optional voting demeans theimportance of the community's wish forconstitutional reform, particularly on the issueof a republic.

The Constitution Convention Election Billcurrently before Federal Parliament should beamended to provide for compulsory votingsimilar to every other election. The message toordinary voters of a non-compulsory ballot is

that the election is intended by the HowardGovernment to be a mickey mouse affair. It isinconsistent to require a compulsory vote for ageneral election, yet allow optional voting toelect a convention to overhaul the Constitutionwhich provides the legal foundation forparliamentary democracy in Australia. It is adangerous precedent. This is a Liberal PartyTrojan Horse to introduce optional votinggenerally.

Time expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Orchid Beach AirstripMr BEATTIE (10.30 a.m.): I refer the

Premier to his $250,000 plan to reopen FraserIsland's Orchid Beach airstrip that was closedby Labor in 1994, and I ask: as Bureau of AirSafety records, which I table, show that theOrchid Beach airstrip is notoriously dangerousbecause of shifting sands and unpredictablewind turbulence and has been the site of 13major aircraft incidents, including four fatalities,since 1971, why is the Premier so eager toreopen this dangerous airstrip in respect ofwhich the police, the Ambulance Service,Customs, Coastwatch and EmergencyServices have all advised his Government is"not suitable for their aircraft" and "notessential for their current operations"?

Mr BORBIDGE: What the previousLabor Government tried to do was to isolatepeople on Fraser Island, particularly thenorthern part of Fraser Island, from all contactwith the outside world. The formerGovernment did a shabby deal on the OrchidBeach Resort, which one of these days willcome out, with a very substantialcompensation package paid to the owner ofthat resort.

Mr Davidson interjected.

Mr BORBIDGE: The Minister forTourism is obviously also aware of some of thecurious dealings that the previous LaborGovernment had with Mr Leach and OrchidBeach, and that might make an interestingtale to be told in this Parliament one day.Quite aside from that, the former Governmenttried to close all the roads and took the airstripoff the people despite the fact that a largenumber of people visit the northern end ofFraser Island and, from time to time, there arerequirements for medical evacuations andaccess.

I found it absolutely fascinating that theLeader of the Opposition stood in this placetoday and said, "How dare you keep anelection promise." We went to the people of

30 Apr 1997 Questions Without Notice 1117

Queensland with that commitment. We weresatisfied on all the evidence available to usthat it was the right decision to reopen thatairstrip, for which provision was made in lastyear's Budget. We intend to proceed tohonour our commitment, and no doubt in duecourse we can have a more generaldiscussion in this place about some of thecuriosities relating to the trade-offs that weredone in respect of the compensation packagefor the Orchid Beach Resort under theprevious Labor Government.

Orchid Beach Airstrip

Mr BEATTIE: I direct a second questionto the Premier. I table a letter from the thenacting Environment Department Director-General, Tom Tolhurst, to the Premier'sDirector-General, Peter Ellis, about possiblelitigation against the State Government—aview confirmed by the Environment Minister,Mr Littleproud, and I ask: as the Orchid Beachairstrip is located inside the Great SandyNational Park and, therefore, is on StateGovernment land, why is the Premier ignoringEnvironment Department advice and planningto wilfully expose Queensland taxpayers topublic liability for any air crash that may occuras a result of the Government's reopening ofthe dangerous Orchid Beach airstrip?

Mr BORBIDGE: Procedures are beingput in place to ensure that that does notoccur. I make the point that this is a whole-of-Government decision. Under our Government,unlike the former Government of honourablemembers opposite, the Department ofEnvironment does not have the right of vetoover Government policies that have beenendorsed by the electorate in a generalelection campaign.

Wik Negotiations

Mr SPRINGBORG: I ask the Premier:can he inform the House of the outcome of hismeeting yesterday with peak industry groupsconcerning the Commonwealth's proposedresponse to the High Court's Wik ruling?

Mr BORBIDGE: Yesterday afternoon, Ihad the opportunity to meet with most peakindustry groups in Queensland to brief themon the current state of negotiations betweenQueensland and the Commonwealth and thedetails of the Prime Minister's 10-point plan aspresented to the Premiers Conference onMonday.

I am pleased to report to the House that,contrary to some of the assertions that have

been made in the politically correct press andby the Labor Party opposite, rather than beingisolated on this particular issue I received verygenerous and widespread support from thepeak industry groups in Queensland. It hasbeen resolved and agreed with industrygroups that they will work with the Governmenton a working party as these issues evolve.

Mr BEATTIE: I rise to a point of order.Mr Speaker, the Premier is misleading theHouse. No motion was put to that meeting. Ihave been contacted by people who attendedand they believe that the Premier has abusedtheir trust by misrepresenting their opposition,or at least their cautious concern to wait untilthey see the detail. The Premier abused theirtrust, and now he comes in here and misleadsthe House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order.

Mr BORBIDGE: The Leader of theOpposition was not there. How would heknow? How typical of the Leader of theOpposition! The situation is that everyonewho participated in that meeting will beworking with the Government as this issueevolves. I am very appreciative of the supportthat we received from peak industry groups asopposed to the splendid isolation ofhonourable members opposite.

As the Leader of the Opposition wants totalk about unanimous support, I wonderwhether he agrees with the commentsattributed to the former Labor Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, husband of theLabor Party candidate for Kurwongbah, whosaid recently that the "Keating Governmentgenuinely believed the outcome of the Mabodecision was that native title had beenextinguished by pastoral leases". That is whatMr Lavarch promised.

What we are seeing on Wik and nativetitle is an absolute betrayal by the Leader ofthe Opposition, by honourable membersopposite, by "Black Hole" Beazley down inCanberra and the assorted ragbag group thatis out there today trying to say that once againthe rural people of Australia—the farmers andthe pastoralists—should have to carry the canfor everyone else.

I am also particularly concerned at certaincomments that have been made by ATSIC. Irefer in particular to comments that have beenmade by ATSIC Commissioner Geoff Clark,who said—

". . . Aborigines would urge a boycott atthe 'farm gate' and lobby black Africannations to consider their participation in


the Sydney Olympics if Mr Howardrefused to revise the plan."

I would make this observation to those peoplewho are bloated by the ATSIC budget and theincome generated by Australian taxpayers: ifthey want to go out into the community, if theywant to boycott farm products, if they want totake action against the farmers of Australia, ifthey want to campaign internationally inrespect of opposing the Sydney Olympics, ifthey want to go to Edinburgh to the CHOGMmeeting and campaign against countriesparticipating in the Sydney Olympics, then Isay: let them do it at their own expense, not atthe expense of the taxpayers of Australia.That course of action, aided and abetted byhonourable members opposite, that is beingmooted by some of the extremists in theAboriginal industry—no doubt totally backedand supported by people such as the memberfor Cook—is totally and absolutely un-Australian. If they want to go into theinternational community, if they want to say toAustralians, "Don't buy what our farmersproduce", if they want to go to Edinburgh oranywhere else and say, "Don't come to theOlympic Games", if they want to go out thereand advocate trade sanctions againstAustralia, why should it be that the taxpayersof Australia are paying their air fares and theirmeals and their hotel accommodation bills?

The stated position of ATSIC byCommissioner Clark speaks for itself. ThePrime Minister and the Federal Governmenthave an immediate obligation to review itsfunding.

Orchid Beach Airstrip

Mr NUNN: I direct a question to thePremier. As FOI documents, which I table,show that the Environment Departmentadvised him and Cabinet that reopening theOrchid Beach airstrip would be viewed as". . . inconsistent with the Great Sandy RegionManagement Plan and the findings of the(Fitzgerald) commission of inquiry into theconservation, management and use of FraserIsland and the Great Sandy Region" and,further, that the Environment Minister advisedthe Premier personally on 7 May 1996 that alldepartmental needs for access to the area areadequately provided without need for thisairport, I ask: on whose instructions did thePremier's Director-General, Peter Ellis, ignorethis advice when he wrote to his EnvironmentDepartment counterpart last June demandingthe department prepare a funding submissionfor urgent Cabinet consideration "in view of thePremier's position on this matter"?

Mr BORBIDGE: I can only reiterate thatwe make no apologies for implementingGovernment policy. That is why we are theGovernment. The policy was taken to thepeople of Queensland at the last election.Commitments were given——

Mr Beattie: You didn't win.

Mr BORBIDGE: I reckon that 54% ofthe vote isn't bad. Were it not for Labor'shome-grown gerrymander, we would be overhere with a 10-seat majority. We make noapology for implementing our electioncommitments. In respect of the electorate ofHervey Bay—I intend to make sure thateveryone knows that the local member isseeking to frustrate a very important initiativefor the people of Fraser Island and the peopleof Hervey Bay.

Media Reports on Native Title Issues

Mr CARROLL: I direct a question to theHonourable the Premier. As Oppositionmembers and some in the media havesuggested that the Queensland coalitionGovernment's firm position on resolving nativetitle issues reflects not only parochialism butalso self-interest, I ask him to informhonourable members of the latest remarkableexploits of one of those fearless mediainvestigators.

Mr BORBIDGE: I thank the honourablemember for his question. I regret that when Ido want an accurate assessment of what ishappening in Queensland politics Iincreasingly turn to the Sydney Morning Heraldor the Australian. The consistent attitude ofthe Courier-Mail in respect of native title is anti-Queensland in the extreme.

I have a leak from the Courier-Mail. It isfascinating how they are trying, in concert withthe Labor Party, to suggest that the reason weare taking this stand on native title is that theremight be some enormous benefit forourselves. I have a fax from QueenslandNewspapers dated 29 April 1997 to BillBunting, Land Services Centre. It states—

"Please charge a/c 1102.

Bill,

Could you please fax me informationon whether any of the following 43 peopleown pastoral leases and/or farm byowner/valuer and title searches.

As Paula Doneman discussed on thephone with you, this material is requestedurgently!


Thanking you for any assistance youcan provide in this regard.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Whittaker"

Mr Beattie: So?

Mr BORBIDGE: That is only half thestory. The names are: Robert EdwardBorbidge, Theo Russell Cooper, Thomas JohnGeorge Gilmore. Let us have a look at thestrike rate. Robert Edward Borbidge: nil. TheoRussell Cooper: nil. Thomas John GeorgeGilmore: nil. Howard William Thomas Hobbs:strike—got one! Michael James Horan: nil.Elizabeth (Liz) Anne Cunningham: nil. JannionAnthony Elliott: nil. Andrew AnthonyFitzGerald: nil. On it goes. After this great biginvestigative journalist finishes the job, theyfind out that Minister McCauley and MinisterSlack might have a lease. Obviouslydisappointed that they have found two out of26,000 leaseholders——

Opposition members: Three.

Mr BORBIDGE: Three, I am sorry—wehave a situation where they go to DavidRussell, Ken Crooke, Robert Sparkes, DonMcDonald, Joh Bjelke-Petersen—nil, nil, nil, nil,nil. But obviously the story for the Courier-Mailis not quite yet front-page material, so there isa further fax which states—

"Bill,

Sorry to put the pressure on againafter your extremely helpful efforts today,but would it be possible to search thesenames urgently as well?"

The names are: Denver Edward Beanland,Raymond Thomas Connor, Bruce WilliamDavidson, Francis Edward Carroll, RobertMalcolm Harper, Bruce Edric Laming, RobertJoseph Quinn, Theodore Paul Radke, SantoSantoro, Joan Mary Sheldon, Francis JohnTanti, Lynette Robyn Warwick, Dr David JohnHopetoun Watson, Lucas Scott Woolmer,John Herron, Ian Macdonald, DavidMacGibbon—they might as well try the phonebook! But after all this, where is the request forPeter Douglas Beattie? Where is the requestfor honourable members opposite?

If the Courier-Mail had rung yesterday, Iwould have given them a bit of simple advice:there is a pecuniary interests register, and it isfree. I am told that MI5, the intelligence unit ofQueensland Newspapers, has seized uponthis fact, and Mr Whittaker and colleagues arecurrently—quite appropriately—rabbiting theirway through the pecuniary interests register ofthe Parliament, where they should havestarted in the first place.

Orchid Beach AirstripMr ELDER: I refer the Premier to the 10

October letter from his Director-General, PeterEllis, to his counterpart in the EnvironmentDepartment in which Mr Ellis says about theplanned reopening of Orchid Beach airstrip—

"The Honourable the Premier is keenfor the project to progress as quickly aspossible and has indicated to me that, foran official opening of the facility, he wouldlike to arrive at the airstrip in the newGovernment aircraft."

I table that letter. I ask: why does the Premiernot just admit that the only people who standto benefit from the reopening of the airstrip arehis Gold Coast developer mates atQueensland Resort and Residential ProjectsPty Ltd, who want to build a new backpackerresort near their 65-block residential housingsubdivision at Orchid Beach?

Mr BORBIDGE: In the gutter again!The simple fact is that this policy was taken tothe people at the last election. It wasendorsed——

Opposition members interjected. Mr BORBIDGE: I will tell members

something about Mr Ferguson: it is likely thatthere will have to be a Criminal JusticeCommission investigation into the way he wastreated by the former Government. The lasttime I spoke to Mr Ferguson, I was unawarethat he was in a position to fund anything,because the former Government had justabout bankrupted him.

Capital Works

Mr HEGARTY: I refer the Honourablethe Premier to criticism of the Government bythe Opposition over the issue of capital works,and I ask: will the Premier outline to the Housethe true position in respect of this issue?

Mr BORBIDGE: I thank the honourablemember for the question. Yesterday andtoday, we have heard a great deal from theOpposition about the Capital Works Programand what has been achieved and what hasnot been achieved.

Mr Livingstone interjected.Mr BORBIDGE: I think it is quite

appropriate to educate the honourablemember for Ipswich West in respect of theperformance of this Government compared tothe performance of the previous Government.Yesterday and today we have heard theOpposition criticise this Government overcapital works spending. In light of this, Iconsidered it appropriate to consider the


record of this Government against that of ourpredecessor and to update for members theprogress of spending in capital works thismonth.

In the Department of Education, April saw$47.3m approved for projects such as theTannum Sands State High School and theKuranda State High School. This expenditure,all approved and all funded, will generate533.6 person-years of employment. In theDepartment of Health, April saw a total of$62.9m, including the Redlands Hospitalredevelopment. This expenditure, again allfunded, will generated 580.9 person-years ofemployment. In the Main Roads Department,a total of $43.778m has been approved,generating 351.2 person-years of employment.I am advised that Executive Council approvalsfor capital works spending in April totalled——

Mr Livingstone: How much have youspent?

Mr BORBIDGE: I am trying to tell you,you dill. I will have to go a bit slower. I willrepeat the sentence. It is no wonder peoplevote for Pauline Hanson out the honourablemember's way.

I am advised that Executive Councilapprovals for capital works spending in Apriltotal $176.346m, fully funded, amounting to1,679 person-years of employment. I amfurther advised that during the course of thiscalendar year, submissions to ExecutiveCouncil approving capital works spending havegenerated almost 7,000 person-years ofemployment. Have members opposite gotthat—7,000 person-years of employment?That is the number after 6,999—7,000 person-years of employment.

How does this compare with Labor? Letus consider for a moment the record of thoseopposite when it comes to capital works—thepeople who have been most vocal in theircriticism of this Government.

Mr Hamill: Your Treasurer promisedeverything would be spent.

Mr BORBIDGE: No, no, we are going totalk about the record of the membersopposite.

Mr Elder interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forCapalaba!

Mr BORBIDGE: The members oppositedo not like the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn themember for Capalaba under Standing Order123A. Let us have a little less interjecting.

Mr BORBIDGE: In 1992-93, Laborunderspent its alleged $3 billion capital worksbudget by a whopping $411m, or 12.5%. Infact, in the first three alleged $3 billion-pluscapital works budgets, Labor underspentallocations by almost $900m—by $242.2m in1991-92, by $411.04m in 1992-93 and by$227.821m in 1993-94.

I am quite happy to fully detail, for thebenefit of the honourable member, thosecapital works programs approved by ExecutiveCouncil during April—the total in excess of$176m. No doubt, if I tried to read them out,the Labor Party would accuse me offilibustering.

Mr Elder: Table it.Mr BORBIDGE: Perhaps seeing that

the honourable member wants to know whatwe are doing, I should go through them line byline. In Education they are: Tannum SandsState High School; Springfield State School;Eatons Hill State School; Clifton State HighSchool; Logan City Special School;Homestead Drive State School; BeenleighSpecial School; Runcorn State High School;Bowen State School; Kuranda State HighSchool; Pimlico State High School—Performing Arts Centre; The Gap State HighSchool; Talara State School, Currimundi;Jinibara State School, Narangba; MountainCreek State High School, Maroochy; MountainCreek State High School, Maroochy; HendraState High School; and Boonah State HighSchool.

In Health we have: the Redlands Hospitalredevelopment contract, Ipswich Hospitalredevelopment, North Brisbane BreastScreening Clinic——

Mr Fouras: Mr Speaker, do we have toput up with this?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forAshgrove asks the question, "Should we haveto put up with this?" I will quote from SpeakerFouras on 17 March 1992, who said that whenquestions are multi-pronged and long answersare required, a Minister should be allowed toanswer each part of the question. I believe thePremier is answering each part of thequestion. We will have some order on bothsides.

Mr BORBIDGE: Mr Speaker, thank youfor upholding the wise decision of SpeakerFouras in this place.

I will continue with the Health capitalworks: Ipswich Hospital redevelopment, NorthBrisbane Breast Screening Clinic, HerstonComplex, RBH Angiography and Fluoroscopic


Units, and the Accommodation RationalisationStrategy.

In terms of Corrective Services we have:Arthur Gorrie Centre, Wacol Dog Squad,Numinbah Correctional Centre, Townsville—Cleveland Detention Centre, John Oxley YouthDetention Centre, Townsville CorrectionalCentre, and the Townsville CorrectionalCentre. In Justice we have: Brisbane LawCourts. In Main Roads there are: Warwick,Cunningham Highway; Inglewood,Cunningham Highway; Maroochy, BruceHighway; and Banana Shire, LeichhardtHighway.

Ms Bligh: You're spending only halfwhat you said you would.

Mr BORBIDGE: Honourable membersopposite said we are not doing anything. Theyaccused my colleague the Minister for MainRoads. I must respect the decision of theformer Speaker in this regard.

Mr WELLS: I rise to a point or order. MrSpeaker, I refer to the precedent that you justquoted to the House when questions aremulti-pronged. This question was not multi-pronged; the precedent does not apply. I askyou, therefore, to bring the Premier to order.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the honourablemember to resume his seat. There is no pointof order. I call on the Premier and ask him towind up his answer. I think it has gone on longenough.

Mr BORBIDGE: Certainly, Mr Speaker.

I will continue with the Main Roads capitalworks: Cairns, Brinsmead Road; Hervey Bay,Bruce Highway; Brisbane-Ipswich,Cunningham Highway; Caboolture, BruceHighway; Oxenford, Pacific Motorway;Pimpama, Pacific Motorway; Cloncurry, BurkeDevelopmental Road; Brisbane, Redcliffe Sub-arterial Road; Bungil Shire, Warrego Highway;Maroochy Shire, Bruce Highway. Office ofTourism and Sport, Police, Public Works andHousing——

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. Imove that the Premier table the documentfrom which he is quoting in the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourablemember has asked that he table it?

Mr Hamill: I move that he table it.

Mr BORBIDGE: I am absolutelydelighted to table the document.

I say in conclusion that there are similarprograms for most months and, as I saidearlier in my answer, in terms of our spendingof the Capital Works Program compared to

spending by the previous Labor Government,we are leaving it in the dust.

Airconditioning Schools

Mr PEARCE: My single-prongedquestion is to the Education Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask him for a single-pronged answer.

Mr PEARCE: I refer the EducationMinister to his Government's policy that onlyschools in the tropics north of Bowen willreceive State funding for airconditioning oftheir classrooms, and I ask: did the Premierconsult the Minister before he ignored thispolicy and allocated $300,000 in State fundingto aircondition three Moranbah schools in theNational Party electorate of Charters Towers?Why has he rejected similar funding requestsfrom schools at Blackwater, Middlemount,Dysart and Tieri in the adjoining Laborelectorate of Fitzroy which have raised nearly$700,000 towards airconditioning in theirschools and only want to be given a fair go likethe Moranbah schools?

Mr QUINN: When we were looking atthe Cool Schools initiative, there was an issueof how far south we would go and whether, infact, we would take it to the 20th parallel orfurther south. There was a debate at thatparticular time as to whether we would godown to the 22nd parallel. Because ofbudgetary limitations, we decided that wewould stick with the 20th parallel and, ashonourable members would know, we are inthe process of implementing that Cool Schoolsprogram north of that particular line. There aresome minor variations around Charters Towersand through Bowen, because the line goesthrough those two towns and splitscommunities. They are only minor variations tothose lines in the interests of keeping togetherthe communities in those particular towns.

As to the issue of the additional moneysto the school at Moranbah—I understand thatthe Premier's Department has provided somefunding on the indication that, in theforeseeable future, we will be looking atextending the range to the 22nd parallel, as Iindicated in the first part of my answer.

Law and Order, MackayMr MALONE: I ask the Minister for

Police: could he outline what action policehave taken to address law and order issues inMackay?

Mr COOPER: With the greatest ofpleasure! I commend the member for Mirani


for his question. Obviously, he has concernsabout Mackay. Earlier this year and prior to thelast election I had discussions with membersof the Mackay City Council. I am certainlyaware that there are issues there to beaddressed, and we are addressing them—aswe are doing right across the State. We aretrying to fill in the gaps and clean up the messthat members opposite left behind. We aregetting there. We are cleaning up the mess.The police themselves worked very closely withthe Mackay community as well as the citycouncil, local businesses and ATSI groups,particularly in relation to alcohol-related crimeand subsequent street offences.

As a matter of interest, because of thework that has been going on with the police,the Mackay City Council and the businesscommunity in that area, crime rates actuallyfell in 1996 compared to 1995, when that lotopposite were in Government. This is yetanother demonstration of the fact that thingsare improving, and we will continue to improvethem. That means a drop in offences againstthe person, which is one of the issues ofconcern in that area and in other places. Butthe fact is that this is working and working well.As well, the people up there want dedicatedfoot patrols, especially in the inner-city area.These sorts of things are happening, and theywill increase as more staff come into play.Those staff are coming into play.

An Opposition member interjected.

Mr COOPER: That is on the member'sfigures. I will give him the figures. I have themall here. Those numbers are coming through.Even the member for Mackay—an Oppositionmember—knows and admits that there will bean extra 14 police in Mackay this year. Heknows that they are coming. Some of themare already there. Special patrols have beenconducted by the CIB, Juvenile Aid Bureauofficers, the Dog Squad and the TrafficBranch. That is already happening. The DogSquad in particular is receiving a significantincrease in the weekend budget.

Mr MULHERIN: I rise to a point oforder. I just want a point clarified. TheHonourable Minister said yesterday in thisHouse that there were 10 police for Mackay.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The membercannot ask for clarification.

Mr MULHERIN: Now he is saying 14.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willstate his point of order.

Mr MULHERIN: What is the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear themember. I call the Minister.

Mr COOPER: I am pretty sure that themember for Mackay would agree that hewould like another 14 police this year. Whydoes he not put up his hand? Or does he notwant them? Maybe they can go elsewhere.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are notdebating this issue.

Mrs BIRD: I rise to a point of order.Could the Minister clarify for me whether he istalking about Mackay City or the Mackayregion? Most of those are to fill the gaps in theWhitsunday region.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will do someclarification. Members have been taking fartoo many frivolous points of order. There is nopoint of order. This is not a debate. TheMinister will stick to the answer to the question.

Mr COOPER: Sure. I am enjoying everybit of it.

It is planned to increase the Dog Squadby a dog and a handler in the medium term.Again, the numbers are going up. Dognumbers are going up. The main thing is todeal with the problems that people have inthat area. That is being done. But we must notforget that the gaps were caused by this lotopposite. Rostering has been changed toensure the highest possible police profile inthe Mackay central business district at criticaltimes. It is planned to give a higher priority toestablishing daily foot patrols in the MackayCBD when the number of general dutiespersonnel at the Mackay station is restored bythis Government after the Labor regime soirresponsibly ground down those numbers.Between 1993 and 1996, numbers fell from171 to 159 in the Mackay police district,representing a drop of 7%. That was Labor'sform in 1996. We are delivering those extra 14police. By June 1997 that number will increaseto 176.

Mr BARTON: I rise to a point of order.The Minister is misleading the House.Yesterday, as recorded in Hansard, he saidthat this year Mackay would be getting not 14,not 10, but eight.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the Minister.

Mr COOPER: It is 14. The number is 14extra police this calendar year.

Opposition members interjected.Mr COOPER: I will wait until members

opposite are ready.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mr COOPER: Five additional police areon their way to Mackay after inductions in thepast week, boosting numbers in theimmediate future. Two from Oxley will be on


the roster at the Mackay station on 7 May andtwo from the Townsville induction will be onduty at the Mackay station on 10 May.

Mr BARTON: I rise to a point of order. Imove that the Minister table the documentthat he is reading from so that we can all seefor ourselves.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has beenmoved that the Minister table the document.

Mr COOPER: I will be quite happy to dothat once I am finished. Two from theTownsville induction will be at the Mackaystation on 10 May. A third Townsville graduatewill be on roster in the near future. Anotherthree additional officers are expected totransfer to Mackay in the near future. Thoseincoming officers will give the district officer thechance to enhance service delivery in theCBD. Further to this, the Mackay district willbenefit from a further allocation from Oxley inAugust and another in December. Theadditional staff are coming on line, and theywill increase the district figures by 14 by theend of the calendar year. The extra officers willallow a substantial increase in pro-active policework. Those numbers will be there. That isgood news for Mackay.

Last night there was a communityconsultative meeting, of which I know that themember is aware. The assistant commissionerfor that region did attend that meeting. Manygood things for the people of Mackay will flowfrom that meeting. There is a recognition bythe community and the police that apartnership is needed to work together to bringdown the crime rates. That is exactly what ishappening. That is why that is catching on sowell and why police and community councilsare becoming so popular. That is the sort ofpartnership that the people need.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willwind up his answer.

Mr COOPER: Mr Speaker, there ismore. A lot has happened and is happening inMackay, and it needs to be known.

As to police youth camps—there was oneunder way last week. There is a group upthere called the Elders, who are bringingtogether respected representatives ofindigenous groups in Mackay. Again, that is astep in the right direction. The MackayAboriginal and Islander Justice AlternativeGroup has been formed. There are blue-lightdiscos. The list goes on and on and on. Theyare very positive moves. They are the sorts ofmoves which we fully intend to continue. Ienjoy saying that those numbers are beingdelivered after members opposite ran them

down so hopelessly and irresponsibly. Theyshould be ashamed of themselves.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister willtable the document. He indicated that hewould table it.

Sunbelt Developments Pty Ltd; GoldCoast Indy

Mr GIBBS: I draw the attention of theMinister for Tourism to the fact that receiverswere appointed yesterday to Gold Coast Indysponsorship company Sunbelt DevelopmentsPty Ltd. I ask: is he aware that Indy may beforced to surrender the $400,000 sponsorshippayments from Sunbelt if receivers judge thatthe transactions were not made in the normalcourse of business and seek a court order tohave the money given back for distribution toSunbelt creditors?

Mr DAVIDSON: No, I am not aware ofthe issues raised by the member forBundamba. I will take a briefing from thechairman of the board today. As the memberis aware, an article in the newspaper todayadvised that Sunbelt had been placed inliquidation. The administrators are concernedthat the undue and adverse publicity receivedin the last month or two has resulted in a rushof creditors on Sunbelt. After question time, Iwill take a briefing from the chairman of theIndy board. I will be happy to inform themember for Bundamba of the position of theIndy board in relation to the Sunbeltsponsorship.

QE II Hospital

Mr RADKE: I ask the Minister for Health:will he inform the House of the improvementsthat the coalition Government has made toBrisbane's QE II Hospital since coming topower?

Mr HORAN: I know that all the coalitionmembers on the south side of Brisbane areextremely interested in the vast improvementsthat we have brought about at the QE IIHospital. If anything demonstrates theabsolute mess of Health that was made by theprevious Labor Government, it is what it did tothe QE II Hospital. In 1995, that once great,proud hospital that served the south side ofBrisbane was reduced to nine beds.

Mr Ardill interjected.

Mr HORAN: The honourable memberwas one of the people who stood by, sawwhat happened and did nothing. He shouldhang his head in disgrace.


Mr ARDILL: I rise to a point of order.The Minister knows that that is not true. I seeka withdrawal of that absolute untruth. Heknows very well that I objected all the way toany change to QE II and that I supported thathospital.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. The honourable member hasfound the remark offensive and has asked theMinister to withdraw.

Mr HORAN: I will withdraw. I am pleasedto hear that he tried so hard in vain. Obviously,the powers that be in the Labor Governmentwere determined to destroy the QE II Hospitaland reduced it to just nine occupied beds, justa shadow of its once great self. The QE IIHospital once had the third biggest accidentand emergency section in the State and thethird biggest maternity section. It was one ofthe great jewels in the crown of theQueensland health system.

The coalition Government, an actionGovernment, made an election promise. Wehave restored that hospital to a truecommunity general hospital. We haveprovided up to $11m in capital works, whichare under way at the hospital now. Indeed, itwas a great pleasure to go there recently toopen the $400,000 level one intensive careunit and the upgrade of the emergencydepartment, to see those departments busywith staff bustling around, to see patientsbeing treated and to know that if people haveserious cardiac problems, major trauma orfractures they can now go to their hospital andbe treated. In addition to those capital works,we provided the hospital with an additional$9m for its recurrent budget—a recordincrease. With that increase, we have beenable to provide five beds in the ICU, two ofwhich are ventilated. In the first month ofoperation, that unit has been able to treat 57critically ill patients. We are about treatingpeople, not closing down the hospital as didthe previous Labor Government.

Specialist services that are now availableat the QE II Hospital include ophthalmology,urology, general surgery, orthopaedics,gynaecology and gastroenterology. Already,we have appointed 68 additional full-timeequivalent nurses and 36 full-time equivalentdoctors. They are staff who can treat people.We have reopened a 30-bed medical ward,which is expected to treat 1,500 patients ayear. The redevelopment of the QE II Hospitalhas included increasing the operating theatresfrom four to six, the establishment of apreadmission clinic, the upgrade of therehabilitation treatment area, the upgrade of

outpatients, upgrade of allied health areasand refurbishment of day surgery. The figuresspeak for themselves. A comparison ofJanuary-March 1996 with January-March 1997shows a 58% increase in the number ofpeople admitted in that period. At midnight on25 March, just last month, the QE II recordedits busiest day for many years with 106 in-patients. Compare that with the dismal recordof the previous Labor Government. Every oneof the Labor members in that area shouldhang their head in shame that they were notable to stop the Labor Government fromdowngrading the QE II Hospital as they did. Iam proud to say that the coalition Governmenthas been able to return that hospital to dowhat it should be doing: serving the people ofthe south side.

I will wind up by reading the opening partof the editorial in the Southern Star of 23 April,"'Miracle' cure", which states——

"If the QEII Hospital were a patient,its recent recovery would be viewed asnothing short of miraculous.

Amputation of nearly all of itsservices was followed by the lost 'limbs'somehow rejuvenating, some strongerthan ever. Downgrading of the hospital wasstarted by the Labor Government in theearly 1990s and culminated in 1995 whenjust nine beds were occupied.

Despite explanations from theGovernment at the time, the decision todowngrade did not sit well with hospitalstaff and Southside residents."

The editorial concluded—

"The Coalition, then in Opposition,pledged to restore QEII to full communityhospital status should it win government.It did both."

Itinerant Vendors

Mr WELLS: I draw the attention of theHonourable Minister for Tourism, SmallBusiness and Industry to the numerouscomplaints to my office on behalf of smallbusinesses about the invasion of itinerant foodvendors into their local areas. As the Ministershould be aware, local shopkeepers employlocal people, pay taxes and go to greatexpense to establish clientele only to facecompetition from itinerant food vendors, suchas pie vans and snack mobiles, who drive intotheir area every day and poach thousands ofdollars worth of business from localshopkeepers. I ask: what steps is he taking to


protect the livelihoods of hardworking localshopkeepers from those itinerant foodvendors?

Mr DAVIDSON: The member should beaware that I cannot get around every day ofthe week to every suburb and town inQueensland checking up on the activities ofitinerant or casual food vendors. I would thinkthat the honourable member has aresponsibility to write to me as the Minister forSmall Business and bring those issues to myattention.

Mr ELDER: Is the Minister aware thatPeter Rankin, the Liberal candidate forKurwongbah, is an itinerant vendor who runshis pie vans through those suburbs?

Mr DAVIDSON: I will just ask theMinister for Environment to pinch me to makesure that I am awake. I have sat in this Housefor over 14 months and when the DeputyLeader of the Opposition was Small Businessspokesperson he never asked me a question.The only question that I have had from thepresent Opposition spokesperson for SmallBusiness is a point of order. I cannot believethat the present Opposition spokesperson forSmall Business would rise to a point of orderto make reference to the candidate forKurwongbah.

I have been concerned for some timeabout the small-business community in LaborParty electorates. Recently, I had my staffcheck every file in my office to ensure thatthey were being represented by Labor Partymembers. I am constantly receiving lettersfrom members on this side of the House. I amconstantly being invited by members on thisside of the House to meetings with small-business people. I am constantly beingreminded by members on this side of theHouse of the needs of business and smallbusiness. On checking my files, I found itunbelievable that in 14 months I had receivedabout seven or eight letters from Oppositionmembers, not on behalf of small business buton a variety of other issues.

I cannot believe, with all the work that weas a Government have done for smallbusiness in establishing The Red TapeReduction Task Force, in establishing theQueensland Small Business Council, in settingup the Queensland Retail Strategy—all theinitiatives that we have put in place as aGovernment—that not one member oppositebothers to take the time to bring to myattention the concerns of small-businesspeople in their electorates. The member whoasked the question——

Mrs EDMOND: I rise to a point of order.I wrote to the Minister about an issue and sofar he has not agreed to meet with the peopleconcerned.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Was it a longletter? There is no point of order. Anotherpoint of order? Did you write to the Minister?

Mr WELLS: My point of order——

Mr SPEAKER: Very, very in-depth stuffhere today.

Mr WELLS: Mr Speaker, this will appealto your own profundity. Will the Minister lookinto it if we do write to him?

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Minister. Notlong to go.

Mr DAVIDSON: Obviously, I take noteof the concerns that the member has raisedtoday. I will raise this issue with the Minister forLocal Government and Planning, DiMcCauley. I will also bring it to the attention ofthe Queensland Small Business CouncilChairman, Mr Geoff Murphy. I will have theSmall Business Council place this issue on theagenda for the next meeting. As I understandfrom the Premier, Mrs McCauley already hasinstituted action and is developing an overviewfor the Government on these issues.

Statewide Land Cover and TreesStudy

Mr ELLIOTT: I ask the Minister forNatural Resources: can he inform the Houseof the latest results from the Statewide landcover and trees study, especially as it relatesto vegetation change and greenhouse gasemissions?

Mr HOBBS: I thank the honourablemember for the question. A group called theStatewide Land Cover and Tree StudyCommittee has put together a lot of work onvegetation change, vegetation density andsatellite imagery maps in relation to thevariances in land cover in Queensland. Thepreliminary assessment of vegetation changefor 1991-1995 shows the average annual rateof tree clearing to be 308,000 hectares a year.I also make the point that 60% to 70% of thatland is regrowth.

The conservation groups make a fair bit ofthe permits that are issued. I make the pointto the Parliament that the issuing of permitsdoes not really indicate at all that any timber iscleared or is even contemplated to be cleared;it is just that graziers or farmers may intendsome time down the track to do that clearing,but that certainly does not mean to say thatthe permits are being used.


Interestingly, the measured trends invegetation thickening indicate thatgreenhouse gas emissions from tree clearingmay be in balance with carbon being stored asa result of woodland thickening inQueensland. People must understand—andthis is very important—that because of thedifferent types of biodiversity in Queensland,we have enormous regrowth. In fact, there ismore standing woodland in Queensland todaythan there was at the time of white settlement.

The situation in Queensland is not thesame as the situation down south—and I referto the problems experienced with the Murray-Darling system—and it is about time thatmembers opposite, particularly the shadowMinisters for Environment and NaturalResources, understood that.

The satellite imagery for 1988, 1991 and1995 will be analysed to detect change in treecover across the entire State. The process willbe repeated in 1997 and 1998. Maps ofvegetation cover change, and summarystatistics categorised by shire, pastoral zone,biogeographic zone and province will beproduced. The accuracy of the computeranalysis of the satellite imagery will be verifiedby ground measurements. The treemanagement guidelines that we have beenworking on for quite a long time will, in fact,come into being fairly soon. Thirty-six groupshave been involved in that work, whichincludes undertaking a regional assessment ofthe guidelines. We are looking to have thoseguidelines in place by mid 1997.

It is unfortunate that the conservationgroups have pulled out of the State treesgroup. They have pulled out on the basis thatthere has been a dilution of the 1995preliminary policy. I make it quite clear to theParliament and the people of Queensland thatan enormous amount of study andinvestigation has been carried out into tree-clearing guidelines in this State. As we goalong, we find more information and, on thatbasis, we have to update our guidelines. Wehave done an exhaustive study andinvestigation into this process and we in thisState will have the best tree managementguidelines that will be the envy of the rest ofAustralia.

I make the point also that Senator Hill isvisiting Queensland this week to inspect someof the tree management programs that wehave in place. We are certainly keen to makesure that he receives a real perspective ofwhat is happening in Queensland in contrastto what he has been told by perhapsconservation groups or the Opposition.

