Legislative Assembly 993 14 May 1996 - Queensland ...

Legislative Assembly 993 14 May 1996

TUESDAY, 14 MAY 1996

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

ASSENT TO BILLSAssent to the following Bills reported by

Mr Speaker—Constitution (Parliamentary Secretaries)Amendment Bill;Courts (Video Link) Amendment Bill;

Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Bill;Local Government Amendment Bill;Land Amendment Bill;Land Title Amendment Bill;Education (Work Experience) Bill.

PETITIONSThe Clerk announced the receipt of the

following petitions—

Homosexuals, LegislationFrom Mr Carroll (1,109 signatories)

requesting the House to reject theCommonwealth Powers (Amendment) Bill orany similar Queensland legislation that mighteither refer to the Federal Government theState powers over property rights of "defactomarriage" parties or homosexual pairs orcreate any additional rights for homosexuals.

CatsFrom Mr Horan (44 signatories)

requesting the House to (a) direct councils toban the use of traps by the general public fortrapping domestic pet cats. Any such trappingof injured, stray or wild cats only beundertaken by the RSPCA or councilpersonnel under strict conditions as they relateto the Animal Protection Act and (b) addressthe control of excess populations of cats, andto encourage desexing of cats with subsidiesand, if favoured, overnight curfews, registrationand compulsory identification of cats.

Bingil BayFrom Mr Rowell (196 signatories)

requesting the House that, in the event of therealignment of the boundaries in the MissionBeach area, Bingil Bay remains in theJohnstone Shire.

Petitions received.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS In accordance with the schedulecirculated by the Clerk to members in theChamber, the following documents weretabled—

Acts Interpretation Act 1954—Criminal Code Regulation 1996, No. 84

Coal Industry (Control) Act 1948—Coal Industry (Control) AmendmentRegulation (No. 2) 1996, No. 92

Coal Mining Act 1925—Coal Mining (Moranbah North) ExemptionOrder 1996, No. 91

Crimes (Confiscation) Act 1989—

Crimes (Confiscation) Regulation 1996,No. 89

Criminal Code [1995]—

Criminal Code Regulation 1996, No. 84Electricity Act 1994—

Electricity Amendment Regulation (No. 1)1996, No. 86

Hospitals Foundations Act 1982—Hospitals Foundation (Townsville GeneralHospital Foundation) Rule 1996, No. 90

Lotteries Act 1994—Lotteries Rule 1996, No. 93

Queensland Cement & Lime Company LimitedAgreement Act 1977—

Queensland Cement & Lime CompanyLimited Agreement Amendment Order(No. 1) 1996, No. 85

State Development and Public WorksOrganization 1971—

State Development and Public WorksOrganisation (State Development Area)Regulation 1996, No. 82

Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act1982—

Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements(Application of Parts 4 and 5) AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1996, No. 83

Traffic Act 1949—Traffic and Transport AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1996, No. 88

Transport Infrastructure (Roads) Act 1991—Traffic and Transport AmendmentRegulation (No. 1) 1996, No. 88

Water Resources Act 1989—

Water Resources (Avondale Water SupplyArea and Water Board) Regulation 1996,No. 87.

PAPERS TABLED DURING RECESSThe Clerk announced that the following

papers were tabled during the recess—

14 May 1996 994 Legislative Assembly

3 May 1996Valuers Registration Board ofQueensland—Annual Report 1995

13 May 1996

Lang Park Trust—Annual Report 1995.

PAPER

The following paper was laid on thetable—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for theArts (Mrs Sheldon)—

Report in relation to third partypremiums—1 July 1996.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT

Maternity Leave

Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (9.35 a.m.), by leave: It is with greatpleasure that I rise in this place to inform theParliament of the Queensland Government'smoves to bring State public servants towardparity in regard to paid maternity leave. As theHouse may be aware, the State Governmentannounced that from 1 July State publicservants will be eligible for six weeks' paidmaternity leave. This is a major breakthroughfor Queensland public servants, and it is thefirst time they have been able to receive paidmaternity leave.

The previous Government hadannounced during the Mundingburra by-election that it would provide paid maternityleave for the State's public servants. However,upon obtaining Government in February thecoalition discovered that these promises hadnot been costed and that no money had beenput aside to pay for the cost of paid maternityleave. When combined with the underlying1995-96 deficit of $185m and the projecteddeficit of $240m in 1996-97, there was severedoubt over whether the Government couldfund Labor's uncosted promise. Fortunately,the Queensland coalition Government hasprovided money out of contingency funds andsupplementary savings to fund this initiative.The Government will also take the cost of thismaternity leave allocation into considerationwhen negotiating enterprise bargaining in thefuture. The initiative will cost between $15mand $17m a year.

This is a major breakthrough for womenworking within the Queensland public serviceand it is a move towards the positions of theCommonwealth, New South Wales andVictorian Governments. In fact, this decision

brings the Queensland Government into linewith private sector companies like Westpac,AMP, the Commonwealth Bank and LendLease.

Our decision shows the Queenslandcoalition Government's commitment toproviding improved conditions for Queenslandpublic servants. Paid maternity leave helps theQueensland public service retain theinvestment in skills and training of its femaleemployees. Six weeks' paid maternity leave isin line with the private sector and will,therefore, not put too much pressure on theprivate sector, which is already under enoughpressure. This initiative will benefit a significantnumber of women within the public service,including nurses and teachers.

The coalition Government is again movingto clean up the mess left by the previousLabor Government, which had made yetanother unfunded and uncosted promise inregard to paid maternity leave. On that note, Iwish to refer to some of the quite unbelievableclaims of the Opposition yesterday. TheOpposition spokesperson on women's affairs,Judy Spence, rushed out yesterday to hold apress conference to do what she does best:have a whinge. In particular, Ms Spence madeclaims that our decision to introduce six weeks'paid maternity leave instead of 12 wouldseverely affect those female public servantswho had become pregnant because ofLabor's pre-Mundingburra promise.

Let us get this right: Ms Spence is sayingthat some Queensland women ran out andbecame pregnant on the basis of a LaborParty election promise. Whom does MsSpence think she is kidding? Anyone whomade such a serious life decision on the basisof a Labor Party election promise obviouslyhas not been keeping up with events over thelast six years. Labor has broken more electionpromises than Paul Keating has antiqueclocks. Is Ms Spence suggesting that inNovember this year, nine months after Labor'sFebruary promise, we are going to have ababy boom—a Labor election-promise inspiredbaby boom? Talk about a case of hard labour!

I think Ms Spence made a fool of herselfand the Labor Party with her unbelievableclaims yesterday that Queensland faces aLabor election-promise inspired baby boom.The people of Queensland know better thanto trust Labor promises. There is no way Laborcould have afforded to provide 12 weeks ofpaid maternity leave this year, unless it tookthe Peter Beattie approach to Health and juststole money from capital works for recurrentfunding or went into debt. The Queensland


coalition Government has taken the first stepsin providing——

Mr BEATTIE: Those remarks areuntrue. I find them offensive and I ask that, inthe interests of the dignity of this House, theybe withdrawn.

Mrs SHELDON: I thought the HealthMinister, Mr Horan, had adequately explainedand shown the House that the words areabsolutely true.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader ofthe Opposition finds the remarks offensive andasks that they be withdrawn. I ask thehonourable member to withdraw.

Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, on yourdirection I withdraw.

The Queensland coalition Governmenthas taken the first steps to provide paidmaternity leave for the State's public servants.It will happen under this Government; it wouldcertainly have never happened under Labor.


Queensland Treasury CorporationHon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: TheQueensland Treasury Corporation half-yearlyreport provides details to Parliament of thecorporation's activities over that period,particularly with regard to its operating surplus,borrowings and overall financial performance.Queensland Treasury Corporation's operatingsurplus before payment in lieu of tax was$66.6m for the half year ending December1995 as compared with $31.7m for the sameperiod in 1994. The increase was mainly dueto part of the Stanwell cross-border leasetransaction benefit received by QTC. Thebenefit flowing to QTC was approximately$64m, of which $28m was set aside incontingency provision and $36m contributedto the net surplus of QTC.

Offshore borrowings outstandingincreased in market value terms from $7,891mat 30 June 1995 to $9,406m at 31 December1995. Conversely, domestic borrowingsoutstanding decreased in market value termsduring the half year from $11,524m to$9,084m. Growth in overseas borrowings wasmainly due to QTC taking advantage ofopportunities available in the Japanese retailbond market. QTC outperformed itsbenchmark during the half year by $50.3m.Some $14.8m of that amount was attributableto QTC management of its debt pools. Theremainder, $35.5m, was attributable to QTC

borrowing at margins below other centralborrowing authorities. It has proved to be aproductive six months for QTC, and I wish tocommend this report to the House. I table thereport.


Standard of Preparation andTimeliness of Departmental

Statements Hon. J. M. SHELDON (Caloundra—

Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister forThe Arts) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: On 14November 1995, the report Response toPublic Accounts Committee Report No. 33 onthe Standard of Preparation and Timeliness ofDepartmental Statements was tabled in theLegislative Assembly. As the Ministerresponsible for actions relating torecommendations in this report, I now table aresponse to the 32 recommendations of thereport.

Many of the recommendations arecovered by existing responsibilities of theaccountable officers under section 503 of thePublic Finance Standards. No furtherelaboration on departmental responsibilitiesthrough legislation is considered necessary.My department is writing to all accountableofficers in the context of the above reportreminding them of their obligations in thesematters. Several recommendations requireminor amendments to the FinancialAdministration and Audit Act forimplementation. These amendments will beincluded in the package of amendments that Iplan to introduce in July.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTChild Abuse Telephone Hotline

Hon. K. R. LINGARD (Beaudesert—Minister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare) (9.44 a.m.), by leave: I refer to aresolution during the last sitting of the Housecalling on the Government to set up anindependent authority to investigateallegations of paedophilia and child abuse.None of us condones paedophilia, nor do wewant half-measures when seeking out andconvicting those who commit such offences.

I am pleased to report that I have beenactively following up on the resolution of theHouse with regards to the setting up of anindependent authority. I believe that anauthority set up along the guidelines of theAnti-discrimination Commission, which isresponsible to both the State and Federal


authorities, would be able to investigate allforms of child abuse, including paedophilia. Iwelcome the House's endorsement of theGovernment's commitment to cooperate fullywith any Federal Government inquiry intopaedophilia.

Family Services Ministers struck anhistorical agreement on 22 March regarding anationally coordinated child protectionstrategy, including information-sharing aboutconvicted paedophiles and child abusers. Iintend to inform the House of developments ata national level which will have consequencesin terms of the State's response. The Councilof Family Services Ministers is due to meetagain on Friday, 17 May, to discussprogressing the National Child ProtectionStrategy.

I would further like to announce today myintention to set up a dedicated telephonehotline service as a measure—an interimmeasure, I must admit—to determine whatresources need to be committed to theinvestigation of complaints of child sexualabuse. Many victims of child abuse arehesitant or intimidated by the prospect ofraising the matter with police. This dedicatedtelephone service will provide an intermediarystep and will also act as a referral agency interms of accessing counselling for victims. Thephone line will be a 24-hour service staffed byqualified counsellors who are highlyexperienced in child protection and abusematters. It is intended that the telephonehotline service will receive complaintsregarding abuse and will refer matters toexisting investigative authorities, particularlythe CJC and police, for investigation.

The two client groups that are expected tomake use of the service are adult victims ofchild sexual abuse and children who arecurrently living with the spectre of abuse.These two client groups have starkly differentneeds and different procedures will need to bedeveloped for dealing with issues pertinent toadult victims of child sexual abuse. Thestatutory duties of my department and theservices it provides currently relate to childvictims of abuse and neglect. There aresignificant legal implications that need to beresolved by my department in concert withCrown law and the police. Certainly, ifinformation received has implications of a childcurrently at risk, that information will receiveimmediate attention.