We are genuinely making sure that wehave a professional basis upon which we canput in place our tree management guidelines.We want to have sustainable guidelines thatwill be able to take Queensland into the nextcentury.

Native Title Compensation

Mr HAMILL: I refer the Treasurer tomedia reports stating that she as Treasurerwould not be prepared to pay more than 25%of native title compensation claims, and I ask:what other aspects of the Prime Minister's 10-point plan on native title does she endorse, ordoes she subscribe to the Premier'sdiscredited one-point plan?

Mrs SHELDON: I am pleased thatfinally the Opposition has a question for meabout Wik. I am sure that the shadowTreasurer would be interested in the amountof compensation that we as a State wouldhave to pay if, in fact, State legislation was putin place. I have had discussions with the PrimeMinister on this matter, the last one as late asFriday night. My understanding from thatdiscussion was that the State would have topay no more than indeed the compensationthat had been proposed earlier, which was theCommonwealth Government pay 75% and theState pay 25%. In fact, the Premier hadindicated to me that it may be less than 25%,and I raised that particular point with JohnHoward. The fact of the matter is that theState does not have money put aside forcompensation.

Mr Beattie: Why pay anything?

Mrs SHELDON: Why pay anything?Because I suppose people who have a legalclaim and a rightful claim have a right to somecompensation.

Mr Beattie: The Commonwealth shouldpay.

Mrs SHELDON: It is very interesting tonote that the Leader of the Opposition issaying, "Why pay anything?" I wonder if theAboriginal groups are listening? They willcertainly know——

Mr T. B. Sullivan: He didn't say that atall.

Mrs SHELDON: Yes, he did. He said ityesterday, too. He said, "Why should we payanything?" The fact of the matter is that if theState legislates, the State will be in theposition that the question of compensation willhave to be addressed. I am supporting thesituation where the States must pay their fairshare. As I said quite clearly——

30 Apr 1997 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 1127

Mr Hamill: Are you supporting JohnHoward?

Mrs SHELDON: I said this at a pressconference on Monday night, so there is nosecret of it—that the State should pay nomore than 25%.

Mr Hamill: Are you supporting RobBorbidge?

Mrs SHELDON: I am supporting ourState not having to pay any more. Themember asked the question; he should listento the answer. I assume that he wants to hearit and that he is not like his leader and playingpolitics for the sake of playing politics and notlooking after the interests of the people ofQueensland, whoever they might be.

The fact of the matter is that we as aState cannot afford to pay compensation; butif it is State legislation, there will be an onusobviously on us to look after equality for theAboriginal people in this State.

Mr Beattie: You're avoiding thequestion and you know it.

Mrs SHELDON: Why does the Leaderof the Opposition not listen? He asked thequestion, and the question was aboutcompensation.

Mr Hamill: I asked the question.

Mrs SHELDON: I know the memberdid. However, the Leader of the Opposition isnow asking one. I will answer this question as Isee fit. We must be fair to all people in thisState—the pastoralists, the industrialists, theminers, the developers, the people who haveordinary leases and the Aboriginal community.If compensation has to be paid, we as a Statemust pay our fair share. That should be nomore than 25%.

TrainingMr BAUMANN: I ask the Minister for

Training and Industrial Relations, if the time willallow, to inform the House of a recentGovernment initiative which will ensure thatsmall business becomes more involved intraining.

Mr SANTORO: The honourablemember asked an extremely interestingquestion which deserves a far morecomprehensive answer than what I am able togive to the House today. However, I wish toassure the House that as soon as I have anopportunity to amplify the matter raised in thequestion—perhaps tomorrow—I would like tobring to the attention of the House the manyinitiatives that this Government has taken inrelation to small business, particularly in the

area of training, which will help to overcomethe enormous lack of culture that thisGovernment inherited as a result of thecommitment of the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.

GAMING MACHINE AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (11.31 a.m.), by leave, withoutnotice: I move—

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

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (11.32 a.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."

This Bill will amend the Gaming MachineAct 1991. The Act is the primary legislativemeasure regulating the operation of gamingmachines in Queensland clubs and hotels.The Act has undergone minor amendments in1993 and 1995, but has largely beenunchanged since its commencement in 1991.However, a review of the Act in the light ofexperience and changing times has resulted invarious amendments being proposed toenhance the operational arrangements formachine gaming in Queensland.

Due to the wide-ranging and fundamentalnature of the proposed changes, as well asindustry agreement on the timetable for theirimplementation, the Bill only deals with theamendments required to be operational by 1July 1997 and involves changes to ownershipand possession of machines, the provision oflicensed commercial operators and approvedfinanciers, and a taxation structure based onmetered site win. A second Bill dealing withother issues, including changes to thelicensing requirements, the electronicmonitoring of gaming machines and a rangeof administrative matters will be introduced inthe second half of calendar 1997.

1128 Gaming Machine Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

The Bill is the result of a two-year reviewof the regulatory arrangements for gamingmachines in Queensland clubs and hotels.The review followed the successful introductionof machines into Queensland in February1992. A partial measure of this success hasbeen the overwhelming acceptance of gamingmachines into Queensland and thetransformation of the clubs and, to a lesserextent, the hotel industries in the period sincethen. As at 31 March 1997, there were over21,000 gaming machines in over 1,100 sites.

While the current regulatory regime hasserved a new and relatively mature industrywell and has ensured that it meets the higheststandards of integrity, it is timely that theregulatory structure be reviewed to strategicallyposition the industry to meet the futuredemands and expectations that will be placedon it. The review has included extensiveconsultation with all parts of the industry andthe Bill proposes a new model for theregulation of machine gaming in Queensland.It is a Bill based on the needs of a mature,highly competitive industry, particularly itsneeds to be flexible and responsive to theincreasingly sophisticated requirements of thegaming industry. Critically, though, it does notcompromise the very high standards withregards to probity and integrity achieved in theQueensland industry.

Under existing legislation, the ownershipof gaming machines, other than by theGovernment, excluding casinos, is illegal. Thisstrict regulation of the industry was originallyrequired to ensure the integrity of gaming.Under this system, however, sites have nochoice regarding the brand of machine orgame supplied to them. As the popularity ofbrands of machines and games varies widely,a key issue identified by all major industryparticipants was this absence of choice.Further, as the rental fees charged by theGovernment to licensees were calculated overa five-year life cycle and the average age ofmachines is currently approximately 2.5 years,together with the rising cost of new gamingtechnology, the ability of the Government tomaintain supply of the most modern andpopular gaming technology to the industry hasdeclined.

Furthermore, the Government is placed ina position of potential conflict through being aparticipant in the industry as a direct purchaserand owner of machines and also maintaininga regulatory role. This has been especiallybrought to note in both the NationalCompetition Policy and the Commission ofAudit.

The Bill provides for the Government towithdraw from ownership of gaming machinesand to allow licensed sites, licensedcommercial operators and prescribedfinanciers to own machines. Ultimately, this willallow licensed sites to select the brands ofmachines and games of their choice. Byproviding for the introduction of prescribedfinanciers to supply finance and licensedcommercial operators to provide machinesand monitoring services to the industry, as wellas additional services such as management,marketing and analysis, licensees will haveaccess to a range of ownership options thatwill best suit their individual needs.

To ensure the continued integrity of theindustry, commercial operators wishing toparticipate in the Queensland market will belicensed under current strict licensingprocedures and all purchasing arrangementsentered into by the industry will requireapproval by the Queensland Office of GamingRegulation prior to purchase. It also providesthe Queensland Office of Gaming Regulationwith a clearer regulatory focus, enabling it toperform its functions without the conflicting roleof engaging in commercial activities.

The Bill also deals with the taxationstructure, which was another key issueidentified by the review. The present methodof calculating tax as a flat 3% plus levies ofsite turnover is a simple, effective and easilycontrolled method which ensures that theGovernment receives its full entitlements.However, due to the constantly changingnature of new technology in gamingmachines, many new innovations such aslinked jackpot systems and multi-bet gamesthat require increased player returns run therisk of failure in the marketplace under thecurrent taxation structure. Also, under aturnover-based system, a licensed site couldlose money in any given assessment periodbecause of a large jackpot payout. Irrespectiveof the win or loss for the period, the fullturnover tax assessed is payable, which mayimpose cash flow difficulties in thesecircumstances.

The Bill allows for a shift from a flattaxation based on turnover to a progressivetax scale based on the metered win, or loss, ofthe site. In amendments to the gamingmachine regulation which have already beenimplemented and commenced as of 1 March1997, the actual level of tax paid by licensedclubs has been reduced from 4% ofturnover—plus community benefit levy over$500,000—for clubs to 2% on the first$66,666 of turnover and 4% on all turnoverover this amount—plus the community benefit

30 Apr 1997 Superannuation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1129

levy. For hotels, tax has been reduced from10%—including all levies—of turnover to 7.5%.The progressive taxation rates based on themetered win of the site and provided for in thegaming machine regulation incorporate thesetax reductions which means that sites willcontinue to benefit from the reduction in theeffective tax rate under the proposed changeto a metered win based structure. Additionally,the metered win based tax allows for anincreased player return, as the site only paystax on profit. The corresponding advantagesof new innovations, as previously mentioned,can also be introduced without the risk offailure due to poor player returns.

The Bill is a necessary result of the reviewof the Gaming Machine Act's operation sinceits inception in 1991. It has been developed infull and open consultation with industryparticipants and agreement with theseparticipants has been achieved. I commendthe Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Hamill,adjourned.

SUPERANNUATION AND OTHERLEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend or repeal certainActs establishing superannuationschemes, to provide for theamalgamation of the schemes, and forother purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second Reading



The purpose of the Bill is to amendsuperannuation legislation to merge the majorsuperannuation funds catering for publicsector employees, and also strengthen theprovisions for the recovery of the employer

portion of superannuation benefits of corruptpublic officials.

Currently the provision of superannuationbenefits for Queensland State Public Sectoremployees is through the State Public Sector(Q Super), Gosuper, State Service, Police andthe Fires Superannuation Schemes. The fiveschemes contain different benefit designs andare administered through separate Acts, fundsand trustee boards.

The Bill amends the Superannuation(State Public Sector) Act 1990—which is theQ Super legislation—and the Fire and RescueAuthority Act 1990 to provide for the merger ofthe five funds and the trustee boards of suchfunds. As all operative provisions covering theschemes of the merged funds will becontained under the Superannuation (StatePublic Sector) Act 1990, the Bill also repealsthose superannuation Acts which will beredundant following the merger.

The Commonwealth Government hasprovided for superannuation funds to mergewithout incurring a capital gains tax liabilitywhere the merger occurs by 30 June 1997.The merger is being pursued to—

simplify the operating structure of thetrustee boards;

permit the most efficient taxationarrangements, allowing members totransfer between the funds withoutincurring capital gains tax; and

access administration cost savingsthrough the rationalisation ofadministration processes such as thepreparation of financial statements andtaxation returns.

The merger will not alter any member'sbenefits, with members of the separateschemes having their benefits specified underdifferent categories of the deed of the StatePublic Sector Superannuation Scheme. Themerger has the support of the trustee boardsof the various schemes which includerepresentatives of employees. A single boardwill oversee the scheme and the boardmembership has been expanded from 8persons to 10 to cater for additional employeeand employer representatives.

In addition, the Bill amends the PublicOfficers' Superannuation Benefits RecoveryAct 1988. This Act permits recovery of theCrown financed portion of superannuationbenefits where a person has been convictedof an offence involving the corruption of theiroffice. A number of deficiencies have beenidentified in the Recovery Act and its operationwith other superannuation legislation, including

1130 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 30 Apr 1997

the inability to access preservedsuperannuation benefits. The amendmentscontained in this Bill will address theseinadequacies without changing the thrust ofthe legislation in any way.

The Bill also makes consequentialamendments to the Building and ConstructionIndustry (Portable Long Service Leave) Act1991, as a result of the introduction of theQueensland Workplace Relations Act 1997and the Commonwealth Workplace RelationsAct 1996.

The amendments commence from 27March 1997 and prescribe the correctprovisions under the Queensland WorkplaceRelations Act 1997 and facilitate therecognition for membership of employeesworking under Queensland and Australianworkplace agreements. I commend the Bill tothe House.


BANK OF NEW ZEALAND (TRANSFEROF UNDERTAKING) BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to provide for the transfer ofthe undertaking of Bank of New Zealandto National Australia Bank Limited, and forrelated purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second Reading



In February 1993, Bank of New Zealand,a New Zealand company, became a whollyowned subsidiary of National Australia Bank.Part of BNZ's business is a banking businessin Australia, which operates with relativeautonomy as a division of BNZ, under thename of BNZ Australia. BNZ has an authorityas a licensed foreign bank under the Banking

Act 1959 (Commonwealth) to carry on bankingbusiness in Australia. As a result of theacquisition of BNZ by NAB, BNZ is required bythe Reserve Bank to surrender its authorityand, as such, it is necessary to transfer theAustralian undertaking of BNZ to NAB.

NAB has requested assistance from allAustralian jurisdictions to pass complementarylegislation to facilitate the transfer of specificassets and liabilities within each State andTerritory. The aim of the Bill is to transfer BNZ'sAustralian undertaking to NAB. The transfercould be achieved without legislation.However, such legislation overcomes the needfor identification and transfer of individualassets on an item by item basis. In addition,legislation achieves continuity in customerrelationships, as well as providing protectionfor persons dealing with either bank in respectof transferred assets and liabilities.

Further, the Bill will exempt the transfertransaction from State stamp duty which wouldnormally be payable, on the condition that alump sum in lieu of the duty is paid to theConsolidated Fund by NAB. The amount ofthat payment will be determined by theGovernor in Council, on my advice. The Officeof State Revenue currently is in the process offinalising a figure for the payment, inconsultation with NAB.

The State's policy in the past has been toassist merging banks by enacting transferlegislation, most recently demonstrated by theChallenge Bank (Transfer of Undertaking) Act1996 and the Bank Merger (BankSA andAdvance Bank) Act 1996. The approachcontemplated by the Bill accords with previousbank merger legislation in Queensland, and isconsistent with complementary legislation inother Australian jurisdictions. NAB hasrequested that the legislation be operative bythe earliest possible date in order to enable acoordinated transfer of undertakings across alljurisdictions. I commend the Bill to the House.


QUEENSLAND COMPETITIONAUTHORITY BILL


"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to establish the QueenslandCompetition Authority, give it powers andfunctions about pricing practices relatingto government monopoly business

30 Apr 1997 Queensland Competition Authority Bill 1131

activities, competitive neutrality andaccess to services, and for otherpurposes."Motion agreed to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming) reada message from Her Excellency the Governorrecommending the necessary appropriation.

First ReadingBill and Explanatory Notes presented and

Bill, on motion of Mrs Sheldon, read a firsttime.

Second Reading


"That the Bill be now read a secondtime."The purpose of this Bill is to implement

competition policy related initiatives consistentwith the Government's broader policy agenda,including social and equity considerations,environmental objectives and the continueddelivery of community service obligations.

This legislation establishes anindependent body, the QueenslandCompetition Authority (QCA), to undertakeprices oversight of Government monopolybusiness activities, administer a State-basedthird-party access regime and provide acompetitive neutrality complaints mechanism.

The QCA is to comprise at least threemembers and a secretariat staffed with high-quality people who have the right balance ofexperience and technical skills. It is intendedthat the membership of the QCA will compriseindividuals with an outstanding record ofsuccess in both the private and the publicsectors. This Government is committed toadequately resource the QCA to enable it toproduce high quality results.

As honourable members are aware,Queensland is a fully participating jurisdictionof the National Competition Policy. Thispackage of reforms was agreed between allStates and Territories and the Commonwealththrough the Council of AustralianGovernments in 1995 and significant benefitsare attached to its implementation.

At the same time it is important torecognise that the NCP is a politicalagreement between sovereign Governmentsand the agreement provides legitimatemechanisms for States and Territories toimplement the NCP in a flexible and

responsible manner. NCP is not aboutcompetition for competition's sake. It is aboutintroducing worthwhile competitivearrangements where the social as well aseconomic and financial benefits outweigh thecosts. In this respect, the Bill does not containmechanisms to reduce the delivery ofcommunity service obligations, nor does itforce Government businesses to abandon theprovision of these services. The Bill doescontain specific requirements that publicinterest tests be conducted before reforms areimplemented.

This Government is committed toimplementing NCP in a manner which benefitsthe community, that is, the State ofQueensland. There must be clear,demonstrable benefits to the communitybefore consideration will be given toimplementing reforms. The impact of reformon Queensland and on Queenslanders ismost appropriately assessed under a State-based regime. Without a State-based regimeto take account of State-based issues, theCommonwealth regime prevails and this risksthe interests of Queensland beingsubordinated to the national interest. Thisalone is reason enough for all members of thisHouse to support this Bill.

As mentioned earlier, the Bill comprisesthree components—prices oversight ofmonopoly or near monopoly Governmentbusiness activities, a complaints mechanismfor alleged breaches of competitive neutralityand a third-party access regime. Governmentbusiness activities with monopoly powers arein a position to charge prices which areexcessive. Accordingly, it is important thatthere is a mechanism to ensure independentoversight of the prices charged by theseorganisations to ensure they do not abusetheir monopoly powers. The prices oversightcomponent of the Bill provides for the QCA tooversee the prices charged by monopoly ornear monopoly Government businessactivities.

The second component of the Bill dealswith a competitive neutrality complaintsmechanism. Government business activities—be they undertaken by Governmentdepartments, GOCs or other statutoryauthorities—compete with private sectorbusinesses in a variety of markets.Competition of this nature will increase asGovernment continues to implement reformssuch as corporatisation and commercialisation.Competitors of such Government businessesmust, however, be able to seek redress if theybelieve they are competing at a disadvantage.Accordingly, the Bill provides for an

1132 Land Sales and Land Title Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

independent mechanism which allowscompetitors of Government businesses tolodge a complaint where they believe that theGovernment business enjoys a competitiveadvantage by virtue of its ownership.

The third component of the Bill comprisesa State third-party access regime. This regimeis to apply exclusively to public infrastructure,although subsequently it may also apply toselected private infrastructure after dueconsultation with affected owners. Third-partyaccess involves a two-step process. The firststep ensures that the infrastructure to whichanother person seeks to gain access is of aspecial category, which broadly can beclassified as a natural monopoly. This step inthe process is extremely important because ifaccess is applied too widely, it has thepotential to adversely affect future investmentin this State. A second step involvescompulsory dispute resolution through either aprivate arbiter, or by the QCA if the partiescannot agree on the appointment of a privatearbiter. The third-party access regime hasbeen designed to maximise certainty for allparties and to streamline the process to themaximum extent possible.

This Government is not interested inreform or NCP for its own sake. ThisGovernment is interested in protectingconsumers and users of affected services andproviding an avenue for aggrieved parties tocomplain against unfair competition.Achievement of these outcomes is facilitatedby the QCA in dealing with prices oversight,third-party access and competitive neutralitycomplaints. The Bill provides for open andaccountable processes. Of course, it alsorecognises and accommodates instanceswhere information is commercially sensitiveand its disclosure could be prejudicial to thecommercial interests of the disclosingenterprise.

One of the QCA's major functions is togive advice to the responsible Ministers—thatis, the Premier and Treasurer—on the criteriato be used by them for deciding whether aparticular business activity carried on by aGovernment agency should be declared andbrought under the authority's jurisdiction. Inthis regard, the regime promotes an open andconsultative approach which also encouragescertainty. In relation to prices oversight, forexample, the authority will produce guidelineson what constitutes a Government monopolybusiness activity, with all stakeholders to beconsulted and given every opportunity tocomment and provide input.

The drafting of this Bill has involved anunprecedented level of consultation withstakeholders and community groups. Forexample, particular care has been paid to theneed for streamlined processes andmechanisms to increase investment certaintyin the access regime. Ultimately, the reformswhich will occur as a result of this Bill facilitatesignificant growth in the economy, providingmore jobs and higher living standards forQueenslanders. However, the fulfilment of theGovernment's social objectives will not becompromised. Indeed, one of the primemotivations for State legislation, instead ofrelying upon the equivalent Commonwealthregime, is to ensure that the interests ofQueenslanders are fully considered inassessing the need for competition policyreform. It is only through the establishment ofState-based arrangements that theQueensland Government can ensure that thecompetition-related reforms are implementedin a manner consistent with this State's bestinterests. Moreover, the reforms should not beseen as a catalyst to privatisation. Nothing inthe Bill compels any privatisation ofGovernment functions. Accordingly, the Billshould not be viewed as one which threatensto dismantle any part of the public sector inthis State. It will, however, promote greatercommercial accountability in major StateGovernment business undertakings and willfacilitate fairer competition betweenGovernment businesses and the privatesector.

It is in Queensland's interests that theQCA be established and that it undertake theimportant functions as specified in the Bill. Icommend the Bill to the House.


LAND SALES AND LAND TITLEAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.56 a.m.), by leave, without notice: Imove—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Land SalesAct 1984 and the Land Title Act 1994,and for other purposes."Motion agreed to.


Bill, on motion of Mr Beanland, read a firsttime.

30 Apr 1997 Land Sales and Land Title Amendment Bill 1133

Second ReadingHon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(11.57 a.m.): I move—


Over a number of years, the real estateand property development industries haveapproached the Government expressingconcern over inadequacies in the existinglegislation relating to the restrictions on sellingland prior to registration. Currently pre-registration restrictions do not apply to buildingunits in Queensland and do not apply to landin any other Australian State or Territoryexcept Victoria. Developers consider that theirinability to sell land prior to registration ishindering growth and development in thatsector. By contrast, the provision which alreadyexists to sell building units and group titles offthe plan prior to registration confers an unfaircommercial advantage on developers in thatsector.

Extensive consultation followed thecirculation of a discussion paper on thissubject in July 1996 and the release of a draftBill in early 1997. Submissions were receivedfrom industry groups, developers, surveyorsand engineers, local governments,consumers, financiers, QueenslandGovernment departments and the legalprofession. The Bill includes many of theproposals contained in the discussion paperand many further refinements to the originalproposal which arose after submissions werereceived. There was extensive consultation onthe technical aspects of the Bill with industrygroups and the professional surveyors.

I am pleased to report that the Bill hasreceived broad support from the commercialinterests affected. Industry groups are verystrongly supportive of the proposal embodiedin the Bill and believe that this reform is longoverdue. In particular, they consider thatselling land prior to registration will open up themarket in times of rising demand, with theconsequence that costs will be containedmore readily. They also consider that theability to sell land at an earlier stage will makeit easier for developers to secure finance, aview with which the finance industry concurs.

The existing provisions of the Land SalesAct 1984 place restrictions on selling landbefore a plan of subdivision is approved andthen later sealed by the local government. Bythis stage, the allotments are readilyidentifiable and either the developer hascompleted the work necessary for the purposeof the subdivision to the satisfaction of the

local government or the local government hasbonded the developer. The Act also providesthat, if the final size and topography of theallotment differ from that originally contractedfor by the purchaser, the purchaser may avoidthe contract if he or she is materiallyprejudiced by the difference. In these casesthe purchaser will receive a refund of depositmoneys which have been held in trust.

There is no compelling reason in principleto limit the sale of land prior to registration tothe point where the subdivision plan has beensealed, provided that certainty of identificationof the land purchased is assured. Theamendments proposed by the Bill will notinfringe the original policy objectives of theLand Sales Act 1984 of minimising as far aspossible the deliberate or inadvertentmisdescription of land and of providing readilyavailable remedies to consumers who arenevertheless adversely affected.

The broad purpose of this Bill is to amendthe Land Sales Act 1984 to remove theconstraints on the selling of all freehold andleasehold land prior to registration to allowland to be sold once a subdivision has beenapproved and engineering drawings preparedand, in doing so, to provide enhancedconsumer protection measures.

Turning to the specific provisions of theBill, honourable members will note that this Billhas a number of elements, the chief of whichis that sales of land—which are termed"proposed allotments"—prior to registration willbe permitted at the stage at which asubdivision is approved and engineeringdrawings are prepared.

The Bill contains provisions, including thesupply of a disclosure statement anddisclosure plan to a purchaser to ensure that aproposed allotment, when transferred to thepurchaser, is substantially identical to thatwhich was originally purchased. The purchaseralso has the opportunity at this stage toinspect the allotment as pegged by a licensedsurveyor. If the allotment is not substantiallyidentical, but there is a significant variationbetween the disclosure plan and either theplan showing the constructed works or theplan proposed to be registered—bothprepared by a licensed surveyor—thepurchaser will have an automatic right to avoidthe contract of sale.

A significant variation is defined in the Billas a variation of 1% between the lineardimensions on the disclosure plan and theapproved plan of survey, or 2% between theareas shown on the disclosure plan and theapproved plan of survey or a difference of 500

1134 Townsville Breakwater Entertainment Centre Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

millimetres in contour intervals between thedisclosure plan and the plan showing theconstructed works. The definition of "significantvariation" has been the subject of extensiveconsultation with industry groups andsurveyors. I am confident that thesetolerances are achievable by developers andstill protective of consumers.

Where the allotments are substantiallyidentical, developers and purchasers will beable to enforce their contracts against eachother at all times to allow commercial certaintyto developers and financiers. The Bill providesthat deposit moneys should continue to beretained in trust accounts, but a new measureis that deposits are not to exceed 10% of thepurchase price.

The Bill inserts an objects clause in theAct which specifies that the objects of the Actare to be achieved without imposing anyadditional obligations on local governments asa result of these amendments. Effectively,therefore, there will be no additionalcertification requirements imposed by the Billon local governments and there should be noincreased financial or administrative burden onlocal governments as a result.

If there is a delay of more than 18 monthsbetween the date of the contract and the dateof transfer for a proposed allotment, thepurchaser will have a right under the Act toavoid the contract. This period replaces thepresent period of nine months. If there is adelay of more than 42 months between thedate of the contract and the date of transferfor a proposed lot, the purchaser will have aright under the Act to avoid the contract. Thisperiod replaces the present period of 36months. I am confident that experience hasshown that this extended period should besufficient to cover all contingencies that mayarise. At the same time, the ministerialdiscretions to extend the periods of automaticavoidance will be removed as the existence ofsuch provisions has, to some extent, resultedin an element of uncertainty in the time framewhich is not a commercially desirable featurein legislation of this type.

Finally, the Bill provides for increasedpenalties for breaches of the Act in order toprovide a more realistic deterrent and to bringthe applicable penalties into line with thoseunder the Fair Trading Act 1989. Clearly,consumers must not be prejudiced by theremoval of restrictions on selling land prior toregistration. The purchasers likely to be mostaffected by these amendments are first homebuyers who represent a relatively vulnerableclass of consumers. It is important that, in

providing for consumer protection measures inthe Bill, the enforcement measures arecorrespondingly adequate. For the samereason, the Bill includes provisions whereby ifa body corporate commits an offence againstthe Act, each director of the body corporatewill be taken to have committed the offence.

The passage of this Bill will provideQueensland's property development marketwith an opportunity to thrive, and offerQueensland's home buyers greatly enhancedopportunities for affordable housing indeveloping areas. This Bill establishes aregime whereby property development inQueensland will be significantly acceleratedwithin an effective consumer protectiveframework, which provides non-litigiousremedies at no cost to any adversely affectedconsumers. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Foley,adjourned.

TOWNSVILLE BREAKWATERENTERTAINMENT CENTRE

AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—Minister for Mines and Energy) (12.05 p.m.),by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the TownsvilleBreakwater Entertainment Centre Act1991."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—Minister for Mines and Energy) (12.06 p.m.): Imove—


Today I am pleased to introduce theTownsville Breakwater Entertainment CentreAmendment Bill 1997. The original Act wasintroduced in 1991 to provide the legalauthority for the Townsville and ThuringowaCity Councils to participate in a joint venturewith the Breakwater Trust to establish andoperate the entertainment centre. Amongother things, the Act also detailed thecontributions of the State and the localgovernments, and limited the liability of the

30 Apr 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1135

local governments to their interests in thecentre.

The Act provided for the surrender andgrant of land to the joint venturers according totheir respective capital contributions andprovided for the appropriate zoning of the site.Schedule 1 to the Act comprises the originalagreement between the parties to participatein the joint venture, the managementagreement and the agreement for the originaldevelopment to be carried out.

Initial funding constraints caused the sizeand scope of the proposal to be less thanoriginally planned. Since the originalconstruction of the centre, its potential hasbeen hampered by insufficient seatingcapacity for basketball games, major concertsand other entertainment events which areconsistently sold out. Without an increase inthe seating capacity, the Townsville Suns areat risk of losing their National BasketballLeague franchise, as the NBL requires aseating capacity of at least 5,000 at the homebase of each member team. In addition, whileTownsville has had considerable success inattracting conventions, the centre suffers acompetitive disadvantage because of poorfinish and lack of specialised equipment.

On 16 December 1996, Cabinet approvedcapital works funding to upgrade theentertainment centre. The work is to befunded through the Departments of thePremier and Cabinet and Treasury by way ofspecial purpose capital grants totalling $11.5mto Townsville and Thuringowa City Councils inthe same proportions as the original grants.

The Townsville Breakwater EntertainmentCentre Amendment Bill will take care of theformalities necessary to allow the funds to bemade available and work to proceed on theupgrading of the centre. The amendments willallow for the adjustment of the interests of thejoint venturers in the land on which theentertainment centre is situated, which isnecessary as a consequence of the additionalgrants. The Bill also incorporates the form ofan agreement between the parties whichvaries their original agreement as to shares inthe land and in profits and losses.

The upgrade will provide seating capacityfor an additional 1,100 spectators, which willsatisfy the NBL requirements. The facilities forbasketball games, major concerts andentertainment events will be upgraded andtoilet facilities, fire exits, and airconditioning willbe improved to cater for the larger audiences.The appeal of the convention and meetingfacilities will be increased by providingupholstered seating and carpeting in more

areas. Acoustics will be improved andadditional conference and meeting equipmentand catering equipment will be available to theusers of the centre. Generally, the overallstandard of finish for the entertainment centrewill be raised.

The social benefits for the people ofTownsville and surrounding areas will besignificant. The Townsville Suns have anenthusiastic local following and games aresupported by sell-out crowds. The centre alsoprovides a venue for local activities such asexhibitions and expos, as well as a variety ofimported sporting and entertainment events.The upgrade of the centre should alsoincrease Townsville's market share of sportingand other entertainment events andstrengthen the national and internationalposition of Queensland venues in theconvention facilities industry.

Conventions and meetings will provideopportunities to promote this area ofQueensland to delegates, who may return toTownsville as tourists or may recognise oridentify potential business and employmentopportunities. Visits by convention delegatesshould also provide economic benefits to thelocal business community and the areagenerally through the spending potential ofdelegates. Holding conventions in periodswhen business activity is generally slow willalso help to level out the region's economicactivity.

The original legislation was generally wellreceived when it was introduced in 1991. Wehope to receive similar support for thisamendment Bill so that the upgrading of thecentre can proceed without delay. I commendthe Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Mackenroth,adjourned.

BODY CORPORATE AND COMMUNITYMANAGEMENT BILL

Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—Minister for Natural Resources) (12.10 p.m.),by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act providing for theestablishment and administration ofcommunity titles schemes, and for otherpurposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

1136 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 30 Apr 1997

Second ReadingHon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—

Minister for Natural Resources) (12.11 p.m.): Imove—


It is with a great sense of moral andprofessional obligation that I present the BodyCorporate and Community Management Bill tothe House. This legislation, which replaces thepresent Building Units and Group Titles Act,has been a long time coming. There are wellin excess of 220,000 property owners affectedby this legislation, so clearly it is of greatrelevance to a significant proportion of theQueensland population.

Before addressing the principles of theBill, it is appropriate to recap briefly the historybehind this legislative response. An attemptwas made by Labor to draft a new Act toreplace the Building Units and Group Titles Actof 1980—or BUGTA, as it became known. Thiscommenced in 1991 with a Green Paper. Itfinished with the unceremonious dumping ofthe ill-fated BUGTA 1994 legislation, whichwas the subject of strong industry andcommunity criticism for its impracticality andinflexible response to very diverse concerns.The new body corporate and communitymanagement legislation is by no means moreof the same. It is genuine reform involving—

innovative management arrangements;

flexible development mechanisms;

much-improved dispute resolution; andconsumer protection mechanisms.

Its primary objective is to provide for flexiblearrangements for the application of acommunity living concept on freehold land.

The Act also needs to accommodateemerging trends in community titling. Thekeystone is the establishment of a flexibleframework—a framework whichaccommodates different types of developmentwhich have differing requirements. The primarymeans of achieving this flexibility is through alegislative structure that comprises an umbrellaAct supported by separate regulatory modulesthat are tailor made for specific types ofdevelopment. It is intended that the legislationwill commence with four modules in place. Thisstructure has been formulated because thecommunity told us that they were adamantabout the need for this flexibility. To repeat themistake of 1994 and formulate an Act whichcould not separate a law governing 500-roomresorts from that pertaining to a "six-pack" orduplex apartment would be useless. It would

defeat the purpose of Government even tryingto legislate to provide security to those whochoose to live, work or invest in the verydifferent types of developments that areavailable through this lifestyle concept.

The first module, being the standardmodule, will provide for significantly regulatedmanagement processes and is designed toaccommodate predominantly owner-occupiedbuildings. It may also include developmentswhich are a mix of permanent residential andholiday letting. The second is theaccommodation module, which sets upmanagement processes that are lessregulated than the management processesunder the standard module. This module isintended for schemes that are usedpredominantly as holiday letting or servicedapartment operations with the need foraccommodation management. It may also besuitable for certain hotel or resort projectswhere the majority of owners are investors.

The third module deals with commercialprojects and is intended for non-residentialdevelopments, although some mixed-useprojects may be placed under it. I would like tostress that this will only be where anyresidential component is not significant.Compared with the standard andaccommodation modules, the managementprocesses are further deregulated.

The fourth module intended for this phaseof the project is for small schemes. It will onlybe available for community title schemeswhich have six or less lots. It sets up veryderegulated management processes whichencourage the owners to self-manage. Thereis no body corporate committee, and decisionsare made by the owners meeting informally. Icannot make the point strongly enough thatwhile owner occupiers, investment owners andresident managers are all unit owners, theirneeds and aspirations for their investment canbe very different. It is crucial to have abalanced response to cater for all theseconcerns. It is here where the most stridentdebate has resided and continues, in someinstances, to reside.

People who have been involved in thedevelopment of this legislation know that Ihave not bowed to pressure to destroy thisbalance merely because it would be politicallyexpedient to do so. The formulation of this Billinvolved some hard decisions. Hard decisionsmade by any Government are oftenmisconstrued as misappropriated favouritism.We only need to think of the present Wikdeliberations or last year's gun law reform toillustrate this. I can assure you that my

30 Apr 1997 Body Corporate and Community Management Bill 1137

personal commitment to this Act and theextraordinary efforts of my departmental staffcould simply not have been sustained if merefavouritism had propelled our reason to stickby this Bill.

Notwithstanding the extensiveconsultation process undertaken in developingthe Bill and regulations, I am mindful that, fora number of issues, it is impossible toreconcile all of the interests of all the partiesinvolved. However, I firmly believe that the Billrepresents a balanced package for thosepeople who want—who need—a legislativeresponse. The broad policy intent of thelegislation is indicated in its secondaryobjectives, namely—

balancing the rights of individuals with theresponsibility for self-management;promoting economic development byestablishing sufficiently flexibleadministrative and managementarrangements;

providing a legislative framework whichaccommodates future trends incommunity titling;

ensuring that bodies corporate havecontrol of the common property and realassets that they are responsible formanaging on behalf of owners;

providing bodies corporate with a level offlexibility in their operations and dealingsto accommodate changing circumstanceswithin community title schemes;

providing an appropriate level ofconsumer protection for those living orintending to live in community titleschemes;improving accessibility to informationabout community title matters; and

providing an efficient and effective disputeresolution process.

While the Government generally resistsintroducing retrospective legislation, in thecase of two provisions in the Body Corporateand Community Management Bill there arevery strong reasons why they are included.The first deals with term limitation provisionsapplying to the body corporate managementagreements, letting authorisations and servicecontracts. The maximum terms which are toapply, the details of which are set out in thevarious regulatory modules, will beretrospective to 24 October 1994. Forexample, for agreements regulated by thestandard module, a 10-year maximum termapplies to all letting authorisations and servicecontracts entered into from 24 October 1994.

This provision will not affect agreements whichwere clearly on foot prior to 24 October 1994.Similarly, in circumstances where a bodycorporate has taken action to validate anexisting agreement by passing an empoweringby-law, these agreements will not be affectedby the term limitation provision. This date waswell known to the community following BUGTA1994, and to choose an alternative date wouldhave had the effect of creating unwarrantedinstability.

The second retrospective provision relatesto the High Court's 4 May 1994 decision in theSurfers Palms North case, which found that abody corporate does not have the power toenter into a letting agreement under theexisting BUGTA legislation. The BodyCorporate and Community Management Billprovides that a body corporate is taken tohave the power to enter into a lettingagreement from 4 May 1994. Agreementsentered into prior to this date will not bevalidated by the legislation. This date, too, wassimilarly well recognised. It has been retainedso as not to affect existing rights conferred asa result of the High Court's decision.

This is one of the most complex pieces oflegislation that this Government has yetpresented to the House. It is also recognisednationally and internationally as a "first". OtherGovernments are keenly interested inQueensland's response to those issues thatthey have simply been unable to tackle withtheir incumbent laws. The community livingconcept is a rapidly developing lifestyle optionand industry. With this growth has come anurgent need for Government to act—to servethe needs of the ever-increasing number ofQueenslanders who have chosen this life orline of work.

Over the last 15 months my departmenthas worked incredibly hard alongside thecommunity and industry to get legislation upand running at last. It is now up to themembers opposite to respond constructively tothe needs of the community and let us act.The Government has put before the House anadvanced, well-balanced, community-drivenAct which will help provide more security andcertainty to the lives of those Queenslanderswho have chosen to invest in this lifestyle.Failing to deliver this legislation will createtenure and lifestyle uncertainty—and Godknows we do not need any more of that.

It may go without saying that I have greatfaith in this legislation. However, we arepoliticians first and foremost, not day-to-daypractitioners of an Act of this magnitude. Forthis reason, a Minister, a Government or

1138 Natural Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

Parliament cannot be as arrogant as toassume that an entire, complex legislativepackage can translate from the black andwhite of a Bill into applied reality without someroom to move. Inconsistencies between theintent and application of the objectives will beaddressed as part of a proposed assessmentintended to be undertaken at the end of 12months following commencement.Commencement is the key.

It is beyond doubt that this legislation willpave the way for significant economicdevelopment in the State while also providingmore certainty for present and potentialowners—be it the investment owner or owneroccupier. It enables flexible development andmanagement arrangements which, inconjunction with much-improved consumerprotection provisions, provide a legislativepackage far superior and far morerepresentative than anything else in Australia.

I would like to express my gratitude to thehardworking and professional departmentalstaff who worked extremely hard to get to thisstage. Rob Freeman, Paul Bidwell, LorenLeader, the instructing officer, Bevan Bailey,Col Young and the support staff behind thesepeople have been inspirational in theirdedication. My special thanks also goes to MrGary Bugden, who developed the conceptualapproach to the Bill's structure, laboured longand hard beside my staff to assist with day-to-day consultation and who was a crucial legalconsult in the process. Finally, I expressthanks to the 38-strong consultativecommittee and others who were the cruciallinks to the individual experiences of thoseQueenslanders for whom we are legislatingresponsively and responsibly. I commend theBill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk,adjourned.

NATURAL RESOURCES LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—Minister for Natural Resources) (12.22 p.m.),by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend legislation aboutnatural resources, and for relatedpurposes."Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—Minister for Natural Resources) (12.23 p.m.): Imove—


In introducing this Bill to the House, Iwould point out that the Bill makesamendments to three Acts in the naturalresources portfolio: the Land Act 1994, theValuation of Land Act 1944 and the

Water Resources Act 1989. The amendmentsaddress a number of important policy andadministrative changes to these Acts. Theamendments cover a number of diverseissues, so I will briefly describe the majorchanges.

A number of lessees of former miners'homesteads tenures, particularly in Mount Isa,missed the deadline to freehold their leases atthe 1980 valuation. People had theopportunity to freehold but for various reasonsdid not do so. I am aware that many haveexpressed concerns regarding the adverseeffect on lessees who missed the deadline.This Bill provides a further opportunity forthese lessees to apply for freehold under theprevious terms and conditions, and extendsthe deadline for applications to 31 January1998. After that date, leases where noapplication has been lodged, or which cannotbe freeholded, will become perpetual leasesunder the Land Act 1994.

In 1991, the previous Governmentintroduced interest charges on the freeholdingof grazing homestead perpetual leases. Then,in 1994, it prohibited new perpetual leases forgrazing and agriculture from being able toconvert to freehold using time payments. Inthis Bill, instalments of the purchase pricewhich are due on or after 16 September 1996for all grazing homestead freeholding leaseswill be free of interest. The date on which Ipublicly announced my intention to make thisamendment was 16 September 1996. Inaddition, in this Bill time payment with nointerest has been reintroduced for lesseeswishing to convert their perpetual leases forgrazing or agriculture to freehold. This willassist graziers to obtain a more secure tenureover their land and enable lessees who havebeen unable to afford to freehold their leasesto do so.

The amendments to the Valuation ofLand Act 1944 generally allow for a separatevalue for each lot in a plan of subdivisionregistered after 30 June 1997. The need for

30 Apr 1997 Natural Resources Legislation Amendment Bill 1139

this amendment goes back to the enactmentof the new Local Government Act in 1993.Since then, adjustments of general rates arerequired to be made by the local authorityfrom the date of change in ownership of partof the land. This has resulted in freshamalgamated valuations needing to be madeevery time a lot in a plan of subdivision istransferred from the developer to an individualpurchaser. This amendment will streamline theissue of valuations for local authority ratingpurposes. However, to ensure that this changedoes not create a burden for subdividers,amendments will be made to the valuation ofland regulations 1993 and the Land Tax Act1915 so that, where the subject land remainsvacant and in the subdivider's ownership, thevaluation of the land would be subject to adiscount of 40%, and this would also apply toany balance area created. This adjustedamount will then be used as the basis for theassessment of rates and land tax.

The current provisions of the WaterResources Act 1989 enable the State toexercise control over the use and flow of waterin watercourses, lakes and springs. Suchcontrol does not extend to water on a floodplain, except in areas specifically declared by aregulation as designated areas. There arecurrently no such designated areas in theState. For the purpose of inquiry into anapplication for a licence to construct areferable dam not on a watercourse nor in adesignated area, the Court of Appeal hasinterpreted the Act to require consideration ofwater management principles in addition toconsidering matters relating to safety and theprotection of life and property. This is a widerinterpretation than was ever intended. The Billamends the Act to accord with that intent bydefining matters to be considered wheninquiring into an application for a licence for areferable dam, not on a watercourse nor in adesignated area. It also makes clear that thepurpose of the referable dam process is toensure the safety of the referable dam andthe protection of life or property that would orcould be endangered from the uncontrolledloss or release of water or hazardous wastecaused by the collapse or failure of the dam.

The current Water Resources Act 1989requires that water charges are levied in amanner which is inconsistent with efficientbusiness operations. The amendments in thisBill will simplify and improve accounting anddebt management practices. This in turn willlead to improved service delivery to the water

users in State-owned schemes, and providebenefits to the people of Queensland throughmore efficient administration. Savings in theorder of half a million dollars each year areexpected through improved billing proceduresalone. Irrigation water users in State-ownedschemes have for some time been takingadvantage of administrative arrangements putin place by the Primary Industries Corporationthat provide for greater flexibility in the deliveryof water. Under certain conditions, customerscan "carryover" the unused portion of theirallocation to the next water year or they can"forward draw" on their allocation for the nextwater year. Whilst these arrangements haveoperated on an administrative basis with theagreement of water users, they have not hadany head of power with the Water ResourcesAct 1989. The amendments in the Bill providea head of power in the Water Resources Act1989 to allow carryovers and forward draws tobe approved under a regulation.

At present the Water Resources Act 1989provides for the sale, to owners of lands, ofwater entitlements that are issued as licences.However, the current Act does not provide forthe sale of entitlements to enter intoagreements. Water agreements may be thepreferred option for the purchase of certainwater entitlements, for example coal miningand other industrial users. The Bill allows forthe sale, to owners of land, of entitlements toenter into agreements with the PrimaryIndustries Corporation for the supply of water,in addition to selling entitlements by issue of alicence.

Finally, as part of this Government'scommitment to the implementation of its ruralwater pricing and management policy, it isplanned to introduce a pilot program to enableirrigation water users in some State-ownedirrigation areas to permanently trade part or allof their existing licensed water entitlements.The pilot program will be tightly managed andallow trading only within the confines of theirrigation areas approved for inclusion in thepilot program. The amendments facilitate thispilot program by formally allowing anylegitimate costs to the Primary IndustriesCorporation associated with the transaction, aswell as the interests of the other customers, tobe taken into consideration. Other minoramendments in the Bill correct previousanomalies or further streamline administration.I commend this Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Palaszczuk,adjourned.

1140 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill (No. 2) 30 Apr 1997

AMBULANCE SERVICE AMENDMENTBILL

Resumption of Committee

Hon. M. D. Veivers (Southport—Ministerfor Emergency Services and Minister for Sport)in charge of the Bill.

Resumed from 29 April (see p. 1083) onclause 17—

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN (12.31 p.m.): Ihad finished what I had been saying lastevening. I wait now with bated breath to hearthe Minister's response.

Mr VEIVERS: A new section 68—I haveto explain that it is unlikely that this wideregulation-making power will be utilised. If it is,the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee hasbeen informed that any regulation will have a12-month sunset clause and any regulationwill simply assist in effecting necessarytransitional arrangements for the newQueensland Ambulance Service.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Just briefly, thetransitional regulation provision—section68—makes it quite clear that the power existsonly for 12 months. However, it does not makeit clear that a regulation made under thatpower would drop off in 12 months.

Mr VEIVERS: It would because it is asunset clause.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: No, theregulation-making power is sunsetted, not theregulations under it. Previously, the Treasurerhas accepted that particular point andincluded in legislation before this Parliament asunset clause on regulations made. I knowthat we do not want to drag this on, but whatthat does is that if the regulation is sunsetted,changes made to the legislation by regulationwould have to come back to this place in anamendment Bill within 12 months.

Mr VEIVERS: I reassure thehonourable member that any regulation madeduring this period will disappear with thesunset clause. That is what I have beeninformed.

Clause 17, as read, agreed to.

Schedule, as read, agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill, on motion of Mr Veivers, by leave,read a third time.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Second Reading

Resumed from 13 November 1996 (seep. 4002).

Mr WELFORD (Everton) (12.35 p.m.)This Bill has been a long time coming. Today Ihad hoped to be able to say a few kind thingsabout the Minister and the Government and Ihad hoped that this Bill would have been a Billof substance. But what an anticlimax it is.

This is the second amending Bill that theGovernment has brought before theParliament in relation to the EnvironmentalProtection Act. The first Bill was brought inalmost 12 months ago in May last year. Atthat time the Minister made much of the greatreforms that he was going to sweep upon thegood citizenry of Queensland in relation to theEnvironmental Protection Act. Indeed, we hadanticipated many more reforms to comebefore the Parliament throughout last year.But alas, nothing has happened and evenwith the amending Bill we have before us now,we have still very, very limited reform.

When launching into the second-readingdebate of this Bill some months ago, theMinister said that this Bill will implementrecommendations of the ministerial advisorycommittee which he had established in Marchlast year—some 15 months ago. Theministerial advisory committee made 103recommendations in relation to theEnvironmental Protect Act—most of themreasonably innocuous—but of specialimportance was the fact that despite all thecriticisms of the Government Ministers, formerMinisters for Environment, and the back benchabout this Environmental Protection Act, theministerial advisory committee recommendedthat the central tenets of the legislation remainin place.

The Minister has been embarrassed eversince. He has been dragged along to a seriesof public meetings where all the people whomhe and the former Minister had previouslyinflamed over the operation of this legislationare to some extent still expecting to be excitedby the promises that they were making—butwhich they are now not keeping—about howthey were going to gut this legislation. Theyknow and they have learned both from theadvice that the Minister received from hisministerial advisory committee, from thedepartment and from a small dose ofcommonsense that one need only bring tobear on this legislation to realise that it issensible, balanced and easily justifiablelegislation which this State needs urgently.

30 Apr 1997 Environmental Protection Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1141

So it is that today we debate anamending Bill which, notwithstanding all thegrandiose claims that the Government and theMinister have made in the political debateabout reform of the Environmental ProtectionAct, has not borne any fruit at all. Instead wehave a bit of piecemeal amendment here andthere and largely innocuous machineryadjustments to the legislation.

As I say, this Bill implements only some ofthe recommendations of the ministerialadvisory committee. Members might ask,"How many is 'some'?" The ministerial advisorycommittee made 103 recommendations. Thisgrand, reforming amendment Bill implementstwo out of the 103 recommendations made bythe ministerial advisory committee. One ofthose recommendations which this Billimplements does not even rate a mention inthe Minister's second-reading speech. Yet inthat second-reading speech we were told bythe Minister that the whole point of the Bill wasthat it brings home the bacon to implementthe recommendations of the ministerialadvisory committee. Given the effect of theamendment on which the Minister was silent inhis speech, I am not surprised, and I will havemore to say about that in a moment. It alsointroduces amendments to the transitionalprovisions of the Bill which members shouldrecall was first introduced in 1994. Here we area full three years down the track and theMinister is still introducing amendments totransitional provisions to allow for the delaysover which he continues to preside in theimplementation of this legislation.

As I indicated, in May last year theMinister introduced his first amendments tothe Environmental Protection Act. I warnedhim then that, by going into the public arenaand criticising the legislation and backing upthe former National Party spokesperson for theEnvironment in his attack upon the licensingfee structure, the Minister would make it verydifficult to properly administer the legislationbecause, after all, he has a responsibility tostand up for the environment and notundermine the legislative and legal frameworkupon which environmental protection dependsin the State. I told him then that, by taking thisalmost schizophrenic approach to the issue,he would only increase confusion in thecommunity, particularly in the businesscommunity, about how the legislation issupposed to operate. In his second-readingspeech when dealing with this amendment,the Minister confessed that what I said a full12 months ago was in fact prophetic; it hasbecome true.

It is extraordinary that in hissecond-reading speech the Minister confessedthat the moratorium which he initiated last yearbetween 1 March and 1 July not only causedconfusion in the business community but alsocaused confusion for administering authorities.As a result, that added to further delays in theconsideration of applications which shouldhave been lodged with the department at thattime. Of those very same groups, that is,businesses and the administering authoritiesincluding local government, for which he saidhe was making changes 12 months ago, theMinister now says the changes resulted inconfusion. As a result, he is back before theParliament on this occasion purportedly toaddress that confusion. I have outlined theeffects of some elements of this amendment,lean though it is, which shall only add to theconfusion that already exists in thecommunity. I can tell the Minister that thatconfusion is set to continue.

In light of the confusion that he had castthe legislation into because of the delays, themoratorium and all the rest of theshenanigans that went on while he tried toweasel his way through the false promises thathad been held out to the business communityabout what the Government would do with thislegislation, twelve months ago I advised theMinister that he should also ensure that aconsolidated reprint of the Bill was issued sothat people would at least have someopportunity to get their minds around just whatthe effect of his changes were to be at thattime. Of course, nothing of the kind hashappened. We now have a series ofamendments to regulations in the interimwhich add to the pile of paper that goes tomake up the legislation and which only thebest legal minds in the country could begin tograpple with if they were to try to understandwhat it is about. Is it any wonder that theconfusion which I predicted 12 months ago isnow even greater amongst the businesscommunity than it was then?

Just as occurred 12 months ago, theMinisters's former Cabinet colleague and nowMayor of Pine Rivers Shire, Yvonne Chapman,is still attending public meetings called inhonour of the false promises of the NationalParty which claimed that it was going togarrotte this legislation and the licence feesthat go with it. Only a few weeks ago therewas yet another public meeting at which MsChapman was proudly sponsoring the attackupon this legislation. Therefore, in 12 monthsnothing has changed and confusion reignssupreme in the business community. Thelatest gimmick which has been proposed by


the Minister is to introduce some form ofconditional licence as a way through themorass to achieve something approaching thepromises that were made to alleviate theso-called burden of the legislation on smallerbusiness. Even that proposal, misconceivedas it was in its inception, is running agroundbecause of the difficulties of what is required.

At the end of the day, the Minister has afundamental problem that he has to face if hegoes ahead with this notion of conditionallicences as a means for reducing licences tomany smaller businesses across the State.The conundrum with which he is faced is:where is the money going to come from toproperly administer the legislation? Where arethe financial resources of the Government andthe other administering authorities in localgovernment going to be sourced from in orderto ensure that the confused mess of licensingregimes operate at the end of all the changesthat the Minister proposes? They will not infact ever be effectively complied with orenforced simply because the Minister will nothave the resources that the licence fees aresupposed to provide in order to police thelegislation. Where does that leave thebusiness community, particularly thosebusinesses which are good corporate citizensand fulfil their environmental duties fully, ifthere is not proper enforcement andconsistent application across-the-board of allthe other businesses which sign their one-page conditional licences, pay their nominallevy and then ignore forever more theirenvironmental responsibilities under thelegislation with impunity in the absence ofproper enforcement and inspection?

Where are the resources going to comefrom? After all, the $24m oil and tyre levywhich was proposed to be one mechanism tosiphon off funds for the environment divisionof the department to implement theEnvironmental Protection Act is no longeravailable. If on top of that reduction inbudgetary funding we are now going to havefurther cuts in the revenue available fromlicensing fees, how does the Minister everpropose to provide proper resourcing toensure the consistent and fair enforcement ofthis legislation across all polluters in industry? Ido not say "polluters" in a derogatory sense. Isimply make the purely descriptive observationthat every business is in some way or anothera producer of waste products. As the variousschedules of the legislation relating toenvironmentally relevant activities makes clear,some businesses are more polluting and morewaste producing than others. Some of thecategories of waste produced by some

businesses are more hazardous, more toxicand more dangerous than others and theyhave the potential to cause moreenvironmental harm than others.

The Bill is largely a lost opportunity. Mostof the provisions are administrative andmachinery in nature. However, there are threeprovisions on which I wish to dwell and payparticular attention to in this debate. Firstly, Irefer to the proposal to provide forenvironmental management programs to beamended. The Opposition supports thatproposal. This eminently sensible amendmentprovides flexibility for the department tonegotiate with a business that has anenvironmental management program to adjustthe program as new technologies, ideas andenvironmental management practices becomeknown or available.

That is a good provision. Especially inrespect of a longer term environmentalmanagement program—that is, one of overthree to five years' duration—it is essentialthat, whatever the form of its drafting, it shouldnot be frozen in concrete if better, more costeffective and environmentally favourablealternatives become available within the termof the EMP. It makes sense to include aprovision which allows an EMP to beamended.

However, it is important to note—again Ilend support to this element of theamendment—that the administering authoritycan approve such an amendment to anenvironmental management program only if itis reasonably satisfied that less environmentalharm will be caused by carrying out the activitythan would otherwise have been caused. Inother words, an approval can be given for theamendment of an EMP only if there will be anet environmental gain—a net benefit for theenvironment. Again, that is a very sensiblebasis upon which an amendment should beallowed. It would be absurd in the extreme toallow environmental management programs tobe amended to weaken the range of initiativesthat the EMP requires of the licence holder inthe life of the EMP when that commitment toimprovement has already been given.

The relevant amendment also providesfor other matters to be taken into account,including the period of the original approval,the period that remains under the life of thecurrent EMP—that is, the period remainingunder the original approval—and any changein the period that might be considered to bepart of the proposed amendment. That is apotentially risk-laden element. In other words,this provision contemplates clearly that there


may be a change in the period of theapproval, that is, the life of the EMP.

For example, an EMP may have a three-year life by which time certain goals are to beachieved, but the amendment may be nothingmore than to provide for a five, seven or 10-year life of the approval of the EMP. I trustthat, for any such amendment to beapproved, the requirement that there would beless environmental harm as a result will bemaintained. However, careful monitoring willbe needed to ensure that this provision is notseen by the business community and itsadvisers to be a mechanism for extending thelife of an approval for an EMP simply becausethe business decides that it does not want tolive up to the standard that it set itself when itsubmitted the original EMP approval.

The administrative authority must alsohave regard to the risk of environmental harmbeing caused by the activity. Obviously, it onlymakes sense that that be a key and centralfactor to be taken into account. The nature ofthe risk of the environmental harm, the extentof the risk, the seriousness of theconsequences of the risk and the potential forenvironmental harm being increased as aresult of the amendment are all factors whichshould be taken into account by theadministering authority.

The factors to which the legislation saysthe administering authority must have regardare not exhaustive. I would imagine thatexperience will demonstrate to the relevantadministering authorities, whether it be theState department or local government, thatover time, in relation to particularenvironmental relevant activities, there will bea range of other factors peculiar to thoseERAs which may well need to be taken intoaccount before any amendment is approved.

However, there is a sleeper in thislegislation which causes me a good deal ofconcern, and I hinted at it a moment ago.When we last debated the amendment to thisBill in May of last year, I made a half-jestingcriticism of the Minister for not having read hisspeech. This time his speech seems to beokay, but if one read his speech one wouldsuspect that he has not read the Bill. Nowherein his speech did he refer to a very importantamendment which could have seriousramifications for the maintenance ofenvironmental quality and the prevention ofenvironmental harm. I refer to the provisionthat allows an extension of time within whichan environmental management program canbe concealed from public scrutiny.

Previously, the legislation provided that,where an EMP exceeded three years, publicnotice had to be given of the application forthat EMP, and it was open to public scrutiny.The reason for that public notice provisionbeing placed in the legislation was preciselythat if one allows a potential polluter—apotential source of environmental harm—tocontinue to pollute while that business causingenvironmental harm is bringing its practices upto standard, then the extension of that timecould result in further environmental harmbeing caused.

It was considered that an appropriatebalance was reached, namely, that if abusiness has more than three years to get itsenvironmental act together, then it really oughtto be exposed to peer review of some kind. Inother words, it ought to be known not only bythose who want the environment protected butalso by other businesses that are putting inplace initiatives to improve their environmentalperformance.

Even if objections or submissions werenot lodged in relation to the EMP, it seems tome to be fair that, if I am operating a businessin Robinson Road at Geebung and there isanother business with which I am competingdown the road that lodges an EMP that givesit more than three years to reach the standardthat I am trying to attain relatively promptly,then I am entitled to know about it.

Under this legislation, the Minister isextending the length of the EMP approvalperiod for which it does not have to be notifiedpublicly. In other words, we can now have anEMP that delays for five years the requirementthat we come up to standard instead of threeyears and we still do not have to notify anyonevia a public notice.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr WELFORD: The concern I amexpressing about the particular provision weare currently discussing is that, firstly, it restrictsrather than expands the right of public scrutinyand the opportunity for there to be publicaccountability for the standards ofenvironmental protection that businesses arerequired to maintain. This is in stark contrast tothe promises that this Government made afterit came to office, particularly in respect ofenvironmental policy, to be open andaccountable. It made many promises to theenvironment movement and held itself out asbeing a new National Party, a new coalition,which had put behind it the bad old days ofslash and burn. In particular, as part of thatnew image the coalition promoted itself as aGovernment that would be open in its


consultations regarding environmental issuesand publicly accountable. The EnvironmentProtection Council was feted as justificationand reason for believing that this Governmentwas in fact going to be open and accountable.But this measure restricts public accountabilityand restricts public scrutiny in precisely thearea of the legislation where public scrutinyshould be greatest—namely, where, ratherthan obtain a licence on the basis of meetingthe required environmental standards, anapplicant obtains an environmentalmanagement program which gives them aperiod over which to meet that standard, inother words, a period within which somemeasure of environmental harm, somestandard less than the standard required, willbe permitted.

I am not opposed in principle toenvironmental management programs; do notmisinterpret me on that. On the contrary, Ithink having a mechanism which gives peoplea period over which they will meet agreedgoals in terms of environmental improvementis a very sensible mechanism to have, which isprecisely why I am supporting the othersignificant amendment in this Bill which allowsfor an environmental program itself to bevaried in mid course, particularly where thatresults in some sort of improvement inenvironmental quality or environmentalmanagement practice. But it is just as well wehave that measure in place, because what thismeasure does is weaken the position that theAct previously provided to ensure that theprogress that a business was making towardsachieving the outcomes which its EMPrequired would be met within time.

One way in which the Government and,more particularly, the community as a wholehas of ensuring that that EMP and theprogress of the various targets within it areachieved is to allow, in respect of EMPs thatare for longer than a three-year period, aprocess of public scrutiny. What thisamendment does is say, "Not only will we nowallow a longer period—a five-yearperiod—within which you can achieve yourrequired standard but also we will conceal youfrom public scrutiny for the full extent of thatlonger period." By any measure, it is amechanism which reduces the capacity of thislegislation to deliver good environmentaloutcomes, in direct contrast to the statementwhich the Minister himself made in thesecond-reading speech when he concludedhis speech by saying precisely that—that theproposed changes are not weakening theability of the Bill to achieve betterenvironmental outcomes. I suggest to the

Minister that this particular provision hasprecisely that potential effect.

It is not just a question of extending thetime within which scrutiny is denied. The pointabout public scrutiny is that, in respect ofenvironmental management programs, thelonger the EMP goes on, then in many casesthe longer will be the period and the greaterthe extent of the environmental harmpotentially caused pending the EMP licenceholder or approval holder actually measuringup to the required standard which every otherbusiness will be required to meet. So theprotection provided by this provision is aboutpublic accountability. We might well ask: whatproportion of EMPs are going to have a periodbetween three and five years? If the numberof EMPs that are in excess of three years butless than five represents a large proportion ofthe EMPs that are going to be established,then what we are saying is that a largeproportion of all the EMPs being establishedwill now escape public scrutiny and publicnotification, whereas previously they wouldhave required it.

What support for this proposal can we findfrom the committee that recommended it?The Minister set up the ministerial advisorycommittee to look at a range of issues, andone of the recommendations was in fact thatthis extension from three to five years'exemption from public scrutiny or publicnotification be implemented. One might beforgiven for thinking that there was goodreason for this, and, on its face, I was notopposed to it if good reason could be found. Ifthere was good reason for concealing frompublic notification or public scrutiny an EMPbecause it was four years instead of two or fiveyears instead of three, then the case might bedifferent. But on turning to the report of theministerial advisory committee, this is theargument that is put, and this is the full extentof the argument that is put in respect of thissignificant amendment—

"It was argued that EMPs should beable to operate for 5 years rather than theexisting 3 years before public notice wasrequired offering the opportunity for publiccomment."

That is the full extent of the argument. So ifone wants to go to the ministerial advisorycommittee report to find out what thejustification for it is, one is not going to find it. Ifone wants to go to the Minister's second-reading speech to find out what thejustification for this amendment is, one is notgoing to find it. But there it is, convenientlyslipping into the legislation, making what I


suggest, on its face, is a significant change tothe potential for community involvement inmaintaining environmental standards.

At the end of the day, it is not just theGovernment that is responsible for improvingthe environmental quality of our lives, it is notjust the Government that has an interest inmaking sure that environmental standards areachieved and complied with; it is thecommunity as a whole. This is one provisionwhich gives the community an opportunity toknow what is going on, to know whatstandards are being required, and that oneopportunity is now being wound back by aprovision that denies public notice for what ispotentially a large proportion of the totalnumber of EMPs to be put in place. It may bethat there are very few so far, but I considerthat because the EMP concept is such aflexible and useful one, there will be many,many businesses that take advantage of it,and justifiably so. But in doing so, if the EMPthat a business chooses is going to extend fora lengthy period—and the previous policyposition was that anything over three yearswas a relatively lengthy period—then surelythe public should not be locked out of theconsultation cycle.

Given that it was not in the MAC reportand it was not in the Minister's speech, whatare we to make of this being in the legislation?Why was it not drawn to our attention in thisdebate? Why was it not given greaterprominence? Perhaps it is just a question of alack of competence in the way that the thingwas presented to the Parliament. Perhapsthere is a more sinister reason. After thismorning's outburst by the Premier, onewonders whether this Minister exercises anyreal ministerial authority at all. If one wants togo searching for a more sinister reason for thissort of amendment coming into the House,one might start by wondering just whatinfluence the Premier is exerting over thelegislative program of the Department ofEnvironment and the choices that this Ministermight otherwise wisely pursue based on hisdepartment's advice. I will come back to thePremier in a moment.

The third element of this amending Billthat I would like to address relates to thesection that the Minister's speech points to asthe substantial component of the Bill, namely,clause 13 which I will come back to in thedebate on the clauses.

Mr Littleproud: Division 4.

Mr WELFORD: I think at the end of theday it actually comes to fall within Division 6.The Minister's further amendments, which we

got this morning, changes the division again.Anyhow, it relates to the new sections 235 and236. These are part of the transitionalarrangements that were put in the Bill in 1994.Here we are in 1997 making furtheradjustments to the provisions that allow for thetransition from the old laws to the new laws.

These amendments epitomise the climateof prevarication, delay and indecision thatpervades the Environment portfolio in thecurrent Government. This amendment isneeded precisely because of the excruciatinglylengthy delays in considering applications forlicences that are currently before thedepartment. The pre-existing transitionalprovisions provided for a period within whichlicences were to be dealt with after the Billcame into play. Those transitional provisionswere then amended by the currentGovernment last year to make allowance forthe moratorium period so that there had to beyet another extension of the time within whichany applications for environmental licenceswould be approved.

Here we are now three years down thetrack and not only do these amendments tothe Bill that was presented to the House acouple of months ago provide for an extensionof time within which to approve licenceapplications, but this morning we getamendments to the amending Bill whichfurther extend the time within which thedepartment must either grant or not grant anapproval for a licence application. This really isamateur hour stuff. It makes one wonder justhow many licences are outstanding, howmany approvals are pending in thedepartment that have not been dealt with,how many licences have, in fact, been grantedacross the State compared to those which theDepartment of Environment itself deals with,how many licences has the departmentgranted and how many applications havebeen made to the department which are yet tobe dealt with.

The amendment we were given when thisBill was brought before the House—

Mr Littleproud: In 1996.

Mr WELFORD: —in 1996 stated thatapplications lodged after 1 March last yearwould now be treated as if they were lodgedfrom 1 January this year. In other words, wehave let it slip nine months, but "Don't youworry about that". The amendments that wewere given this morning—and I am not goingto make criticism of the timing of these mostrecent amendments to this Bill; theamendments are not significant so I am notmaking criticism about that—which further


amend the amending Bill tell us that we arenow letting it slip another six months, so thatwe will treat these applications that werelodged after March last year as if they arebeing lodged on 1 June this year. This isKeystone Cops. How much further delay, howmuch more indecision and how much longermust this department and its operation of theEnvironmental Protection Act be frozen in timebefore someone somewhere says, "It is timefor this Act to take effect fully and effectively"?

I simply draw attention to the effect ofthese amendments piled upon amendments. Ido not intend to divide on these amendmentsat the second-reading debate or on theclauses at the Committee stage. There reallyis no point because, after all, if theGovernment has so poorly managed theDepartment of Environment or under-resourced the Department of Environment soseverely that it is unable to perform its job anybetter than these amendments allow, there ishardly any point attempting to force upon theGovernment a law which in practice simplycannot be lived up to.

If another period of time is required after 1June this year for the department to even startlooking at some of the applications that werelodged after 1 March last year, so be it; but letit be well and truly noted and publicised in thecommunity, especially amongst the businesscommunity who are so concerned about theconfusion reigning over this legislation, that avery significant part of that confusion isgenerated by the repeated delays wroughtupon the processes of the legislation by aGovernment that simply cannot properlyadminister it.

There are a couple of points I want tomake about the Explanatory Notes. I madesome comments about the Explanatory Notesto the first Environmental ProtectionAmendment Bill of 1996. This, of course, isthe second piece of amending legislation in1996 to the principal Act but has taken untilnow to actually be debated in the House. Ithink the members opposite as a Governmentbecame so embarrassed by the delays inactually bringing this legislation on for debatethat they have moved it up the list of Bills onthe Notice Paper. I dare say that the Ministerhad something to say about that because hewas wondering whether he was ever going toget legislation in. We might well have hadthose transitional provisions in not referring to1 January or 1 June but 1 December or 1 Julynext year if we had not got to debate the Billnow, because there has been such anextraordinary delay already.

These Explanatory Notes really areunsatisfactory. I am not up with the latest as towho is responsible for preparing these—whether it is Parliamentary Counsel; it may wellbe—but, ultimately, it is the Minister's Bill thatis introduced into the House. I have beencommenting on this issue long enough nowfor those in Government bureaucracy torealise that there is really little point in havingExplanatory Notes which do not properlyexplain, to a lay person attempting to graspthe effect of an amending Bill, exactly whatthe changes really are about. For example, inrelation to the Bill's objectives, the ExplanatoryNotes say that it has two main objectives. Itmentions the first one about implementingMinisterial Advisory Committeerecommendations and then it says this—

"Secondly this Bill clarifies othermatters which have arisen during theimplementation of the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1994."

That is really informative! Really, reallyinformative—other matters! One of those othermatters, I might say, gets short shrift in theExplanatory Notes and no mention in thesecond-reading speech, but it happens to bethe most significant concern I have about theBill. It is quaintly smothered; it is not evenpolitical speech, it is just waffle about othermatters.

The Explanatory Notes also state that theBill implements "the recommendations of theMinisterial Advisory Council". One might inferfrom that that it is, in fact, implementing all ornearly all of the recommendations of theministerial advisory council. Of course, it doesnot. Of the 103 recommendations of the MAC,this Bill succeeds in implementing two. I amnot being nitpicking for the sake of it; I ambeing specific about this because it isimportant that, when people look at theseExplanatory Notes, they actually do get anaccurate grasp of what this Bill is about. At thevery least, the Explanatory Notes should statethat the Bill implements "some" of therecommendations of the ministerial advisorycommittee, not "the" recommendations, as ifthe Bill implements all of them, or as if the onlyrecommendations of the MAC are in fact thethings that this Bill implements.

The Notes on Provisions refer to clause 2as indicating when this Act commences.Clause 2 of this amending Bill states thatsection 13 commences on—it is now 1 June,assuming that the amendments which theMinister proposes are agreed to, and we haveno objection—1 June 1997. So where do weget it that the Explanatory Notes tell us that


clause 2 indicates when the Act commences?Or is clause 2 itself in the amending Bill anerror or a misprint? It may be in the Minister'sinterest to clarify that. It may be just that theExplanatory Notes are inaccurate. If they are,then although it is not an enormousinaccuracy, it just lends support to my concernthat if we are going to have Explanatory Notesthat are meaningful and useful to people whodo want to come to understand what changesthe Government is actually making to the law,it would be nice if the Explanatory Notes weresomething resembling accurate.

There are a couple of other matters that Ishould raise in the context of theEnvironmental Protection Act. ThisGovernment has been in office for 15 months.The Environmental Protection Act itself wasgoing to be the cornerstone of a reformprogram that the conservative Governmenthad promised. It has not been. The twominuscule Bills that have come before theHouse have done little more than makepiecemeal change, albeit change whichweakens, in my view, the capacity or ability ofthe legislation to protect our environment.

There are other things that theGovernment could be doing in relation toenvironmental protection to lift its stocks withthose in the community who care about theenvironment—those who are fast coming toform the view that this Government simplydoes not care about the environment.Recently there was an article in the DailyMercury about a visit by the Minister to acompany called Environmental Filter Disposalswhich recycles oil filters. The owners of thatfirm argue that there need to be eitherlegislative or other economic measures takento drive a process of change so that morepeople recycle oil filters. This is just oneexample of an opportunity presented to theMinister—among the undoubtedly dozens ofopportunities that he would come across in hisrole as the Minister responsible forEnvironment—for actually improving themanagement of what would otherwise be apolluting waste. Oil filters, oil, tyres—pick whatyou like—all of them have significantenvironmental effects.

There are no doubt people withtechnologies beating down the door todemonstrate to the Minister that they havesomething to offer, that they have atechnology that can be of assistance in thisregard, but what has been achieved? Apartfrom whatever paddling might be done by thisDaffy Duck under the water, there is just noprogress being made. There is no measure in

place after 15 months of promises andBudgets and failed Budget initiatives inrelation to oil recycling, tyre recycling or reuse,or in relation to oil filter recycling. Whatoutcomes can the Minister point to within thelast 15 months on environmental protectionand say that that is evidence of any progress?There has been no significant legislativereform, no benefit in net terms to theenvironment, and not a single initiative toimprove the extent of recycling or, indeed,cleaner production. There might be a seminarhere and there. That is fine. But talkfests donot bring about results. So far we just have nothad any results.

This legislation has not recognised orresponded to any of the concerns raised whenthis issue was last discussed. Let me draw theattention of Government members to part ofwhat the discussion was about when wedebated the first amending Bill to thislegislation in May last year. There was aprovision in it which was effectively a Henry VIIIclause which I drew to the attention of theMinister, as did the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee. A Henry VIII clause allows for aprovision in a Bill that says that you canchange the law by regulation. Henry VIIIclauses are in breach of our legislativestandards—the standards to which thisParliament should subscribe in drafting newlaws. Any substantive law should be changedby an Act of Parliament, not a regulation thatgoes through Executive Council and whisksthrough without proper public scrutiny in thisParliament—the people's House.

In relation to the Henry VIII clause, MrElliott, the Chair of the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee, said that he had a meeting withthe Minister in relation to the relevant clause.Then he said—

"The Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee believes 251 (3) to be a HenryVIII clause and we had some difficultywith the other two that I just mentioned.The Minister has indicated to me that hewill be bringing this legislation back to theChamber around June."

That was said in May 1996. It is now almostMay 1997. Sure enough, we have hadlegislation come back to the Chamber only 11months later, but there is not a word—either inthe debate on the second reading of the Bill orin the Bill or anywhere else—about havingaddressed a weakness which he promised toaddress, not just to me in the Chamber but tothe Parliament's Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee and its Chair, a member of his ownNational Party.


One wonders just what sort of control isbeing exercised by the Minister over theagenda or the program of work that thisdepartment conducts. I say that withoutintending to be directly or personally critical ofthe Minister. It may be that forces beyond hiscontrol are taking control of the environmentagenda of this Government out of his hands.The outburst by the Premier this morningwould lend support to that view. But acommitment was given to this House when welast debated—many moons ago—amendments to this legislation which simplyhas not been responded to.

The Environmental Protection Actdepends for its effective implementation on arange of specific environmental protectionpolicies—EPPs—with respect to specificmatters: noise, water, air and waste being themain ones. When our Government lost officein February last year, we had water and airvirtually finalised, water ready to be signed offand noise well and truly down the track. Inotice that the environmental protection policyfor water has gone through and been reportedon by the Environment Protection Council ofQueensland. The council has already reportedon it in its March report, which was tabledyesterday in the House. Yet the water policyhas still not seen the light of day. Indeed, socontroversial has been this policy that, afterbeing approved by the department, all thestakeholders in the consultation process andthe Environment Protection Council ofQueensland, how far did it get? It reached theNational Party bunker and fell over. It fell overinto the bowels of the National Party policycommittee, which wants to massage it a littlebit here and a little bit there and hope that itjust might go away.