It is also intended that this telephonehotline service will compile statistics related tothe number of calls, age of caller, type ofoffence, dates of alleged offences and the like

in order to have information on the types ofresponses and services required. Mydepartment is also liaising with police toensure that information gathered is in a formthat is useful for them in terms of seekingpotential prosecutions. These statistics will alsoassist the department to formulate a budgetresponse to this issue in the coming financialyear, as well as determining the response tothe Parliament regarding an independentinquiry. The information will also be valuable interms of gauging a national response.

In conclusion, I recommend this initialcourse of action to the House as an interimbut positive response to the issue of victims ofchild sexual and other forms of abuse and indetermining a well thought out and targetedresponse from the Government.


Gun Control Laws

Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—Minister for Police and Corrective Services andMinister for Racing) (9.47 a.m.), by leave: LastFriday, I represented Queensland in mycapacity as Police Minister at the summit ongun laws in Canberra. That meeting, aspecially convened meeting of theAustralasian Police Ministers Council, waschaired by the Federal Attorney-General andaddressed by the Prime Minister. Thatmeeting of Ministers from all Governments—Federal, State and Territory—agreed torecommend to their Governments 11 separateresolutions.

Queensland went to that meeting with abipartisan position worked out cooperativelywith the Opposition, and I thank it for theconstructive nature of its input. I thank also thehonourable member for Gladstone for hervaluable input.

At that meeting, all Ministers shared theconcerns articulated by the Prime Minister thaturgent action be taken on gun laws.Understandably, there were differingviewpoints as to how we could best reach new,practical and achievable gun control laws andimplement the awesome logistical andpractical operation needed to make these newlaws work. That does not imply disagreementbut, rather, mature discussion on how to bestmeet the generally agreed need.

The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, spoke tothe ministerial council of his understandingthat tens of thousands of decent, law-abidingcitizens who have legally owned, operated andused firearms—often for years—will beadversely affected by these laws. Mr Howard


admitted that many of them will feelunderstandable resentment at the newprohibitions. Certainly, I fully understand andshare his concern. I cannot stress enough theanger, hurt and dismay felt by these manytens of thousands of people. These peopleare honest and responsible and havecomplied with the existing law and they feelthat they are now being punished, eventhough many of them have owned and storedwithout incident guns which will now bebanned for decades.

Every Minister at that meeting believedthat people who currently legally own gunswhich will now be prohibited should be fairlyand properly compensated for the loss of theirassets. I believe that the Federal Cabinet ismeeting in Sydney today to discuss thecompensation issue. The Prime Minister hassaid that he expects to be in a position toadvise the States and Territories on the detailsof the financing of this compensation-for-surrender scheme by the end of this week,and I understand that he will be writing to thePremier about this matter. I am not interestedin or intimidated by the vocal minority ofextremists, but I repeat that I am acutelyaware that the nationally agreed course ofaction will severely and directly affect thechosen sport or hobby of many decent, law-abiding people. Their sense of disappointmentand even anger is profound and sincere.However, the resolutions taken at that summitnow need to be translated into legislation, andall State and Territory Governments are nowmoving to amend or introduce firearmslegislation which incorporates all of thoseresolutions.

I am advised that the ban on importationof weapons already banned by the FederalGovernment will be effective immediately, andI understand that the only exceptions to theban will be a limited range for official oroccupational purposes certified by a permit.Fortunately for their sake and their legitimate,proper purposes, primary producers will beable to access low-powered, self-loading .22sand self-loading and pump-action shotguns ifthey can satisfy police that they have agenuine need for them. The resolutionsprovide for all Police Services to link into aneffective nationwide computer system, with thedatabases of individual States and Territorieslinked through the National Exchange ofPolice Information. The resolutions provide forfive categories of licence, with requirements toprovide genuine reasons for owning,possessing or using a firearm. A licence wouldbe refused, cancelled or seized also forspecific reasons such as a history of domestic

violence or if there is reliable evidence that theapplicant or licence holder has a mental orphysical condition which would render theapplicant unsuitable. The coalition inQueensland had already addressed this issuein Opposition by its promise to establish aprohibited persons register.

Under the resolutions, a separate permitwill be required for every firearm and all suchpermits will be preceded by a 28-daycooling-off period prior to issuing. AllGovernments will develop a standardapproach to tighter and more secure storageof firearms and ammunition. All firearms saleswill be conducted only by or through licensedfirearms dealers, with special provisions forthose in remote locations where licensed gundealers may not be easily accessible. In thiscase, it may be that local police officers will beauthorised to certify sales or purchases.Similarly, mail order sales will be strictlycontrolled and apply only on a licensed gundealer to licensed gun dealer basis, with strictcontrols on advertising as well.

There is myriad complex detail to beworked through in translating these resolutionsinto workable law. That will require patienceand time. Yesterday, I briefed Cabinet on theimplications, and Cabinet endorsed my actionsboth prior to and on my return from theCanberra Police Ministers' conference. Myadvice from the Queensland Police Servicehas indicated significant implications for themfor staff numbers and equipment, with aconservative estimate of the cost at this stagebeing around $2.2m to establish thenecessary expanded administrativemachinery. I have already raised this concernwith the Prime Minister, and he has indicatedthat he will be sympathetic to appeals forspecial assistance to the States and Territoriesto meet the added impost. As I said earlier, weare waiting for the Commonwealth to get backto us with details on how it proposes to financethe buy-back of guns which will be prohibited.

Adequate and proper compensation willbe absolutely critical to the success of thenational decisions, and the amnesty,proposed at 12 months, must be genuine ifwe are not to see vast numbers of these gunsgo underground. Any failure to ensureadequate and fair compensation will onlyserve to create a dangerous underground,illegal black market in dangerous weapons.The implications of such a black market arehorrendous because it would inevitably meanthat illegal, high-powered, military-style assaultweapons would fall into the hands of thosemost determined to pay any price and breakany law to obtain guns.


The Commonwealth has also undertakento provide advice to all Governments onrecommended minimum penalties forbreaches of the new laws, and this also isawaited. It is imperative after this advice isreceived and considered that we undertakedetailed briefings with all affected groups toexplain how the new laws will operate. I intendto convene these meetings after the furthernecessary advice is received from theCommonwealth and the Queensland PoliceService and the Government has consideredit.

Again I stress that I am fully aware thatthese proposed new laws will presentenormous difficulties and cause greatdisappointment to many decent, law-abidinggun owners who feel that they are beingpenalised by the actions of a very few—a fewwho generally have failed in the past torecognise what law existed. The resolutionsarrived at at the ministerial meeting are noguarantee that we will not see a repeat of thehorror of Port Arthur in the future, but theyform the basis for laws which are designed tocontain, as far as is humanly possible, the riskof such a future tragedy.

We—as a Government, as a communityand, of course, let us not forget the media—must look way beyond simply tightening gunlaws if we are to meet the community'sabsolutely heartfelt wish to have a safersociety. We must look at all of the otheraspects that contribute to any culture ofviolence. That includes assessing the impactof violence-orientated films and videos and theway Governments and society respond to thechallenge of ensuring that the mentally ill aretreated humanely and, for the greater good,safely. These new gun laws will play a part;reducing the overall number of firearmsfloating around in the community mustcontribute positively to creating that safersociety. But it cannot be and must not beseen to be the whole answer, because thatwould be nothing more than dangerousself-deception.

We have already begun preliminary workon the necessary draft legislativeamendments. My office has been deluged—as have been the offices of all members, I amsure—by letters, faxes and telephone callsfrom people with points of view from acrossthe spectrum of the debate. I know that mostHonourable Ministers and members have alsofelt the heat. I table the ministerial councilresolutions reached last Friday and the PrimeMinister's statement on that day.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTJohn Oxley Memorial Hospital; Death

of Mr S. Johnson

Hon. M. J. HORAN (ToowoombaSouth—Minister for Health) (9.56 a.m.), byleave: I wish to inform the House of thefindings of an inquiry held into the death of apatient at the John Oxley Memorial Hospitalon 12 January 1996. Mr Shaun AndrewJohnson, a young Aboriginal man, was founddead after tying his shirt around his neck andhanging himself from a window security grille inUrquhart Ward of the hospital. QueenslandHealth was of course concerned that a patientunder its care had committed suicide, andpublic concern about procedures at the JohnOxley Memorial Hospital led the Governmentto direct the Chief Health Officer to use powersunder the Mental Health Act 1974 to inquireinto the circumstances of Mr Johnson's deathand recent cases of patients going absentwithout leave from the facility.

The inquiry was formally called on 16January 1996 by the then Minister for Health.Terms of reference of the inquiry were set afterconsultation with interest groups and Crownlaw. The inquiry was conducted in three parts.Firstly, a review was undertaken of operationsat the John Oxley Memorial Hospital;secondly, consultative input was sought on thefindings of the review team; and, thirdly, aproposal for implementation of therecommendations of the review team wasprepared. The Chief Health Officer appointedthree health professionals to form the reviewteam: Dr Angus Dodds, a psychiatrist withknowledge of the Queensland mental healthtreatment system and mental healthlegislation, who was appointed chairperson;Ms Raighne Jordan, a clinical nurse consultantat an adult mental health facility in Sydneywho has experience in forensic psychiatry; andMr Ronald Doyle, project coordinator of theAmbulatory Care Reform Project whichinvolves a study into Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander access to health services.

The review team undertook aninformation-gathering process which includedcalling for written submissions, conductinginterviews with hospital staff, patients, ATSIgroups and other stakeholders to the inquiryand gathering documentary material.Information was also obtained from otheragencies which conducted inquiries into thedeath of Mr Johnson. The Commissioner forPolice provided copies of the police file and,although the coronial inquest is not complete,autopsy details were provided to the inquiry.


Mr Johnson's family agreed to the inclusion ofcertain detailed information in this statement.

The inquiry found that Mr Johnson tookthe opportunity to end his life deliberately andthat no blame could be attached to anyindividual or group of individuals for his death.As sad as it is, Mr Johnson was determined tocommit suicide. Whether by plan orpremeditation or on sudden impulse, thepatient took the opportunity between nurseobservations, scheduled at 15-minuteintervals, to hang himself. Lengthy interviewswith nursing staff of all levels did not identifyany evidence of failure to comply with nursingpolicies and procedures or any evidence ofnegligence or failure to carry out nursing dutiesor obligations towards Mr Johnson. All formalrequirements of the Mental Health Act andregulations were complied with and all formsappropriately completed at the correct times.There was no evidence of inappropriate actionby the police. Also, interviews with medicalpractitioners involved in the care of MrJohnson while at the John Oxley MemorialHospital did not identify any lack of properpsychiatric care, assessment or treatment ofMr Johnson while at the facility.

The report of the inquiry makesrecommendations to Queensland Health andto the Wolston Park Hospital for improving thedelivery of mental health services in this State.Thirty recommendations apply internally to theJohn Oxley Memorial Hospital or to theWolston Park Hospital complex, and 14 relateto indigenous peoples' issues within the facilityor generally. A key recommendation relates tosubmissions from Aboriginal and Islandergroups to include deaths in custody of Health,under the forensic provisions of the MentalHealth Act, as part of the Aboriginal deaths incustody register. Given that the royalcommission decided to specifically excludesuch deaths, I undertake to seek furtheradvice on this recommendation.

Several matters raised by this inquiry areof general concern. Firstly, the inquiry reflectedthe findings of the Royal Commission intoAboriginal Deaths in Custody that there existsa gross overrepresentation of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander people in custodial carefacilities. At the John Oxley Memorial Hospital,indigenous patients are approximately one-quarter of the patient population, while in thegeneral Wolston Park Hospital complex thatfigure is approximately 5 per cent. Thisoverrepresentation in part reflects the realitieswhich still exist of predisposing socialdisadvantage. As Professor Ernest Hunter putit, this overrepresentation "reflects issues ofsystematic bias" found in both medical andcriminal jurisdictions. He further comments—

"There is a tendency for thecriminalising of Aboriginal disputative andconfrontative behaviour, with sequencesset in motion which lead to the escalationin charges and consequences."Whilst at the John Oxley Memorial

Hospital, Mr Johnson was secluded on fouroccasions for altercations with other patients.There is no issue that Aboriginal and Islanderpatients complain of more than the use ofseclusion, which so closely resemblesincarceration and which is almost invariablyperceived as punishment.

It is clear that health facilities have asignificant way to go before the real andspecial needs of ATSI patients are fullyrealised and addressed. Consequently,specific recommendations from the inquiryfocus on the need to improve culturalawareness training across mental healthfacilities. Queensland Health has developed aplan for implementing the recommendationsof this inquiry. It intends to implementimmediately the inquiry's recommendation thatan Aboriginal mental health worker beappointed to work with ATSI patients at theJohn Oxley Memorial Hospital. ATSI patientsat the Wolston Park Hospital complex andJohn Oxley Memorial Hospital currently sharethe services of one ATSI liaison officer.Queensland Health will establish a steeringcommittee to overview the implementation ofrecommendations made by this inquiry. Thissteering committee will report back to meregularly on progress.

Mr Johnson's mother and eldest brotherhave been briefed on the findings of thisinquiry by the Chief Health Officer. Additionally,at 10 o'clock this morning, the Chief HealthOfficer will also brief the various involvedstakeholders, including staff unions, Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander groups and legalhealth professional groups. John OxleyMemorial Hospital staff will be briefed on theresults of the inquiry this afternoon at 2 p.m.,also by the Chief Health Officer.

For the information of members of theHouse, I table the report of the inquiry undersection 9 of the Mental Health Act 1974 intoincidents at the John Oxley Memorial Hospital.


Primary Industries LegislationAmendment Bill

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (10.03 a.m.), by leave: At the firstreading of the Primary Industries Legislation


Amendment Bill on 1 May 1996, ExplanatoryNotes were presented to the Parliament.There were three inconsistencies betweenwhat was provided for in the Bill and theexplanation contained in the ExplanatoryNotes. For the purposes of completeness, Inow table the corrections to the ExplanatoryNotes.


Flood Relief for Farmers; Allegationsby Mr T. Black

Hon. T. J. PERRETT (Barambah—Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries andForestry) (10.04 a.m.), by leave: Farmers allover this State are disgusted by thedisgraceful tirade launched against them byTerry Black in the Courier-Mail yesterday. Theyare disgusted, and I am disgusted. That pieceon the lead business page of the Courier-Mailhad no basis in fact. It was just the feveredimaginings of a man with no knowledge of reallife, or of the situations facing the farmers heso obviously detests. That tirade was not evenwritten by a journalist. No journalist would haveput his or her name to the garbage whichappeared under Mr Black's picture and name.Mr Black is an academic at the QueenslandUniversity of Technology—highly paid from thepublic purse. He is also a man who chooses tosatisfy his ego by using his privileged positionto write poison-pen columns for the Courier-Mail. Unlike a trained professional journalist,Mr Black has not bothered to research thesubject he chose to gratify his need forattention.

I want to consider some of Mr Black'sfalse assertions in detail, but firstly, I want tomake a general point. Food is grown byfarmers; it is not magically conjured out of thinair. Consumers have to buy food, and theprice they pay is determined by supply anddemand. Even someone locked away in theivory towers of QUT should realise that, if alarge part of the State supply of freshvegetables is ruined by flood, then there willbe shortages and price rises. That is preciselythe situation in the Lockyer Valley andsurrounding areas right now. Vast quantities ofproduce have been ruined, and farminfrastructure has been severely damaged.When Government decides on measures toget farms back into production, and new cropsplanted, that is not a handout or a waste ofmoney; it is an investment in putting food onQueensland tables, and an investment inkeeping down the shortages and price risewhich so badly affect consumers, including MrBlack. If the Government did not act, the

whole community would suffer—not just thefarmers Mr Black asks us to consign tobankruptcy.

Let me turn now to some of the arrant,unsupported nonsense in Mr Black's column.For a start, he tells us that the public does notsupport the Government's proposed $500mrelief loans. What induced that fever in hisbrain? There are only 500-odd growers in thearea affected by the floods. At most, 100would have been affected to the degree thatthey would need emergency carry-on loans.Even if each borrowed $50,000—highlyunlikely—the total would not pass $5m. Ofcourse, the amount will probably be muchless. Certainly, $5m is a very long way short of$500m—perhaps a mere detail to Mr Black,but important to a paper of record such as theCourier-Mail. Mr Black tells us that, inQueensland, the climate is harsh, withdroughts and floods, and that farmers shouldself-insure. Certainly, the Lockyer Valley hasfloods; the last was in 1974—a mere 22 yearsago. Mr Black glossed over that one. Therehas been drought in the Lockyer Valley,too—five years' worth—but farmers have doneall they can. They have succeeded to thepoint where they produce 30 per cent of theState's vegetable crops. Some figures hereare interesting.

Lockyer Valley farmers produce 100 percent of our cauliflowers, 84 per cent of ourcarrots, 62 per cent of our broccoli, 60 per centof our potatoes, 57 per cent of our lettuce and85 per cent of our onions. I make the pointthat if we farmed only those areas which neverhave floods and never have droughts, wewould have no farms at all. As to self-insurance—that is precisely what farmers do:they put aside the profits of the good years totide them over the bad ones. They do nothave the luxury—as Mr Black does—of apermanent call on the public purse, not evenremotely dependent on how well they perform.A dud farmer soon goes out of business, whilea dud lecturer keeps on peddling hisnonsense.

Mr Black regales his audience with thislittle gem. He says that because politiciansinvariably give disaster relief, farmers have noincentive to take steps to mitigate the effectsof drought or floods by building dams. Theman lives in la la land! He must go down tothe bottom of the garden and dance withelves! Does he seriously believe that individualfarmers, or even groups of them, could musterthe resources to build dams to hold back thewater generated by the recent rains? Much ofsouth-east Queensland has had rainfall totalsof well over a metre recently. It takes more


money than even Governments can muster toharness the power of that much water. Implicitin Mr Black's tirade is the notion that farmersalone should pay for dams. We do not askmetropolitan water users to do that. Whyshould we ask farmers to do so?

Mr Black should venture into the world ofreality. He should attempt to understand thatthe world does not revolve around academiceconomic theories. Real people in the realworld make their decisions on the basis of awhole range of factors, and economics is justone of them. People have to eat; they have towear clothes made from fibres; and theydepend on the output of farms for everythingwhich keeps them alive and comfortable. It isthe prime purpose of Governments to ensurethat citizens have access to these things, tomake decisions based on the needs of thecommunity, and to balance expectationsagainst economics. Farmers provide our foodand fibre, and we, as Government, must seethey are able to do so. That means providinginfrastructure such as dams, power stationsand transport systems. It means providing abanking system and regulatory regimes whichensure we have food which is healthy,reasonably priced and in good supply. Itmeans getting farmers back into productionquickly after natural disasters, and I make noapology for being part of a Government whichdoes that. I am proud to be part of aGovernment which is prepared to actdecisively to ensure a quality food supply forlocal consumers. I am also proud to be part ofensuring that we have quality produceavailable for our export markets—part ofraising export income. If we can keep that up,Government will have the means to pay for allsorts of other things that society asks us to do,including paying the wages for academics whoabuse their privileged positions as newspapercolumnists.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTLocal Government Commissioner;

Report

Hon. D. E. McCAULEY (Callide—Minister for Local Government and Planning)(10.12 a.m.), by leave: By law I must table acopy of any report from the Local GovernmentCommissioner within seven sitting days ofreceiving it. Today is the final day to do that,so under the Local Government Act 1993 I layupon the table of the House—

(1) a copy of a notification of the LocalGovernment Commissioner dated 16 April1996 withdrawing part of a reference tothe Local Government Commissioner

dated 20 March 1996 in relation to areview of a local government matter inrespect of the Council of the City ofCaloundra;

(2) a copy of the each of the final reports tothe Local Government Commissioner onthe review of the external boundaries ofthe following local governments: the Shireof Dalrymple and the City of ChartersTowers, the Shire of Maroochy and theShire Noosa, the Shire of Kilkivan and theShire of Cooloola, the City of Caloundraand the Shire of Caboolture, the Shire ofCalliope and the Shire of Monto, the Cityof Caloundra and the Shire of Maroochy,the Shire of Cooloola and the Shire ofNoosa.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTValuations System

Hon. H. W. T. HOBBS (Warrego—Minister for Natural Resources) (10.13 a.m.),by leave: Much concern has been expressedover a long period by industry groups andmembers of the general public about theState's valuations system. The last majorlegislative changes to the process were in1985 when annual valuations were introduced.A report on the system was instigated in 1990,but little action was taken, and the system hascontinued largely as it was since then. In short,the Government believes that the currentsystem is not working anywhere near anacceptable level of performance. Accordingly, Ihave initiated a review of the system with theaim of making it more open, accountable andunderstood by the public. We want a fairersystem and one that puts service delivery atthe forefront.

A person well experienced in the field, MrLen Evans, a former employee of the LandAdministration Commission and previouslyprivate enterprise, has been appointed as theindependent project manager to head thedepartmental study of the system. Mr Evanswill liaise with the major stakeholders both inBrisbane and in regional Queensland. He andhis working group will take into accountprevious studies on this issue, call forsubmissions and examine processes used inother States. The review report is due to bewith me by the end of September, but this willnot preclude rolling announcements to bemade as some issues are decided. Overall theworking group will also study whethervaluations should be linked to productivity andthe health of different industries, the level ofresources needed to deliver the new programand the appropriateness of the objection andappeal processes.


There is no doubt that both the generalpublic and industry bodies feel disadvantagedunder the present system. A large number ofobjections have been received over recentvaluations and many Queenslanders havevalid concerns about them. As well, land taxand Crown rentals are assessed onunimproved capital value, and there is a flow-on effect across all these areas. We will beseeking to ensure that people are being taxedby the correct or appropriate method. Also, thereview will be seeking to sort out relativityproblems between valuation districts, wherecliff face changes can result in properties sideby side having variances in their valuations. Asignificant part of the problem is resourcebased, following departmental staff cutbacksby the previous Government, and we will beensuring that staff levels accord with theservice delivery performance required.

Another consideration is that in somesections within and between shires we hear ofpeople being excessively rated, and localgovernment can play an important role hereand strike a differential rate. However, theyhave been reluctant to do so. We will betalking with local authorities over the next fewweeks and the Minister for Local Governmentwith a view to obtaining a cooperativeapproach to this issue.


Petroleum Fuel Products

Hon. R. T. CONNOR (Nerang—Minister for Public Works and Housing)(10.15 a.m.), by leave: A two-year standingoffer arrangement for the supply of petroleumfuel products was put in place on 1 September1994. The standing offer arrangement isdesigned to ensure Government not only getsmaximum benefit from its purchasing powerbut also improves its management of fuels toreduce inventories, fraud and evaporation aswell as its exposure to environmental concernsin storage and handling. The arrangement,which covers all Government departments andagencies and a number of port authorities andlocal authorities, provides contractual coverover annual fuel purchases of around $120m.Of this figure, fuel card transactions represent$39.6m, with some $80.4m in bulk purchases.Products covered include petrol, diesel,propane, lighting kerosene and aviation fuel.

Prices paid under the contractualarrangements are set monthly and based oninternational oil prices and exchange ratevariations. This ensures that best value for

money is achieved over time and throughoutthe State, despite short-term discountingwhere the retail price in some areas may fallbelow that set under contract.

The Public Accounts Committee recentlytabled report No. 34 dated 14 November 1995titled "The Use of Fuel Cards in the PublicSector" in which 21 recommendations weredetailed. I table the response to that report.

ABSENCE OF PREMIER

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (10.16 a.m.): I wish toinform honourable members that the Premierwill be absent from the House today as he isattending the Indonesian Trade Summit inJakarta.