After all those sneaky, backroom deals toundermine and undercut the EnvironmentalProtection Act, which started with the scuttlingof the environmental protection policies uponwhich the Act depends for its effectiveness,why are we not surprised that thedepartmental officer responsible for leadingthe preparation of that policy has resigned indisgust at the fact that his three-odd years ofwork putting together an environmentalprotection policy for water and steering itsensibly through every consultation processnecessary to make it effective only to see itthen bowled over by some backroom NationalParty committee? It is no wonder that in thecommunity, and in the environmentcommunity, especially the environment lobbygroups, a distinct impression exists that thisGovernment simply is not up to it when itcomes to protecting our environment.

I conclude by referring to thoseextraordinary comments which must haveseverely embarrassed my counterpart Ministerthis morning. Today in question time, whenanswering questions about the ludicrous,scandalous squandering of taxpayers' moneyon a handful of private residents on FraserIsland to give them a private airstrip atGovernment expense, the Premier crowed. Inthe course of crowing about that action beinga so-called election promise, he said that heno longer took any notice of the EnvironmentMinister or the Department of Environment. Hesaid that it was a whole-of-Governmentinitiative—which was code for saying "This ismy initiative for a mate"—and that, unlike theprevious Government, his EnvironmentDepartment does not have a veto overGovernment decisions. That is a bit likesaying, "We won't give someone a vote just incase they want to run the show." The Premieris exaggerating it to the point of talking aboutvetoes. Officers in the Department ofEnvironment will be delighted to learn theyhad them under our previous Government. Itwill be interesting when they learn that theveto that the Premier says they had is nowgoing to be taken away. Not only will they nothave a veto but also they will not even have asay. That is precisely what has happened inrelation to the Fraser Island fiasco.

The Premier, bless him, has a mate andhis mate is involved in profiting fromdevelopment on Fraser Island and,presumably, the developments that are upthere. Is it any wonder that Mr Whittaker fromthe Courier-Mail would be trawling through theproperty ownership of members of theGovernment benches when we have thisextraordinary proposition of the Queenslandtaxpayers shelling out $250,000 to create aprivate airstrip for a handful of people, one ofwhom appears to be a mate of the Premier,contrary to advice about the safetyrequirements of the airstrip—the fact is that itsimply is not safe—and contrary to the adviceof the Department of Environment which hasspecifically pointed out that the proposal for aprivate airstrip is inconsistent with themanagement plan for a World Heritage areaon Fraser Island. This has all the stench ofprivate patronage for which this National Partyis renowned. I sympathise with the Minister forthe second fiddle that he is playing in thisscandalous affair. I hope that he has a bettersay in the future.

Time expired.Ms WARWICK (Barron River)

(3.05 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure todayto support the Environmental Protection


Amendment Bill (No. 2). After the previousLabor Government had burdened the peopleof Queensland with the EnvironmentalProtection Act, my office was inundated withgenuine complaints regarding this veryimpractical, unworkable legislation.

Mrs Wilson interjected.

Ms WARWICK: That is quite right: othermembers' offices were as well.

I have no objection to the EnvironmentalProtection Act. I am well aware of the need forsuch an Act, but not that particular Act. It wasvery hastily put together. As I said, it wastotally unworkable. Small-business peoplewere appalled, disturbed and just plainanxious about the provisions of that new,hastily concocted legislation. The OppositionEnvironment spokesman referred toconfusion. He is quite right: confusion reigned.Confusion would be the one word that I wouldassociate with that legislation. No-one seemedto know what the legislation meant. Councilofficers who were policing the Act had notraining and very little knowledge of themachinery of the legislation; hence they woulddo inspections and totally confuse and upsetsmall-business people. My office and those ofmany of my colleagues were literally inundatedwith complaints. Consequently, I lobbied for itsamendment, as did many of my colleagues.Minister Brian Littleproud listened to ourcomplaints and took some positive steps toamend the legislation and to make it moreworkable.

I have always been committed toassisting small business. I think I have madethat quite clear in this place. TheNational/Liberal coalition Government also iscommitted to small business. We are acutelyaware that small business is the backbone ofour economy. We felt that we must doeverything in our power to assist smallbusiness. That is exactly why we went to theMinister. He responded to the difficulties beingfaced by the small-business sector andestablished very early after taking Governmentlast March a ministerial advisory committee.That has been commented on by the memberfor Everton. That committee reviewed theeffectiveness, fairness and practicality of theenvironmental protection legislation. Theadvisory committee focused on theEnvironmental Protection (Interim) Regulation1995, but it also made a small number ofrecommendations that require amendments tothe Environmental Protection Act 1994.

This Government, while being aware of itsresponsibilities to the small-business sector, isalso very aware of its responsibilities to the

environment. In particular, my electorate ofBarron River is a very environmentally sensitivearea. The environment is a very big issue. Ilive in a wonderful part of Queensland. I havetwo World Heritage areas in my region. I amalso aware that the economy of my region isvery dependent on the tourist dollar. That inturn is very much dependent on preserving ournatural environment. I am very much in favourof environmental controls, but I think we mustbe very sensible about those controls. I putmyself in the place of a small-business personwho is struggling to make ends meet and topay workers' compensation, leave loading,holiday pay, sick pay, superannuation, wagesand rent. Of course, this is just another impost.I am not saying for one moment that weshould not impose environmental protectionon small-business people. However, I amsaying that we must do it in a fairly sensibleand consultative way. This Bill will allow for anadministering authority to approve theamendment of an environmentalmanagement program. That will allow abusiness to propose a program that willovercome a temporary inability of thatbusiness to comply with the requirements ofthe licence conditions under the Act.

As the Minister said in his second-readingspeech, this amendment Bill will provideflexibility in cases where new technology ordifferent management techniques havebecome known after the initial approval isgranted. This Bill is about flexibility: it is notendeavouring to go easy on environmentalresponsibility; it is trying to make it easier forbusiness people to comply. That was certainlylacking in the old legislation. I think that it willfacilitate the achievement of improvedenvironmental management outcomes. It willmake the Act more user friendly.

The second recommendation that this Billwill implement will allow an administeringauthority to continue to process applicationsfor licences or approvals that were deemed tobe refused because the administeringauthority did not respond within the statutorytime limit. Because of the large numbers ofapplications that had to be processed in theinitial implementation of the Act, and becauseof the difficulties encountered by administeringauthorities, there was widespread confusion. Itwas impossible to handle all the applicationswithin the statutory period. Unfortunately, themoratorium that was introduced for a four-month period from 1 March 1996 to 1 July1996 caused some confusion for bothbusiness and for the administering authoritiesand added to the number of applications thatwere deemed refused.


The existing legislation was patentlyinequitable as it would have required theapplicants to resubmit applications and to payadditional fees. These amendments willresolve the situation that has arisen since 1March 1996 and will allow an administeringauthority an extension of the period forconsideration of new applications more readilythan what is currently available. The Minister isvery aware of the difficulties being faced bysmall business and he is doing all in his powerto alleviate those difficulties. Theseamendments will go some way towards thatgoal and hopefully more will follow. I know thathe is aware of the current difficulties and theproblems with the legislation and he is veryreceptive to providing an outcome that will beacceptable to all stakeholders.

I can assure the people of my electorateof Barron River that the Minister will not relaxenvironmental standards in the industrialarena but he will facilitate the complianceregulations that are required under this Act.Therefore, I endorse the amendments andcommend this Bill to the House.

Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (3.13 pm): It iswith pleasure that I rise to participate in thisdebate on the Environmental ProtectionAmendment Bill. As my colleague the shadowMinister for Environment said, although theOpposition will not be opposing the Bill and itsamendments, I would like to speak for a fewminutes to section 85 of the Act, whichprovides that where the length of anenvironmental management program is longerthan five years, public notification of theapplication is required. Of course, therequirement at this time is three years.

For six years, the Labor Government setabout putting in place strategies and plansthrough working with the community to rectifyyears of neglect of our natural environment byconservative Governments. Six years of aconcentrated effort to try to stop thehaphazard degradation of our naturalenvironment, to avoid the creation of pollutionhavens and to penalise industries for takingenvironmental shortcuts! Months of workingwith the community, industry, business andlocal authorities to come up with a way tomanage and deal with the irresponsiblebehaviour of a few whose callous disregard forthe environment was having serious, long-termimplications for the future of our environment!

Some of the practices harmful to theenvironment by some industries andbusinesses would make members' heads spinand turn their skin green. However, the formerGovernment did not want to come down hard

and just penalise those businesses that weredoing the wrong thing; it provided incentivesfor those businesses that were wanting to dothe right thing and it provided benefits to thosebusinesses that were doing the right thing. Forexample, where the licence fee structurereflects the licensee's performance, theregulatory costs are decreased as theperformance increases.

What has this Government done? It hasstarted chipping away at the tough laws thatthe Labor Government put in place—chippingaway to weaken our environmental laws. Thislatest effort of extending the required publicnotification of licence applications to get amanagement program in place from a three-year period to five years is an example of thataction—public notification to help to ensurethat community conflicts could be avoided orminimised. If as the Minister says it is for thosebusinesses that may have to outlay largeamounts of capital to bring their environmentalperformance up to standard, that is fine; thatis okay. But what about those businesses thatare merely going to use the extra time as adelaying tactic, to not have to be answerableto community concerns, to not have to beavailable for public scrutiny? Theenvironmental management plan programwas put into place to assist those companiesthat could not meet standards immediately, togive them time to develop a managementplan to established how compliance could beachieved; it was not put into place as amechanism for them to delay implementingpollution preventive measures orenvironmental management programs or toavoid being available and open to publicscrutiny.

What about the third person appealprocess? Has that been proclaimed? Myunderstanding is that the previousGovernment had it ready to be proclaimed, yetit still has not been proclaimed. If thisamending Bill is to be passed, which it will asthe Opposition will not be opposing it, then theMinister is going to have to make sure that thebusinesses claiming the five-year period aredoing so for the right reasons.

There have been some small businessesin my electorate that have found it a bit toughto come up with the licence fee. I havereceived a few calls about this matter. Ingeneral, most businesses accept that the feeis necessary to cover monitoring andinspection costs. The fee structure is one thatis fair across-the-board and there is amechanism whereby businesses that aresuffering severe financial hardship can makeapplication to council for a reduction of the fee


or, in exceptional circumstances, for a waivingof the fee. However, as I said, mostcompanies accept paying the fee, which theyknow will go towards ensuring that properstandards are set in the control andmanagement of waste.

I am sure that everyone in this House hason more than one occasion witnessedappalling practices by some businesses in thedisposal of waste. I can vividly remember theday I was sitting in my car waiting at the trafficlights and I looked across at a mechanicalworkshop-cum-tyre servicing place and sawthat a fellow was hosing out oil and greaseand bits of rubber and metal—and heavenonly knows what else, and it was all frothy aswell from what must obviously have been aharsh detergent—straight down the drivewayinto the gutter and into the stormwater drain. Itwas because of those types of practices thatthe previous Government introduced thelicensing of businesses which have thepotential to cause harm to the environment.

Businesses that are licensed are requiredto submit an annual return in which they arerequired to answer questions about anypollution prevention measures they wererequired to implement and whether or not theyhave done it; whether they have voluntarilyinstalled any pollution control equipment and anumber of other questions relating to amanagement program. The return also offersthe opportunity for people to seek furtheradvice from council if they are unsure of whatthey should be doing. The return is submittedwith the fee and that is then followed up with avisit from an officer from council to thepremises where that officer will assist with thatbusiness's requirements for environmentalmanagement practices. So they have tried tomake it as easy on business as possible.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister claimed that the proposed changesare not weakening the Government's ability toachieve better environmental outcomes inQueensland. However, I would hope that theMinister will carefully monitor the extension ofthe length of an environmental managementprogram to five years before public notice isrequired and ensure that businesses arehonouring their obligations and are not merelyusing the extension of time as a delayingtactic.

Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (3.21 p.m.): Itis with pleasure that I rise to speak on theEnvironmental Protection Amendment Bill(No. 2) 1996. In doing so, I commend theMinister on the initiative he took last year when

joining the coalition Ministry to respond to theneeds of small business in this State.

Those on this side of the House and, I amsure, the majority of members on the otherside of the House are all very keen to ensurethe best possible outcome for theenvironment. I recognise that the previousGovernment was taking steps in that directionand had implemented certain measures toensure that a positive outcome was sought forbusinesses that were polluting and were notacting in the best interests of the State'senvironment. However, in doing so theprevious Government may have been a littlehasty in not recognising that, in order tocomply with some of the provisions thatbusinesses will now be required to implement,they would have suffered a severe financialimpact. The intensity of businesses' potentialto pollute will range fairly widely. For a numberof years larger businesses have been doingcertain things to comply with the legislationbecause they have been financially able to doso. However, some smaller businesses, eventhough they may have been willing to do so,have to a certain extent turned a blind eye tothe legislation. The Bill will focus their attentionon the need for everyone to be conscious ofthe environment, to play their part and to beresponsible for its maintenance andmanagement.

Mr WELFORD: Madam DeputySpeaker, I draw your attention to the state ofthe House.

Quorum formed.

Mr HEGARTY: As I was saying, uponcoming into Government the Ministerrecognised the plight that a number ofbusinesses would face if they were to complywith the new regulations within the time framelaid down in the 1994 Act. The moratorium inresponse to their financial situation created afew administrative problems which it is in thebest interests of all parties to amend.

Firstly, the Minister very sensiblyestablished a ministerial advisory committee towhich he invited representatives from localgovernment authorities, industry,environmental groups and so on to putforward their views on how the Act could bestbe implemented and managed. As a result,the Minister is now working through the 103recommendations put forward by thecommittee to ensure that the very bestpositive outcome will emanate from the study.I am pleased to say that, to date, 33 of thoserecommendations have been implementedand the remainder are steadily being workedthrough.


I will touch on a couple of the sectionsthat are proposed to be replaced or amended.Obviously, as I said before, some of theclauses deal with purely administrativematters, such as section 35. Proposed newsection 65 essentially gives an applicant anextension of time to have his applicationreviewed. In other words, it ensures that theapplicant is not breaking the law if hisapplication is not considered and approvedwithin the statutory time. Proposed newsection 70 provides for prosecution forbreaches of approvals and contravention ofconditions of licences. Prior to this legislation,only licensees would be prosecuted forcontravening the Act, which covered majoroffenders involved in major environmentaldisasters. However, as I said before, smallbusinesses, especially cumulatively, also havean effect on the environment and can causeconsiderable degradation. Therefore, underthe Bill, people with approvals will be liable toprosecution in the same manner as licensees.That is a very positive change, despite thequestions raised by the member for Evertonabout the changes to the Act.

Members on the opposite side of theHouse should be very thankful for theopportunity for a review at this very earlystage. In relative terms, this is new legislation.The previous Government passed theEnvironmental Protection Act in 1994. Itgranted businesses a three-year period withinwhich to comply with its requirements.Therefore, by looking at this legislation now,we are widening the net for smallerbusinesses. The member for Currumbin usedthe example of a small business which washeswaste down the pavement. Of course we donot want to see that happening. In the past,such a business may have escapedprosecution if it had an approval. I am notsaying that it would have, but the Bill will pickup the smaller fish, which is a very positiveoutcome.

A couple of speakers have suggestedthat extending to five years the period forcompliance before a business has to advertiseis a bad thing. I do not see the time frame asbeing all that important in the sense that,when assessing an application for amanagement plan, the department or thecouncil will determine a reasonable time withinwhich the business will have to comply, andthat may be 12 months or it may be threeyears. However, a business may have aparticular problem or part of a problem whichcan be addressed within a certain time frame.It is a very positive thing that that businesswould be prepared to tidy up its act in order to

be a 100% environmentally clean business,even if that were to take five years or possiblyeven longer. For example, take the large, dirtyindustries that have problems because ofageing technology. As technology improves,their production methods and their disposal ofwaste methods improve. However, thatimprovement will not be achieved overnight.For that reason, the extension of the period tofive years for particular situations is not a badthing. If we had left the period at three years,that may only have necessitated extension.Why go to the trouble of going through all theextra administrative requirements to make abusiness lawful when we can simply extendthe time frame from three years to five years. Iam sure that the businesses which requiresuch a provision will be in the minority, butthey will be able to carry on their businessesknowing that they are complying with thelegislation and are acting within the law, asmost businesspeople wish to do. I believe thatmost small-business people are only too keento be environmentally responsible.

However, as with all activities, theproblems come down to the dollar. UnlessGovernment, local councils or whoever assistbusinesses to become environmentallyresponsible, they are left to their ownresources. If they are pushed into a timeframe that is unachievable, they may well bean irrelevant environmental polluter becausethey will go out of business. The whole thrustof the amendment and the moratorium thatthe Minister initiated last year is to give thosepeople a break.

Members on the opposite side of theHouse have spoken fairly strongly about theunacceptably high unemployment levels inrecent years. I certainly support the view thatthose levels are unacceptably high. TheGovernment is doing all that it can to reducethose levels.

Had we forged ahead with theEnvironmental Protection Act as conceived bythe previous Government, we might have hada lot more people in the unemploymentqueues. Opposition members should be veryconscious of that. I appreciate their interest inthe environment. I am as conscious of theenvironment and as concerned about it asanyone. However, at the same time, since theFirst Fleet arrived in this country, people havebeen carrying out activities that have had adetrimental effect on the environment.

Mr Welford: Don't blame Captain Cook.

Mr HEGARTY: I am not blamingCaptain Cook. I am just giving a chronologicalsequence of when the environmental


problems started. The Act came in in 1994,because we had only just realised that thingswere getting a little beyond the pale and thatwe had better start doing something about it.That is good to see. However, in the timeframe that I have given as an example, theseminor extensions of time and the moratoriumgiven to business are minuscule. The mainobject of the legislation is to get it right for thefuture. I think the Minister has been veryjudicious in the cautious way that he hasapproached this issue. He did not race into itin the early stages. He took it on board andquite carefully considered the ministerialcommittee's recommendations. Now he isputting forward those recommendations, andthe amendments before us today will enablethose recommendations to be implemented.

I turn to proposed section 94A, whichcovers procedures and criteria for assessingenvironmental management plans. Again, weneed to have in place something which willstand up to scrutiny and pass the test ofwhether it is a reasonable plan. Again, thatcomes back to making sure that businessesare making the best effort within the timeframe and within their financial and physicalcapabilities to minimise the effects of theirpractices to a point at which they are nearly100% environmentally friendly.

Proposed section 236B overcomes atechnical hitch to avoid categorisation of adeemed refusal by way of a time delay. Inother words, if the licence or approval couldnot be met within the time, it would be adeemed refusal and obviously that businesswould be acting illegally. The proposed sectionprevents the need for an application to beresubmitted outside that time frame. Veryimportantly, it avoids the extra cost ofreapplication incurred by businesses.

We are all for reducing red tape,particularly in respect of small business. ThisAct probably impacts on small business moreso than large business. As I said, largebusinesses have always been conscious oftheir activities and have taken appropriatesteps in the majority of cases. But smallbusinesses find this a new impost on their day-to-day activities while trying to survive in a verycompetitive and tough business sector. This isa commonsense amendment enablingbusinesses not to be overcome bybureaucratic red tape and the imposts offurther reapplication fees.

I wish also to speak to proposed section236C, which concerns protection fromprosecution where no licence or approval isgiven. Again, this is a technical provision to

make sure that a person is lawful. Eventhough the licence was not issued, we do notwant to see people being considered as beingoutside the law. Again, this is a means forpeople to feel warm and fuzzy. Even thoughtheir intent was good, we still have to makesure that it complies with the letter of the law.

Finally, I turn to the amendments toSchedule 1, which insert about 10 or 12clauses, providing for an applicant to lodge anappeal. In other words, if the demands by thedepartment or the local government authorityfor a business' environmental managementplan seem excessive, instead of having tocomply with the requirements verbatim, this willenable it to appeal and ask for a review ofthose requirements. These provisions are notunnecessary; similar to any regulations, wehave to cover all bases. In this instance, wewant to make sure that we can skip the oddsection that is irrelevant to a particularbusiness and move on to the area whichneeds addressing for the environmentalactivity concerned.

I fully endorse the Minister's initiative inamending the Environmental Protection Act. Icommend his thorough motives andprocedures in undertaking this amendment,which as always primarily has the environmentin mind but also recognises that this cannot bedone at the expense of the businesscommunity and those who may be caught upin the web involuntarily and for no goodreason.

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (3.37 p.m.): Iwas appalled by the attitude expressed by theprevious speaker in relation to the protectionof our environment. I was absolutely appalledat the lack of imagination of speakers on theGovernment side of the House. This matter isurgent. The past 200 years have seen theterrible degradation of the environment ofAustralia and seen species wiped out by ourattitude to the environment, yet the previousspeaker said, "We can continue on for a whileyet." Like St Augustine, he says, "Let uscontinue to sin for a while longer."

Mr Santoro: Who wrote this?

Mr ARDILL: Who is speaking it? Had Ihad more time to write this speech, I wouldspeak for 20 minutes, but this is a fairly flimsyBill and it does not require a 20-minutespeech. Unfortunately, it is a flimsy Bill from alightweight Minister who does not have theconfidence of his own Government and partyto do what is necessary for the environment ofthis country and this State. That is theproblem.


The present Minister for Environment—whether he is for or against it we are not quitesure—was an adequate Education Ministerwhen in that role. I thought that he was aMinister who could right the wrongs of 32years of National Party neglect and destructionof the environment.

Government members interjected.

Mr ARDILL: If Government memberswish, I can continue this speech for 20minutes; I do not wish to. Unfortunately, theMinister is not able to show his mettle inrelation to the protection of the environmentsimply because of the attitude of the NationalParty and even more so that of the LiberalParty and its economic rationalist lunacy.

Mr Welford: They're vandals.

Mr ARDILL: That is right, and they werevandals for very many years. They even sentthe chief vandal over to Rio to prevent any sortof environmental protection being undertakenin this country.

No provision was made in our Act forproper advice to be given to small-businessoperators. That is something for which Icriticise my own party. That was a featuresadly lacking in the legislation, and it is quiteokay for me to say so with hindsight. I did notraise it at the time, but I am aware of the factthat much better advice should be given tosmall-business men who are caught in the netof environmental protection. The Minister doesnot have that excuse. With the benefit ofhindsight of three years, he should haveincluded a provision in this flimsy Bill thatadequate advice be provided to people whoneed help in deciding what is necessary toprotect the environment. In many cases,business operators are willing to undertake therequired measures. The majority of smalloperators have not applied for environmentalmanagement practices to be adopted in theirsmall workshops. The way in which mostcouncils around Queensland are picking upthis fact is by checking advertisements and byfollowing up what is in the Yellow Pages.There are many hundreds of operators whohave not been picked up, and it is not too lateto include a provision in the legislation whichwould require the Environment Department toprovide adequate advice to those people. Iurge the Minister to consider that suggestion.

One of the environmental problemsencountered in this State is water pollutioncaused by the run-off from roads and industrialareas which carries untreated waste into ourstreams and rivers. That is a problem that thisBill does not tackle. Again, with hindsight, it isan issue that the Minister should have looked

at. I agree that we cannot do much aboutroads, but we certainly can do somethingabout industrial operations. Much betterprotection from water pollution should beafforded to our environment. The problem ofwater pollution is quite evident in streamsthroughout the length and breadth of thisState. Insufficient funding has been allocatedto tackle this issue. In the last Budget that webrought down in May 1995, $160m wasdedicated to environmental purposes, but thatfunding disappeared. This Government hasnot allocated sufficient funding to carry out thenecessary pollution controls throughout thelength and breadth of the State which thedegradation of our environment demands.

One positive feature of this flimsy Bill isthat amended management programs arecatered for and that these will not be at theexpense of the small operator. I congratulatethe Minister on that. It is a worthwhile goal.When new technology is implemented theopportunity must be afforded for adjustment ofmanagement programs, and that certainlyshould be done without cost to the small-business operator. I do not see that largeindustrial concerns should be able to escapetheir responsibilities, particularly theirresponsibility for funding the environmentallaws of this State and providing the necessaryenvironmental protection measures.

Another issue is the difficulty currentlybeing experienced by the public in accessingnoise and air pollution control authorities. Evenunder Minister Tenni there was provision forpeople to contact a noise and air pollutioncontrol centre in Brisbane. The number wasfreely available. The officers who were there atthe time did their level best to take action.However, when it came to the Government ofthe day undertaking the necessaryprosecutions, that was an entirely differentmatter. I believe that until the LaborGovernment came to power only two peoplewere prosecuted over air pollution and nobodywas prosecuted over noise pollution. Theofficers of the department at that stage wereable to do something through suggestion,coercion and bluff. In many cases, thatapproach was effective. These days some ofthe officers in the department do give out theirnumbers so that the most extreme cases canbe attended to after hours, and it is after hourswhen the real problem exists. According to thepeople who contact me, it is very difficult toreach officers after hours if noise and airpollution problems come to their attention. It istime that the Minister took action to make surethat after-hours phone numbers are availableso that complaints can be attended to.


The last matter that I want to talk about isthe problem of liquid waste disposal. TheState Government should be responsible forliquid waste disposal, not local councils. As theMinister well knows, the problem at Willawonghas gone on since 1982, when the BrisbaneCity Council attempted to close that facility,and nothing has been done about it. Nothinghas been done about it and nothing is beingdone about it, except that the treated wastenow goes to Gurrulmundi. The facility atWillawong must be closed and theGovernment must take responsibility forsetting up new treatment plants, not only inBrisbane but also in other areas of the State,where toxic waste can be dried and solidifiedand disposed of in safe burial areas.

Mr Palaszczuk: Not at Pialba. Thestudents from Pialba are here today.

Mr ARDILL: I certainly would notsuggest that. I do not believe that anywhereclose to the coast would be suitable, quitefrankly. It does not have the stability to allowthat.

The problem at Willawong must beattended to. The Lord Mayor of Brisbane hada proposal to transfer the treatment plant fromWillawong to a safe site at Pinkenba, wheremost of the waste is generated, but he wastorpedoed. He was torpedoed by a number ofcompeting interests, none of whom had a realappreciation of what the treatment plant wasabout and talked of it as a dump and as apollution area. In point of fact, Willawong is nota suitable location for that sort of treatmentplant. Willawong is too far removed from thegenerating sources of liquid waste. In addition,the site needs to be rehabilitated. What isunder the ground there needs to be treated,and that cannot be done until the treatmentplant is removed totally from that site toanother site somewhere in the vicinity of ourindustrial areas. Other areas of Queenslandshould be treated in the same way. Thereshould be toxic waste treatment plants in otherindustrial areas such as Townsville andGladstone, and possibly the mining areas.Proper disposal methods must be introducedby the Government throughout the State. Itshould not be the responsibility of a localgovernment in one area to treat the waste of100 surrounding councils and even thoseinterstate.

I urge the Minister, as I have done in thepast, to look at the problem at Willawong andto do something about it urgently. Thatfestering sore cannot be allowed to stay outthere. It is time that he solved the problem. Ithought we had the solution with Pinkenba.

Wherever the treatment plant is situated, ithas to be removed from the present site atWillawong to enable rehabilitation of that areato take place.

The previous speaker talked of imposingcosts on industrial concerns which would putthem out of business. That could be so for avery small operator. As I have said, thedepartment should provide specific assistanceand advice to small operators. As a memberof the free market forces in this House, heshows a great lack of confidence in themarketplace to look after the problem oftreating the waste which that marketplacegenerates. It should not be the responsibilityof the general public to do that; it should bethe responsibility of the industry that generatesthat waste and uses the material that isproduced. It should not be the responsibility ofthe general public.

Mr Hegarty: What is the time frame youare talking about?

Mr ARDILL: The time frame is now. Notonly have we gone 200 years too long; in theshort term we have gone about 50 years toolong. A lot of these problems were known for along time and nothing was done about it untilthe Labor Party came to Government in 1990.It is up to members opposite to take over whatwe started and to do something about it. Tosay that the marketplace cannot handle theproblem is wrong; it is its responsibility tohandle the problem.

Mrs Wilson: They can in the long term,but not in the short term. It means increasingprices if they have to do it straightaway. We'rejust saying they need more time.

Mr ARDILL: I am not saying that it hasto be solved in a specific way; I am saying thatit is the responsibility of those industries tocome up with schemes to combat theproblem. Those industries have had threeyears and, prior to that, they had four years ofwarning. Since the introduction of the Act theyhave had a further three years to dosomething about it. Surely any firm with anydegree of technological expertise should bynow have been able to solve most of itsproblems. That is what Government membershave not come to terms with. It is too late tokeep on procrastinating and saying that wecan go on until these organisations feel sodisposed to do something about it. The time isnow. As I said, they have had seven years todo something about it. It should have beendone by now. It is time to demand thatGovernment members come to terms with itimmediately.


As I said, it is okay where organisations'management plans can be updated by bettertechnology or because existing technologyhas been found not to work. We have to givethem a little bit of time to do something aboutit and, as I said, I am happy that theGovernment is doing that withoutcost—certainly to the smaller firms. But can itplease get on with the job? This is Australiatoday; it is not back in the times of CaptainCook and Arthur Phillip when there was so littleknowledge of the damage that we could do toour environment. This problem is subsequentto the Industrial Revolution when this earthbegan to be destroyed by industry andtechnology. It is now time to reverse theprocess and get on with the job urgently.

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (3.54 p.m.):I rise to join the debate on the EnvironmentalProtection Amendment Bill No. 2 1996.Business recognises it needs to play a role inmaintaining sound environmental standards.Criticism of the Act stems from the additionalcost imposed on enterprises by theadministering authority. But the heaviestburden on business is the compliance that hasto be adhered to by many operators who arealmost on their knees.

In areas of the State that have beenaffected by drought or where there has been aserious downturn in their economies,businesses are battling to survive. It was theformer Government that brought in conditionsthat were too rigid to comply with and manyindustries had to call on their meagreresources to carry out the necessary changes.It is important that these small businessescontinue because they provide an essentialservice to these communities that oftencannot be replicated. I think a number ofspeakers from both sides of the House havespoken on that issue. Sometimes 100kilometres separates towns and the loss ofany service is unacceptable.

In an effort to alleviate some of thesepressures, the Minister appointed a ministerialadvisory committee to address a range ofconcerns with this unreasonable legislation.This took place in March 1996. The problemthat the current Government had to addresswas the inflexible aspects of legislation thathad no respect for small business. There wasnot a great deal of consideration at all,particularly in the time constraints under whichthey had to act. The recommendations thatwere suggested by the advisory committeereflected difficulties being experienced with thelegislation. One of the proposals consideredby the committee was for an amendment tothe environmental management program to

allow business to overcome temporaryinabilities to comply with the 1992 Act and thelicensing conditions.

There may be cases where improvementsin technology could improve business viability,as well as improving the environmentalaspects of the operation. I noticed that themember for Everton was speaking about that,as did other members on the Opposition sideof the House, and certainly those on this side.Consideration needs to be given to the waybusiness finances are arranged, and theirability to finance changes. The taxationaspects of these demands should be alteredto make it attractive for business to implementthe necessary changes. It would be in theinterests of the Federal Government to provideincentives that make it acceptable to businessto put in place measures that would benefitthe environment. If tax incentives areprovided, it makes it more feasible to adoptenvironmental measures to reduce the impacton business activities.

It is difficult for these people to pay for thelevy and the variety of changes required whileat the same time they have to maintain theirviability. We have heard people talking aboutthe onus that is on business as far as workers'compensation, superannuation and all thosesorts of things that they have to comply withwhen they are employing people areconcerned. Larger organisations may to someextent be in a better position because theirthroughput would cover the cost burden muchmore easily. The ministerial council recognisedthat a public notice of an application for anenvironmental management program shouldnot be required unless the period of theprogram exceeds five years. This gives abetter opportunity for planning, as the currentAct only allows for three years. I think that is avery worthwhile move. I was pleased to hearthe Opposition spokesman supporting thisinitiative. If changes are required then it isreasonable that the program could and shouldbe altered.

Some authorities found it difficult toprocess the applications by the due date. Itwas deemed necessary to institute amoratorium—which the Minister did—from1 March to 1 July 1996, but more confusionbetween business and the administeringauthorities increased the number of applicantswho were not eligible. Had the existing Actremained in force, another application wouldhave been required and additional fees paid,but the amendment allows for an extension oftime for new applications since 1 March 1996.A date of 1 January 1997 was nominated toallow administering authorities time to tidy up


the dealing with applications to make themlawful. This period has now been extended toJune 1997.

This amendment should rectify theunrealistic expectations when businessesmade application during last year. The wholeaspect of dealing with waste is an extremelycontentious issue. As closer settlement occursand towns and cities get bigger, the problemwill escalate. Businesses have been requiredto improve the manner in which they deal withtheir waste and provide safeguards in relationto noise and drift from businesses such asspray-painting. There is a problem in that, inthe past, a mixture of residential and businessworkshops were considered to be compatible.I am aware of an engineering works inTownsville that was established at somedistance from any other buildings except for ahouse, the occupants of which had noconcern with the engineering works' activitiesat the time. However, the business's interestgrew and the style of work taken on involvedmore noise to a point where, over a number ofyears, friction occurred between theengineering works and the adjoiningresidence. To resolve the issue it wasnecessary for the business to erect a wall thatwould cost in the order of $250,000 to abatethe noise and other activities being conducted.The other alternative was for the business torelocate, at some considerable expense, at atime when limited work was available for thatparticular business.

There are other examples of how home-grown businesses have sprung up inbackyards and run into problems withneighbours complaining about their activities. Ihave been made aware of this situation quiteoften. Many of them are only part-timeoperations, but they depend on their activitiesto supplement a wage. As I indicated earlier,in the smaller towns throughout the Statemany of the small enterprises provide aworthwhile service to the community but havedifficulty complying with the requirements ofthe current Act.

In the past we have been dependent onlandfill operations, but it is evident that, as asociety, we are generating increasing volumesof waste and that other solutions for itsdisposal have to be considered. Recycling hasbeen seen as a panacea to the problem and,in some instances, it has assisted in turningunwanted products into useful entities. Thecost of collecting, and the viability of producinga product that can be sold, is an issue thatbusiness has to deal with. With material suchas chemical plastic containers, the volume forweight makes it unattractive to transport them

any distance. There are proposals for atransportable unit that could shred thesecontainers to overcome this problem with theirvolume.

Paper is a product that has quitesuccessfully been recycled but, when thiscontinually occurs, the fibre shortens and newfibre has to be introduced to maintain thestrength of the article. Plastics are beingrecycled to a point where, if the specificationcan be met, the material can be incorporatedin high-quality piping. Low-grade material canbe used in a range of polythene products. Sothere is a range of variations that we canconsider when introducing these plastics intodifferent products.

One of the main problems with recyclablematerial is the cost of freighting it from thecollection point to the recycling operation.Some time ago, I approached the railways toconsider low-priority freight on empty wagonsreturning to Brisbane, where most of therecycling occurs. I hoped that a considerableconcession could have been provided to makethe recycling operation viable. The materialcould have been left stored in railway yardsuntil empty wagons were available. Thisinitiative did not receive a favourableresponse.

There is increasing difficulty in finding sitesfor landfill operations. In some cases therubbish may have to be transported somedistance for disposal. Members have beentalking about Willawong. The Brisbane CityCouncil and the Government of the day reallydid not have any qualms about making adecision to take hazardous waste out toGurulmundi just out of Miles. They consideredit to be appropriate to send it to an area thatwas well out of sight. The Murilla Shire washeavily pressured to accept the treatedmaterial for a landfill operation which was closeto catchment areas of the town water supplyand at the headwaters of the Great ArtesianBasin. There now seem to be problems withthe design of the evaporation ponds, which iscausing concern to the community.

In the future, it will be necessary forGovernments to make the generators of wasteresponsible for the disposal of their wasteproducts. I believe that that has beenconfirmed by most members of the Houseduring their contributions. It will have to be acost and an initiative that is built into productsto ensure that solutions are found to thisescalating problem. Technology will assist withthe separation of effluent substances fromsewage. Settling ponds, extraction of methanegas and biological assistance are measures


being used to purify water before enteringwaterways throughout the State. In manycases this water is being used for irrigation,which is proving a benefit where water is inshort supply.

Private enterprise is providing services topick up waste oil, acids and a range of wasteproducts generated by business. Materialssuch as waste oils are being used for bunkerfuel, which benefits the firing of boiler stations.Many machinery repair based industries areusing a dry management technique of dealingwith oil rather than allowing this oil to becarried away to the pits by water, then havingthe waste separated into its respectivesubstances before being removed from thepremises.

It is important that the Governmentprovides the framework in the form oflegislation that places no greater burden thanis absolutely necessary on business. I believethat members have covered that in a numberof their speeches. At present, businesses arefinding it difficult, particularly small business.They are the generators of wealth, providing arange of jobs for the community at large. So ifwe stifle their activities and make it too difficultfor them to operate, we will find that we havemany communities that have lost jobopportunities. It is necessary for theGovernment to monitor waste management toensure that the relevant concerns areaddressed. I believe that the Minister ismaking every attempt to do this in thislegislation. It is a difficult area to work in. It is avery necessary area. I am certain that, as wego down the track in the future, changes willbe required and adjustments will have to bemade to ensure that we have good, safeenvironmental policies for the State.