SELECT COMMITTEE ONPROCEDURAL REVIEW

Extension of Time to Report

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (10.16 a.m.), by leave,without notice: I move—

"That the resolution of the LegislativeAssembly of 2 April 1996 requiring theSelect Committee on Procedural Reviewto present its report on the estimatesprocess by 14 May 1996 be amended toprovide that the committee present itsreport on or before 9 July 1996."

I offer a brief explanation. Politicaldevelopments in Mundingburra and thesubsequent change of Government haveinterrupted the work of the Procedural ReviewCommittee and some groups have beenunable to complete their submissions. Thecommittee requires a further extension of timeto enable it to conclude its consideration of thevarious issues that have been raised. Thecommittee anticipates completing its report bythe end of June.

Motion agreed to.

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATIONCOMMITTEE

Report

Mr ELLIOTT (Cunningham)(10.17 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the Housethe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's AlertDigest No. 3 for 1996, and move that it beprinted.

Ordered to be printed.


NOTICES OF MOTIONQueensland Schools Curriculum

Council and Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (10.18 a.m.): Igive notice that I shall move—

"That this Parliament—(a) recognises the legitimate concerns

expressed by the QueenslandCouncil of Parents and CitizensAssociation, the QueenslandIndependent Parents and FriendsCouncil, the Queensland CatholicParents and Friends Federation, theQueensland Teachers Union and theQueensland Association of Teachersin Independent Schools aboutproposals by the Education Ministerto abolish their positions on theQueensland Schools CurriculumCouncil and the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies; and

(b) calls on the Minister to guaranteerepresentatives from these parentsand teacher groups positions on thetwo boards."

Mr and Mrs Aragu; Helicopter CrashMr BREDHAUER (Cook) (10.18 a.m.): I

give notice that I shall move—"That this House—

(a) notes with regret the tragiccircumstances surrounding the recenthelicopter crash in the Torres Strait,which claimed the lives of theChairperson of the Dauan IslandCouncil, Mrs Sanawai Aragu and herhusband and Council Deputy Chair,Mr John Aragu;

(b) notes the important contribution thatMr and Mrs Aragu have made totheir own community on DauanIsland and to the development of theTorres Strait and its people; and

(c) conveys its deepest sympathies notonly to the relatives of Mr and MrsAragu but to all of the Dauan Islandcommunity who have suffered thisshocking loss of two of the island'sand Torres Strait's most respectedleaders."

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTSMay Economic Statement

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (10.20 a.m): I rise to

address the issue of the cancellation of theMay economic statement by the absentTreasurer. Today was going to be a great dayfor the Treasurer. She was going to deliver herMay economic statement. I am delighted tosee her return to the Chamber. Whathappened four days before this much-heralded economic statement was to bedelivered? It was cancelled via the pages ofthe Courier-Mail, leaving all Queenslanderswithout any doubt that this Government isrudderless, directionless and simply not up tothe task.

When the Treasurer won her way throughthe back door into office, she said that thecoalition Government would hit the groundrunning. All she has done is sink into aquicksand of indecision. What she cannotfreeze, she is reviewing. She hascommissioned a total of 84 reviews. She hasput the Queensland economy to sleep.

Queensland business is suffering fromvery serious frostbite—a $3.6m cutback incapital expenditure. The Treasurer said thatthe freeze would be temporary. It is more thana cold snap; the Treasurer has introduced anice age. However, did the Treasurer come intoParliament today to explain why her Mayeconomic statement has been cancelled? No,she did not. She made three ministerialstatements and did not once refer to why herMay economic statement has been cancelled.She took the opportunity to attack thehonourable member for Mount Gravatt, butdid she deal with the serious issuesconfronting the Government? No, she did not!It is a shame that the Treasurer has cancelledthat statement.

Time expired.

Health Budget

Hon. J. P. ELDER (Capalaba—DeputyLeader of the Opposition) (10.22 a.m.): Overthe last two weeks those opposite have madea concerted effort to peddle a lie. That lie isthe claim by the Health Minister, Mike Horan,of a big blow-out in the Health capital worksbudget under Labor.

The amount of coverage given to MikeHoran's claim and the number of times it hasbeen repeated by him, by the Premier and bythe Treasurer has caused knowledgeablecommentators in this State to say that the dayhas now arrived in Queensland when the liebecomes the truth. Officers of Mr Horan's owndepartment have labelled him the "Minister forMisinformation". They consider him to be the


Goebbels of the Borbidge Government—theMinister for propaganda.

The Health Minister claimed a massiveblow-out. However, he has fiddled and fudgedthe figures. He gave a misleading brief to theprivate sector consultants, then he misusedtheir findings. Those hundreds of millions ofdollars were never part of Labor's first 10-yearHospital Rebuilding Program. The Ministerthen lumped into that document everyprogram that had not reached tender stageand added his own election promises and thefour planned hospitals for the Sunshine Coastand the Gold Coast. The Minister is anabsolute fraud!

Officers of the Health Department knowthe Minister's tactics. The Minister does notwant anything written down. He has told all thehealth organisations, "You will not get anyfunding. Do not complain, or else." TheMinister will not accept honest advice fromanyone within his department. If officers givetheir advice, he chops off their heads! At theend of the day, he wanders around in blissfulignorance and officers of the department areall waiting for him to make his next blunder.

If the Minister wants to sit in the Premier'sempty seat, he had better hurry and make hismove before the Health Department unravels.The department has started to unravel, andthe Minister's chance of reaching that seat is along way off.

Time expired.

Woree-Chalumbin Powerlines

Mrs WILSON (Mulgrave) (10.24 a.m.):Electricity demands in the Cairns region aregrowing faster than anywhere else in theState. The existing powerlines will be unable tocope with peak demands by the summer of1997-98.

On 9 April this year, the Minister for Minesand Energy, Mr Tom Gilmore, decisively put torest the continued debate on theundergrounding of the final route of theWoree-Chalumbin powerlines in the Cairnsarea. The Minister announced that, instead oftraversing through World Heritage areas alongMount Isley and looping around Edmonton,the new double circuit 275 kV transmission linewould, after exiting the World Heritage area,involve a section near the Lake Morris Roadand into the former Cannon farm, thenceunderground for 2.8 kilometres travellingalongside Crowley Creek, under the BruceHighway, and then under the cane fields southof Sheehy Road to a point near the rubbishdump. At the end of Sheehy Road, it would

include a 2.5 kilometre overhead section alongthe western fringe of Trinity Inlet into the newsubstation at Woree. The selected line wouldreduce the overall length of the new line withinthe Wet Tropics area from 19 kilometres to 14kilometres.

That puts to rest the years of speculationand inaction by the previous Government onthis issue, at a time when undergrounding ofpowerlines is fast becoming a reality—andCairns is at the forefront of this issue—andwhen debate is strong to underground suchlines for safety and visual amenity. The newroute means that the residents of KowinkaStreet and White Rock will see the removal ofthe 132 kV powerline which stands very closeto their homes. Also, the residents of Bayviewcan look forward to the future removal of theexisting 132 kV Mareeba to Cairnstransmission line when the new Chalumbin-Woree line is fully energised at 275 kV.

At a time when the issue ofelectromagnetic fields causes concern withresidents, the Cairns City Council hasformulated a draft policy to deal with the issueof powerlines. I welcome this step. Afterconsultations and submissions with and frommany groups within the community, it is nowtime to get on with the construction.

Time expired.

Affordable Access to Justice

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga)(10.26 a.m.): The Attorney-General, MrBeanland, is turning back the clock on theright of ordinary people to have affordableaccess to justice. The Attorney-General hasannounced that there will not be commonadmission rules for barristers and solicitors.That puts Queensland in a position in which itstands against the national tide. It makes itvery difficult to have a national market for legalservices and hence prevents the reform of thelegal profession, which is so important inensuring that Queenslanders get affordableaccess to justice.

That reform is all the more ironic in view ofthe Treasurer's introduction of competitionlegislation to this House. That means that themoves towards the Priestly 11 subjects—thecommon subjects—for admission that weredesigned to make a standardised approach tothe legal profession throughout Australia areto no avail because the Attorney-General ishostage to some interest group that wants toturn back the clock. It is all the more disturbingbecause the Attorney-General is failing todeliver on the promise to appoint five


additional judges to the District Court and theSupreme Court.

That is yet another broken promise of thecoalition Government. It comes at a time whenthe Commonwealth Attorney-General isslashing access to Family Court services inQueensland. Already, the Mackay subregistryof the Family Court has closed down, and theRockhampton subregistry is under threat.

That shows that for coalition Governmentsat the State and Federal levels, ordinarypeople getting access to justice does notmatter. Those Governments are prepared toslash access to justice, to look after vestedinterest groups and to deny ordinary citizensthe access to justice which they rightlydeserve. This is all the more disturbingbecause the coalition parties campaigned ona promise of appointing extra judges.

Time expired.

World Mountain Bike ChampionshipsMs WARWICK (Barron River)

(10.28 a.m.): I would like to inform the Houseof a very significant sporting event which is tobe held in my electorate in September thisyear. I refer to the World Mountain BikeChampionships, which are expected to attract2,500 international athletes, support crewsand media, as well as 15,000 internationaland domestic visitors.

This event is an enormous coup for theCairns region. It is the first time ever that thechampionships have been held outsidecontinental America or Europe. It is the firsttime ever that a world cycling championship isto be held in Australia and it is the first everworld championships of any kind to be held innorth Queensland. The organisers of thisevent expect to spend $1.3m in the local area.Added to that, it is estimated conservativelythat the event will bring between $4m and$5m into the region. Already, approximately1,200 entries have been confirmed and 4,300room nights, worth about $200,000, have alsobeen confirmed.

This event will have significant positiveimplications for our tourism industry. It isestimated that international patrons will eachstay for an average of 10 days. Those visitorswill not spend every day at the championships.They will want to visit the natural attractions ofthe area, which will greatly benefit the localeconomy.

I am a member of the advisory committeefor this event. Along with the Mayor of Cairns,Tom Pyne, and other council and businessrepresentatives, I am in the unique position of

observing the work being done by theorganisers. I would like to place on record mycongratulations to the championship's generalmanager, Don McGrath, the operationsmanager, Lachlan Rogers, the AustralianCycling Federation and the Cairns MountainBike Club for their very professional approachto this event.

I urge all local business people to join withme in supporting these championships. Icertainly will be bringing this event to theattention of coalition Government Ministersand urging them to do all in their power toencourage maximum participation by businessin this world-class event.

Time expired.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Funding for Fire Fighters

Mr BEATTIE (10.30 a.m.): I refer theTreasurer to comments made last week by theMinister for Emergency Services and Ministerfor Sport, Mick Veivers, on ABC radio. TheMinister said that he was not concerned aboutfinding an extra $10m for 135 extra firefighters because he was sure that theTreasurer had the money up her sleeve. I ask:is this the same sleeve from which theTreasurer pulled $200m for the abolition of theSunshine Coast tollway? If not, will she finallyconfirm where the money is coming from tofund both the Sunshine Coast toll and the$10m for fire services?

Mrs SHELDON: I thank the honourablefor his question, inadequate as it was. As themember knows, the Government is currentlygoing through its Budget review process. Wewill have a Budget in September and MrBeattie can read all the details in that Budget.

Capital Works Program

Mr BEATTIE: We will have to have alook at that sleeve, Mr Speaker! I refer theTreasurer and Deputy Premier to the Courier-Mail of 10 May, and I table a copy for theinformation of the House. Nearly three monthsafter the Government took office, theDirector-General of the Government's PublicWorks Department was quoted as saying hewas still waiting for policy clarification and thathe was expecting it in the May economicstatement today—a statement cancelled laterthat day. I ask: with the capital works budgetof $3.6 billion frozen and the unemploymentrate rising, will the Treasurer take note of theurgent call from the construction industry tokick start the Capital Works Program, or will the


director-general and the many Queenslandcompanies depending on Governmentcontracts have to wait until the SeptemberBudget?

Mrs SHELDON: I thank the member forhis question. Of course, as usual it is based ona false premise. There is no freeze on capitalworks.

Opposition members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order, or I mightintroduce a freeze.

Mrs SHELDON: It would seem that theonly source of fact for the Leader of theOpposition is the Courier-Mail. I feel very sorryfor him.

Mr Elder: Business Queensland, theAustralian, the Courier-Mail! You name it; theyare all out there.

Mrs SHELDON: I suggest thehonourable member reads the editorial inBusiness Queensland this week. It isinteresting that Mr Elder quotes selectively allthe time as he endeavours to mislead thepeople of this State, but they are not buying it,just as they are not buying the honourablemember given his absolutely hopeless abilityas Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

I will lay a few of these misconceptions torest. There is not and there never has been afreeze on capital works.


Mrs SHELDON: Would the honourablemember like me to answer this question ornot? It is the Opposition's question time. If theOpposition members want time wasted theway they are currently wasting it, they shouldcontinue.

If I may begin again: there is nofreeze—— Opposition members interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Oppositionhas asked the question. We will hear theanswer. I call for order.

Mrs SHELDON: There is no freeze oncapital works spending. The StateGovernment is reviewing capital worksexpenditure as part of its fundamental reviewof the former Government's expenditurecommitments, most of which, of course, weretotally unfunded.

An Opposition member interjected. Mrs SHELDON: That is a fact. These

are not my facts; they are the facts of theQueensland Treasury. If Opposition membersare saying that the Queensland Treasury is

wrong, then they had better speak to theirformer Treasurer, Mr De Lacy.

The ongoing Capital Works Program iscontinuing and, of course, individual Ministershave responsibility for managing their owncapital works expenditure. Capital worksinvestment is a key priority of this coalitionGovernment. Since coming to office, theGovernment has announced a number ofmajor capital works projects, including thePacific Highway upgrade and theredevelopment of the Herston hospitalprecinct. Indeed, the paper to which thehonourable member referred, BusinessQueensland, listed very clearly all the capitalworks that are under way. Minister Horan saidthat there has certainly been no freeze onspending on health infrastructure. He says hisdepartment is——

Mrs Edmond interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: The honourablemember should listen; she may learnsomething. If I may continue? Mr Horan saidthat his department is spending every singledollar of its capital works budget this financialyear, which is more than was done by theprevious Labor Government. Mr Beattie knowsthat: he never spent all his capital worksbudget. He kept running it over to the nextyear. That is why hospitals have run down tothe degree that they have. This Government'sspending will represent a total investment of$190m. Mr Horan also said that $210m hasbeen allocated to the department for capitalworks programs next financial year. We arespending all of our funding for capital works.

Also, the Health Department has recentlyannounced the start of work on Stage 4 ofLogan Hospital, and work on the RoyalBrisbane, Princess Alexandra, Cairns andHervey Bay Hospitals is under way. This fromthe Government that is not supposed to bespending money on capital works!

Mr FOLEY: I rise to a point of order.People in the public gallery are not allowed toread the newspaper while Parliament is sitting,and nor should the acting Premier.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no pointof order. I will not accept any more frivolouspoints of order from the honourable forYeronga. I warn him not to rise on anotherfrivolous point of order today.

Mrs SHELDON: We are used to thosesorts of contributions from the "Rumpole of theOpposition".

A Opposition member: You were onlylooking at the pictures.


Mrs SHELDON: No, I am quoting fromthe paper that the honourable member isconstantly holding up. I am sure he would liketo have all the facts that are in that paper, notjust the ones as misrepresented by him.

As Mr Horan has said, it is full steamahead for capital works in Health. As aGovernment, we are fully committed to ourCapital Works Program. All Ministers will spendtheir allocation on capital works, unlike theprevious Labor Government, and particularlythe failed Health Minister who is now theLeader of the Opposition, who misled thepeople of Queensland and did not spend hisbudget allocation for capital works on suchwork. We know why: because he was busilyrolling over his capital works budget to pay forhis recurrent expenditure. On any economicbasis, that is a no-no. Mr Beattie has noeconomic credibility at all.

Under-resourcing of Department ofFamilies

Mr SPRINGBORG: I refer the Ministerfor Families, Youth and Community Care torecent media coverage of the former FamilyServices Department's case managementprocedures, and the tragic murder of a two-year-old Maryborough toddler in 1994.Specifically, I refer the Minister to the FourCorners program last night, during which theformer director-general of the department, MrsJacki Byrne, admitted to a critical under-resourcing of the department under Labor. Iask: what steps has the Minister taken toensure that this matter is thoroughlyinvestigated? What has he done to relieve theresourcing pressures in area offices?

Mr LINGARD: Those members whowatched that ABC current affairs program lastnight would surely have been amazed at theadmission by Jacki Byrne that one of theproblems of her department was a shortage ofworkers and a shortage of resources. Thiscomes on top of the Grants Commissionstatement that under the ALP GovernmentQueensland was 22 per cent under-funded ascompared to the national average. The ALPGovernment was in office for six years andnow we have an admission by a formerdirector-general that one of the problems inthe tragic case of Kate Beveridge was ashortage of workers and a shortage ofresources.

When this Government came to power, Ihad an urgent meeting with Mr Gordon Rennieand Mr Mark Scott of the State Public ServicesFederation Queensland. I told them that theycould go to my department and to the area

offices, with my divisional heads, and report onany problems they saw involving resourcesand personnel. They have reported to meand, as people know, in the last two weeks wereleased at least $2m for the employment of37 personnel in those area offices. In addition,extra resources will be ploughed into thosearea offices.

A problem which came through clearly lastnight was the fact that an aggrieved partyunder a previous Government, such as Mr ColJones, did not have anywhere to turn in orderto challenge a decision made by the formerDepartment of Family Services. We haveacted very quickly to put in place five officerswho will act as advisers to people, such as MrCol Jones, who feel aggrieved. I will not besaying to those aggrieved people, "You mustcome back to the Department of FamilyServices to receive a new decision." There willbe five additional advisers.

In addition, this morning we announced ahotline within the Department of Familieswhich will act as an interim measure until weset up our special authority to look at childabuse and paedophilia. As all members know,each morning from half-past six until a quarterto eight seven days a week, I conduct ahotline during which any person in thecommunity can ring and talk to me about anyproblems within the Department of Families.

In conclusion, I point out that earlyintervention is now a policy within mydepartment. When we look at young peoplewe will hopefully focus not just on the childrenbut also on their family and infrastructure, thatis, if there is a family and/or an infrastructure.Tomorrow, I will be announcing extrapersonnel for the program of early interventionwith respect to child abuse. Tomorrow is a veryspecial day: the International Day of Families.

Business Community Support forTreasurer

Mr ELDER: I ask the acting Premier andTreasurer: given her amazing claims ofwidespread support for her decision tocontinue her freeze and her lack of leadershipon economic matters by cancelling the Mayeconomic statement, and in the context of herwillingness to continue to make massivefunding commitments such as the $200m forthe Sunshine Coast tollway and $636m for"half a highway" from Beenleigh to Nerang,when a wide range of business leaders aretelling the Opposition her lack of leadership isan economic disaster for Queensland, can sheplease name for the House three businessleaders other than those who are members of


the Liberal Party or who have closeconnections to it who support her lack ofeconomic leadership?

Mrs SHELDON: I answer that questionwith great pleasure. I have the answer ready. Iquote Clive Bubb, the General Manager of theQCCI.

Mr Elder interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: So now the DeputyLeader of the Opposition is defaming Mr CliveBubb, who heads the QCCI.

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Ifind those remarks offensive and I ask thatthey be withdrawn.

Mrs SHELDON: In what way were theyoffensive?

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Ifind the remarks offensive and I ask them tobe withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The honourablemember finds the remarks offensive.

Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, if you wishme to withdraw them, I will. The fact is that thehonourable member for Capalaba does notlike the truth. However, as the honourablemember has discredited the QCCI, which iswhat he is trying to do—and indeed businessin this State does not discredit the QCCI——

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Iam not discrediting the QCCI. I find theremarks offensive and I ask them to bewithdrawn.

Mrs SHELDON: Yes, the honourablemember did. He just discredited its leader,Clive Bubb.

Mr ELDER: I rise to a point of order. Iask that those remarks be withdrawn. I findthem offensive. I ask them to be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The DeputyLeader of the Opposition finds the remarksoffensive.

Mrs SHELDON: If the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition does not like the heat in thekitchen, he should not go in.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs SHELDON: Mr Speaker, if you wishme to withdraw, I will.

I quote the QCCI General Manager, CliveBubb.


Mrs SHELDON: The QCCI hasconsiderable standing within the business andindustry community, unlike the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition. The honourable member

would not know about that, because he hasno contact with the business communitywhatsoever. The business community doesnot think much of him.

Mr Livingstone: Name three.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will be namingthree in a minute—and it will not be formerLiberals. The House will come to order!

Mrs SHELDON: Mr Bubb said that hewas not surprised that the QueenslandGovernment had been forced to postpone thestatement. In common with the Government,he was very concerned about the likelyFederal Government cutbacks. I suppose PaulFennelly is another Liberal stooge! PaulFennelly is the Metal Trades IndustryAssociation Queensland director. So theOpposition is dumping on the metal tradesnow. Members opposite are really pro-business! Paul Fennelly said——

Mr Elder: You told him you'd chop hishead off if he didn't start supporting theGovernment.

Mrs SHELDON: Is the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition saying that I told Mr Fennellywhat to say? I do not think that was the case.He is an extremely independent man. Hesaid——


Mrs SHELDON: The honourablemember should sit back and listen; he askedthe question. The honourable member shouldnot really ask a question unless he knows theanswer. He obviously did not know the answerto this one. Mr Fennelly said thepostponement was a "wise decision" and herecognised that Federal Government fundingwas an "important source of information".

I wish to elaborate on a couple of points.The fact is that this Government was left in avery bad economic position by the actions ofthe former Labor Government. Treasury'sfigures, not mine, show that there is anunderlying deficit of $185m this year——

Mr Elder: What rot!

Mrs SHELDON: These are Treasury'sfigures. Does the honourable member doubtTreasury? He has doubted the QCCI, theMTIA and now he doubts the QueenslandTreasury. No doubt we should ask the DeputyLeader of the Opposition how this Stateshould be run!


Mr SPEAKER: Order! I warn thehonourable member for Capalaba underStanding Order 123A.


Mrs SHELDON: Those same figuresalso show a real deficit for the following year of$240m.

Mr Elder: Rot!

Mrs SHELDON: It is not rot. A lot of it isdue to the way that between July andFebruary the former Government ran aroundthis State promising anything that came intoits mind, spending like crazy and trying to buyits way back into power. The community wasnot fooled. The community did not votemembers opposite back in. We have all theseunfunded promises floating around. I refer tothe classic such as the 12 weeks' maternityleave. That was a totally unfunded promise.Members opposite know there was no moneyfor that promise.

Being faced with that situation, plus a$100m blow-out in the Health budget underthe former Minister for Health, Mr Beattie, whois now the Leader of the Opposition, and theobvious very severe cutbacks in funding we willface from the Federal Government, thisGovernment felt that it was in the bestinterests of the business community that it didnot make an economic statement this week.When we make a statement to the businesscommunity, we want to offer a clear statementand one on which businesses can act. Wewere not in a position to do that. The businesscommunity has said—and I am sure membersopposite hate reading this—that it supportsour action and that it was based on soundprinciples. The Premier and I will be going toCOAG to find out, if we can, exactly what sortsof funding cuts we as a State will face from theFederal Treasury, and what we will have toface in the September Budget.

Gun Control Laws

Mr CARROLL: I refer the Minister forPolice and Corrective Services and Minister forRacing to the contentious Canberra gunsprohibition proposal mentioned in hisministerial statement this morning, and I ask:will the Minister outline to this House how hewill explain to the people of Queensland thedecisions made in Canberra?