Mrs BIRD (Whitsunday) (4.08 p.m.): Irise to raise a couple of issues within myelectorate which have been of some concernfor some time and which, quite seriously, couldhave been attended to had we had people inthe field who were not only dedicated to theirjobs but, indeed, had the time to peruse thesituation and determine the real issues. Thefirst, of course, is the issue of black plastic atBowen. As members may well remember,black plastic is used for water retention, as aweed inhibitor and to increase the value ofcrops. It gives a better colour to the tomatoand a better type of crop.

Mr Rowell interjected.

Mrs BIRD: No, it does not. It makes thetomato shiny and red. It does create a betterquality fruit. As members can imagine, farmshave tonnes of black plastic which they lay on

the ground throughout the season. At the endof the season it is stockpiled and dispersed ina number of ways, firstly, into fills at the localcouncil. Some has recently gone to Collinsville.However, the problem arises when farmersbecome so upset about the amount of blackplastic on their properties that they start toburn it. It burns for some time and causes allsorts of health problems with the inhalation offumes. It also causes discomfort for thosepeople who suffer from asthma.

The problem has been dispersal of theblack plastic. The previous Government did setup a committee within the department toinvestigate that. I am not so sure of the statusof that committee now. The proposals thatwere put forward in the earlier stages when Iattended the first few meetings were that away be investigated for dispersal perhapsthrough recycling, burning off in incinerators orbulking it to some place other than where itwas. The issue of bulking it and sending it toCollinsville was a very expensive one and onethat the farmers were forced to pay. It becamea burden for them. In the end, it was unable tobe used. Occasionally a truck takes a load toCollinsville when otherwise it would returnempty. The incineration at the coke works wasalso an issue in terms of fumes, and theworkers became concerned about what was inthe plastic.

It was not until large streams of blackplastic were picked up at the mouth of the riverheading for the Great Barrier Reef that seriousconcern was expressed by the localcommunity, particularly by people in Merinda.It was then also becoming an environmentalhazard to the reef. The issue still stands. Weare not able to do anything with the plastic. Itis time to look at recycling. As the Ministersays, the committee is still investigating. It ismy view that the distributors of the plastic havean enormous role to play in recycling, or atleast picking up the used plastic and thendisposing of the plastic themselves. Currently,mounds of it are all over the area of Bowen. Itis also a problem for cattle. Graziers will beaware that bits of black plastic do rot and getinto the grass, which is ingested, and theplastic finishes up at the now-redundantBorthwick meatworks. We have to considerwhat we are going do with the black plastic,and we need to do that fairly quickly. The town of Proserpine has a sugar milland a sawmill. In 1990-1991 the GossGovernment asked the sugar mill to installsome inhibitors in its chutes. That has beendone at a cost of $1m. The black grit that waspouring over Proserpine for years and whichwas part of the charm of Proserpine has now


ceased. The mill no longer causes a problemin that respect. However, the sawmill iscausing a problem. With the cancelling of thesawmill contracts for hardwoods earlier in thenineties, the mill switched over to pineprocessing and gluing. That meant a wholenew process. The mill had to install other sortsof equipment. The mill is right in the town ofProserpine. Of course, it was there before theresidential area built up around it. Now peoplehave to cope with glue fumes coming outthrough the incinerators, the smell of thewaste pine pieces being burnt and the dryingequipment pouring out fumes into the air.

I have had people from the departmentdown there to investigate those circumstancestime and time again. They have come backwith stories such as, "There ain't no problem;the noise isn't bad." I spent a weekend ofcomplete horror at the home of an elderlycouple who are residents in Telford Street. Thedriers were in use for the whole weekend. Thestench and the sore eyes made it almostunbearable. As a result of the noise from thesawmill, the elderly couples who live in thatstreet have to keep their windows closedconstantly to keep the noise out. Previously,they suffered from the sawdust problems. Nowthey have stinging and sore eyes from theglue. Eventually, we will have to giveconsideration to moving that mill. Theresidential area around it is growing very, veryquickly and we will have to move the mill.There is no other option, because peoplecannot tolerate what is happening, despite thefact that the department continues to say thatthere is not a problem. Of course there is aproblem.

This morning I had a call from residentswho live near the Aspley East State School.Their concern is mostly noise pollution.Apparently the school is having someextensions built and the operators ofjackhammers and dozers are working from 6a.m. seven days a week. That is causing aheadache for the residents whose propertiesare adjacent to the Aspley East State School.I have contacted the Department of PublicWorks and asked them to do something aboutthat. That is just an indication of what happenswhen legislation is in place that is not pursuedor enforced.

I have outlined three problems: theburning of black plastic, and the legislation isquite clear that that is illegal; a mill sending outunhealthy fumes and smoke, and quiteobviously that is illegal; and a company notcomplying with the restrictions on noise,especially for Sunday and Saturdayafternoons, yet the legislation is not enforced.

I point out to the Minister that theseamendments to the legislation are all very welland it is very good to have matters spelt out inblack and white, but if regional Queenslanddoes not have people with qualifications, time,space and energy to fulfil their obligationsunder the Act, he might as well not have thislegislation. I appeal to the Minister to ensurethat rural and regional Queensland inparticular have access to people who haveskills to assess circumstances correctly, to lookat them from the perspective of the peoplewho live in the region and to implement somesolid enforcement of the legislation that theMinister introduces.

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone)(4.18 p.m.): I will make a couple of commentson the intent not necessarily of theamendment only but also of the Bill. Theelectorate that I represent is in a heavilyindustrialised area. Waste and wastemanagement are very important issues. Wehave a mix of products. Some of them couldbe a feedstock if we could get the right mix ofindustry into the area in the future. One of thewisest environmental management tools forour region would be to have good synergies interms of industrial siting and development.

I listened to the comments of one of theprevious speakers in relation to Willawong andGurulmundi. I have visited both of those sites.If honourable members want an experience inwaste management sites, they should visitWillawong. It is an eye-opener. TheGurulmundi site is very clean and very sterile,but it depends on the process that is carriedout at Willawong to remain as clean looking asit is—on the surface at least.

I believe that we have a push in myelectorate to have an additional wastedisposal area established. I have opposedthat in the sense that the Gladstone CityCouncil is pursuing fairly strongly a landfill. Ibelieve that at this stage in the technology ofthis State we should have gone past that. Atlandfills we bury the stuff for somebody to tryto fix in 20 years. I would hope—and I believethat we have the technologies—that we woulddeal differently with waste.

When Molly Robson was the Minister forEnvironment she did quite a lot of work withthe CSIRO on waste technologies—plasmatechnologies and other transportabletechnologies. She had almost reached thestage of developing a pilot program for amobile plant that would go across this Stateand dispose of certain waste streams. Thatcould be done environmentally safely. Theinitial plan was to go up Mount Isa way. As


there was no set spot for the plant to stay,obviously it would attract transportation of toxicwaste. As the plant was to be mobile, it couldvisit a region for three to six months, disposeof the accumulated waste and then press on.That was an excellent program. It was ashame that when Molly Robson met herWaterloo, that program appeared to have alsomet its Waterloo. I would certainly encouragethe Minister to see where that program is at.The CSIRO was actively and very progressivelyinvolved in that program. As I said, in 1997,when our communities are aware of suchthings as leachates and the cocktailing effectof chemicals, we should not be consideringany new waste disposal methods that involvethe burying of toxic waste.

I can understand the concerns that theMinister is trying to address with this Bill,particularly considering the impact that the Billhad on small business when it was firstintroduced. At that time, some of the smallbusinesses in the Gladstone/Calliope area justdid not know what to do. The financial imposton them to comply in a relatively short periodwas more than their businesses were worth.Many people said to me, "I am consideringclosing the door." Subsequent to that, therewas a moratorium and those small businessesreceived some breathing space to comply withsome of the requirements. However, the Billwas a huge impost on people.

In relation to this Bill particularly, I wouldbe interested to know whether any of themajor environmental groups were involved inthe consultation. Perhaps the Minister couldtell me that in his reply. Those groups are notincluded in the organisational list. It would beinteresting to hear what those groups had tosay about the proposal. When it comes tothe extension of time for deciding anapplication from the environmental authority—again, administratively, that is understandable.Some of the submissions are very complex. Ihope that in authorising an extension there willbe a requirement to justify that extension. Therisk will be that the more complex or difficultissues will be pigeonholed so that thedepartment or the officers could feel somejustification in procrastinating. So the Ministeris indicating that there will be some guidelinesas to how and why applications or decisionson applications can be extended.

I commend the Minister for the proposalto create an offence to breach the conditionsof the approval. That does not relatenecessarily to small business or largebusiness, but human beings have a failing inthat once they are over the hill of the initial

compliance, they can get a little bit tardy. So ifthere is a policing mechanism in the legislationto ensure that compliance continues, that is ofgreat benefit to the community.

My only continuing concern is one aboutwhich I believe the Minister has had somedialogue with the shadow Minister, namely,the change from three years of advertising tofive years of advertising. I have some concernabout that. In an industry that is creatingenvironmental emissions, whether they be air-borne emissions, liquid emissions, orwhatever, five years is a long time. I would beconcerned that that extra two years could stillbe granted but in a more public manner. I amconcerned about that extension. Three yearsis still four budgets to be able to get funding todo the retro-fitting or whatever is required. Justbecause it is three years does not precludethe fit out taking longer; the Bill is just sayingthat if it is longer than three years, then itrequires public advertisement. There is a greatpositive to that. The community is its ownwatchdog. I do not mean that in the excessivesense but in the sense that if companies knowthat the people of the community—thesurrounding neighbours to that industry—arewatching, they will tend to get on with the job.There are those business—not many—thatwould, given an extension to five years beforepublic notification was required, perhaps be abit tardy in turning their attention to the EMP.

However, I think generally small businessin particular will welcome some of the reliefthat the Minister is offering through this Bill.For a long time now environmental issueshave been of primary concern to people. Ithink that people are weighing up thedifference between the ability for business tosucceed and the requirement on business tobe environmentally responsible. I think that theexpectations of the community are becomingvery, very reasonable. I would hate to see theextension of that three-year period to fiveyears encourage a more lax attitude towardsenvironmental responsibility. I thank the Housefor the opportunity.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (4.26 p.m.): The Minister forEnvironment prides himself on havingestablished a ministerial advisory committeeunder the chairmanship of his then actingdirector-general not long after the change ofGovernment in February 1996. In theMinister's second-reading speech on thisEnvironmental Protection Amendment Bill(No. 2), he took further pride in enshrining therecommendations of that committee inlegislation.


That is all very nice, but unfortunately it isjust not the case. We know that thecommittee, to its credit, thwarted the worstexcesses the Minister and his Governmentwished to inflict on the EnvironmentalProtection Act. The Minister set out to gut thislegislation. He made it known to all hisbusiness cronies that he intended to neuterthis legislation so thoroughly that it wouldnever trouble them again. During the run-up tothe July 1995 election, the Minister sold hismessage so well that he even had coalitioncandidates putting in their election hand-outsthe claim that a coalition Government wouldgo as far as to "scrap this Act". And scrap itthe Minister tried.

Mr Littleproud: Before when?

Mr BEATTIE: The July 1995 election.Mr Littleproud: I wasn't the shadow

Minister then.

Mr BEATTIE: I am talking about theMinister's party. I assume that the Ministerdoes not disown totally the Honourable DougSlack, who at that time was the relevantMinister.

Mr Littleproud interjected.

Mr BEATTIE: I see, the Minister wantsto disown him. He wants to stab him in theback because he is not present in theChamber. That is fine. I thought there wassome consistency. I knew there was a splitbetween the National Party and the LiberalParty, but I did not think that there was a splitwithin the National Party. I thank the Ministerfor informing the House of the split. I assurehim that he will hear more of it.

Scrap the Bill the Minister tried. He tried topare back the environmentally relevantactivities that under the Act require licensing tovirtually eliminate a whole raft of pollutingindustries from environmental scrutiny. Thanksto the more level-headed members of thatcommittee and their desire, unlike the Minister,to drag Queensland into an environmentallyaware 20th century before we move into the21st century, he did not get away with it.

The Minister has a hide to continuetrumpeting the achievements of thiscommittee when it is common knowledge thatit would not do his dirty work for him. Quiterightly, the committee did not give the Ministerwhat he and the National Party wanted. TheGovernment has been blasted from pillar topost throughout Queensland for failing todeliver on its ill-conceived election promises.

Recently in Pine Rivers, meetings ofsmall-business operators continued to criticisethe Minister for not getting the EPA off their

backs, yet the Minister has the hide to comeinto this place and speak glowingly of the workof this committee. I saw the notice the Ministersent out about the meeting. The Ministercould not lie straight in bed on this issue, andhe knows it.

That is not the end of it. Having failed togut the EPA through this committee, in anattempt to deliver a commitment to hispolluting mates the Minister cooked up awhole new scheme called "conditionalapprovals". That particular scheme was notmuch better than his attempt to reduce the listof environmentally relevant activities, and it didnot fare much better. The same level-headedmembers of the ministerial advisory committeetook to it with gusto and have again curbedthe Minister's worst excesses. What aridiculous idea that was. All the applicant hadto do was make a statutory declaration on apiece of paper that the business referred todid not cause pollution, sign it, add anaddress, a cheque for $100, and post it off tohis or her local authority and, hey-presto, alicence—not for a year, not for 10 years, notfor 20 years, but a licence for life. There wereno inspectors, no monitoring, no auditing, noenforcement and no reporting.

The Minister is supposed to be interestedin the environment. If that is not a doozey, Ido not know what is! It is like saying toanybody, "You just choose your own licence. Itdoes not matter whether you can drive avehicle or a D10. You just grab hold of it, sendin a cheque, say you can drive it and, hey-presto, down the road you go." The sheeraudacity of this move defies belief. It is nowonder that the conservation movement, theGreens, the Local Government Association ofQueensland and the Brisbane City Counciltook to it with a big stick. If I am wrong, whyhave all those groups come out and attackedthe legislation in the same way that I amattacking it today? If I am wrong, why do theyagree with me and disagree with the Minister?Perhaps in his reply, the Minister will be kindenough to tell the House why.

The Bill deserved to be belted, and belt itthey did, yet what did we get from theblundering, blithering Environment Minister?Another backdown, and he has had a few!This is another one to add to the ever-growinglist that includes Park Pass, kangaroo shootingand oil and tyre levies. Now we have a newone: conditional approvals. The Minister doeshave a fine record. I think that he leads theMinistry when it comes to backdowns. I thinkhe is a neck ahead of the rest, and I have tosay that that is some achievement becausehe has a lot of clowns behind him.


Thankfully, we will now see therequirements of the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland and the BrisbaneCity Council such as incentive licensing, riskassessment, on-the-spot fines, complianceguidelines and, hopefully, environmentprotection policies or EPPs put in place beforeconditional approvals become law. While onthe subject of EPPs, I make an impassionedplea to the Minister. While there are sectionsof the Bill that we can live with, the precioustime of the Parliamentary Counsel could bemuch better spent finalising these policies,which were well advanced at the time of thechange of Government but which havelanguished ever since to the environmentaldetriment of the State. These policies havelanguished so badly that we now have highlyexperienced officers of the Division ofEnvironment tendering their resignation indisgust at the Government's inability to geteven one of these policies to Cabinet. When isthere going to be some priority aboutenvironmental issues from the Government?The best we have seen so far is a NationalParty policy committee sidetracking the waterEPP for further consultation. Would you notlove to be a fly on the wall at those meetings!The National Party debating an environmentprotection policy—the National Party would notbe capable of spelling the words let alonecomprehending their content and, indeed,intent and need! Queenslanders needenvironmental standards spelt out, and speltout clearly.

I cannot understand where the LiberalParty is in relation to these environmentalissues. At least in the last 20 years the LiberalParty has sometimes raised concerns aboutenvironmental issues and not often, butoccasionally, even heritage issues. I recallTerry Gygar, a former Liberal member forStafford, had a view on the demolition of theBellevue Hotel. However, it is only anoccasional interest. Under the leadership ofthe Deputy Premier and Treasurer, JoanSheldon, we get no leadership from theLiberal Party on environmental heritage issuesat all.

Queensland needs the three basicenvironmental protection policies of air, waterand noise. Without them, both industry andlocal authorities are operating in a vacuum.They need the direction that these EPPs willgive. These three basic EPPs are neededmost, not the EPPs on oil and mining, not theEPPs on the Brisbane River and not the EPPon waste. Without these three basic EPPs, theMinister is not going to get the support ofindustry to enter into EPPs on other subjects,

a role these EPPs were clearly designed forwhen Labor drafted the EnvironmentalProtection Act in 1994.

To give the House an example, in ournegotiations with Mount Isa Mines over theproposed amendments to its specialagreement Act the company stated that had itexamined the use of the EPP provisions of theAct to achieve the certainty that it needed.However, in all fairness to its shareholders, itcould not do this due to the fact that theprovisions were an unknown quantity. Not onewas in place and, as such, no criticalassessment could be made of their capability,effectiveness or limitations.

Industries' use of the EPA is beingseverely limited by the Minister's inaction.Whilst the Minister continues to delay theintroduction of these measures, the morerequests he is going to receive for speciallegislation to give industry the certainty itneeds to invest and expand. What needs tobe remembered in terms of the debate aboutMount Isa Mines is exactly where thenegligence and problems started and whereresponsibility rests; it rests with the Minister.

Similarly, the Minister must make far moreuse of the environmental management planprovisions of the Environment Protection Act.These plans give industry the breathing spaceit needs to move from a position of non-compliance to one of compliance by giving ittime to do so with the required protection fromthe punitive provisions of the EPA. Theseplans, like the EPPs, have the ability whenproperly used to again give industry thecertainty it needs in meeting theenvironmental requirements of the day whilemaintaining its operations as an ongoingfinancial entity. That is important to industry ifwe are going to have growth, developmentand jobs.

The Minister's plans to extend the publicscrutiny provisions of the EMPs from threeyears to five years requires a proclamation ofthe third-party, appeal-rights provisions in theEPA to make them fully effective. I call on theGovernment to do this as soon as possible,both as a sign of good faith to match the two-year time extension and to give environmentprotection in the State the added impetus thatwill further protect our internationally evolvingclean, green image.

I note the Minister's need to amend theEPA to rectify the mess he created when heplaced all environmental authorisations onhold for a four-month period from 1 March1996 to 1 July 1996 while he set about hisdevious plan to dismantle this most important


piece of legislation. The Bill is more about theGovernment's inability in the dying years of the20th century to grasp the realities of modern-day environmental thinking. It is more aboutan admission by the Government that itcannot meet the rabid calls of much of itsconsistency, but the environment is nopassing phase. It is now mainstream thinkingin Australian society and it is here to stay, andindustry and business are part of thatmainstream thinking. Businesses want industryto grow, they want jobs and they also want tobe environmentally friendly because it is goodfor their corporate image. We do not need toturn back the clock, as the Government isintent on doing in so many areas simply toplease a few white-shoe brigade mates.Mainstream industry does not have a problemwith sensible environmental regulation,provided there is some certainty, guidanceand direction, and they certainly have not gotthat. The Government is going to have toaccept that and learn to live with the need forenvironmental protection, and it needs to learnto live with it politically.

In the area of the environment theGovernment has nothing short of a disgracefulrecord. Bearing in mind the role played by theformer shadow Minister for the Environment,Doug Slack, who went out and deliberatelywooed particularly the Greens and also theenvironment movement prior to the 1995election, those groups have got nothing out ofthe commitments that were given by membersopposite when they were in Opposition. TheGovernment has betrayed the people whosupported it or who believed that it had acommitment to the protection of theenvironment. They were betrayed in a mostshameful way by the Government when itcame to office. The Premier did not allocatethe portfolio to Doug Slack who had givenmany of the commitments; it was allocated tothis Minister, Mr Littleproud. That was abetrayal of faith. The Government then verydeliberately moved away from thecommitments that were given; it also removedfunding from the Environment Department.The Government has set about neutering thedepartment.

If the Minister thinks that the environmenthas disappeared as a political issue, he iswrong. If he believes that in the lead-up to thenext State election his failure to deliver onpolicies will be ignored and will not be followedup by environmental groups or the Opposition,he is wrong. If the Minister believes that he willnot lose votes because of his behaviour inGovernment, he is wrong. This is all about asensible balance to give not only protection to

the environment but also some lead toindustry about growth and development. It isabout a sensitive balance. We can have asensitive balance. The Minister does notsimply have to kowtow to every one of hiswhite-shoe brigade mates simply to pleasethem.

I urge members to think carefully aboutan amendment that will be moved at theappropriate stage by the Oppositionspokesman for the Environment. When hebecomes Environment Minister, I look forwardto seeing some sensible environmentalpolicies.

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (4.41 p.m.),in reply: I wish to make a couple of generalcomments about the debate before I talkabout some of the specific issues raised.Firstly, it is pretty apparent from thecontributions of members that, with theexception of one issue, there is generalsupport for the three issues in the legislation.

I have already spoken privately with theOpposition spokesman, the member forEverton, about the point that he raised aboutpublic disclosure. I am sure that that wasnever the intent of the ministerial advisorycommittee. The recommendation came fromit, and most of those people who are nowmembers of the Environment ProtectionCouncil representing industry were membersof the ministerial advisory committee. I havegiven an assurance to the Oppositionspokesman and the member for Gladstonethat I am prepared to go back to theEnvironment Protection Council ofQueensland with the concerns raised.

I wish also to refer to the notes providedto me by my staff. Regardless of thisamendment, the environment managementprograms have always been able to beapproved for longer than three years. Therewas no maximum limit on an EMP's length inthe legislation that the previous Governmentintroduced in 1994. Secondly, the publicnotification provisions applied only to thelength of time that a proposed EMP was torun, and that is what has been changed.Thirdly, if a proposed EMP is to extend forlonger than five years, it will undertake publicconsultation on the draft EMP.

Having said that, I will make anothergeneral comment. I have noticed that thedebates we have had in relation to legislationunder this portfolio in the last 12 months havebecome much more mature. Rather thanhaving a slanging match, we have tended toget down to finite things that need to be


addressed, as opposed to taking extremestances. One exception was the Leader of theOpposition's reading from a prepared text. Theperson who prepared that text was obviouslymore on about theatre than fact. That did notdo much for the debate. However, somepoints raised by members on both sides of theHouse were very relevant. Some touched onmatters other than those contained in the Bill.I will make some brief comments about thosematters, but I think I owe it to the House to talkmainly about the comments on the Bill.

The member for Everton mentioned that103 recommendations were made by theministerial advisory committee. He said thatthe ministerial advisory committee refused todepart from the real intent of theEnvironmental Protection Act. That is quite so.I wrote down a set of guidelines for it and,above all else, the first was that it should haveregard to the Act and its integrity. Members onboth sides of the House recognise that it isnecessary; it was just a matter of making itpractical and fairer. That would also negatethe comments made by the Leader of theOpposition, who came in here and treated usto a lot of theatre. It was never the case that Itried to gut it.

The first term of reference was to maintainits integrity, or words to that effect, and to goabout making changes that were fair andequitable. The member for Redlands saidquite correctly that 33 of the 103recommendations have been implemented.This Bill brings in another two and, of thebalance, quite a few are already beingimplemented. By their very nature, they willrequire further negotiation with various bodiesand other Government departments. It is anongoing process. To state that nothing hasbeen done since the committee reported atthe end of May last year is quite fallacious.

It is also unfortunate that, because of theamount of legislation that the Governmentwished to bring into the House, although thelegislation before us was introduced in 1996, itcould not get onto the agenda to be debatedand we have had to come back to make somealterations to the Bill, for example, changingdates. It has been acknowledged by themember opposite that he understands whythat is the case. However, I can assure himthat progress is still being made.

There was also comment about theenvironmental protection policies on water, air,noise and waste. I want the member tounderstand that in the six months prior to thelast general election there was enormousangst in the business community about the

impact that the licensing provisions of theEnvironmental Protection Act were having onthe business sector. When we came to powerin February last year the phones rang hot,because on 1 March these provisions were tobe fully implemented and literally hundredsand hundreds of business people across theState were knocking on the doors of localgovernment. Local governments rang up andsaid, "You have to give us some relief. Wecannot possibly process these people. Give ussome relief." It was not a matter of confusion;it was a matter of answering a cry for help.

I then received pretty good advice that weshould create this ministerial advisorycommittee. It served a great purpose.Probably the best thing that has been done inrespect of the environment in Queensland formany years was the introduction of theEnvironment Protection Council ofQueensland, which consists of people fromthe conservation side, the business side andthe Government, all of whom are workingtogether. It is a real clearing house of ideas. Itis because of those people that we are takingthese proposed EPPs.

When the issue of the EPP licensingprovisions came up and I received 102recommendations for change, I clearly got themessage that there was something wrong withthem—a lot wrong. Bearing that in mind, whenthe issue of EPP Water first arose and westarted to read through it, we couldunderstand straightaway that, while it was verygood in concept, applying it would be anightmare, just like the licensing provisionsunder the Act.

Similarly, when the issue of EPP Noisearose, we had people from north Queenslandpointing out that the household airconditionerof the next-door neighbour was going to be inviolation, and all sorts of things. The samething happened in respect of EPP Air.However, in the next couple of weeks the EPPWater will be delivered. It will take a little longerthan that to get EPP Air and Noise through.We are progressing with EPP Waste, which isalso needed desperately. I would surmise that,while the concept of the EnvironmentalProtection Act and the whole suite ofsubordinate legislation that hangs off it is agood idea, it is a matter of taking the public ofQueensland step by step so that they candigest and live with it, having due regard toenvironmental responsibilities and social andeconomic considerations at the same time.

In his concluding remarks, the member forEverton said that the Environment Departmentno longer has the right of veto. That is one of


the main things that was wrong with the GossGovernment. There was an excess of powerand things were viewed more in terms of theenvironment rather than in terms of a whole-of-Government approach.

Mr Welford: What rubbish!

Mr LITTLEPROUD: My word it was! Idefended my Premier this morning when hewas saying that we have every right toimplement the policies that we went to thepeople with. Those policies are whole-of-Government decisions. There are stillexcesses in my portfolio. For example, I referto what would seem to be the right of veto ofthese people who are singularly interested in acertain issue without giving due regard toothers. When we sit around the Cabinet table,my fellow Ministers and I give due regard toenvironmental matters and my colleagues willback me up. However, the decision we makein the end is a considered one which takes farmore than that into account.

The point was raised that the Oppositionwould call for a consolidated Act. I am advisedthat on 6 June 1996, not long after wedebated the last Bill in May, a consolidatedAct was put together and on 27 September areprint of the regulations was made available.For some reason or other, the Oppositiondoes not have them, but they have certainlybeen available.

Both the honourable member and theLeader of the Opposition spoke aboutconditional approvals. Conditional approvalsare one of the recommendations put in placeby the ministerial advisory committee, alongwith others. I was attracted to thatrecommendation because in Queenslandabout 15,000 businesses are caught up in thelicensing provisions of this Act, whereas inVictoria, under somewhat similarcircumstances, about 5,000 or 6,000businesses have to carry a licence. Surelythere had to be some imbalance. It was worthwhile giving consideration to arecommendation from the ministerial advisorycommittee to look at that.

I can advise the House that one of myofficers who would normally be sitting in theadvisers' box today is chairing a meeting withthe Brisbane City Council, other localgovernments and my department to considerthe implementation of incentive licensing andconditional approvals. It will probably besomewhat of a hybrid of the two, because theBrisbane City Council already has what it callsgreen licences under which there areincentives for those people who perform best.But it is a long process. What appeals to those

large local authorities across Queensland—the15 big ones, which are already geared upunder a budget because we paid all thelicence fees for them in the first year to givethem funding to get up and running—in termsof incentive licensing does not appealwhatsoever to many of the small communitieswest of the range or the small towns up anddown the coast.

I take my hat off to the many localauthorities which recognised just how muchimpact this was going to have on the viabilityof their local economies. They took advantageof the provisions included in the Bill by theprevious Government which allowed for thewaiving of fees in circumstances of hardship.They have been lowering the fees so that theydo not impact unfairly on local smallbusinesses. In some places there is a licencefee of $80. That is accepted by the peoplepaying it and the local authority, and they arebudgeting accordingly. However, there aresome other councils in Queensland which didnot fully understand or investigate the Act.They imposed the maximum fee prescribed bythe Act, and that is what has caused theangst.

It has been mentioned by various peoplethat there has been a lack of informationgoing out to the community. I wholeheartedlyagree. When I inherited the Act, it was prettyobvious that many people did not knowenough about it, especially the localauthorities. Something like $300 per councilwas spent on putting together a training kit.There have been various seminars going on.Depending on the size of the local authorityand perhaps on the commitment of the localauthority, there are varying degrees ofunderstanding of how best to apply it. That isan ongoing issue that has to be addressed.There was also some misunderstanding onthe part of the business people themselves.The larger firms which have an environmentaldivision or office within their enterprise veryquickly came up to speed. As various peoplehave said, it is in their corporate interest to dothe right thing, and they are willing to do it solong as they have certainty. They appealed,though, for an extension of time to better fit inwith the taxation provisions. I think that iscovered in this particular Bill. On the otherhand, there is the small bloke out there whoworks six days a week, 10 hours a day andthen goes home and starts to read all the redtape coming from Government on Saturdaynight and Sunday morning and tries tounderstand it. He got a bit uptight when hefound the part at the bottom that said, "Youmay be up for a fee of $500." That is where


the angst has come from, and it is still outthere. I am going through the process toovercome it. This will not be the last time wecome back to shape up this Act.

The previous Government took a prettybrave step. It tried to encompass all thecontrols we had on noise and air and waterpollution under a brand new Act in this suite ofconditions. It was put together, but it stillneeds refinement. I have made a statementsaying that I am trying to be a practical sort ofMinister. We will eventually achieve it. TheEPPs for water, air and noise pollution arealmost ready now. Something like ninemonths have passed. We have beenbackwards and forwards talking to theEnvironment Protection Council ofQueensland and taking its advice. It is not thecase, as the Leader of the Opposition wouldinsist, that we have tried to gut the Act. Wehave been talking to those people who arerepresentative of all the stakeholders. Wehave been talking to my departmental people.Yes, we talked to my policy committee,because we are the Government and wepromised the people of Queensland we woulddo it our way. I hope that the versions of thesethree EPPs that we put out in the next monthor two will be in a far more acceptable statethan those proposed by the previousGovernment. We will still probably find somehiccups and a few sore points, but I think theywill be in a much more acceptable state thanthe licensing provisions that were introducedby the previous Government in March lastyear.

I have spoken about the sleeper clause.The member for Whitsunday referred to blackplastic.

Mr Palaszczuk: Let's vote on it now.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: She has left theChamber, but I can inform the House that wehave been working on that. There is acommittee headed by the DPI which has tocome up with a proposition on how to betterhandle waste plastic. It is a big issueenvironmentally and it is a big issue in terms ofcost of production. We have to do somethingabout it. A line has been drawn in the sand.The committee has to come up with aproposition a bit after halfway through thisyear. Trevor Perrett will be reporting back onthat in his own way, but I was given anundertaking by the fruit and vegetable growersthat they would comply with that.

The member for Gladstone and themember for Archerfield referred to liquid wasteand Willawong and Gurulmundi. I will not go

into lengthy details on that issue now, exceptto advise those members that there is arealisation now that Brisbane City Council hascarried probably an unfair burden for quite anumber of years. I am well aware of its requestto close Willawong. The Lord Mayor and Ispoke about two weeks ago. We are going tohave further talks to work out where we cango. The move now is towards regional land fillsand regional waste management. South-eastQueensland ROC is one of those. Far-northQueensland ROC is probably the bestorganised to date. But certainly we are movingon that. Gurulmundi and Willawong have to betied together. The private sector is playing abigger role all the time. More and more ofthem now recognise that it is a business.Those who generate the waste know that it iscosting them money and they are reducingthe amount of toxic waste and regulatedwaste they generate, but there are still someat the hard end who generate excessivequantities. The private sector knows it canmake a quid out of it if in fact it learns how todestroy it or convert it or reuse it.

Mr Ardill: Or tip it down the drain.Mr LITTLEPROUD: We have to catch

those sorts of people. But there is stillsomething at the top end, the hard end, thatis the really difficult part for both the BrisbaneCity Council and myself to address. I am outthere consistently asking for updated advice.Sometimes I get conflicting advice becausesome people in the private sector will promiseyou the world; when you ask other people whodo not have a commercial interest about theircapacity, they express some doubt, and so Ihave to be rather careful as to what canhappen. I have some sympathy for the LordMayor, Jim Soorley, and the Brisbane CityCouncil, and I have a lot of sympathy for thepeople of Gurulmundi in the Murilla Shire whohave had the Gurulmundi toxic dump foistedon them. It is an issue that needs carefulconsideration. I am on record—and I will say ithere again—as saying that I will close thatdump when I am satisfied that I no longerneed it and that I can do everything elseresponsible as the Minister, but until that timearises I just have to keep it going but makesure that it operates correctly. There was somesort of concern in January and Februarybecause of the heavy rain, but I was givenassurances both by the Brisbane City Counciland my staff that it did not fail. The facility isnot operating to the optimum level becausethere is an argument over the capacity of theevaporation ponds and their capacity to dealwith heavy rain over a prolonged period, butthat is still subject to negotiations.


The member for Archerfield commentedon after-hours contacts. Yes, they are still outthere. Quite a few of those officers who wereoperating in that way under the previousGovernment are still in our department andthey are still out there, and I would hope thatthey are active. There was comment made bythe member for Bulimba earlier today on thesame issue. I am having that investigated.

The issue of third-party appeals wasraised by the member for Currumbin. Thethird-party appeals still have not commenced.The previous Government did not commencethem because it thought it would wait untilsuch time as its PEDA Bill came in. We think itmight be wise for us to hold off until anintegrated planning Bill comes through. It isstill under consideration, but we are followingthe same things members opposite——

Mr Welford: You promised to introducethat, didn't you?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: We did not saywhen—as did the previous Government. If theLabor Party can defer under the PEDA Bill, Ican defer under this.

Mr Welford: We were open about it.Mr LITTLEPROUD: There is nothing

more open than saying it now. In conclusion—I thank members for their

contributions. I say sincerely that it was abetter debate because we talked about thesubstance rather than extremes. We got downto the substance of the issues, except for theLeader of the Opposition, who came in withprepared text and presented a bit of theatre.

Mr Welford: Excellent speech, by theway.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: Presentation—10;material—about 4. He was lacking on realfacts. But I would hope that the spokesmanfor the Opposition understands my assurancethat I will take the issue of public disclosuresback to the Environment Protection Counciland my department for consideration. There iscertainly not an intent on my part to weakenthe public disclosure provisions, and I do notbelieve that was the intent of the ministerialadvisory committee which made therecommendation. I give the member thatassurance. I recommend the passage of theBill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

CommitteeHon. B. G. Littleproud (Western

Downs—Minister for Environment) in charge ofthe Bill.

Interruption.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I would like toacknowledge the presence in the gallery of avisiting delegation from the NanjingPolytechnic.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Committee

Clause 1, as read, agreed to.

Clause 2—

Mr LITTLEPROUD (5.01 p.m.): Imove—

"At page 4, line 6, 'January'—

omit, insert—

'June'."

Mr WELFORD: There are two points Iwant to raise about this clause. Firstly, duringthe second-reading debate I raised the queryabout what this clause is supposed to do. TheMinister will recall that I referred to theExplanatory Notes, which seem to suggestthat this clause was supposed to refer to thecommencement of the Act. It talks about, infact, the commencement of the operation ofclause 13. Of course, clause 13 relates only tothe transitional provisions. It certainly makessense that those amended transitionalprovisions should take effect from 1 June, as itis now if these amendments go through, but itis not clear when the Act itself will come intooperation. What is supposed to be acommencement clause does not make anyreference to when this amending Bill will takeeffect. Normally, in a commencement clauseor a clause headed "commencement", somereference is made to the Bill commencing onthe day of proclamation, assent or whatever.There is no reference in this Bill at all aboutthat. I assume it will commence on the date ofassent, but that needs to be clarified.

It also needs to be reiterated that the six-month change resulting from the amendmentwhich the Minister is now moving is a furtherdelay in the finalisation of approvals, whetherthey be licences or other forms of approval.Notwithstanding the attempt by the Minister todismiss the comments of the Leader of theOpposition as being theatre, the reality is thatthe moratorium that the Minister conjured upon first coming to office has come back tohaunt him and has caused not only theconfusion out there in the businesscommunity, about which the Governmentmembers so loudly crowed before the last


election and on which they went to theelection seeking political kudos on the basisthat this wretched piece of social engineeringwould be brought undone, but also themoratorium was used as a device to try to buytime to work out how the Government wouldmeet the unrealistic commitments it gave tocertain sections of the business community.

This has now caused the Governmenteven worse problems with the businesscommunity and administering authoritiesbecause it has had to make repeatedamendments to allow repeated extensions oftime within which to consider applications forvarious approvals. It needs to be recognisedthat, although we will not divide on thisparticular clause, this clause in the amendingBill and the amendment to the clause that theMinister has now moved have occurred onlybecause the Minister has been party to hisGovernment's attempt to find ways toundermine this legislation—an attempt whichhas failed precisely because anyone seriouslyconcerned about the environment, includingthose people who have a genuine approachto the issues in business, has told him that thelegislation should continue to operate fully andeffectively.

He should not try to water it down; heshould not try to cut out ERAs, but still theGovernment continues to try to find ways toachieve what it says is a relieving of theburden, but which, at the end of the day, willachieve one of two things. It will either result inmore environmental harm going unmanagedand the environment remaining unprotected orresult in the department and other localgovernment administering authorities nothaving the resources to properly ensurecompliance with the legislation which thisMinister says—now that he is the Governmentspokesperson—that he actually supports. Hisproblems started with the previousspokesperson, Mr Slack, and his problems arecontinuing in his attempt to try to patch overthe gaping hole in the credibility of thepromises that Mr Slack made to everyonebefore the last election.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I have to say againto completely refute the accusation made bythe spokesperson of the Opposition that thecoalition is not trying to water down or discardthe Environmental Protection Act. I summedup the second-reading debate by saying thatthe terms of reference insisted that theintegrity of the Act should remain. I was tryingto make it equitable, fair and practical, andthat still remains the case.