Mr COOPER: I thank the honourablemember for the question, because allmembers of the House would be concernedabout the procedure that we will have to adoptin order to bring legislation before theParliament.

As a slight preamble, I wish to say thatmost political parties formulate policy overtime, and the coalition had formulated a very

soundly based policy that was practical andsensible. It is the sort of policy that we can feelcomfortable with, because it addresses theissue. Be it the Sporting Shooters Associationor gun clubs, rifle clubs and pistol clubs allaround the State, the issue cuts acrosspolitical boundaries. The members of thoseorganisations must receive someconsideration.

When the Port Arthur massacre occurred,everything changed. It was not just a nationalhorror; it was an international horror. It was thesort of thing that we never thought wouldhappen in this country. It has happened. Wemust realise and accept that fact. We wishthat it had not happened, but it did happen. Itwas a catastrophe of absolutely enormousproportions. We are a young country. We arenot used to such tragic events. Justifiably,much emotion surrounds such tragedies. Atsuch a time, we need to be careful in thejudgments that we make. The people requireus to come to grips with an issue such as thisand deal with it sensibly, sanely andpractically.

The ministerial police conference wasbrought forward by the Prime Minister—andjustifiably so—so that we could respond to thistragedy. All parties approached this issue fromdifferent angles as they all had differentpolicies. It was a case of a meeting of theminds in order to emerge from the meetingwith some sensible solutions. Earlier today, Itabled the 11 resolutions which were carried atthat conference with the best of intentions. Allmembers must read those resolutions. I ask allmembers to read them line by line, word byword, so that they can try to understand wherethe Police Ministers of this nation are comingfrom. There is no doubt that there areanomalies in those resolutions because of thetime constraints involved. We needed moretime to pursue these matters, but we did thebest that we could in the circumstances.

Of course, legislation will flow from thoseresolutions. The national interest prevailed atthe conference, and it still prevails. From thoseresolutions, we must develop good law. Wewill need input from all those who have aninterest in this matter. Members must listen tothe people and they must bring forward theirviews to the various party rooms so that wecan develop good law. Amendments to theWeapons Act will also be part of this process.That will require a lot of effort from manypeople, not least from me, because I am theMinister responsible for preparing thatlegislation. I accept that responsibilityabsolutely.


The legislation will have two basicfeatures. Firstly, it will reflect the fact that thepublic must be kept as safe as possible. Thatwill be a provision of the legislation to bebased on the resolutions and theamendments to the Weapons Act. Secondly,we must consider those who will be adverselyaffected by these changes. I refer to the tensof thousands of honest, law-abiding, decentcitizens who belong to sporting shooters clubs,rifle clubs, pistol clubs and gun clubs and alsofirearms collectors. We must not forgetsportspeople. We realise that there will beanomalies, but we do not want to see oursportspeople disadvantaged by the lawsprohibiting certain types of firearms. We mustgive all interested groups due consideration.All of those factors must be accommodated.In many respects, that will require an act ofSolomon. None of us is Solomon; we willmerely be doing the best that we can underthe circumstances.

I want to drive home this message:people should not believe that problems suchas the ones that we are currently trying toaddress can be solved overnight. This is amassive issue that will require a tremendouscontribution not just from members of thisplace but also from those affected around theState and around the nation. I will devotemyself totally to the cause of accommodatingthe needs of as many people with diverseinterests as I possibly can.

Mr Fouras: What are you saying? Areyou saying you're changing your position?

Mr COOPER: No way. I am saying thatwe must consult and brief widely. We mustmake sure that people understand thecontents of the resolutions. I am askingpeople to make sure that they read andunderstand those resolutions so that we canmake good law. What is the point in bringingin bad law if it will not work, if it will not offerpeople the protection that they deserve and ifit will not allow honest and decent people tocontinue their pursuits in the sporting field orwherever else? That is what we are chargedwith. That is our responsibility. I am simplysaying, in answer to the question, that theseare the issues that we must address. Everysingle one of us needs to be aware of that.

There will be sacrifices all round. Everysingle one of us knows that we must addressthese issues as best we possibly can.Everyone will have to make sacrifices. Wemust not forget those 35 people who weresacrificed in Port Arthur. I do not believe thatany member of this House will forget them.Members can rest assured that my position is

not going to change. My responsibility is toproduce the necessary legislation. Asmembers are aware, the legislative procedureinvolves discussing these matters with thepeople. That is democracy; that is where itstarts. The views of the people then comethrough the Labor caucus and our party roomsand back to the House. That is the procedurethat must be followed. We will undertake thewidest possible consultation.

At the end of the day, we have to bring insensible, sane, practical, workable laws withthe major priority being to keep people safe,while at the same time accommodating asmany interests as we can. That will requireendless meetings around the State. I will bethrowing myself into the task. I ask allmembers to ensure that they contribute in asensible, sane and rational way so that we canintroduce the best legislation that we possiblycan. Obviously, it will never be perfect, but wemust make every effort to produce the bestpossible legislation. Those are the proceduresthat we will follow. I sincerely hope thatmembers opposite will make a positivecontribution to the process.

Economic Statement

Mr HAMILL: I refer the Treasurer to herclaims on Brisbane radio this morning that thereason she cancelled her promised economicstatement was that she was unaware whenshe announced the statement would bedelivered in May that the Federal coalition wasplanning to cut $4 billion a year from itsBudget. I ask: how could the Treasurer be soignorant of the Federal Government'sintentions when she made her commitment toa May economic statement on 19 March whenthe Federal Government had announced itsintentions on 12 March—a full week before herspeech to the Conservative Club?

Mrs SHELDON: I thank the honourablemember for his ill-informed question. Infact——

Mr HAMILL: I table the press releasewith regard to the Federal Government'sstatement.

Mrs SHELDON: Certainly the membermay do that, but he should listen to myanswer. The first time I stated that I wouldmake a May economic statement was beforethe Federal Government election. It may havebeen subsequent——

Mr Hamill interjected.

Mrs SHELDON: No, just a moment.The commitment by the Government——


Mr Hamill: You said it on the 19th.

Mrs SHELDON: It may well have beenmentioned on 19 March, but the commitmentby the Government to make a May economicstatement was made before the Federalelection. In subsequent discussions with theFederal Treasurer, it became very obvious——

Mr Hamill: They heard a week later.

Mrs SHELDON: Does the member wantto listen or not? If he will stop shouting andinterjecting and being a bully, I will give himthe answer.

Subsequently, in discussions between MrCostello, the Federal Treasurer, and MrHoward, the Prime Minister, we were told thatthe States would have to wear a very largeproportion of the $4 billion that will be cut eachyear. The Federal Treasurer said that everyState would have to wear its fair share andthat Queensland would have to face up to thatfact as well. We understand that our fundingcuts may be quite considerable. It would bevery irresponsible of any Government to beputting forth an economic statement notknowing what funds it was to receive from theFederal Government. The member for Ipswichshould ask the previous Treasurer about theamount of funding that comes to this Statefrom the Federal Government. We have to besure that, when we make a statement, it issoundly based.

Prince Charles Hospital

Mr J. N. GOSS: I direct a question tothe Minister for Health. Recently, the Ministerannounced additional funding to assist in thereduction of cardiac surgery waiting lists atBrisbane's Prince Charles Hospital. I ask: willthe Minister please inform the House of thecurrent status of cardiac surgery waiting lists atPrince Charles Hospital?

Mr HORAN: It is indeed a pleasure toinform the House of the progress that hasbeen made. When the coalition Governmentcame to power at the end of February, some66 per cent of the patients who were classedas Category 1 patients at the Prince CharlesHospital were waiting outside therecommended clinical waiting time of 30 days.Subsequently, we identified the Prince CharlesHospital as one of those hospitals around theState that had significant problems, and wewere able to obtain some additional fundingfrom Treasury. It had to be additional funding,because the budget was in such a mess,particularly with the budget overrun that weinherited. We obtained that additional funding

from Treasury and applied it to the PrinceCharles Hospital.

The result has been that, by the end ofApril—two months—that 66 per cent of peoplein Category 1 who had been waiting longerthan 30 days was reduced to 33 per cent. Theinformation from the hospital is that, by theend of June, no people will be waiting for morethan 30 days for Category 1 operations at thePrince Charles Hospital. That is a verysignificant achievement. I believe that it is ademonstration that the coalition's policy ofgetting back to basics and providing all thoseservices is actually working.

Mrs Edmond: No, Mr Beattie's and MrElder's policy. All you had to do is keep itgoing.

Mr HORAN: The Opposition Healthspokesperson can stamp her feet all she likes,but those are the facts. At the end ofFebruary, 66 per cent of Category 1 patientswere waiting for more than 30 days for one ofthe most crucial operations, that is, a cardiacoperation. Imagine how those people feltwhen they were waiting outside those 30 daysand wondering what was going to happen tothem. Within two or three months, we reducedthat percentage by half. By the end of June,that figure will be reduced to no-one waitingoutside the 30 days.

The important thing is that not only inrelation to cardiac surgery but also in othersectors of health, particularly in relation towaiting lists, we are moving ahead with ourtask force. The task force has alreadyappointed elective surgery coordinators in allof the 10 major hospitals. They haveconducted a number of meetings, including arecent inspection of the Gold Coast Hospital,where they looked at the innovative short-staysurgical wards and pre-admission systems.

In relation to information management—we now have elective admission systemsimplemented in eight of the 10 major hospitalsin Queensland, and under way in theremaining two hospitals. At the Royal BrisbaneHospital, we are in the process ofimplementing a theatre managementinformation system, which will be fullyimplemented this month and will bring abouteven more efficiencies in the usage of thetheatres.

Mr Elder: What about something new?They were already under way.

Mr HORAN: Members opposite areobviously embarrassed. We took over asystem of financial mismanagement andbudget overruns. We found some extra


money, and we actually attacked and fixed theproblem. I notice that the member forChermside is pretty quiet. He knows that thepeople in his electorate are seeing someresults and that people are being operated onwithin a reasonable time. What the people ofQueensland can continue to look forward to isthat we are getting back to basics.

Mr T. B. Sullivan interjected.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member forChermside!

Mr HORAN: The adult psychiatric wardat the Royal Brisbane Hospital was opened,but there was no funding for staff. There wasno funding for staff in the mental health wardsat Nambour Hospital. There was only halffunding for staff at the Kirwan rehabilitationunit. Where is it all? The former Governmentopened things, but there was no funding forstaff.

One by one, we are fixing the problems.We are fixing Prince Charles Hospital. We arein the process of reopening two wards at theRoyal Brisbane Hospital. We have fixed theclosed ward at the Gold Coast Hospital. Weare putting a urology service into northQueensland. Already we have additional VMOurology sessions booked for the TownsvilleHospital. We have been able to providefunding for doctors at the Cairns Hospital. Weare providing some funding for the GladstoneHospital in relation to obstetrician andgynaecologist positions, and some associatedhealth services. One by one, we are fixing theproblems. The Prince Charles Hospital is wellon track. I believe that the achievements ofthe coalition Government in getting back tobasics should be applauded.

Water and Sewerage Subsidies

Mr MACKENROTH: I refer theTreasurer to the postponement of the Budgetto September and her cancellation of the Mayeconomic statement, and I ask: is theTreasurer aware that to enable localgovernments throughout Queensland todeliver their budgets by 30 June, they requirea firm commitment that the coalitionGovernment will honour its promise to increasewater and sewerage subsidies by 100 percent? If so, will the Treasurer give localgovernments in Queensland a firmcommitment today that these subsidies will beincreased in this year's State Budget?

Mrs SHELDON: The Minister for LocalGovernment and Planning, Di McCauley, isvery adequately dealing with localgovernments on this issue. Local governments

are very happy with the way that Di McCauleyis handling her portfolio—unlike the previousMinister.

Business Licences

Mr WOOLMER: I ask the Minister forTourism, Small Business and Industry: can headvise the House on what he proposes to doto reduce the previous Government's red tapeburden for the benefit of business inQueensland?