With regard to claims of confusion, I cantell the honourable member that I have gotpeople in that Environment Protection Councilof Queensland who represent small businessand big business, and they are not expressingto me any concern about our intent to makethe legislation more workable, neither are theyexpressing concerns that they are confused;they just understand the process I have to gothrough and the process of this House. TheBill was before the Parliament beforeChristmas. We have had to make someamendments because it is now afterChristmas. That it is why the date has gonefrom January to June. The Oppositionunderstands that process. Regardless of whatthe Opposition says, it well understands wherewe are at and what we were doing.

With regard to the wording and lack ofclarity, the Parliamentary Counsel and mydepartment say that clause 2 indicates thatthe Act commences on assent, except forclause 13 which now commences on 1 June1997. If that was not clear, I can tell thehonourable member those are the wordscoming from the Parliamentary Counsel, whichcomes from looking at the Bill itself plus theamendment.

Mr WELFORD: I thank the Minister forthat clarification in respect of clause 2 andacknowledge his current commitment to theEnvironmental Protection Act, which theprevious Government introduced. Theacknowledgment of the Minister is somewhatbelated because, before the last election, itwas the then Opposition's position that itwould not have a bar of this legislation. It ranup and down Queensland criticising, baggingand bucketing this legislation and all itsramifications. I acknowledge that theMinister—and I hope he is genuine in hisassertion—now supports the central tenets ofthis legislation. He would be absolutely madnot to because, without this legislation, withoutheading down this path of improvedenvironmental management and protection,all the things that underpin the quality of thelife of Queenslanders are put at risk. It is apretty vain attempt by the Minister to say thatthe Government somehow was always insupport of the legislation.

I knew that the terms of reference of theministerial advisory committee said that "thecommittee will have regard to the legislation".The terms of reference did not say that thecommittee must maintain the integrity of thelegislation or had to guarantee the integrity ofthe legislation. I noted specifically what thewording said at that time early last year; it wascast in the broadest possible terms so as not


to give any indication to anyone who mightread it that the Government was, in fact,behind this legislation. The Government wasstill out there bucketing the legislation as anevil piece of social engineering established bythe Labor Party which it was going to dosomething about! What did it do about it? Itestablished a committee which came backand advised it to keep the legislation! That isthe basic fact.

I think a body such as the EnvironmentProtection Council of Queensland, which hasnow been established, has some merit and Ido not criticise the Minister for establishing it.But, because of the feedback that I amgetting, I think he had better have a close lookat it. Because of the body's size apparentlythe Minister, his staff or his department will notallow any representatives of the nominees tocome along on their behalf so, if someonecannot make it to a meeting, they are lockedout of the process. That and the size of it mayhave meant that, in some of its deliberations,it has been unwieldy, cumbersome and verydifficult in actually providing the Minister withprompt advice.

When one looks at the agenda of issuesthat the council dealt with in its report, onecannot say that it is a heroic list. In principle, Iam not criticising the council or any of itsmembers. However, I would be careful aboutcrowing about how brilliant an operation oroutfit it is, because it does have its ownproblems at the moment. But otherwise, inrespect of clause 2, I thank the Minister for theclarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 9, as read, agreed to.

Clause 10—

Mr WELFORD (5.10 p.m.): Clause 10 isthe clause to which I paid most attentionduring the debate on the second reading ofthe Bill. That was quite deliberate, because Ihave significant concerns, which the Ministeracknowledged, in relation to the effect ofclause 10. The Minister advises me thatalthough he is not aware of the basis uponwhich the first ministerial advisory committeerecommended this change, he will take theissue back to the Environment ProtectionCouncil of Queensland, given that a numberof members who were on the previous MACwhich reviewed the Environmental ProtectionAct are now on the Environment ProtectionCouncil. I thank the Minister for doing that. Ibelieve that it is appropriate to have thecouncil review precisely what was the

motivation behind this. As I pointed out, thereport of the previous committee gave us noguidance as to the basis upon which thatrecommendation was made.

As I mentioned during the debate on thesecond reading of the Bill, there may well besensible and powerful reasons for theamendment. However, although theamendment is there, on its face it doespresent potential problems in terms of theextent of environmental harm that is beingtolerated. On its face it provides for aweakening of the existing legislation, aweakening of a kind which the Minister sayshe would not in general principle support. So Ibelieve that it is appropriate that it go back tothe Environment Protection Council. But if it isgoing back to that council for its consideration,why are we proceeding with it now if, as aresult of the council's advice, we have to comeback with another amendment to remove it?

My suggestion is that we should notproceed with this amendment pending thecouncil's advice. If the council confirms theadvice and comes up with appropriate reasonsfor it—reasons which would satisfy both sidesof this Parliament that it is an appropriateamendment—then we could all agree on it.But given that it is going back to theEnvironment Protection Council, it does seemto be premature to opt for the amendmentbefore the council has a chance to deliberateon it. For that reason I believe that the Ministershould take on board my suggestion that thisclause be held over until the council has had achance to consider it.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will refer again tocomments provided by my staff. In relation tosection 85 (1), we are making the alterationfrom three years to five years. So the onlything in contention is that period from threeyears to five years. With anything over fiveyears, the person or public authority must givepublic notice. So it is only that small periodthat is of concern. I ask members to bear inmind that, regardless of this amendment,environmental management programs havealways been able to be approved for longerthan three years. There is no limit on thelength of an EMP under the Act which theprevious Government introduced in 1994. Thepublic notification provisions apply only to thelength of time that the proposed EMP is torun. This is what has changed. Probably moreimportantly, if a proposed EMP is to extendlonger than five years, it will require theapplicant to undertake public consultation. Soif it is over five years, that provision is going toapply. The EMPs are already out there onpublic notice, and people always have access


through the department or the licensingauthority to look at the EMP. I believe that theintent is still there and there is no need todelay it, because it would detract from theimpact of the Bill.

Mr WELFORD: There are two pointsthat I should make. Firstly, I understand whatthe Minister's adviser is saying in respect ofthe length of EMPs. During this debate therewas a bit of confusion amongst othermembers who thought that we were allowingwhat was previously a maximum three-yearperiod for EMPs to be expanded to five years.I accept that that is not the case. EMPs canbe any length one likes. They can be for 10years, or whatever is appropriate. That is why Ihave supported in this amending Bill theproposition that we allow the amendment ofEMP approvals. Obviously, the longer theperiod of the EMP, the more appropriate it islikely to be that there be an amendmenthalfway through as technology and practiceschange.

I have no objection to the proposition thatEMPs can be any period one likes. That isaccepted. However, what I am saying is this:there must have been some reason for theadvisory committee—the first MAC—proposingthat the length of EMP for which notice wasnot required to be made public should beextended from three years to five years. Thatmeans that there may well have been a wholebatch of environmental managementprograms which needed to have periodslonger than three years—perhaps fiveyears—which previously would have requiredpublic notice to be given of them. We do notknow what proportion of all EMPs thatparticular batch of EMPs represents. TheMinister says that it is only a short period:between three years and five years. However,we do not know what proportion of all EMPsthat period represents. For example, it wouldbe very unlikely that we would have an EMPover one year. If that was the case, we couldjust about have a licence with an appropriatecondition.

If the EMP is going to be worthwhile at all,it is going to be at least two or three yearslong. Previously we said that, if it is over threeyears, public notice of it should begiven—everyone should get that. The advisorycommittee has said, "Let's make it five years."Maybe we can make it five years, but we donot know how many EMPs of a lengthexceeding three years but not more than fiveyears should be given public notice of. Whatsort of EMPs are we talking about? What sortof activities are we talking about? What levelof risk are we being exposed to by the length

of these EMPs? What sort of environmentalharm is being allowed to occur without publicnotice as a result of this extension? None ofthat information is available to us.

If we agree to this amendment, we areagreeing to the denial of public notice ofpotentially significant environmental harmwithout any basis for making that decision. All Iam saying to the Minister is: I will give him arails run on every clause in this Bill because,after all, they are only amending clauses, andmissing one is not going to make anenormous difference. If the Minister says thathe has a powerhouse future program ofreform of the environmental protection laws ofthe State, then he can bring them on as soonas possible. However, if any change is goingto the Environment Protection Council—acourse which I wholeheartedly support—then Isee no reason to rush that change right now.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: For the benefit ofthe Committee I will read MACrecommendation 76, which states—

"That the Act be amended to requirethe public notice for EnvironmentalManagement Programs to be changedfrom three years to five years and thatchanges to Environmental ManagementProgram conditions be allowed to takeadvantage of processes that will enhanceenvironmental outcomes."

In the second-reading debate today it hasbeen stated that that relates to taxationdepreciation schedules and similar benefits.The advice coming to me from my departmentis that the legislation remains unchanged inthat the administering authority has criteriathat must be assessed in granting anyEMPs—I mentioned before that there is stilldisclosure; it will not be a public notice, butpeople will have access to it—to ensure thatenvironmental harm is minimised during thatperiod of the EMP. I ask honourable membersto be supportive of this provision. Furtherlegislation will be introduced into the House interms of other matters relating to theEnvironmental Protection Act. Subsequent tothe discussions that I have with theEnvironment Protection Council, we will correctit then. In the short term, I can assurehonourable members that we are out theremonitoring it. The advice is that the legislationremains unchanged.

Mr WELFORD: The Minister needs tounderstand the distinction between havingEMPs publicly available for scrutiny andanyone knowing about them. It is one matterto say that all EMPs are available for scrutinyat the relevant administering authority if


people want to go along and comb throughthe hundreds or thousands of them that theremay be in some of the larger local authorities;it is quite another matter to say that anyoneknows about any particular one or two thatmight be problematic. The whole point ofinserting the notice provision was to give someprotection to communities. It was not just acase of Big Brother, a big stick, coming downheavy on business or imposing anunnecessary burden, it is about letting localcommunities have a right to know. I amconcerned as a matter of principle that, if oneor two larger polluting industries located in acommunity apply for an EMP, that is nowgoing to be for a period of five years. They willnot have to come up to standard in threeyears; they are going to be given more time topollute before they meet the required standardthan they might otherwise be given under theexisting law. We are weakening the publicnotice requirement for them. They are gettinga better deal in terms of their EMP and thecommunity's awareness of it than they would ifthey were complying with the existing law.

Obviously, some of the polluting industrieshave said, "We don't think we can get up tospeed in three years. We want to get up tospeed in five; but hell—if we have a five-yearEMP we will be exposed to public scrutiny, andwe don't want that, do we?" Perhaps that isprecisely the principle of the legislation: thecommunity's right to know and the protectionof the community depends on notice beinggiven after three years. I think there is aquestion of principle here. Either the Ministeraccepts it or he does not. He seems open toaccepting it if, after reviewing it, theEnvironment Protection Council says, "Yes,anything longer than three years probablyshould be subject to public notice." It is not apublic appeal process; it is not necessarily apublic review: it is just a notice. That is all it is.While I thank the Minister for his proposal torefer it to the council, I must press ahead withmy suggestion that he retain the current statusquo pending the review that he proposes.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: It comes down to adegree of public disclosure. At the one endthere is a public notice. At the other end thereis always the right for the person who has adistinct interest to have public access to theinformation. It is not denying publicknowledge. Perhaps those people who have adistinct interest in an issue will have enoughgumption to make inquiries, whether it be acompeting interest as was suggested by oneof the previous speakers or some of theconservation groups who have a long-feltinterest. They are not being denied. It is the

method by which they are accessing it that isin question. I am prepared to stick with what Ihave. If a change is recommended by theEnvironment Protection Council—and I havetaken on board what the member has said—Iwill amend the legislation next time round.

Question—That clause 10, as read,stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 42—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke, Rowell,Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan,Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Warwick, Watson,Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Springborg, Carroll

NOES, 43—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, Cunningham,D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis,Lucas, McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner,Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Roberts,Sullivan T. B.

Pair: McCauley, Livingstone

Resolved in the negative .

Clauses 11 and 12, as read, agreed to.Clause 13—

Mr LITTLEPROUD (5.31 p.m.): I movethe following amendments—

"At page 8, line 1, '236B and236C'—

omit, insert—

'235 and 236'.

At page 8, line 2, 'After section236A'—

omit, insert—

'Chapter 8, part 2, division 6'.

At page 8, line 5, '236B'—

omit, insert—

'235'.

At page 8, line 13, 'January'—

omit, insert—

'June'.

At page 8, line 16, 'January'—

omit, insert—

'June'.

At page 8, line 18, 'December1996'—

omit, insert—

'May 1997'.

1172 Legal Aid Queensland Bill 30 Apr 1997

At page 8, line 21, '236C'—omit, insert—

'236'.At page 8, line 25, '236B'—

omit, insert—

'235'.At page 9, line 4, 'January'—

omit, insert—

'June'."Amendments agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14, as read, agreed to.Bill reported, with amendments.

Third ReadingBill, on motion of Mr Littleproud, by leave,

read a third time.

LEGAL AID QUEENSLAND BILLHon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(5.33 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to establish Legal AidQueensland, to provide for legalassistance for persons throughout theState, and for other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented andBill, on motion of Mr Beanland, read a firsttime.

Second Reading

Hon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(5.34 p.m.): I move—


This Bill is about maintaining the deliveryof legal aid services throughout Queenslandunder new funding arrangements and themanagement of a restructured legal aidorganisation. It is not about downsizing legalservices on State law issues forQueenslanders, or about abolishing the role ofthe current Legal Aid Commission as acommunity service provider of legal services inthis State.

All members would be aware that theCommonwealth Government has given noticeof its termination of the Commonwealth/Statelegal aid agreement on 30 June 1997. As aresult of this action considerable controversyand disquiet has been reported in theAustralian media and is clearly evident innegotiations that have taken place to datebetween the Commonwealth and QueenslandGovernments on the provision of funding forlegal aid after 30 June 1997.

Negotiations between officers of theCommonwealth Attorney-General'sDepartment and this State's equivalent—theDepartment of Justice—have continued sinceapproximately September 1996. No definiteoffer was made to Queensland until February1997. Offers were subsequently revised andreceived in April 1997. To date, no agreementhas been reached with the Commonwealth.

Notwithstanding these late negotiationson the part of the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, it is the Government'sintention to maintain a continuing and moreeffective involvement in the delivery of legalaid services throughout this State.

I shall now turn to the Bill. The two mainobjects of this Bill are—

(a) to provide for giving legal assistanceto financially disadvantaged personsin the most effective, efficient andeconomical way; and

(b) to pursue innovative commercialarrangements, including legalassistance arrangements, for givinglegal assistance at a reasonable costto the community and on anequitable basis throughout the State.

These objects are to be achieved mainly byestablishing Legal Aid Queensland.

This Bill is an example of theGovernment's announced policy to provideservices more economically and efficientlythroughout Queensland by using arestructured legal aid body which is able toenter into innovative commercialarrangements for giving legal assistance to thecommunity. Fundamental to achieving thisobjective, the Bill provides for theestablishment of "legal assistancearrangements" which will form the basis of aninnovative funding mechanism in"purchaser/provider arrangements". The Billwill enable the restructured legal aid body toenter into legal assistance arrangements withthe Commonwealth, the State and otherentities.

30 Apr 1997 Legal Aid Queensland Bill 1173

All members would be aware that thecurrent legal aid system is a cooperativescheme in which all States and Territoriesthrough a single independent Legal AidCommission under relevant State/Territorylegislation provide legal aid services in theirrespective jurisdictions. The role of theCommonwealth to date has been to providefunding, albeit significant, for the operation ofthese Legal Aid Commissions throughoutAustralia. Since the 1980s, this cooperativescheme has been underpinned by negotiatedagreements on similar conditions with theother States and Territories.

The Queensland Government in itssubmission to the Senate Legal andConstitutional References Committee inquiryinto legal aid in January of this year stated itwould prefer to deliver legal aid services in itsjurisdiction under a cooperative arrangementamongst the Commonwealth, States andTerritories. It considers the Commonwealth'sdecision to terminate the currentarrangements and renegotiate on a muchlower funding formula to be unacceptable anduntenable.

Nonetheless, the QueenslandGovernment recognises the ongoing need toprovide legal assistance to financiallydisadvantaged persons in the most effective,economic, commercial and efficient waythroughout the State. In this regard, as I havepublicly mentioned in the past, it will bebusiness as usual for the provision of legal aidservices to Queenslanders in relation to Statelaw matters from 1 July 1997. If theCommonwealth has not entered into a legalassistance arrangement with the new legal aidbody by 1 July 1997, then it will be theCommonwealth's responsibility to ensure thatthose persons requiring legal assistance inrelation to Commonwealth matters are cateredfor by making appropriate arrangements.

This Bill gives legislative form to arestructured Legal Aid Commission byestablishing a new legal aid body to be calledLegal Aid Queensland. Included among themain functions of Legal Aid Queensland arethat it manages its resources so as to makelegal assistance available at a reasonable costto the community and on an equitable basisthroughout the State. Legal Aid Queenslandwill also control and administer amounts givento it by the State or the Commonwealth undera legal assistance arrangement or otherwise.

This Bill also provides for a better andmore rational approach of operation byestablishing a Legal Aid Board which is muchsmaller than its predecessor and which has

the functions and powers to provide legalassistance to financially disadvantagedpersons pursuant to various legal assistancearrangements that it may enter into with theCommonwealth, State and other entities.Management of Legal Aid Queensland will becarried out by this board and its statutoryofficer—the chief executive officer.

Under the new scheme, legal assistancewill be provided throughout Queensland byLegal Aid Queensland. As is the case with itspredecessor, Legal Aid Queensland will decidewhether legal assistance may be given to anapplicant only if the applicant meets relevantcriteria. These criteria shall be determined byLegal Aid Queensland in accordance with itsfunctions and the content of the legalassistance arrangements which it will enter intofrom time to time with the Commonwealth, theState and other entities.

The independence and autonomy ofLegal Aid Queensland are preserved byproviding it with extensive powers in order tomanage the restructured body and todetermine applications for legal assistance.The ability of Government to interfere in theoperations of Legal Aid Queensland isconstrained by limitations placed on the natureof directions given by the Attorney-General tothe board. Any such directions are to betabled in Parliament.

At my instructions, the Bill has been setout in such a way so as to be user friendly.That is why the process of application for legalassistance is contained in earlier parts of theBill and the managerial and machinery partsare contained in the latter parts of the Bill. TheBill also enables Legal Aid Queensland torefer a matter to alternative dispute resolutionif it considers it appropriate in thecircumstances.

In addition to establishing the newrestructured legal aid body, the Bill provides forsignificant transitional provisions so as toensure an easy transition for the operation ofthe new Legal Aid Board. It preserves theexisting rights of legal aid applicants under thecurrent scheme.

Importantly, this Bill is not directed atdiminishing, eroding or removing the existingrights of the employees of the current LegalAid Commission. In fact, a person who was anassistant director of legal aid or an employeeof the current Legal Aid Commission is takento be an employee under this Bill and theperson remains entitled to all existing andaccruing rights of employment. In other words,this Bill is not about downsizing current stafflevels or the sacking of those dedicated and

1174 Courts Reform Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

industrious employees who have given loyalservice to the current Legal Aid Commission.

During the development and finalisationof this Bill, there were consultations with theState Public Services Federation Queenslandwhich resulted in the revision of someprovisions in the Bill. Another aspect to thetransitional arrangements is to ensure thatthere is a timely and effective mechanismwhich ensures that the assets, rights andliabilities of the current Legal Aid Commissionare vested in the new legal aid body.

Overall, this Bill will enable Legal AidQueensland to deliver legal aid servicesthroughout the State in a more efficient andeffective manner by preserving its autonomyand by expanding its powers to deliver theseservices under various legal assistancearrangements. Moreover, the QueenslandGovernment has not forgotten its commitmentto providing legal aid services as asocial/community service obligation.

I also encourage the CommonwealthGovernment to finalise its negotiations with theState with a view to entering into a satisfactorylegal assistance arrangement with this newlegal aid body. In doing so, the Queenslandand Commonwealth Governments will be in aposition to ensure the continued delivery oflegal aid services throughout this State to allQueenslanders no matter what type of legalmatter is in issue, that is whether it is aCommonwealth matter or a State matter. Icommend the Bill to the House.


COURTS REFORM AMENDMENT BILLHon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(5.41 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend various Acts tochange the jurisdiction of the Supreme,District and Magistrates Courts, and forother purposes."Motion agreed to.


Bill, on motion of Mr Beanland, read a firsttime.

Second ReadingHon. D. E. BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice)(5.41 p.m.): I move—

"That the Bill be now read a secondtime." The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a

number of significant reforms to theQueensland courts system. The major reformsare designed to—

restore authority to the Chief Justice ofQueensland;

correct anomalies in the Supreme Courtof Queensland Act 1991; provide for greater independence of thejudiciary; andabolish the Litigation Reform Commissionand transfer the Commission's mainfunctions to the existing law reformcommission.

The coalition policy on the administrationof justice, released before the general electionin July 1995, undertook to "ensure a SupremeCourt judge is domiciled in Cairns". This Billlays the legislative foundation for the deliveryof that election commitment by includingamendments to the Supreme Court Act 1995to create the position of far northern judge.

The Bill will enhance the jurisdiction ofDistrict and Magistrates Courts and enablecourts to make greater use of the alternativedispute resolution services offered within theDepartment of Justice.

The Supreme Court of Queensland Act1991 was introduced by the previousGovernment. Amongst other things, that Actmade provision for the introduction of two newbodies into the Queensland judicial system,namely the Court of Appeal and the LitigationReform Commission.

The effect of the Supreme Court ofQueensland Act 1991 in introducing the Courtof Appeal was to substantially diminish the roleof the Chief Justice of Queensland as thehead of the whole Queensland judicial system.Whilst the position of Chief Justice wasretained, that position was given only nominalstatus.

Conversely, the President of the Court ofAppeal was vested with substantive powers inrespect of the administration of the Court ofAppeal. Furthermore, the powers vested in thePresident of the Court of Appeal as regardsaccess to consolidated revenue funding,employment of staff directly by the Court ofAppeal and control of the precincts of theCourt of Appeal were unprecedented inAustralia.

If the House is agreeable, I am happy toincorporate the rest of the speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

30 Apr 1997 Courts Reform Amendment Bill 1175

The Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991also created the position of Senior JudgeAdministrator. Under that Act, this office wasgiven statutory responsibilities foradministration of the Supreme Court, separatefrom and overriding any responsibilitypossessed by the Chief Justice. The powersgiven to the President of the Court of Appealand to the Senior Judge Administrator resultedin a significant diminution of the role, function,status and responsibilities of the Chief Justiceof Queensland. Other States, such as NewSouth Wales and Victoria, have introducedCourts of Appeal into their judicial systemwithout in any way diminishing the role, functionand status of their Chief Justices. Instead ofthe Chief Justice being merely the nominal headof the Supreme Court, as is the case under the1991 Act, this Bill will reinstate the ChiefJustice's powers and responsibilities. The 1991Act also introduced a unique body in theLitigation Reform Commission, whose functionis to make recommendations on:(a) the structure of the court system of

Queensland;

(b) court practices and procedures includingthe law of evidence;

(c) the administration of the courts ofQueensland;

(d) simplification and modernisation of all Actsand Statutory Rules relating to mattersmentioned in (a), (b) and (c) and also thecommon law generally;

(e) as well as other matters referred to it bythe Minister.

In respect of all of the above matters, exceptfor the reform of the common law, the Actprovides that it is mandatory to obtain a reportand recommendation from the commissionbefore taking any action regarding thosematters. In effect, the Litigation ReformCommission represented intervention by abody composed of judges in the executiveprocess of Government and in particular thedevelopment of legislation.

The previous Government's legislation requiredthat all proposals emanating from Governmentas regards amendments to the law in theseareas, have had to be submitted to theLitigation Reform Commission. This representsa gross breach of the principle of judicialindependence and separation of powers. Thejustification for the existence of the body aswell as an independent Law ReformCommission is difficult to see.

Essentially, the purpose of the Litigation ReformCommission was to reform the legislation andrules relating to the courts which wereconsidered to be in urgent need of review.Uniformity of the rules is an issue which theNational-Liberal Coalition Government believesis pivotal to meaningful reform of the courtsystem.

However, the commission's work in this regardhas been limited. Over the last four and a halfyears, although the commission has beenresponsible for various piecemeal reforms, theRules of the three courts in Queensland havenot been made uniform or simplified. Thefunction of reviewing court practices andprocedures is vitally important. Although underthis Bill the Litigation Reform Commission is tobe abolished, its central function of reviewingcourt practices and procedures will continue tobe performed by the existing Queensland LawReform Commission, which already has thestatutory function of reviewing all the lawapplicable to the State. The effect of theamendments contained in this Bill is, therefore,to restore an appropriate balance in theQueensland judicial system, protect judicialindependence and re-establish the position ofChief Justice as the head of the Queenslandjudiciary.The civil jurisdiction of the District andMagistrates Courts was last increased in 1989.It is appropriate that the jurisdictional limits ofboth courts are increased to take into accountthe effects of inflation, and to maintain thebalance in the number of matters commenced inthe Supreme, District and Magistrates Courtsrespectively. The civil jurisdiction of bothcourts will be increased, so that thejurisdictional limit in the District Courts will be$250,000 and the jurisdictional limit in theMagistrates Courts will be $50,000. The Billalso enables all appeals from decisions ofMagistrates in relation to criminal offences dealtwith summarily to be determined by the DistrictCourts.

A significant part of the Court of Appeal'scriminal case load has consisted of appealsfrom Magistrates Courts. However, theoffences which are determined summarily by amagistrate are generally at the less serious endof the scale. It is appropriate that the limitedresources of the Court of Appeal are confinedto more serious cases, and those involvingsignificant questions of law, and that all appealsfrom orders of Magistrates Courts in exercisingcriminal jurisdiction should be dealt with in theDistrict Court, with a further right of appealavailable with the leave of the Court of Appeal.This reform will enable appeals relating toindictable and simple offences arising from thesame set of facts to be dealt with together.The Bill requires that video link facilities beused in criminal appeal proceedings. This willextend the efficiencies gained by use of thesefacilities in bail and remand matters. The use ofthe facilities will also reduce the security risksposed to the community in the transport ofprisoners to the courts for the hearing ofappeals. The diversion of appeals fromMagistrates Courts to the District Court, andthe use of video-link facilities in criminal appealsare reforms discussed in the 1994/95 annualreport of the President of the Court of Appeal.

1176 Electricity Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

This Bill demonstrates that the Government iswilling to listen to the concerns of the judiciary,and implement measures which will enhance theeffective operation of the Queensland judicialsystem. The Bill also includes amendments tothe Dispute Resolution Centres Act 1990 toenable dispute resolution centres establishedunder that Act to conduct mediations which arereferred from the Supreme, District andMagistrates Courts. These amendments arenecessary because the Dispute ResolutionCentres Act 1990 presently provides thatmediations conducted in dispute resolutioncentres must be voluntary. This excludes courtordered mediations. The Government hasembarked on a significant restructure of theway in which it delivers alternative disputeresolution services. One of the principalobjectives of the Government's reform is toenhance the ability of the lower courts toprovide alternative dispute resolution servicesboth before and after legal proceedings arecommenced.These amendments will facilitate greater use ofthe services of the dispute resolution centresby the courts. I commend the Bill to the House.


ELECTRICITY AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.44 p.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend the Electricity Act1994 and another Act and for otherpurposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second ReadingHon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—

Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.45 p.m.): Imove—


I am pleased to introduce this legislationto the House. Last December I announced astrategy for reforming the State's electricityindustry to return the industry to its place atthe forefront of efficiency and effectivenesswithin Australia. Essentially, these reforms willdeliver lower electricity prices toQueenslanders, increase the State's economiccompetitiveness and enhance Queensland's

attractiveness for industry development. All ofthis means more employment throughout theState.

The Electricity Amendment Bill is the firstof two branches of proposed amendments tothe Electricity Act 1994 necessary to deliverthese reforms. The Government's electricityreform agenda, which I announced inDecember 1996, has as its blueprint therecommendations of the Industry StructureTask Force. This reform agenda is necessaryto equip the Queensland industry to competeeffectively in the national electricity market,which Queensland will physically join followinginterconnection between the New SouthWales and Queensland electricity systems in2001. There are five major elements of thereform agenda—

an interim Queensland electricity marketcommencing in the last quarter of 1997;large electricity customers becomingcontestable from 1 January 1998, with allcustomers eventually having the option toshop around for electricity supply;establishing effective competition ingeneration by splitting AUSTA Electric intothree independent and competingGovernment-owned generators, which willprevent the incumbent monopolygenerator from using its market power tomanipulate the market and will alsoprovide maximum opportunity for privatelyowned generators to enter the industry;creating three new retail corporationswhilst retaining the seven regionalelectricity corporations as distributors; and

providing price protection until such timeas the benefits of competition take effect,as well as the long-term protection ofthose customers who, because of theirlocation, may not be able to gain from theimpact of competition in the industry.

I emphasise that these reforms do notinvolve the privatisation of any of theGovernment's existing electricity industryassets. Rather, as the owner of thesesignificant assets, the Government must, inthe face of not only national but alsoworldwide electricity reform, restructure theindustry to ensure that Queensland is able todeliver low cost electricity as well as acommercial rate of return to Government onthese assets. This Bill seeks to achieve thisoutcome.

The Queensland Electricity Reform Unitwhich has responsibility for implementation ofthe reforms is progressing the reform agendaon a staged basis: first, the restructuring of the

30 Apr 1997 Electricity Amendment Bill 1177

existing industry; second, the establishment ofan interim electricity market in Queensland;and, third, the phasing out over three years ofthe customer franchise arrangements. It isimportant for the industry restructure to becompleted sufficiently in advance of thecommencement of the electricity market in thelast quarter of 1997 to enable industryparticipants to undertake the necessaryplanning and development. Accordingly, it isproposed that the restructuring be in place by1 July 1997. The Queensland ElectricityReform Unit, working in conjunction with theindustry, has been undertaking the necessarywork to ensure this timetable is met. Thepurpose of this Bill, therefore, is to provideamendments to the Act to enable therestructured industry to operate the electricitysystem within the current regulatory frameworkpending amendments to industry governancearrangements later in the year.

A number of the amendments within theBill provide interim arrangements only, untilsuch time as the industry reform process iscomplete. It is proposed that a second seriesof amendments to the Act be submitted to theHouse later in the year which will primarilyfocus on industry regulation and also marketarrangements. In view of the lateness of thehour, I seek leave to incorporate theremainder of my speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I will now comment on some of the proposedamendments in the Bill.

In the Act, the obligation to supply now coversthe distribution of electricity through the wiresnetwork and the sale of electricity to finalcustomers.

The Act currently establishes supply entities,who receive their authorities from theRegulator, and authorised suppliers, whoreceive their authorities from a supply entity.This supports the Queensland Transmissionand Supply Corporation as the holdingcompany for the seven electricity corporationsthat distribute and sell electricity. QTSC has asupply entity authority and has issuedauthorised supplier authorities to thesesubsidiaries.

This arrangement within the Act is suited to thecurrent system where there is no retailcompetition.

The electricity strategy provides for theabolition of the QTSC holding companystructure, which has clearly not worked. In thecompetitive market, the natural monopolydistribution and contestable retail sectors willbe separated so that effective retail competitioncan be established.

The Bill therefore separates the concept ofsupply into two new concepts: distribution andretail.The Bill proposes to replace supply entities andauthorised suppliers with distribution entitiesand retail entities. The Bill also provides fordistribution and retail authorities (that is,licences).

The Act imposes on supply entities and theirauthorised suppliers an obligation to supplyelectricity to customers within their supplyareas, who request to be supplied. The introduction of the concepts of distributionand retail requires the obligation of supply to beseparated into two obligations.

The first, an obligation to connect and supply,is to be imposed on distributors. It should benoted that, in "connect and supply", "supply"refers to the conveyance of electricity throughthe wires of a supply network and the physicaldelivery of electricity to a connection point.The second aspect an obligation to sell, is tobe imposed on retailers.Mr Speaker, these obligations mean thatservice quality to customers, wherever they are,will not be diminished.

The obligation to connect and supply requiresdistributors to connect to the network anyperson within their distribution area whorequests to be connected, and whom it istechnically and economically feasible toconnect. In remote areas, where the cost ofconnection is prohibitively high, theGovernment may choose to provide aconnection subsidy through CommunityService Obligation payments. This means thatremote customers will have, at the very least,the same level of service in relation to networkconnection that they have now.

The obligation to sell will require retailers to sellelectricity to non-contestable customers withintheir retail area who are connected to thenetwork and who request to be sold electricity.This obligation will also maintain the status quo. In addition, the Bill requires distributors andretailers to develop standard customercontracts for providing services. The Billprotects consumers by enabling regulations tobe made that set down required terms forstandard contracts. Customers will not need toformally sign a contract with an electricitycorporation. Rather, the standard contracts,which will be public documents, are to bedeveloped for oversight and enforcement bythe regulator as a means of protectingcustomers and heightening service levels withinthis important industry.

Mr Speaker, whilst most customers willcontinue to do their business with onecompany, providing customers with the optionof choosing their electricity retailer is animportant element of achieving competitionwithin the industry and lower prices toconsumers.

1178 Electricity Amendment Bill 30 Apr 1997

The Bill therefore provides for customer choicethat is appropriate in a competitive market.While most customers will use a retailer toaccess all distribution and retail services undera standard contract, they may also choose todeal separately with distributors and retailersand to negotiate non standard contracts witheach. Larger businesses will, in particular, availthemselves of this opportunity.Currently the Act provides for electricityentities (which may be Government or privatelyowned) to operate in each sector of theindustry. To be an electricity entity, anorganisation must obtain an authority from theregulator permitting it to operate in a particularsector of the industry. For example, anorganisation wanting to generate electricitymust hold a generation authority to be classedas a generation entity.

Upon the industry's restructuring, the relevantauthorities from the regulator will not have beenissued. The Bill proposes to overcome thisproblem by inserting in the Act transitionalprovisions which provide that each corporationis deemed to hold an authority until issued withone by the regulator on terms approved by theMinister.

Under the Bill, the Minister may choose to setconditions for the initial authorities issued bythe regulator. This will ensure the co-ordinatedapplication of new regulatory criteria to be setby the Government prior to the start of themarket. It would not, of course, be appropriatefor such Ministerial control of the industry'sregulatory arrangements to be maintained formore than a short term. Therefore, thisMinisterial power will expire after twelvemonths. Once the reforms are implemented,there can be no actual or perceived politicalintervention in the regulation of the market.

The existing State electricity entities areestablished by regulations made under theGovernment Owned Corporations Act 1993.However, while the regulations under the GOCAct establish their corporate powers, the Actsets out the functions of the corporations.

The functions of State electricity entities in theAct are inconsistent with the new industrystructure. The Bill therefore provides for therepeal of the sections of the Act which set outthe existing corporations' functions.

The new corporations will be established withtheir functions and powers entirely under GOCAct regulations. This arrangement will clearlyestablish the Act as the framework throughwhich any public or private entity must seekauthority to participate in the electricityindustry. Moreover, it is consistent withcorporatisation policy by promotingcompetitive neutrality.

The House should note that this arrangementwill bring the Government owned electricitycorporations into line with other GOCs, which,in the main, do not have powers and functions

in enabling legislation but, rather, underregulations to the GOC Act. The accountabilityof the electricity corporations to Governmentand the Parliament will in no way be diminished.The Bill provides shareholding Ministers todirect a State electricity entity in regard to therestructuring of the industry and implementationof reform. This power will ensure that thereform process continues smoothly once thenew corporations are established, and inaccordance with Government policy.

The power is to be used solely to facilitate thereform process. It is not to be used to interferein the general commercial operations of theelectricity corporations.The Act will continue to provide for a range ofmatters in respect of State electricity entities,but this does not conflict with the policy ofseparating GOC governance arrangements fromthe electricity industry legislative framework.

Mr Speaker, the Bill contains a number of widetransitional powers. In particular, proposedsection 305 in the Bill provides for a broadranging transitional regulation making power.These powers have not been put in the Billwithout due consideration. The need for thepowers has been balanced against the need tomaintain fundamental legislative principles.

The significance of the complex electricityindustry reforms to the people of this Statemeans that, on balance and over the short term,it is prudent to provide these powers. They willenable the Government to ensure that, duringthe period up to and after the first round ofcontestability, the delivery of electricityservices to Queenslanders is business as usual.It should be noted that the regulation makingpower will expire twelve months after it isbrought into force.

The operation of the electricity transmissiongrid is vital to the integrity of the electricitysystem of Queensland. With this Bill, we havemoved to safeguard the operation of thetransmission grid and guarantee reliability ofsupply throughout the State.Finally, Mr Speaker, an objective of this Bill isto address difficulties faced by PowerlinkQueensland in securing land tenure fortransmission lines traversing State Forestryland. In some cases the use of Crown land,specifically forestry land, minimises the adverseimpacts of routing transmission lines overprivate holdings.

Currently, neither the Forestry Act nor theElectricity Act provide any mechanism forcreating easements over forestry land. The Bill does not give electricity entities anymore power than previously. It simply allowsthe consideration of an additional option fordetermining the route of transmission lines.

The route selection for transmission linesthrough State forests will be negotiated withthe Department of Natural Resources and the

30 Apr 1997 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 1179

Department of Primary Industries in order tominimise:

any loss of productive resources on whichthe timber industry depends;

any adverse environmental effects onnatural areas of high conservation status;and

any social and economic impacts on theimmediate community.

Compensation for the use of forestry land willbe paid to the Department of NaturalResources.

Mr Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr McGrady,adjourned.

ELECTRICITY—NATIONAL SCHEME(QUEENSLAND) BILL

Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.48 p.m.), byleave, without notice: I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to make provision for theoperation of a national electricity market,and for other purposes."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading


Second Reading

Hon. T. J. G. GILMORE (Tablelands—Minister for Mines and Energy) (5.49 p.m.): Imove—


I am pleased to introduce this Bill to theHouse. The Governments of eastern andsouthern Australia have agreed to establish aNational Electricity Market in which the supplyof electricity will be open to competition. Theobjective is to improve the allocation ofnational resources and deliver cheaperelectricity to consumers in Queensland andthe other jurisdictions that are participating inthe national market: New South Wales,Victoria, South Australia and the AustralianCapital Territory.

The operation of the National ElectricityMarket is to be governed by two instruments.The first instrument, the National ElectricityLaw, gives force and support to rulescontained in the second instrument, theNational Electricity Code. The National

Electricity Law will ensure that the rules of themarket are consistent and enforceable acrossall of the participating jurisdictions. In turn, thiswill optimise the National Electricity Market'sefficiency and effectiveness and, particularly,assure market participants that the market hasa stable governance regime. Therefore, on 9May 1996, I signed the National ElectricityMarket Legislation Agreement. Thisagreement commits the Government toseeking the enactment of legislation to applythe National Electricity Law in Queensland.The Bill provides for the Parliament to giveeffect to the Government's commitment.Application of the National Electricity Law willallow Queensland, after interconnection, toparticipate directly in the National ElectricityMarket that will operate across SouthAustralia, Victoria, the Australian CapitalTerritory and New South Wales.

The Legislation Agreement provides forthe enactment by the Parliament of SouthAustralia of legislation to establish the forceand effect of the code. To ensure the code'sconsistent application across the market, theLegislation Agreement requires Queenslandand the other jurisdictions to give force to therelevant South Australian legislation throughthe enactment of application of lawslegislation. In June 1996, South Australiaenacted the National Electricity (SouthAustralia) Act. The National Electricity Lawforms a Schedule to the South Australian Act.The Electricity—National Scheme(Queensland) Bill 1997 is in a form nearlyidentical to Part 2 of the National Electricity(South Australia) Act 1996 which provides forthe law's application in South Australia. Thedraft application Bills of the other jurisdictionsare also in this form.

I now turn to the major points of theNational Electricity Law and the code. Part 2 ofthe National Electricity Law provides for theapproval of a National Electricity Code by therelevant Ministers of each participatingjurisdiction. The law also provides that certainconstitutional provisions of the code, which areclassed as protected provisions, can beamended only with the unanimous approval ofthe jurisdictions' relevant Ministers.

The code will define the terms ofparticipation in the market for generators,transmission and distribution network owners,service providers, system operators, retailers,other market participants and customers.Specific chapters of the code will deal withconnection and access to networks, rules forthe operation of the wholesale electricitymarket, the provision of network services,metering, the security of the interconnected

1180 Electricity—National Scheme (Queensland) Bill 30 Apr 1997

power system and the administration of thecode itself through enforcement, disputeresolution and, importantly, a process tochange the code. The code will be a livingdocument subject to some degree of changeas the market evolves.

Part 3 of the National Electricity Lawprovides for the regulation of relevant activitiesin the market. These activities will be theownership, control, or operation of generationsystems and transmission or distributionsystems, the administration or operation ofwholesale market for electricity by a personother than the purposely established NationalElectricity Code Administrator and the NationalElectricity Market Management Company, andthe purchase of electricity from a wholesalemarket. A person will be able to engage insuch an activity only if the person is registeredor authorised by NEMMCO to do so, or isexempt from that requirement.

Part 4 of the National Electricity Lawcontains provisions governing the enforcementof the National Electricity Code. Part 5 createsa scheme for the review by a NationalElectricity Tribunal of decisions by NEMMCOand NECA. The tribunal's jurisdiction andpowers to deal with breaches of the code andthe procedures to be followed in proceedingsbefore the tribunal are described. Part 5 alsodescribes the process of appointing themembers of the tribunal and the terms of theirappointment. Appeals from decisions of thetribunal may be made to the Supreme Court.Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate theremainder of my second-reading speech inHansard.

Leave granted.

Part Six provides for the establishment ofstatutory funds by NEMMCO and NECA.NEMMCO's and NECA's funds cover,respectively, the receipt and payment ofmonies incurred through the management of theMarket, and the receipt and payment of civilpenalties imposed under the Code.

Part Seven of the National Electricity Lawprovides for the issue of search warrants inlimited circumstances and for NEMMCO tohave certain powers of intervention in respectof the power system for reasons of publicsafety or security of the system. A provision ofthis Part also creates a rule to apply uniformly inthe participating jurisdictions that governsliability for failures of electricity supply. Underthe provision, a Code participant will not beliable for failure to supply electricity unless thefailure is due to an act or omission by the Codeparticipant in bad faith or the negligence of theCode participant. This rule may be modified bycontract.

Schedule 1 to the Law sets out provisionsrelating to the interpretation of the NationalElectricity Law to ensure that it is givenconsistent meanings across the jurisdictionsparticipating in the Market.The Code is now being considered by theAustralian Competition and ConsumerCommission for authorisation and approval asan access regime under the Trade Practices Act1974. The Commission has advised that itexpects to make a decision on the Code byAugust this year. I will table the Code after ithas been cleared by the Commission andapproved by the Government. I also undertakethat the tabling of the Code will be prior to theproclamation of an Electricity - National Scheme(Queensland) Act 1997.

Mr Speaker, it is proposed that Queenslandproclaim its application legislation when itcommences an electricity market that utilisesthat the National Electricity Marketarrangements. However, the House should notethat, unless jurisdictions agree otherwise, eachjurisdiction is required by the LegislationAgreement to apply the Law by June 1998.Victoria and New South Wales are planning toenact their application legislation in their autumnparliamentary sittings and to proclaim it in early1998.

Mr Speaker, participation in the NationalElectricity Market will complement the reformsto the electricity industry that the Governmentis currently implementing. This Bill should beenacted as far as possible in advance of themarket's commencement. This will give topotential market participants and majorcustomers clear signals about the Government'scommitment to the National Electricity Marketand a sound investment and operationalplanning basis.There are potential, significant advantages tobe gained for Queensland in enacting this Bill.The Government is seeking to adopt theNational Electricity Market arrangements fromthe Queensland market's commencement toensure that the industry's transition followinginterconnection with New South Wales isseamless.

Queensland experience of the NationalElectricity Market before interconnection withthe other States that will be vital for theindustry because of the experience otherjurisdictions have gained already through lesssophisticated market systems.

The use of the National Electricity Marketarrangements from the outset will also freeQueensland industry participants andconsumers from the burdens experienced bytheir southern counterparts in moving first to aninterim market system then to the NationalElectricity Market systems.The House should be aware that, if the Bill isenacted, upon its proclamation a law will applyin Queensland that has not been passed, and

30 Apr 1997 Primary Industries Legislation Amendment Bill 1181

will not be amended, by the QueenslandParliament. The view might be expressed thatthe Bill therefore has insufficient regard for theinstitution of Parliament.However, there are precedents for this form oflegislation. In particular, the Corporations Lawand the Australian Financial Institutions Codeoperate under applications of laws schemes.

The application of law regime is essential toensuring the nationally consistent operation ofthe electricity industry which is central to thestrength of the economy. Further, theestablishment and maintenance of a consistentand stable legislative regime is necessary forthe efficient operation of, and sound investmentdecisions in, the National Electricity Market.

Mr GILMORE: I commend the Bill tothe House.

Debate, on motion of Mr McGrady,adjourned.

PRIMARY INDUSTRIES LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (5.54 p.m.), by leave, without notice:I move—

"That leave be granted to bring in aBill for an Act to amend various Actsadministered by the Minister for PrimaryIndustries."

Motion agreed to.

First Reading

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

Second Reading

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (5.55 p.m.): I move—


This Bill brings before the House anumber of small, but significant amendmentsto three Acts in the Primary Industries portfolio.The first of these is the Forestry Act 1959.These amendments address the high levels oftheft of sandalwood timber from Crown lands,especially in western Queensland.

This valuable timber product is exportedto Asian centres, mostly for production of josssticks. At past peak rates, green logs havereturned about $2,000 per tonne. Sandalwoodtrees growing on Crown lands can only beharvested with appropriate authority under the

Forestry Act. However, over the past five yearssignificant areas of Crown sandalwood havebeen cut illegally, often without regard for theenvironmental sustainability of the resource.

Legitimate harvesters sample the tree bycutting a branch and inspecting the end grain,so the tree can stand if it is not suitable forharvest. Illegal harvesters cut the whole treedown, leaving it to rot if there is too muchsapwood, and sometimes cut trees less than12 cm in diameter, the minimum size allowedfor legitimate harvesting operations. Ashonourable members will appreciate, this isirresponsible both in environmental andeconomic terms.

The environmental importance can beappreciated when one considers thatsandalwood is an important part of the riverineenvironment in western Queensland, growingfrequently along creeks and gullies of theChannel Country. Illegally felled trees arefrequently left in watercourses, adding to theenvironmental vandalism.

The illegal harvesting of Crownsandalwood trees has also depressed themarket for this timber. In theRichmond/Hughenden area, around 30sandalwood industry workers have been laidoff or cannot operate because of the downturnin prices caused by the black market, and lostrevenue to the State is estimated at morethan $1m annually.

These amendments to the Forestry Actaim to protect this valuable commercialforestry by strengthening forest officers'powers, significantly increasing penalties, andproviding for seizure of plant and equipmentused for illegal activities. The Bill also amendsthe Grain Industry (Restructuring) Act 1991 toextend the current "sunset" date by 12months from 30 June 1997 to 30 June nextyear.

As members are already well aware, thereis a review of this legislation in progressfollowing our agreement to extend thelegislation for 12 months last year. That reviewincludes national competition policyimperatives and is expected to be completedwithin the next month or so and theGovernment will consider its report at thattime.

If the amendments were not made asproposed, the industry would be deregulatedby default on 30 June next. This is clearly anundesirable outcome, particularly in the light ofthe timing of reviews by other States of theirsimilar legislation. For instance, New SouthWales will not have completed its reviewbefore the end of 1998. Victoria and South

1182 Leading Schools 30 Apr 1997

Australia have just commenced theirs, whileWestern Australia is not expecting tocommence its review in the foreseeable future.

This Government does not want our grainindustry deregulated thereby exposing it to riskof loss of business to other States or possiblepredatory practices by other State authoritiesin the marketplace, hiding behind legislation.Consequently, these amendments are notintended to pre-empt the review committee'sfindings, but rather to keep all options open forthe Government in considering itsrecommendations and to provide flexibility toGovernment in managing the timing andextent of any changes it considers desirableas a result of that review.

The final Act amended is the SugarIndustry Act 1991 to implement some of thekey recommendations of the Sugar IndustryReview Working Party report "Sugar—WinningGlobally". The report addresses the mainNational Competition Policy issues in the sugarindustry, and was accepted by both theQueensland and the CommonwealthGovernments, with some minor adjustment tothe recommendations.

This Bill implements a number of the keyrecommendations, particularly those about thecomposition and management of theQueensland Sugar Corporation and theBureau of Sugar Experiment Stations. Bothorganisations are to be governed by a boardof directors.

The corporation's board is subjected tostatutory duties and liabilities similar to thoseimposed on the directors of other tradingentities such as public companies and Stateand Commonwealth owned corporations. MrSpeaker, I seek leave to have the remainderof the speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

I will bring further amendments to the Houselater this year or early next year to implementother recommendations about the Corporation,possibly including the acceptance by the boardof a full range of duties and liabilities akin tothose under the Corporations Law.

Those future amendments will also separate theadministrative functions from the tradingfunctions, so the Corporation can focus on itsprimary role as single desk seller of Queenslandsugar in both export and domestic markets.

In the meantime, the new structure for theboard of the Corporation, with an independentchairperson, 3 directors chosen for theirexpertise in cane production, 3 for theirexpertise in milling, 2 for their wide commercialexpertise, and including the chief executive, willprepare the Corporation for its more focusedrole.

The BSES is reformed from the very vaguestructures that exist under the present Act, toprovide a clear line of management from theboard of directors, through the Director ofSugar Experiment Stations as chief executive,to the sugar experiment stations and other unitsof the Bureau.Directors will serve because of their expertise,and the old representative and ex officiomethod of selection will be discarded asrecommended by the Working Party.

This new structure is clearly more workablethan the present one.I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.

Debate, on motion of Mr Schwarten,adjourned.

LEADING SCHOOLS

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (6 p.m.): Imove—

"That this House condemns theBorbidge Government and the Minister forEducation for their incompetent handlingof the restructure of Queensland'sEducation system 'Leading Schools'.

We note that the Minister hascaused deep divisions within theeducation community as he hasdeliberately sought to fragment andisolate key stakeholders in education tothe long-term detriment of the relationshipbetween parents, teachers and theEducation Department.

We call on the Government to haltthe implementation of 'Leading Schools'and to negotiate with all educationstakeholders before implementing any ofthe proposed changes."

Tonight the Opposition moves this motionout of a deep sense of concern for the futureof our education system. The proposedrestructure of Queensland's education systemposes a serious threat to the standard ofQueensland's public education and to theequitable distribution of educational servicesand resources across Queensland.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding thisdebate over the past three months has beencouched in terms of an accelerated movetowards school-based management and theestablishment of school councils to giveparents greater input into decision making atschools. But Leading Schools is much morethan just school-based management. TheLabor Party supports moves to give schoolsgreater say over resource allocations withintheir school community where there is ademonstrated educational benefit to be

30 Apr 1997 Leading Schools 1183

derived. Devolving responsibilities to schoolsshould only occur, however, at a rate whichparents and teachers can accommodate attheir own school and only with guarantees thatsufficient resources are provided to deal withthe added workload. We also support parentsbeing given greater input into those decisions.However, the role of school councils must benegotiated with the stakeholders. Importantly,however, the Opposition does not believeschool councils should be mandated for anyschool. Leading Schools will force all band 8 to11 schools to form school councils and denyband 4 to 7 schools the opportunity. Schoolcommunities must be provided with optionsand given the opportunity to decide forthemselves, not forced into it by this Ministeror this Government. The Opposition does not,however, support changes which will entrenchand exacerbate existing resource inequitiesbetween primary schools and secondaryschools, between large schools and smallerschools, between schools which suffer highlevels of socioeconomic disadvantage, ethnicand cultural diversity, geographic isolation andchildren with special needs and those schoolswhich are better off.

Let us make no mistake: the BorbidgeGovernment will not spend one extra cent onEducation to fund Leading Schools, and formost schools very little, if any, of the additionalfunds will be discretionary. This is the centralissue at stake in Leading Schools. Thequestion is whether all Queensland Stateschools will continue to be properly resourcedto provide for the high standard of publiceducation which both parents and thecommunity expect that Queensland'seducation system will deliver. Leading Schoolsis about whether we deliver to some schoolsan opportunity to enhance their resource baseand become better equipped to meet theeducational needs of their students while otherschools are left behind.

The very notion of Leading Schools hascaused considerable concern among parentsand teachers throughout Queensland. Whatthe Government is saying is that there will bean elite group, initially only 100 schools, withinQueensland's education system which areentitled to call themselves "Leading Schools"which may benefit from the allocation of someadditional resources, but that other schools willbe marginalised and residualised by theprocess, both in terms of public perceptionand in terms of actual resource allocation. TheLabor Party will ensure that all Queenslandschools continue to provide equitable accessto educational services for all Queenslandstudents.

The Opposition is committed to ensuringthat the appointment and transfer of principalsand staff, the determination of staff levels forschools and the conditions of employment forteachers and other education employees arecore functions of the education system whichshould be determined at a central level. Wedo not support allocating schools a notionalstaffing budget and allowing schools to tradeoff teachers to fund other resources. Weregard guarantees from the EducationDepartment over class sizes, access tospecialist teachers and the transfer system asworthless when it is allowing schools theopportunity not to fill vacancies which arise asa result of transfers, resignations orretirements. Class sizes will rise and teacherswill refuse to transfer to rural and remote areasas a result of this Government's policies. Wealso believe that the State Government has aprimary responsibility to maintain the standardof our social infrastructure in school buildingsand other school assets.

Last week the Courier-Mail reported on aspeech by the Queensland Director-General ofEducation to a conference of principals onLeading Schools where he said that Stateschools need to reinvent themselves tobecome market driven to compete moreeffectively with non-Government schools.What Government schools need is afundamental commitment by Government atState and Federal levels to provide a qualitypublic education system. Typically, thisGovernment seeks to blame the victims—toblame the schools for their supposed failureswhich allegedly causes the drift of students tonon-Government schools. This demonstratesanother of our fundamental concerns aboutLeading Schools. What Leading Schools is allabout is providing a mechanism for thisGovernment to shift responsibility for resourceinadequacies onto schools and schoolcommunities and away from the Governmentswhich make the decisions about funding.

But paramount among our concerns atpresent in relation to the implementation ofLeading Schools is the climate of dissension,of confrontation and of recrimination which thisGovernment has generated by its failure toconsult stakeholders over the implementationof Leading Schools and by its deliberateattempts to divide and fragment the educationcommunity over its implementation. Thesereforms will not succeed in an environmentwhere teachers, principals, parents and thedepartment are in disarray and fundamentallydisagreeing on the direction of the changes.

Whatever happened to Partners inExcellence? Will the Minister accept schools


into his pilot program where the teachers haveoverwhelmingly rejected participating in thepilot? What is needed in this debate is acircuit-breaker. If the Government refuses tosupport the motion before the House tonight,which would provide that circuit-breaker, thenthe Opposition has determined that uponcoming to Government it will halt theimplementation of Leading Schools.

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

An incident having occurred in the publicgallery—

Mr SPEAKER: Order in the Chamberand in the gallery!

Mr BREDHAUER: We will halt theimplementation of Leading Schools and wewill go back to the process that thisGovernment should have put in train before itembarked upon these changes. We willconsult and negotiate with the keystakeholders. We will seek common groundand we will build on only those areas wherethere is a demonstrated educational benefit tobe derived from change.

On 9 April the Minister for Educationdistributed a letter to all Queensland schoolstitled "Then and Now". In the openingparagraphs the Minister confesses to the worldthat 30 years ago he became a teacherbecause he wanted to make a difference. TheMinister says his purpose in life remains thesame today. Since 9 February 1997, there canbe no doubting that the Minister certainly hasmade a difference! Never in my 20-yearassociation with Queensland Education hasthe education community been so deeply andbitterly divided. The Minister's deliberateattempts to divide and isolate stakeholders ineducation have successfully fragmented andtorn apart the key stakeholders in a way fewwould have thought possible and in a waywhich will have lasting consequences for theeducation of all Queensland children.

When the Minister reads the newspapersand watches the news at night and as hedrops off to sleep, how reassuring andsatisfying it must be for him personally to knowthat his campaign strategy is working. He hassuccessfully wound back the clock and set thedepartment against the QTU in a way notseen since Bjelke-Petersen was Premier ofQueensland. Tonight I predict that the Ministerwill seek to escalate his dispute with the QTUover enterprise bargaining. Labor opposesenterprise bargaining being dependent onteachers giving an open-ended commitmentto the Leading Schools process. The Ministerhas successfully set teachers againstteachers, parents against parents, principals

against principals and school sector againstschool sector. He personally has torn the fabricthat wove our system into a cohesive unitworking cooperatively for the benefit ofQueensland students and schools. TheMinister has replaced cooperation andharmony with division and recrimination whereteachers, parents, principals and bureaucratscriticise each other's motives and engage inheated debates across the spectrum of themedia.

The Minister must sleep well at night inthe knowledge that he deliberately set out todivide and conquer, especially to isolate theQTU, and that his campaign is beingsuccessful. But has the Minister ever stoppedto ask himself what is happening in hisschools? While all this energy is beingdissipated arguing, campaigning anddebating, who is teaching our kids? What sortof a debilitating effect is it having out there inour schools? I will tell the Minister. It isaffecting the long-suffering teachers ofQueensland—the same teachers who go to P& C meetings and run stalls at the school fete;the same teachers who are members of thelocal sporting and service clubs; the sameteachers who take the musical, coach sportingteams and take kids away on weekendcamps. Notwithstanding the additionalpressure and anxiety and uncertainty theMinister personally has created, thoseteachers will be at school in the morning doingtheir best for our kids in their classrooms.

The Minister should have a look aroundthe gallery. Maybe those people came here tothank the Minister for turning the system on itshead once again. Maybe they came here tothank him for creating yet another rod for theirbacks. But maybe they didn't. Just for once,why doesn't the Minister go and ask them?Just for once, why doesn't the Minister listen tothem?

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich)(6.09 p.m.): I rise to second the motion movedby the member for Cook. In doing so, I want torecall some words that I spoke in this placewhen we debated the issue of LeadingSchools not so long ago. At that time, Iexpressed my concern at the impact that theMinister's policy was having in relation toemployment in my local area—the closure ofthe regional office and the loss of the schoolsupport centres. At the time, I mentioned thatthe Minister, in his promotion of his LeadingSchools proposal, had been seeking to clotheit in the words or the language of "school-based management". He knows and Iknow—and I think most interested parties inthe education community know—that Leading


Schools is much more than school-basedmanagement. I think it is about time theMinister exercised a bit of honesty in relationto his proposal and told people exactly andreally what Leading Schools is all about.

For some time, the Liberal Party andparticularly this Minister have held the viewthat the model that has been applied in placeslike Victoria is the way we should be going interms of school governance: that we shouldhave school boards, that we should have a lotof autonomy vested with respect to thoseschool boards and that that autonomy shouldextend to a whole range of areas that havetraditionally been responsibilities of theEducation Department here in Queensland.

I am talking here about staffing, aboutcurriculum and about making decisions inrelation to capital works needs of that school. Istate again: I support school-basedmanagement but I also support equity withinour school system. I also support themaintenance of standards and I am appalledthat any Minister for Education would bepromulgating a policy which is all abouteroding standards and breaking down theeducation system in our State. That is thefundamental difference between what thisMinister is advocating in terms of LeadingSchools and what we, in Government and inOpposition, believe to be an appropriatepolicy—and that is appropriate school-basedmanagement.

There are a number of issues that I wantto canvass in relation to this proposition. As Isaid, there are certain matters which I believeshould not be left to the province of a localschool council or school board. One suchmatter is a school's curriculum. Certainly, notevery school offers the same subject range.Obviously, decisions are made at a local levelbased on the resources the school has and,indeed, the demands of the students withinthat school for certain subject choices but theselection is from a Statewide curriculum—andso it should be if we are going to maintainstandards.

We should not fall for the trap ofdevolving staffing matters to schools. Once wedo that, we will strike the final blow against anyequity in our education system. It should notmatter one jot whether a student is inBirdsville, Brisbane, Cairns or Caboolture: thatstudent is entitled to the same quality staffingin our State schools. By breaking down thesystem to undue local decision making andlocal recruitment, we will undermine thatfundamental principle of equity. Schoolsshould not have to manage major capital

works, but that is the logical extension of atotally devolved educational system.

A lot of schools in my area have majorcapital works needs: the schools that werethrown up—the egg cartons of the 1950s and1960s—to accommodate the baby boomers.They have particular capital works needs whichwill not be met if we devolve the capital worksBudget around the State. In my view, aStatewide standard needs to be maintained inrelation to issues such as class size andcertain aspects of behaviour management.We should not be allowing schools to havedevolved decision making on suspension orexclusion policies. We should not haveschools making decisions about whether ornot there should be corporal punishment, forexample.

But there is a proper role for local decisionmaking in terms of issues relating to behaviourmanagement within the schools, but withinthose broader guidelines. There needs to belocal decision making in terms of minor worksand maintenance and the resources in theschool, but one does not go down the paththat the Minister is taking to achieve thosegoals. One does not achieve cooperativeschools and collaborative decision making inschools by setting staff against staff, principalsagainst parents, parents against parents,which is exactly the outcome of the policywhich this Minister has pursued. He has strucka dreadful blow against the cohesiveness inour schools and, consequently, his policyshould be halted forthwith.

Hon. R. J. QUINN (Merrimac—Ministerfor Education) (6.14 p.m.): I move thefollowing amendment—

"Omit all words after 'That' and insertthe following—

this House notes the support forschool-based managementexpressed by the QueenslandTeachers' Union in their EnterpriseBargaining Agreement, struck withthe previous Labor Government in1994;

the House also notes the support forthe Leading Schools programexpressed by the Presidents of theQueensland Association of StateSchool Principals and theQueensland Secondary Principals'Association, in their joint statement atthe recent Leading SchoolsConference;

the House also notes the support forLeading Schools by Queenslandstate school parents, as stated by


the Queensland Council of Parents'and Citizens' Associations;the House also notes the Executiveof the State Public ServicesFederation, Queensland hasrecommended that its members voteto accept the Enterprise BargainingAgreement which includes acommitment to support theimplementation of Leading Schools;

all education stakeholders will beprovided with the opportunity to beinvolved in the implementation of theLeading Schools Pilot Program; andall education stakeholders will beprovided with an opportunity to beinvolved in the ongoing monitoringand evaluation of the LeadingSchools pilot program."

We have heard tonight the greatest lot ofhumbug and hypocrisy ever visited uponEducation in Queensland. The enterprisebargaining agreement struck with the QTU andthe previous Labor Government in 1994specifically says in detail in a number of placesthat the QTU would commit itself to school-based management all the way down the line.The sticking point of all of this is the flexiblestaffing arrangements. That is the only onepoint that the QTU refuses to sign off on. Wehave had negotiations with the QTU over theenterprise bargaining agreements; we havegiven them five pages of guarantees and rightat the very last point it withdraws its support.The EBA signed by this mob on the other sideof the Chamber and the QTU in 1994 says—

"The parties agree to advance thisdepartmental priority"—

it is talking about school-basedmanagement—

"through the implementation of pilotprojects covering:

flexible staffing arrangements . . ."

The QTU put its name on the dotted line and ittook the money. The problem with the QTU isthat it has not had the courage to tell itsmembers that it signed on the dotted line forthem to implement school-basedmanagement—Leading Schools. That is theproblem. It has not had the courage to tell itsown members that it took the money; it gotthe pay rise for them; and now it has to deliverwhat it signed them up for. What do we have?We have had this greatest campaign ofmisinformation, lies, innuendo, personalattacks—everything the QTU could throw atthis Government in order to disguise its owndeceit towards its own members.

The QTU stands condemned; it is the onlyorganisation that will not come to the party. Ithas isolated itself. It is the one that is goingaround to schools pitting principal againstprincipal, teachers against teachers, parentsagainst teachers all the way down the line. Itstactics have been the most despicable in theindustrial history of this State. It is going intoschools where the principal has gone away ona conference and calls meetings, poisons thestaff so that, when the principal comes back,he has to sit down and explain the situationagain.

I have news for the Opposition and I havenews for the QTU because when there is ameeting with the QTU agenda on the line, theteachers are putting up their hands and votingthe party line. When the QTU goes away, theprincipal is sitting down with the staff and theyare voting to come into Leading Schools. Irepeat: they are voting to come into LeadingSchools. Last night, there was a meeting ofteachers at Mountain Creek State High Schoolon the Sunshine Coast. Forty to 6 they votedto come into Leading Schools.

Mr Bredhauer: That is one.Mr QUINN: That is one, and there are a

lot more. I repeat: there are a lot more. Thishas been the greatest deception campaignmounted by the QTU in order to disguise itsown deception, its blatant and outrageouscampaign, to secure a wage rise in the orderof 10% per annum for three years. Who hasever heard of getting a 30% pay rise?

Time expired.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next

speaker, I would like to inform members thatlift No. 1 in the Parliamentary Annexe is notoperating. I say this because I know that therewill be a division later on.

Mr RADKE (Greenslopes) (6.20 p.m.): Isecond the amendment moved by theHonourable the Minister for Education. Therehas been widespread support from schoolcommunities for the Leading SchoolsProgram. There is no doubt that the campaignof misinformation which has been conductedby the executive of the Queensland TeachersUnion has made the decision-making processmore difficult for school communities.

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

Rockhampton! If the member wishes toremain in the Chamber to speak later, he willdesist from his persistent interjections.

Mr RADKE: Even though theQueensland Teachers Union executive hasmaintained considerable pressure on


principals and has deliberately attempted todisrupt particular schools, there is significantsupport from school communities andprincipals for the Leading Schools Program.More than 200 primary and secondary schoolsindicated that they were interested inparticipating in the pilot of the LeadingSchools Program. These schools arerepresentative of all regions of our State.

The president of the QueenslandSecondary Principals Association issued aposition statement on 15 March 1997 whichindicates that the association supports theLeading Schools Program. It states—

"The Queensland SecondaryPrincipals' Association supports theconcept of Leading Schools and SchoolBased Management."

Queensland State schools have beengradually implementing school-basedmanagement over many years.

The previous Government wasresponsible for devolving many responsibilitiesto schools. But this was done in anuncoordinated, ad hoc fashion which causedmuch dissatisfaction among teachers andparents. On the other hand, the LeadingSchools Program provides school communitieswith a framework for how school-basedmanagement will operate in Queenslandschools and then invites school communitiesto be involved in determining the details of themodel. This was recognised by secondaryprincipals in the position statement which Imentioned earlier. It states—

"There is a belief that LeadingSchools is simultaneously a culmination ofwhere many schools have been headingover the past several years, andconfidence that the project will resourcethe continuation of School BasedManagement."

Principals have continued to show theirsupport for the Leading Schools Programeven though the Queensland Teachers Unionexecutive has run an aggressive andmisleading campaign against those schoolcommunities and, in particular, the principalsof those schools which have indicated aninterest in participating in the program.

The principals of more than 170 schoolsrecently attended the Leading Schoolsconference. The principals who attended theconference expressed unanimous support forthe Leading Schools Program. Both primaryand secondary school principals issued a jointmedia statement which included thisstatement—

"Primary and secondary principals atthe Leading Schools Conference fullyendorse the move to school basedmanagement through the LeadingSchools Program. We see this in the bestinterests of those children who attend ourstate schools."

While these principals were attending theconference, the Queensland Teachers Unioncontinued to attempt to undermine theirposition by holding sub-branch meetings. Inmany schools this was done in the principal'sabsence. This could be interpreted as acynical attempt by the executive of theQueensland Teachers Union to ensure that, inthe principal's absence, the other side of theargument could not be provided to teachers.

The Leading Schools Program is all abouttrusting teachers, parents and other membersof the school community to make localdecisions to achieve the best outcomes for ourstudents. The leadership of the QueenslandTeachers Union continues, through its actions,to prove that it does not trust teachers andprincipals to make appropriate decisions intheir schools. The Queensland TeachersUnion executive seems to be unable tochange its old-world view. The leadership ofthe Queensland Teachers Union believes thatit should be making decisions centrally onbehalf of thousands of teachers and principalsthroughout the State. The QueenslandTeachers Union executive believes that it wasborn to rule school communities. ThisGovernment will continue to support theleadership role of principals in our schools andwill continue to maintain the right of schoolcommunities to be involved in school decisionmaking.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(6.23 p.m.): The ALP supports appropriateschool-based decision making. For decadeslocal decision making has evolved to giveprincipals, staff, parents and, in more recentyears, students a greater say in the running ofour State schools. But Leading Schools, asproposed by this Minister and thisGovernment, is not the appropriate way tolead to this. Leading Schools is a flawed,imperfect vehicle to deliver additional school-based decision making. This Minister and thisGovernment have discarded cautious,measured evolution and have proposed aradical revolution in this particular case. Forsomeone who proclaims himself to be part ofthe conservative forces of politics, the Ministerhas even betrayed his side of politics. Even if,for the moment, we disregard the divisionsthat this Minister has caused and theMinister's linking of this to industrial issues,


there are major problems that have occurred,and his words do not match his actions.

The Minister says that Leading Schools isthe way that will further strengthen the bondsbetween members of the school community.The Minister has divided everyone. Where theMinister says that teachers will be better ableto effectively exercise their professionaljudgment and skills in the classroom, read thatthey will be smothered by reports, snowedunder with paperwork and attending endlessmeetings. Where the Minister says that theprincipals will become true educational leadersin the schools, read that they will become full-time financial managers with less time for theclassrooms, the students and their staff.Where the Minister says that the localcommunity will have a greater say in thepresent and future progress and direction ofthe school, read that there will be more jobsthrown onto the local school, the P & C will bedoing more fundraising for the basics and theywill be giving more administrative support toprincipals and teachers.

I agree with the goals or aims asespoused on page 4 of the Leading Schoolsbooklet. That is where the QTU could agreewith the Minister. But do not equate the goalsof better educational outcomes through localdecision making with this particular program. Itis this particular program and the way in whichthe Minister has gone about it that is theproblem, not the general direction of wantingto go to greater local school-based decisionmaking. We support that; most people wouldsupport that. I have heard very little criticism ofit. But the way in which the Minister haschosen to do it is the problem. LeadingSchools is not going to achieve what theMinister set out to do. He invites people totake account of the experience in other Statesand overseas. Let us do that, and we see thatthe Victorian scheme has now collapsed. Letus have a look at the United States wherethey are appointing accountants to runschools— people who have no educationalbackground. The students and teachers aresuffering because those people do notappreciate what schools are about.

At a P & C meeting that I attendedrecently, the principal said, "Look, I do notcare what job I am given, but I have not beentrained to be a financial manager. I have beentrained to be a teacher, to work with kids andcurriculum. I am spending more and more ofmy time doing paperwork on finances." Thatprincipal criticised the Labor Government inprevious years and was very loyal to thedepartment. What we are going to find is that

there will be more work and less time forteachers to spend with the kids.

Consideration of the partnershipagreement, the annual operation plan, theannual report and the requesting andreceiving of periodic reports from the principalsreveals that we are going to see a hugeamount of time of the principals andadministrative staff devoted to developing andwriting reports. There will be endless meetingsfor the consultation process that is required forthe budget and the various working parties towhich the Minister refers. According to theannual report, there will be levels ofsatisfaction surveys. I am sure that parents willreally enjoy getting more surveys and otherforms coming home to them to add to theirfinancial reporting and level of students'achievements, as shown in both State andlocal data. This is great. We are not havingjust one level of reporting on students; theGovernment has now given them another pileof work. The Minister says that there will bemore funds through the school gate, but whathe has not said is that the funding will not beaccompanied by administrative support. Aperfect example of that is the selection ofstaff. That work, which was being done by theHR section of the department, will now bedone by principals and parents at the localschool.

The Minister has stated that LeadingSchools will be expected to demonstrate theircommitment to initiatives proposed by thedepartment. That will lead to the ambitiousbureaucrats within the department setting theirown agenda and, therefore, piling extra workonto principals and staff. It is a great way todivide the department. But it is not adepartment now, is it? It is EducationQueensland, which has been segregated into36 districts. In addition there will be hundredsof school councils. The Minister is fragmentingthe department which will not lead to bettereducational outcomes for schools.

Time expired.

Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (6.28 p.m.): Inrising to take part in this debate, I rejectoutright the hypocritical stance that theOpposition has taken by moving this motion.Firstly, I fully endorse the statement by theMinister about the QTU and its deceitfuldealings—allegedly on behalf of itsmembers—over the enterprise bargainingagreements. Is it not ironic that the inclusion ofschool-based management and enterprisebargaining occurred under, and was endorsedby, the previous Labor Government? Those


members sitting opposite are the ones whodid it.

The Queensland Teachers Union, theState Public Services Federation ofQueensland and the Australian LiquorHospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Unionsigned an enterprise agreement with theDepartment of Education in 1994. Thisagreement included a commitment for a 9%increase in salaries over a period of two yearsand four months. It is worth noting that thisincrease is actually less than what the QTU isrejecting as unsatisfactory in the current roundof enterprise bargaining negotiations.

In accepting the 9% salary increase, theparties to the agreement committed toadvance school-based management as adepartmental priority through theimplementation of pilot projects covering avariety of flexible arrangements. The mostrecent claim by the Queensland TeachersUnion to support school-based managementbut not the Leading Schools Program is arrantnonsense. Leading Schools is the phasedimplementation of school-based managementthat delivers what the parties, including theQTU, committed to in November 1994.

What does Leading Schools involve? Itinvolves a volunteer pilot group of 100 largerschools, each of which will receive significantfinancial support. A second and third phasewill allow time for the majority of schools toreap the benefit of the experience of thoseinvolved in the pilot and greater flexibility andresponsiveness, which is controlled by parents,teachers and other staff at the school and notin Mary Street. I repeat: Leading Schools isthe progressive and phased approach toschool-based management to which the QTUcommitted itself and it members under aLabor Government in 1994.

Current enterprise bargaining negotiationswith all unions commenced in 1996. An offerof a 12% salary increase over three years wasmade in February 1997. Unlike New SouthWales where $55m had to be found fromwithin school budgets to fund the latest salaryincreases for teachers, the Queensland offerwill be fully funded by Treasury. I would hopethat that would be accepted and received wellby the Opposition at least. The LeadingSchools initiative was approved by theGovernment in February 1997. Thedepartment sought an ongoing commitmentfrom the unions through the current enterprisebargaining negotiations.