Mr DAVIDSON: I am delighted that thehonourable member has chaired mybackbench policy committee and organised ameeting last week with various departmentalpeople. That was a very fruitful meeting.

It is staggering to note that theQueensland Business Licence InformationCentre, QBLIC, provides details on 544 Statebusiness licences and 236 Commonwealthbusiness licences. In addition, business mustalso contend with local government licences.Given the number of licences and the tiers ofgovernment involved in their administration,there is an urgent need for reform in thebusiness licensing area. I therefore intend toestablish a one-stop business licence shop forprocessing of all State Government businesslicensing applications. My department has justcompleted a feasibility study into the mostpractical way to establish a one-stop shop, inparticular, one where the aims of both reducedred tape and enhanced customer service canbe achieved. In addition, the Government willshortly be discussing with the Commonwealththe possibility of integrating some of its high-volume licence application forms into the basicbusiness licence. As members may be aware,the Government has already signalled itsintention to remove the fee for registering aworkplace.

QBLIC, using its advanced databasetechnology, will then be able to create anindividually tailored licence form, which willinclude the appropriate elements of the basicbusiness licence and other high-volumelicences. QBLIC will also be able to completesome parts of the form electronically. Whencompleted by the applicant, this form wouldthen be returned to QBLIC for processing.While the responsibility for licensing andinspection would remain with the appropriateagency, QBLIC would act as a branch office ofthose agencies. As a result, most businessesrequiring licences would deal only with QBLIC.Where it can be shown to be cost effectiveand provide better customer service, QBLICwould also collect other less common licenceapplication forms and fees and pass them to


the appropriate agency for processing. Therecommendations of the study are currentlybeing worked through, and further consultationwith other Government agencies will berequired to develop them to theimplementation stage. I do not intend to rushthis process, as I want to ensure that the finalsolution is practical and that we do not simplyinsert another level of bureaucracy.

Apart from making it easier for business toget licences, the other essential task is toreduce the number of licences and regulationswith which business must comply. Theprevious Government's so-called systematicreview of business regulations was, by andlarge, a failure because it left the reviewing ofregulations to the very departments whichadministered them—in other words, a case ofCaesar judging Caesar. I will be establishingan industry task force, comprisingrepresentatives of the major industry andsmall-business bodies, to oversee a review ofregulation and licensing imposts on business.The review process, which will be administeredby my Department of Tourism, Small Businessand Industry, will involve wide consultation withthe business community. The industry taskforce will be responsible for preparing the finalrecommendations to the Government onspecific measures to reduce the regulatoryburden.

In listening to the concerns of smallbusiness, the Government is also aware thatthe way bureaucrats manage regulations is asserious a problem as the level of regulationitself. So I will be looking to the industry taskforce to also recommend specific ways inwhich agencies can better manage theoperation and administration of necessaryregulation. In this regard, my department isalready undertaking an investigation of thecost of compliance with Governmentregulation on small business. This will provideinformation on overlaps and inefficientadministration from the perspective of smallbusiness. These initiatives relate to existingregulation, but the Government is alsoconcerned that new or amended regulationsbeing proposed are subject to significantscrutiny to ensure no unnecessary burden onsmall business. Therefore, all such newregulations will be subject to a regulatoryimpact statement process.

Mr Braddy: He's just reading this.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister isusing copious notes.

Mr DAVIDSON: The member was therelevant Minister for about four years. Howlong was he the Minister? What did he do?

What did he achieve? Where did he stand onthose BSA charges on the building industryand the subbies? Where did he stand inCabinet on the licensing and compliance feesunder the Environmental Protection Act?Where did he stand on protecting business?Where did he stand on the issue of unfairdismissal? Where did he stand on workers'compensation? The business community tellsme continually that he stood nowhere.

Agencies, under the auspices of mydepartment and with reference to the taskforce, will be required to make an assessmentof the cost and benefits of proposed newregulations. Agencies must justify to theGovernment and to the business sector thatsignificant net benefits will result from theproposed regulations. The process will againinvolve wide consultation with business andthe community. In addition to these broadinitiatives, the Government will also befocusing on particular sectors of the economywhere reduction of the regulatory burden canbe most productive.

Tourism is a major growth sector inQueensland and as part of my portfolioresponsibilities, I will be initiating anexamination of regulation in this sector. I willestablish a working party of industry anddepartmental representatives to review therange of regulations which affect tourism.

Sale of Electoral RollMr FOLEY: In directing a question to

the acting Premier and Treasurer, I tablenewspaper reports that state that the FederalPolice are investigating the involvement of theQueensland Liberal Party in the illegal sale ofconfidential electoral roll information aboutQueensland citizens to an insurance companysetting up an Orwellian national database. Iask: can the Treasurer confirm that FederalPolice are investigating the QueenslandLiberal Party regarding this serious matter?Does she condemn such a serious breach ofprivacy? What action will she take against anyLiberal Party officials found to have illegallysold confidential electoral roll information?

Mrs SHELDON: I have no knowledge ofthis issue whatsoever.

Koala Coast Protection Plan

Mr HEGARTY: I direct a question to theMinister for Environment——


Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member willresume his seat. I will have some order. I have


a sore throat and therefore a shortage ofpatience. I cannot hear the question. I willhave order if I have to invoke Standing Order123A.

Mr HEGARTY: I ask: is the Minister forEnvironment aware of concerns expressed bysome landowners in the area designated askoala habitat about State Planning Policy1/95, conservation of koalas in the KoalaCoast? What are the major concernsexpressed to the Minister to date?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I thank themember for his question, which obviouslyrelates to his electorate. When I becameMinister, one of the first concerns I had toaddress was accusations that there was notenough consultation with the public withregard to the implementation of SPP1/95, so Imade a decision to extend the period ofconsultation to 30 June. It has beeninteresting to note that since then there hasbeen widespread acceptance of the idea ofprotecting the koala habitat. The issue isbroader than that; it is about maintaining alifestyle that the people in that part ofsouth-east Queensland enjoy and want topreserve.

In response to the issues that are beingraised with me and about which people areexpressing concern, I have set up a referencegroup. Members of that reference groupinclude representatives from the RedlandShire Council, the Logan City Council and theBrisbane City Council. It is being chaired bythe member for Redlands, Mr Hegarty. Therole of those people is to receive deputationsand submissions from people in thecommunity who are expressing support for orconcerns about the issues.

I have received personally manysubmissions, and just last week I received adeputation from concerned landowners, whoclaimed to be—and quite rightly so—representative of people in those three localgovernment areas. I have also received adeputation from the Mayor of the RedlandShire Council.

Mr Fouras: Have they all changed theirminds now?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: They are moreconcerned with the ways that that SPP willimpact on land ownership. They support fullythe protection of the koala habitat and thekoalas. They can understand that there is aneed to ensure that there are green beltsthroughout south-east Queensland and thatthey have to play their part in the setting asideof such green belts.

As to action that has been taken todate—firstly, the Department of Environmentand the Redland Shire Council are setting upinformation booths in the relevant areabecause some confusion exists about the roleof district control plans of local governmentsand where they and SPP1/95, the protectionof koala habitat, merge and complement oneanother. Because not enough consultationwas carried out at the direction of the previousMinister, we are trying to work our way throughthat issue.

Following my meeting with people in thatarea, I have reached an agreement with thethree local governments that, in fact, a reviewof the corridors that join the various habitatareas should be conducted. They believe thatthat will placate some people who haveconcerns. Above all else, the underlyingconcern—and it is not confined toSPP1/95—is with the approach of the previousGovernment to what it said was for thecommunity good.

The big issue to be addressed by thisGovernment is that the previous Governmentalways desired to act for the community goodand community benefit, but that was done atthe expense of the individual landowner.Governments that have occupied the Treasurybenches in years gone by have always hadthe right to resume land for the public good,but it was always on the understanding thatthe private person would be compensatedadequately. Underlying many of the concernsof the landowners in that area is the need forthis Government to somehow work out a wayin which the community good that will flowfrom SPP1/95 will not be achieved at theexpense of the individual. I am currently tryingto work my way through that difficulty so thatwe can meet the expectations of the people inthat part of Queensland but at the same timesafeguard the individual rights of thoselandowners who currently have concerns.

Eastlink

Mr McGRADY: I refer the Minister forMines and Energy to his Government'sdecision to pull the plug on the Eastlinkproject. I ask: is it true that he is now givingconsideration to Eastlink by another namebecause he realises that his present decisionis, firstly, costing the Queensland taxpayers inexcess of $750m; secondly, losing jobs toother States; thirdly, causing Queenslandersto have to pay extra electricity costs; fourthly,losing the headquarters of the neworganisation and, with it, over 100 high-techjobs; fifthly, causing Queensland to become a


laughing stock to respected business people,journalists and industry experts because of theamateur way in which he is conducting theaffairs of his portfolio; and, sixthly, if he doeschange his decision, how would he justify thatto the people who live along the new route?

Mr FitzGerald: Is that on notice orwithout notice?

Mr GILMORE: I thank the honourablemember for the multi-part question. I find itinteresting that I should receive such aquestion, which really ought to be put onnotice so that I could give him a detailedanswer. It is a seven-part question, but that isokay.

I am very thankful for the questionbecause it gives me an opportunity to outlineto the House once again, and for theelucidation and edification of the honourablemember who quite clearly has been unawareof what has been happening around the Stateand country in the past several weeks that wehave been in Government, that the formerMinister was correct when he stated that wehave cancelled Eastlink. I am glad that he hasfinally realised that that is the case. I am quitesure that other members of the Parliament gotthat message some weeks ago. Yes, we didcancel Eastlink.

In response to the rest of his multi-partquestion: no, I am not in the least bitembarrassed about that because, quiteappropriately, it was part and parcel of athought-through process and policy in respectof the electricity industry which is now comingto full fruition. As part of that policydevelopment, we have now determined thatthere are a number of ways that we can, willand should go about the provision ofadequate electricity supplies for the people ofQueensland now and into the future.

Let me say that that is more than thepeople of Queensland could expect from theprevious Government and, indeed, from theprevious Minister. Some little time ago theGovernment called for an open megawatttender, over a short period, for the provision ofelectricity supplies for the first quarter of 1999and the first quarter of the year 2000. Thatmove was to provide for what might havebeen perceived to be a shortfall of supplybecause of the cancellation of Eastlink. Laterthis year, we will be calling for expressions ofinterest for the provision of powerlines in thisState for a period post the year 2000. That isa very important period in Australia becausewe are going into a national electricitymarket—a deregulated, competitive market—and it is the time when Australia's electricity

industry will reach maturity. Of course, it is atthat time that Queensland will once again beput back on the map as the pre-eminentelectricity generator in this country.

Mr Elder: When are you going to pluginto the national grid?

Mr GILMORE: This morning, theDeputy Leader of the Opposition has beendoing his best to appear somewhat less thanhalf-witted. I am pleased to see that he hasbeen successful.

I have said in public forums throughoutthis State and previously in Parliament—and itis interesting to note that the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition has not listened to what I havesaid in at least two ministerial statements tothis Parliament—that the Government is notagainst interconnection with the rest ofAustralia because Queensland is now part ofthe national electricity market. That was signedoff in Adelaide a couple of nights ago. We arepart of it. We are proceeding with a verycarefully prepared plan to ensure that thepeople and industries of Queensland haveadequate electricity supplies for a long time tocome. We are determined to continue withthat and we will not be diverted from it.However, we have made the statement that,yes, we are in favour of interconnection; yes,Queensland will be selling electricity to thesouthern States; and, no, Queensland will notbe dependent upon the southern States for itselectricity.

The question has given me a greatopportunity to once again remind Oppositionmembers that, yes, the Government is very,very well aware of the electricity needs of thepeople of Queensland and the other States ofAustralia. We are moving in a very careful andprofessional way in respect of those needs.