The QTU has maintained a constant andmisleading media campaign in support of asignificant salary increase for its members and

in rejection of certain aspects of the LeadingSchools initiative. The union's ambit claim of10% per annum was moderated on 19 March1997 to a claim of 6% for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years—effectively aclaim of 7.7% per annum over 28 months. Inlate March, an agreement that included acommitment to implementation of the LeadingSchools initiative was reached with the StatePublic Services Federation of Queensland.That union's executive had recommended thatmembers accept the 12% salary increase.Subject to the outcome of the members'ballot, which is currently under way, membersof the SPSFQ in schools, regional educationofficers and central office will receive their firstincrease of 4% backdated to 1 March.

In late March, the QTU issued an interimdirective to members not to participate in theLeading Schools pilots. In spite of the interimdirective, more than 170 schools formallyexpressed interest in the Leading Schoolspilots. Another 60 applications were receivedafter the closing date. That is the interest andsupport that the members opposite are notpicking up. At all times, the department hascontinued to attempt to negotiate agreementwith all parties to the agreement, other thansuspension of negotiations with the QTU for ashort period during the 24-hour stoppage.Concentrated negotiations with the QTU inearly April resulted in the union being given apackage of guarantees relating to the LeadingSchools initiative. On 14 April, the QTUexecutive rejected those guarantees.Departmental negotiators believe that, by itsactions, the QTU negotiating team engaged indeceptive behaviour and, in so doing, did notnegotiate in good faith. I must reiterate thatthe QTU committed to school-basedmanagement pilots as a result of the lastenterprise bargaining agreement. Thepotential benefit to schools——

Time expired.Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (6.34 p.m.): I

welcome the opportunity to support the motionmoved by the Opposition as I am mostconcerned about the deep divisions withinQueensland school communities and theimpact they are having on the delivery ofeducation to our State schools and inparticular to rural schools. The silence ofNational Party members from countryelectorates in this place tells me that they donot understand, or perhaps they just do notcare. I have 35 schools in my electorate. I amreceiving a clear message, and the Ministershould listen: pull your head out of the sand; ithas been there for too long; you are starting tolook like a sandcastle.


The Leading Schools proposal is an elitesystem and it is raising many concerns aboutthe quality of education being maintained andimproved for all students in State schoolsregardless of their location. I intend to putthose concerns in simple terms. In talking withparents, teachers and school principals, onefinds a consensus of opinion that the wholeconcept of Leading Schools is a shamblesand a disgrace. It has turned into a politicalslanging match.

I point the finger of blame at the director-general of the department. Leading Schools ishis agenda. The Minister must share theblame because he does not have the politicalknow-how and strength to pull his DG into line.This morning in this place I saw that theMinister is being seen as Peachey's puppet. Ina rush to push through his agenda, the DGhas forgotten the principles of fair, open andaccountable consultation. The Minister shouldcall his DG in and say, "Listen here, mate. Thesystem is falling apart. The teachers don't likeme. Parents don't like me. No-one out theretrusts me any more." He should fix it or else.Of course, the DG would have kittens becausehe would have in the back of his mind theperformance clause in his contract. If he doesnot deliver, he has real problems—and heknows it. But who cares? Surely the smoothrunning of Queensland's education systemthat is providing education to our children is farmore important.

If the Minister wants to get out of thispredicament with any credibility, he must, as amatter of priority, stop the process; halt theimplementation of Leading Schools; consultwith the stakeholders in an open andaccountable way—no backdoor deals; behonest with the stakeholders; stop thepropaganda and the misleading, dishonest,divisive approach that he has; and show somerespect for teachers and principals who havegenuine concerns and want answers. I say tothe Minister: look at those teachers in thegallery tonight and show some expression ofsorrow on your face for the way that you havetargeted them in an effort to sell your agenda.

He should stop claiming that he has thesupport of P & C associations when, in mostcases, they do not understand LeadingSchools. He should tell school communitiesthe facts. He should put his guarantees inblack and white on the table in front of themso they can ask questions and be told thetruth. He should answer their concerns, suchas how they will benefit from Leading Schools,what power the school council will have, whatrelationship that council will have with theP & C and the local community and what costs

will be handed back to schools. With theadditional money provided, will it be necessaryto employ additional administration staff?What formula will be used to guarantee thatschools receive additional funding to meettheir fluctuating needs? Will they be requiredto seek out corporate funding? In the future,will students be told that the next half hour issponsored by McDonald's or KFC? Will thedepartment give consideration and approveadditional funding for rural schools to meet theongoing costs of professional development forteachers?

The Minister may not realise that ruralschools contribute more to the professionaldevelopment of teachers than regionalschools or those in the south-east corner. Thesame cost burden on an ongoing basis doesnot apply to those schools in regional centresor in the south-east corner, because in mostcases teachers come to them with trainingpaid for by country schools. Rural schools putin dollars to provide the training and theteachers then move on. Graduates andincoming teachers who need the professionaldevelopment get it at the expense of countryschools, but the Minister does not cater forthat. Those costs are not factored in.

How will Leading Schools address thosetypes of problems? There must be clarificationon how schools will be staffed. Teachers wantanswers. The Minister has a real problem:teachers do not trust him. I do not know howhe feels about that, but there is nothing worsethan not being trusted. Teachers have seenthe untruthful and misleading statements ontheir salaries. It has been a laughing matter incrib rooms that I go into. How will the school-based selection process affect the Statewidetransfer system? Teachers in my area have noconfidence in what the Minister is saying—noconfidence at all. How will he get the bestteachers into rural schools—he keepsforgetting about rural schools—if they have noguarantee about how long they will have toput up with the posting?

Time expired.

Mr TANTI (Mundingburra) (6.39 p.m.): Iwish to thank Minister Quinn and his officecontact, Mr Ben Myers, for the way in whichthey have communicated with me about thisissue. I would like to thank the Minister for theliterature, booklets and seminars that wereprovided in Townsville. I can say in thisChamber that many schools in the Townsvilleregion are lining up for the Better Schools trial.This Government is fully committed to therestructure of Queensland's education systemthrough the Leading Schools Program. The


implementation of school-based managementin Queensland through the Leading SchoolsProgram is all about school communitiesmaking the best decisions possible regardingteaching and learning in the local context forthe benefit of our students.

Not even the Opposition will argue thatparents and other community members do nothave a right to have a say in how their schoolswill be run. This belief in the right to have a sayis borne out by the high degree of schoolcommunity support for devolving greaterauthority, responsibility and accountability toLeading Schools.

Rather than causing divisions in theschool community, as is suggested in theOpposition's motion, this Government believesthat the Leading Schools Program and itsinclusion of such school councils will bringtogether parents, teachers and other schoolcommunity members to create workable,cohesive and effective partnerships in ourschools.

The Queensland Council of Parents andCitizens Associations, the peak bodyrepresenting over 1,200 State school P & Cassociations, has been consulted from thevery beginning of the implementation ofLeading Schools and is very supportive of thisprogram. On numerous recent occasions theQCPCA and its members have reinforced thebenefits of Leading Schools for all studentsand the wider school community. In a mediarelease on 19 March, the QCPCA President,Sarah Nelson ,stated—

"The State Government's decision tointroduce the Leading Schools programinto our State School system will giveparents a greater role in the managementof their children's schooling and will leadto better student outcomes."

Importantly, she went on to state—

"The QCPCA, a long time supporterof the value of the Leading Schoolsconcept, believes direct parentalinvolvement on school councils . . . is amajor step forward for the Queenslandeducation system."

This level of support from parentsindicates clearly not only the educationalworthiness of the program but also the stronglevel of agreement between the EducationDepartment and the QCPCA. In addition, theQCPCA's policy on the decentralisation ofschools supports the Government's positionon the introduction of school councils inLeading Schools. The policy states thefollowing—

"The Queensland Governmentshould provide for the establishment ofrepresentative . . . school councils."Last week both the president and vice-

president of the QCPCA attended the LeadingSchools principals conference, at which theMinister reinforced this Government's deepcommitment to the introduction of LeadingSchools. The QCPCA's attendance at thisimportance conference indicates the generallevel of support that this important stakeholderhas for the Leading Schools Program.

It seems obvious to all that the only peakbody within the education community that iscurrently misrepresenting and misinforming itsmembers regarding the implementation of theLeading Schools Program is the QTUexecutive. All the other representative schoolcommunity groups have come out in favour ofthe program. And why would they not?Ultimately, school-based management isabout improving student learning outcomes forall Queensland students.

A key issue on which the QTU leadershiphas blatantly misrepresented the department'sposition to its members is the issue of flexiblestaffing. Unlike the QTU executive, the QCPCAis clearly supportive of the ability of LeadingSchools to determine the resourcing mix. TheQCPCA policy states—

"Flexible staffing decisions should bemade in a consultative forum within theschool community." It is obvious to this Government that the

QTU executive's current refusal to engage inmeaningful dialogue with the department overthe Leading Schools Program is just a cheaptactic to obtain increased teacher salaries. TheQCPCA seems to agree with thisinterpretation. In a media release on 16 April,the QCPCA president stated—

"The collapse of the currentnegotiations would seem to have verylittle to do with improving student learningoutcomes. . . A dark day indeed MrMackie!"

That demonstrates clearly the QTU executive'sself-imposed isolation from other keystakeholders over this valuable and importantprogram. Once again, I stress thisGovernment's real commitment to theintroduction of the Leading Schools Programand condemn the Opposition for initiating thismotion in the House. This motion serves onlyto create a division in the educationalcommunity which, apart from the QTUexecutive, is totally supportive of the LeadingSchools Program.

Time expired.


Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton)(6.44 p.m.): Before we get too far into this, letus just clarify one point, and that is that therewas no mention of Leading Schools in 1994. Ichallenge the Minister to table any referenceto Leading Schools. It is something that theMinister has dreamt up himself. He should nottry to blame the Teachers Union for hisincompetence and bad handling of this wholepathetic issue. The way in which it has beensold in the community is just absolutelyhopeless. Out there among the public, theMinister has shrouded it in deceit—among theteachers, among the kids, among all thepeople to whom the Minister has spoken.

Let us look at what we have: a Ministerwho could not teach a pig to be dirty and adirector-general who could not lead a chokovine over a fence. The result of that is what wehave tonight—the necessity to move thismotion about this whole hapless and patheticshambles called Leading Schools.

If teachers wanted any clarification onLeading Schools, they were told, "It is all in theblue book." However, when the TeachersUnion examined the blue book in fine detail, itfound that there was no reference to the policyof, for example, trade a teacher for a tractor orget rid of a teacher to paint a wall. Somehow,that was left out. The Minister wonders why hehas no credibility when he talks to teachers,yet the document that he has circulatedthroughout the teaching service in this State iscompletely dishonest and completely flawed.

Aside from the stealth of the Sundaynight release of this marvellous project, whathave the Government's efforts been so far?We have seen the Government trying to goadteachers into accepting it by flashing, of allthings, a photo of the Minister with his class.Mind you, that class was standing with a slate,which demonstrates how far back the Ministerhad to go. That indicates the amount ofcredibility that the Minister has. So then theGovernment started dangling carrots in front ofprincipals: "$100,000 for your school"—wherethat comes from, heaven only knows;presumably from the poor old followingschools—"We will take you on a bit of aholiday to the Marriott", and goodness knowswhat expense that would be; probably$150,000 or so, "and a 5% pay increase.""And there is more", the Tim Shaw of theEducation Department tells us, "$2,000 intoyour kick for professional development. Sobundle up yourself and your trusted staff andgo for a little trip to New Zealand to see what ashambles they have made of their educationsystem over there."

To cap it all off, we have the pièce derésistance. They cannot goad the teacherswith a photo of the Minister and his slate, theycannot get them with the two grand in theirkick, so what do they do? They get out thesledgehammer. Today, they went down to theIndustrial Relations Commission and filed anaction to bring the bargaining process to anend. Effectively, that takes away from teacherstheir right to enter into the dispute. I table thedocument. The Minister probably has not evenseen it. That indicates how on top of the issuehe is.

An Opposition member: "BackdoorBob" again.

Mr SCHWARTEN: "Backdoor Bob"again. Let me say that not one teacher whomI have met supports this nonsense; not oneparent whom I have met supports thisnonsense—not one of them. Why not? Thisclown over here——

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr SCHWARTEN: The Honourable the

Minister says that they will accept theguarantees that he has given. They wouldrather trust a rabbit with a head of lettuce thantake any of the Minister's guarantees. Theyrecall the guarantees that the Minister gave tothe school cleaners. What about when theGovernment had McHugh telling people thatthe transfer system was somehow going to beset in granite and could not be moved? Whenthe QTU wanted to put that into theagreement, the Minister would not do it. Whynot? Because down the track he intends tobackflip on that. The Minister knows thatdamned well. That is why he will not put it inthe agreement. That is why he will not showthe colour of his money in that regard.

Mr Quinn: It's in there.Mr SCHWARTEN: It is not in there at

all. Tonight I challenge the Minister to table adocument that shows that in an agreedstatement between the Teachers Union andhis idiotic department. The fact is that that isnot the case, and the Minister knows that tobe true. If he does not, he should not besitting in that seat. In any case, he should notbe sitting there.

The fact of the matter is that if theMinister had any political brains at all, hewould scuttle this matter right here and now.Here is his chance. The Minister should dohimself a favour and come over and vote withthe Opposition on this motion. If the Ministerreally believes that teachers and parentssupport this project, then he should go to aP & C meeting.

Time expired.


Mr BAUMANN (Albert) (6.50 p.m.): TheLeading Schools Program is the most excitinginitiative in Queensland education in 20 years.As we have already heard, parent groups andschool principals are in support of the programand have publicly expressed their support andenthusiasm for it.

Mr Ardill: How many?

Mr BAUMANN: The honourablemember cannot count to that number. If hewaits, I will let him know. These groups seethat the Leading Schools Program promisesreal and educationally exciting long-termbenefits for our schools and students. Schoolsand their communities can see through themisinformation being spread by the QTUleadership and are excited by the opportunitythat is being offered to them. Some of thesimple facts demonstrate this case.

For the benefit of the member forArcherfield, I point out that of the 608 largerschools in Band 8 to 11 that were eligible tojoin the pilot phase of the program, over 200showed interest in the program. Well over 170principals from these schools attended a four-day conference to find out more about theprogram. I am advised by the department thatit anticipates that there will be no difficulty inreaching the target of 100 schools toundertake the pilot program beginning in July1997. In other words, well over one-quarter ofthe eligible schools submitted an expression ofinterest about the pilot program to EducationQueensland. The department will also have anappropriate number of schools to run the pilotphase. The Leading Schools Program hasstrong support among both primary andsecondary schools. Over half of the more than170 school principals who attended the recentconference were from primary schools.

It should be noted that these numberswere achieved in the face of virulentopposition from the QTU leadership whichissued a directive banning schools fromsubmitting an expression of interest to theLeading Schools Program. However, over one-quarter of eligible schools still decided tovolunteer. The QTU leadership threatened a"deal" with schools that volunteered. Thatsounds familiar! Those schools persisted intheir intention to become better informedabout this great opportunity. The QTUleadership has continued to try to spreadmisinformation and fear among teachers andschools. Despite that, the department advisesthat it will easily achieve the number it needsfor the pilot phase.

The QTU leadership has tried to misleadteachers by spreading rumours that the

Leading Schools Program will mean the endof the transfer system and will be a threat toteacher jobs. These inaccurate and incorrectstatements have been effectively answered bythe department.

Mr Ardill: When?

Mr BAUMANN: For the information ofthe member for Archerfield, I point out thatEducation Queensland has made it clear thatcurrent transfer and allocation mechanisms willremain in place. Schools can be given thenecessary flexibility to implement school-basedmanagement within these frameworks. TheQTU leadership has pointed to examples ofschool-based management in other Statesand overseas where there have beensubstantial cuts in resources and whereteachers have been sacked. The QTUleadership has tried to pretend that ourapproach will have the same results.

I am proud to say that Queensland isdifferent. Many of the other States did nothave a sound budgetary position when theyintroduced school-based management. Theyhad to make major cuts in budgetaryallocations to deal with higher levels of publicindebtedness. In Queensland, we have a longhistory of having a strong budget. We do nothave to make budget cuts to deal with highlevels of public indebtedness.

Unlike other States which have beenmaking cuts in school funding, the coalitionGovernment has increased funding availableto education in the State to over $3 billion. Allof our schools are benefiting from increasedfunding, especially where there is increasedprovision for deputy principals, non-contacttime for teachers, facility upgrades and agreater concentration on early literacyprograms. Whereas other States such as NewSouth Wales fund teachers' salary increasesby making cuts of some $55m from services toschools, the Queensland Government iscommitted to a fully funded pay increase forteachers of 12.5% over three years. Indeed,we can move into the Leading SchoolsProgram with a clear commitment to push anadditional $150m per year through the schoolgate when the program is fully implemented.

The Leading Schools Program will involveschool communities across the State. As Ihave said, there has already been a majorconference for over 170 principals. The sameconference was attended by representativesof principals' associations and the presidentand vice-president of the QCPCA. Furtherconferences will be held around the State toexplain to representatives of leading schoolstaff and P & C associations the opportunities

1194 Adjournment 30 Apr 1997

available to them. A Statewide consultativeprocess is currently occurring on the proposalsfor school councils in leading schools.

Time expired.

Question—That the words proposed tobe omitted stand part of the question—put;and the House divided—AYES, 42—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Campbell, D'Arcy,De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley, Fouras,Gibbs, Goss W. K., Hamill, Hayward, Hollis, Lucas,McElligott, McGrady, Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin,Nunn, Nuttall, Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell,Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence,Sullivan J. H., Welford, Wells. Tellers: Roberts,Sullivan T. B.

NOES, 43—Baumann, Beanland, Borbidge, Connor,Cooper, Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald,Gamin, Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy,Hegarty, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester,Lingard, Littleproud, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn,Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack,Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Warwick,Watson, Wilson, Woolmer. Tellers: Springborg,Carroll

Pair: McCauley, Livingstone

Resolved in the negative .

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

ADJOURNMENTMr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader of

Government Business) (7.02 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Mooloolaba Surf Life Saving Club

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate) (7.02 p.m.):This evening it is a great pleasure for me tospeak about the Mooloolaba Surf Life SavingClub and the 75th anniversary of its existence.The club is one of the biggest clubs inQueensland and, without doubt, it is one ofthe leading clubs in Australia today.

On Saturday, 7 December 1996, followingextensions and renovations costing some$1.7m, the club was officially opened by theAustralian President of Surf Life Saving, MrAlan Welpton, AM. That was a verymomentous occasion indeed for the club.Approximately 500 or 600 guests attended thefunction and it was a great day.

The 75th Anniversary Committeecomprises the club chairman, Mr Ted Turner,and the deputy chairman, Mr Bruce Pitman.Those gentlemen are also preparing a historyof the club. If any member would like a copy ofthat booklet, feel free to give my office a calland we will make suitable arrangements.

The club has a great history. Being the75th anniversary of the club, it was wonderfulto see the great success that we had at theState titles which were held in Mackay thisyear. That was probably one of the bestresults that the club has had. I am proud to bean active member of the Mooloolaba Surf LifeSaving Club, as I have been for some years. Iconsider it a great privilege to be a member ofa club of this stature.

The committee of the Mooloolaba SurfLife Saving Club comprises Mr Doug Jewrey,the president, and his wife, Bev, who havebeen supporters and great stalwarts of theclub over a number of years. Indeed, MrJewrey is a life member of the club. Mr JoeWestern is the secretary of the club, and bothhe and his wife, Judy, are life members. MrJim Summers is the treasurer of the club.Much can be said about the great work thatthese people have done for the MooloolabaSurf Life Saving Club over a number of years.Some time ago, when I first joined the club, itwas in some financial difficulties. Those peopletook over the reins and have made it the greatclub that it is today. Much must be said of thegreat work that those people have done.

Mr Laming: Hear, hear!Mr NUTTALL: I am pleased to hear the

honourable member for Mooloolaba endorsingmy comments, for which I thank him. Themanagers of the club are Reg and RosalynCannon—a well-known name in RugbyLeague circles for people of my era. Reg andRos are well respected at Mooloolaba for thegreat work they have done. I take thisopportunity to congratulate them on the workthat they do at the Mooloolaba Surf LifeSaving Club.

The club continues to have strong supportin its local community. It has never lost sight ofthe purpose for its existence, that is, to savelives on beaches. Indeed, it contributed greatlyto the establishment of an additional toweralong the strip at Mooloolaba and has alsocontributed towards the running costs of notonly the tower but also the lifeguard who isstationed there permanently during the life-saving season.

The tie that I am wearing this evening hasbeen made as a memento of the 75th year ofthe club. In particular, I thank Mr Barry Munro,who presented me with the tie. Barry is a long-serving member of the club. He is both anactive member and a life member of thesupporters club at Mooloolaba. I congratulateeverybody involved with the Mooloolaba SurfLife Saving Club on a great milestone in its75th year.

30 Apr 1997 Adjournment 1195

Papaya Fruit FlyMr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (7.06 p.m.):

The papaya fruit fly is a major threat tohorticulture in not only north Queensland butalso the rest of Australia. In recognition of thatthreat, the papaya fruit fly eradicationcampaign is a national effort managed byQueensland on behalf of the Commonwealthand the other States. To date, more than$19m has been expended on control of thepapaya fruit fly under theCommonwealth/State cost-sharingarrangement. The Queensland Governmenthas contributed an additional $4.5m oninfrastructure costs and direct industry subsidyby way of waiving inspection fees.

Encouraging success has been achievedtowards eradicating the papaya fruit fly.Monitoring results indicate that the populationof papaya fruit fly is now low enough to allowthe introduction of sterile insecttechnology—SIT—to mop up the remaininghot spots. SIT uses sterile insects to suppressor eradicate populations of insect pests.Mating between a sterile male and a fertilefemale results in infertile eggs. SIT involvesmass rearing, sterilisation, and release of flies,and has great environmental advantages.

Last February, the Commonwealth andother States approved a budget of almost$24m for the papaya fruit fly eradicationcampaign in 1997-98, including $9.95m forthe construction and commissioning of a SITfacility for papaya fruit fly. Planning of the SITfacility is proceeding well. The chosen site ison the Department of Primary IndustriesWalkamin Research Station, midway betweenMareeba and Atherton in north Queensland.

As part of the planning process, the DPI isfollowing Queensland Department ofEnvironment requirements to assess theenvironmental impact of this development.This will ensure that all necessary approvalsare given before the construction begins. Thefacility will have a production capacity of 125million sterile flies per week from a breedingcolony of more than 20 million flies. The facilitywill operate three shifts per day, seven days aweek to achieve this target.

However, because SIT is a complexdevelopment, the release program is notexpected to be at full strength until late 1998or early 1999. In the interim, existingeradication methods must and will becontinued to maintain the papaya fruit flypopulation at low levels. The release programis planned to continue until at least the year2000 to ensure the eradication of the papayafruit fly. The facility will remain functional for

some time after that to guard against andensure the detection of flare-ups.

The key benefit of the SIT project will bethe eradication of the papaya fruit fly. It willalso reduce the need for chemical controls oncommercial horticultural crops, ease interstateand overseas market restrictions and allowtravellers to freely carry all varieties of fruit andvegetables out of north Queensland. Thefacility will return a substantial benefit to thelocal economy through the hiring of localconstruction, transport and supply contractorsand employment opportunities for processworkers in the facility.

The DPI is proud of the success achievedin the papaya fruit fly eradication campaign.The staff have worked closely with industryand the north Queensland community, and Ilook forward with optimism to the continuingcollaboration as we enter Stage 3 of theeradication campaign to release sterile fliesand finally bring the papaya fruit fly pest toextinction. This has been a long program, ithas involved a lot of people and it is a verywearing process for the farming community.The final process that we are nowentering—the sterilisation—with the flies beingbred up in the tablelands should overcome thedifficulties that we have faced with the papayafruit fly.

Base Funding for Outside SchoolHours Care

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa)(7.11 p.m.): A lot of rhetoric is spoken in thisplace, and people often stand up and simplyrecite speeches which have been written forthem by ministerial staffers or departmentalofficers. But members must feel sickened todefend policies which they know themselvesare totally wrong and are going to have anadverse effect on the people and thecommunities which they represent. Tonight Iwant to say a few words about the FederalGovernment's decision to drastically cutfunding for the Outside School Hours CareProgram.

In my home city of Mount Isa, the localpolice and citizens youth club runs a servicewhereby they take their bus around thevarious schools and collect those children whoparticipate in their scheme. These are thechildren of working parents or single parents.The club provides afternoon tea and organisesinteresting activities for the students. Under ascheme which was initiated by the formerKeating Government, the club receives about$2,000 a month to assist in this program—aprogram which attracts some 80 students per


day. This scheme has a staff ratio of oneperson to 12 students, and there areapproximately five full-time staff working toprovide this much-needed service.

In a circular dated 8 April 1997 from theCommonwealth Department of Family andChildren's Services, the club was informed thatthe funding is being reviewed, and thechances are that the funding will besuspended. This will mean that the police andcitizens youth club has to increase the feeswhich it already charges, which would possiblymean that many of those children whoparticipate in the scheme will not be able tocontinue and will become latchkey kids. Theworse scenario, of course, would be that thescheme simply winds up.

How can any Government which callsitself a caring Government preside over theremoval of such funds? How can any memberof Parliament who cares about the familysupport such a policy? All too often we hear ofthe problems facing youth. Here we have aprogram in existence which gives practicalsupport to our young people, yet the FederalGovernment is trying to wind it back and,indeed, abolish it. I appeal to the members ofthe coalition to put as much pressure aspossible on their mates in Canberra who have,over two Budgets, reduced the allocation tochild care by almost $1 billion—and, indeed,more cuts are expected in the coming FederalBudget. They should ask them to think againabout the road they are going down.

There is one other issue which I want tobring to the attention of this House. Itconcerns the plight and the concerns of daycare mothers. This system has been inoperation in our State for a number of yearsand has proved to be of enormous value toparents who need child-minding facilities.Parents know that if they place their children infamily day care, the premises and the daycarers have all been checked out. There arestandards with which they have to comply.There are conditions laid down. The premisesare inspected and the carers require characterreferences. Obviously, there is a cost involved.With the withdrawal of funding by theGovernment, the cost of family day care willrise, which will bring us back to more and morebackyard operators.

Currently, backyard operators can placean advertisement in the local paper. There areno standards. There are no conditions. Thereare no checks on the premises or, indeed, thecharacter of the people minding children.Because of the increased cost for professionalfamily day care, the backyarders can often

mind children at a lower cost. In the presenteconomic climate, there are many people whowould feel forced into having their childrenminded by these backyarders.

I understand that mothers-in-law, auntiesor close members of the family often mindchildren, and I am sure that nobody has muchof a problem with that. But when peoplesimply advertise in the local paper and set upa business, surely there should be somestandards. There should be checks on thepremises. There should be checks on thecharacter of the individuals so that parentsknow that they are placing their children insafe hands when they go about doing theirwork trying to assist with the family budget.The backyard operators should have a registerwith their local council and meet any local lawssuch as those that apply to food handling andstorage. Indeed, if it is a business, then theyshould be required to register with the councilas a business before they are able to registerat Medicare for the child care cash rebate.

I do not want to start imposing conditionsand standards on people, but I think each andevery one of us in this Parliament has aresponsibility to ensure that those people whostand up and volunteer to mind our children ata price should have standards and should becompelled to meet some of those standardswhich are already forced on to day caremums. This is an emotional subject. There aremany people out there who are——

Time expired.

Mobile Training Unit, CentralQueensland Institute of TAFE

Mrs CUNNINGHAM (Gladstone)(7.16 p.m.): The Central Queensland Instituteof TAFE has extended its services to clients inthe more distant parts of my electoratethrough the acquisition of a second mobiletraining unit. The mobile unit was the library forthe Gladstone City Council. It was purchasedby TAFE and refurbished by college staff toinclude desks, PCs, a printer and an area forbooks. The unit will ensure greater access totraining by people in the more remote areas inour region. The mobile training unit will prove asuccessful and cost-effective means ofdelivering vocational training and education toisolated communities in central Queensland,particularly to those who wish to return to thework force or combine work and study.

The unit, worth more than $200,000,offers a range of training, from computing andbusiness studies to literacy and numeracy andengineering. Areas in our region alreadybenefiting from mobile training include Boyne


Island and Tannum Sands, which is about 20minutes from the Gladstone TAFE; MiriamVale, which is about half an hour to threequarters of an hour away; and Calliope, whichis another half an hour away. It is proposed tocover areas such as the town of SeventeenSeventy, which is a good hour's drive oversome fairly rough road, Mount Larcom,Banana, Theodore, Moura and Springsure.

I had the opportunity to accompany theMinister for Training a week or so ago when heofficially launched the mobile unit. We visitedthe unit when there was actually a class ofcomputer students there. They werepredominantly mature-age students, most ofwhom would not be able to access the TAFEin Gladstone because they had children atschool. With the TAFE on site at the BoyneIsland State School, these people—they wereall women—were able to drop their children atschool because the course started at 9 o'clockand was concluded by 3 o'clock, and theywere able to pick up their children afterwards.Over a 10 or 12-week course these womenwere able to improve their own skills withoutgreatly disadvantaging their responsibilities asfar as home and family were concerned.

We had a break and posed for aphotograph. We talked to the ladies. Theywere absolutely thrilled with the service thatwas being provided. They commented on itsconvenience. They commented on the factthat they could access the service, becausethere is no regular bus service to Gladstone toenable them to attend the TAFE campus.They commented on the range of courses thatwere made available. They commented on thetutor—in this case it was a business tutor.They commented on the facility generally.They were absolutely thrilled with theopportunity to expand their knowledge. Withthe mobile unit going to places such as MountLarcom, Banana, Theodore, Moura andSpringsure—and, I would hope, up the BoyneValley—that will provide opportunities forwomen and men, particularly mature-agestudents, to broaden their skills base withoutimposing an unnecessary cost or anunnecessary impost on them.

I have to commend the TAFE collegepeople in the Gladstone area for their initiative.They found out that the mobile library wasgoing to be sold. They grabbed thatopportunity and purchased it for TAFE. Icommend them also for the refurbishment. Itwas all done in-house. The people in ourregion are certainly the beneficiaries of thisinitiative. Given its success to date—and it hasbeen operating for only a very short period—Iexpect that that is an approach to remote

training that could be adopted by manycommunities across the State. The TAFE inour region is very innovative. Rather thanhaving everybody rush up to the TAFEcollege, it looks at ways of providing trainingexternally—going into the workplace withlaptops and the like to provide training incomputer skills. This TAFE mobile learning unitwill provide yet another venue at which peoplecan learn to improve their job opportunitiesand to improve their self-esteem.

Clunies Ross Centre, BrisbaneTechnology Park

Mr CARROLL (Mansfield) (7.20 p.m.):This week I inspected the new Clunies RossCentre at the Brisbane Technology Park in theelectorate of Mansfield, which I am pleased torepresent. The centre has been established asan important part of the QueenslandGovernment's commitment to innovation,research and development in this State andwill have its soft opening this Friday with aformal opening later on. It represents a jointinvestment of over $6m by the QueenslandGovernment and the Ian Clunies RossMemorial Foundation. It will provide a focus forthe advancement of science, technology andinnovation in Queensland. This was the ethicpromoted by the man after whom the CluniesRoss Foundation was named.

Mr T. B. Sullivan: A great Australian.Mr CARROLL: He was, indeed. Ian

Clunies Ross was a great Australian, achampion of science in a country which hasnot always been as well focused on scienceand innovation as it should have been. Heused his position as head of the CSIRO togreat advantage for the promotion of sciencein Australia. In more recent years, many of thiscountry's most eminent citizens have done anadmirable job in honouring the memory of IanClunies Ross by conducting the affairs of thefoundation in such a way to ensure that thereis always private support for the great mindswhich Australia produces.

With the strong support of theQueensland Minister for Tourism, SmallBusiness and Industry, the Clunies RossCentre will provide a focal point for scienceand technology in Queensland. It contains amajor conference facility equipped with state-of-the-art audiovisual and presentation tools.These are readily accessible to disabled folkand the facility can seat 600 people. This isquite an amazing addition to the electorate ofMansfield, which did not have a facility of thatcapacity. There is a licensed cafeteria andexcellent catering facilities. It is near the


Sunnybank Star Motel and right across theroad from the historic Hughsville Homestead,which is in the process of being redevelopedwith the addition of 60 rooms of motelaccommodation.

This will be an ideal facility in theelectorate. It also houses serviced offices forsmall emerging technology firms, largercommercial office space for established firmsseeking to associate themselves with thisproject and display space suitable for tradefairs and other expositions. The architectureon the building is brilliant. It is very wellconstructed and contains some interestingwatercut marble work. It is bright and openwith good access to daylight and has reallyattractive landscaping. I believe it will play amajor role in assisting technology-basedcompanies in commercialising their researchand development.

Honourable members may be aware thatthe loss of innovative projects to overseasmanufacturers has been a major problem forthis country for decades, mainly because therehas been a lack of expertise or will tocommercialise those ideas here in this country.Our Government and the Clunies Ross Centrewill work together to make sure that that is nolonger the case in Queensland.

In September this year, the centre willplay host to a major exposition. TheInternational Association of Science Parks,known as IASP, will conduct its Asia-Pacificregional conference there. It will be held inconjunction with the Australia and NewZealand Association of Business IncubatorsConference. This should attract bothacademics and a host of technologybusinesses to Queensland. The greatestfeature of all this is the opportunities that thatconference will provide for Queensland andAustralian business. It will put Queenslandbusinesses back at the cutting edge inadvertising their products to the world. It willalso give those overseas companies anopportunity to see what magnificentopportunities exist for investment inQueensland.

The Queensland Manufacturing Instituteis right next door to the Clunies Ross Centre atthe Eight Mile Plains Technology Park. In myview, the centre now caps off theattractiveness of that centre to innovativeindustry. The recent establishment of thenearby Silicon Works Centre has created newopportunities for design and manufacturingfirms to have access to the best computer-aided design facilities in the world. I am proudof this leading edge activity taking place in the

constituency of Mansfield. It is right next doorto the Upper Mount Gravatt regional businesscentre about which I have often spoken in thisHouse. I am still keen to see that centreproperly recognised and developed. It is nearto the light industrial areas of Wecker Road,Mansfield and Kessels Road, Macgregor andthe many commercial offices in Mansfield andUpper Mount Gravatt. The Clunies RossCentre will certainly be a drawcard for myelectorate and I am very pleased to see thatour Government has seen to its developmentin the electorate of Mansfield.

Closure of Union Mining

Mr HAYWARD (Kallangur) (7.25 p.m.):Today, a significant Queensland based miningcompany announced that in the near future40 of its workers would be heading for the dolequeue. Union Mining today informed theAustralian Stock Exchange that theGeorgetown mine in north Queensland willclose in early June 1997. That announcementbrings home to this Parliament thedemonstrated and absolute failure of theBorbidge Government to work for a solution tothe Wik decision. But a worse tragedy is thatthe lack of Government action means that thistragic outcome for a little town such asGeorgetown was preventable.

The background to this lack ofGovernment action basically means that forUnion Mining to viably operate theGeorgetown site, around 10 new miningleases needed to be granted each year. In thepast 18 months, only two mining leases havebeen granted to the company by the MinesDepartment. Of course, the Mines Departmentthrough the Minister and this Governmentimposed a freeze on the granting of miningleases which further delayed the opportunityfor this company to continue its mining activityin Georgetown. This Government laterrelented and released that freeze, but thetrouble is that time has run out and it is toolate because the Georgetown mine has beenworking for the last few months onuneconomic quantities of ore. It has beenforced to operate on low grades of ore.

The company wants—and I think allQueenslanders want and need—aGovernment that is willing to work to find asolution to the problem; a Government that iswilling to resolve the issue, not simply goaround inflaming it. All we have got from thisGovernment and this Premier is plenty of talkand no action. Let us look at it in a practicalcontext. Let us look at the overall impact on


Queensland. What sort of signal does thissend to the mining industry in this State? Inthis case, we have an operating mine todaynotifying the Australian Stock Exchange that itis going to close. What does that mean forany future investment in Queensland? Surelywe are going to see it stall.

The big picture, of course, is the focus forregional Queensland. For Georgetown, theclosure of the mine will mean the loss of about40 jobs in a town of only 300 people and aloss of significant income to local businesses.There will be in excess of $1m less circulatingin the town each year. Of course, a similaramount will be foregone by the Government intaxes and charges that were used to fund theoperation. What will happen next inGeorgetown? There will be a loss of a teacher;there will be the closure of another business;and the whole regional nature of that area willbegin to collapse because this Government isdoing nothing. It just concentrates on inaction.It spends its time grandstanding on the issue.We now have a major industry which has sunkinto chaos with the loss of jobs and, mostimportantly, the loss of confidence that thatbrings. The Mayor of the Etheridge Shire,John Smith, has been quoted as saying thatthe closure of the town's major employer willhave a major effect on the morale of thetown's people.

When we talk about Union Mining and itsactivities in Queensland, we are talking abouta Queensland-based public company—andthey are rare enough as it is without thishappening to them. What did the AustralianMines Handbook, which is generally known asthe bible of Australian mining, say about UnionMining? It says under the heading of"operations"—

"UMG has the Georgetown goldproject near Georgetown in Qld. The plantmilled 120,000t ore averaging 2.76g/tgold for 8,332 oz gold to year endDecember 1995."

Under "development", it says—"UMG has the Croydon gold project

150kmW of Georgetown, Qld, where afeasibility was underway based on a totalresource of 0.74Mt @ 3.6g/t gold."

Under "exploration" it says—"UMG explores for gold in Qld and

PNG."

When the next edition of this handbookcomes out, it is going to say that there are nooperations in Queensland, no Queenslanddevelopment——

Time expired.Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.

wednesday, 30 april 1997 ministerial statement

Documents