Business Queensland Article aboutTreasurer

Mr MITCHELL: I refer the actingPremier, Treasurer and Minister for The Arts tothe editorial on page 14 of the 13 May editionof Business Queensland, to which she hasalluded already in question time, titled"Sheldon's stand deserves support", and Iask: could the Treasurer tell the Housewhether the views outlined by the author arean accurate assessment of her approachwhen compared with that of her predecessor,Mr De Lacy?

Mrs SHELDON: I thank the member forhis very incisive question. Yes, I am aware ofthat editorial and I thank the author of it forsuch an insightful commentary. I recall that the


editorial stated that, as QueenslandTreasurer—and I would like Mr Hamill to listento this—I had again shown that in matters oftaxation the new Government would presideover policy and would not sit by passively whilethe bureaucrats raised tax levels. Yes, that isaccurate. The editorial stated further—

"Her stance stands in markedcontrast to the position taken by herpredecessor Keith De Lacy, who oftenstood aside while senior public servants inthe Office of State Revenue applied newinterpretations to the law, which in effectincreased taxation."

The editorial continues—

"A captive of the bureaucracy whostood back and allowed his bureaucrats towallop Queenslanders with sneaky 'newtaxes'."

Yes, I also agree with that summation of theformer Treasurer.


Mrs SHELDON: The member likes toselectively quote articles, and I am quotingthem back to him. The editorial also statedthat it was a notable announcement when Isaid after a recent court decision that thecoalition Government would not seekretrospective payment of stamp duty. Theauthor of that editorial was referring to Labor'sCitiSecurities debacle, in which theCommissioner of Stamp Duties ruled thatstamp duty was payable on certain types ofmortgage guarantees regardless of whether ornot the loan went into default and theguarantee was exercised. Last year, thecommissioner's ruling was challenged in theSupreme Court, with a ruling in favour of thecommissioner. Just like the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition got stuck into business today,the then Labor Government decided that itwould really get stuck into business bycollecting the tax from when the law went intoeffect, which was 1988. It was nothing morethan another sneaky Labor Government taxgrab, which served as a body blow to theconfidence of an already punch-drunkbusiness sector.

The editorial also stated that the coalitionGovernment would consult widely withbusiness before a rewrite of the Stamp Actwas introduced into Parliament. I confirm thatthe Government is doing that. It has its dooropen to business and already a number ofpeople have consulted with me aboutchanges to that legislation. Those people saidthat they were never asked by the previousGovernment for any input at all, which I find

quite extraordinary seeing that those taxesaffect mainly business people and their clients.Obviously, no consultation with the peoplewho are directly involved was conducted bythe Labor Party.

The coalition Government has reopenedthat door to business people after it wasslammed in their faces by that arrogant formerLabor Government. We have moved to quashthe retrospective payment of the tax appliedby Labor in the CitiSecurities fiasco and we willseek to return any tax paid before the court'sruling. This Government is establishing stabilityand certainty for business in Queensland.

The editorial also stated—

"In the exercise of government, thereis hardly anything more noxious thanretrospective legislation of any kind."

Unlike Labor, this coalition Governmentbelieves that retrospective applications of thetax law should be avoided at all costs. Wemade the decision in the CitiSecurities case torestore much-needed certainty and confidencein the business community after its dark daysunder Labor. The editorial concluded—

"In the CitiSecurities controversy,Sheldon has moved with great foresightand richly deserves the approval herdecisions gained from many segments ofthe Queensland community."

Although I am humbled by such lavish praise,I do indeed like the sound of it.

Airport Motorway and South EastFreeway

Mr BARTON: I refer the Minister forTransport and Main Roads to his ministerialstatement of 2 May on the proposed airportmotorway and his decision to widen the SouthEast Freeway to eight lanes, and I ask: howdoes he justify his refusal to attend publicmeetings in Eagleby and Beenleigh to discusshis decision, which will result in the resumptionof a significant number of homes, when hehas been prepared to attend public meetingson the proposals for roadworks which mayimpact on the Liberal-held seat of Clayfield?

Mr JOHNSON: I thank the honourablemember for Waterford for the question. Yes,one thing that I have done as Minister is toattend two public meetings held by people inthe northern suburbs of Brisbane who areaffected by the Nundah bottleneck and alsothe former Government's proposed airportmotorway.

As for the people of Eagleby—I have tosay that this Government has put in place a


consultation team that will look after the needsof the people of Eagleby and all other peopleaffected by the Gold Coast motorway. ThisGovernment is a little different from the formerGovernment in that it has concerns for thosepeople.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time forquestions has expired.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST

Queensland Economy

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (11.30 a.m.): The State ofQueensland is suffering from a lack ofdirection. It has a rudderless, leaderlessminority Government which is struggling tocope. This morning, on two occasions, theTreasurer misled the House. On the firstoccasion, in response to a question I asked,she said that the Government was full "stern"ahead. That is a view that we share! On thatmatter the Treasurer was dead right. TheGovernment is full stern ahead. However, inthat statement she said that there has neverbeen a freeze.

Let me quote the Treasurer—as sheleaves the House—from her speech of 19March this year to the Conservative Club inwhich she said—

"To this end, I have already instituteda rigorous review of expenditure.Specifically, I have written to all Ministersinstructing that a temporary freeze be puton all initiatives of the previousGovernment until the review iscompleted."

The Treasurer misled the House. What adisgrace! She later said—

"The outcome of this budget reviewwill be embodied in an Interim BudgetStatement which I intend to present to theParliament in May."

The people of this State want to know: whereis the statement? That is the commitment shegave the people of Queensland. I table a copyof an extract from that speech to clearly provethat the Treasurer misled the House.

If that is not enough, this morning, whenthe Treasurer tried to defend the non-deliveryof this economic statement, one of the peopleshe used as a reference was the Director ofthe Metal Trades Industry Association ofQueensland, Paul Fennelly. In an article in theCourier-Mail of 1 May, Mr Fennelly said thatfigures produced by his organisation did notcorrelate with Mrs Sheldon's optimism. He said

that Mrs Sheldon's economic interpretation isnot reflected in the manufacturing sector andthe larger construction sector. He was quotedin the Courier-Mail as saying—

"We are suffering sluggish marketconditions, weakening employmentgrowth, increasing competition pressurefrom overseas and slower economicgrowth."

Mr Fennelly went on to say that the negativenet balance of 28.9 per cent represented theworst employment result for four years. Furtheron in the article he said that the manufacturingindustry was looking for a package measurefrom the Government to kickstart majorinfrastructure projects in Queensland. In otherwords, the person who Mrs Sheldon used as areference for her action today does not agreewith her on economic matters.

In addition, in an article in the Courier-Maildated 24 April 1996, Mr Fennelly said—

"But from a business point of view,not everything is wine and roses. We stillhave a Government with a one-seatmajority and we have not seen how"—

the Government—

"will act on environmental tax, industrialrelations and some of the biggereconomic issues."

Mr Fennelly said that a general election wouldhave provided certain outcomes. In otherwords, the person who Mrs Sheldon used as areference does not support her position. Itable that article for the information of theHouse.

Let me go one step further. I table for theinformation of the House a day-by-day recordof the freeze and the famine in the first 12weeks of the Borbidge/Sheldon Government.Those 12 weeks expired yesterday. I table a32-page report which is the record of thisGovernment and which shows exactly what ithas been up to. It shows economic confusion,a lack of leadership credibility, turning back theclock, backflips, broken promises, freezes, alack of direction and disunity. All in all, it showsthat this Government is not up to the task.

Also for the information of the House, Itable a diary of damning opinions arising fromindependent assessments of the performanceof this Government. It, too, condemns the lackof leadership and the lack of direction of thisGovernment on economic and other matters.That shows that this Government clearly is notup to the task. It is a rudderless, leaderlessminority Government which is struggling tocope.


At a time when the business communityand the community generally were looking forleadership in the form of the May economicstatement, the Treasurer did not deliver it. TheBorbidge minority Government is struggling tocope with the demands of providing essentialservices to the people of Queensland andensuring the continuing development of theState, and nothing is happening. That isreflected in yesterday's editorial in theAustralian, which is headed "Borbidge losinghis way." The editorial states—

"Mr Borbidge, judged by hisperformance so far, inspires littleconfidence that he will run a competent oreffective government."

I totally agree with that statement, and I alsotable a copy of that editorial for the informationof the House.

This Government is characterised byreviews, postponements, freezes, sackingsand cancellations. We know, of course, thatMr Horan would agree with that assessment.When are we going to get some positivedecisions? The Premier, the Treasurer and therest of this fibro Cabinet are crumbling at theedges. They are lost for ideas about what todo, so they have initiated a plethora ofreviews—84 at the last count. That means thatthe Government has frozen most of the capitalworks projects planned by the previousGovernment at a time when the economy hasflattened and unemployment is creeping up.The construction industry has warned theGovernment that it is losing subcontractorsand skilled labour to other States becauseplanned Government projects are not comingon stream.

Let us look at the "nonsense" outlined inlast Friday's Courier-Mail, which the Treasurertried to flick aside because she does not careabout the construction industry. An articleheaded "Government urged to speed worksprojects" states—

"Building design professionals"—

not the Opposition—

"have called on the State Government tokick-start its capital works program, citingalarm at the industry's general lack ofwork.

Queensland's construction industrywas in danger of grinding to a haltbecause future prospects were alarminglynegative, the Australian Council ofBuilding Design Professionals said."

In the same article, it is stated—

"Department of Public WorksDirector-General Kevin Davies said heexpected policy clarification in theTreasurer's forthcoming economicstatement."

That statement was due today. He wantedclarification.

Mr Bredhauer: What do we get today?A policy-free zone!

Mr BEATTIE: Indeed it is a policy-freezone. Mr Davies is quoted in that article assaying—and this is a great line—

"The Government is still shakingdown and has to determine its policyposition on these issues."

Shaking down! Unfortunately, it has crumbled.I table a copy of that article for the informationof the House.

What is Mrs Sheldon's answer to the callfor action that I referred to: a furtherpostponement of the economic statement inwhich the outcome of the capital works reviewwas supposed to be announced. As I said, wedo not just have a freeze; we do not just havefrostbite. We are heading into an ice ageunder this Government. The economicstatement was planned to be announced inApril, then May, and now the Treasurer saysthat it will be as far away as September. Thismeans that building contractors and theirsuppliers will be expected to sit on their handsand wait for six months to see whether theyhave any work at all.

A vibrant economy such as this onecannot be put on hold; it cannot be put intosuspended animation, as this Governmenthas done. What brilliant economicmanagement! Growth is flat andunemployment is rising in response to theGovernment as it turns off the expenditure tapand says, "Come back in September. Goaway and have a rest." The Government hasput the economy into sleep mode. Littlewonder yesterday's editorial in the Australianstated that the Borbidge Government "isoverlooking the basics of good Government".The Opposition totally agrees with thatstatement. The list of examples is endless.The Government abolished the SunshineMotorway toll, lumping $200m of debt ontothe State's taxpayers so that Mrs Sheldon'ssafe seat of Caloundra could become evensafer. It abandoned Eastlink, reducingopportunities for a more competitive andcheaper electricity supply. In order to expandthe Pacific Highway to eight lanes, thisGovernment has hijacked the total State roadconstruction budget for the next four years.


Yesterday's editorial in the Australian alsowarned of an emerging style of "government-by-crisis", reeling from one problem to thenext. I totally agree: this is a Government incrisis, and it cannot manage its crises verywell. If a crisis does not exist, the Governmentwill just go out and invent one! The Premierand the Minister for Mines and Energyinvented a power shortage—a blackoutcrisis—to justify a new transmission line fromcentral Queensland and forestall anotherEastlink campaign. The Premier invented agas crisis to intimidate a south-west Aboriginalgroup from pursuing its native title claim. Topursue his short-term goals, the Premier haswillingly diminished perceptions of reality inregard to energy supply.

This Government is not up to the task. Itis prepared to do anything to try to stay inpower, but in the meantime it is destroying theeconomy and affecting the quality of life ofordinary Queenslanders.

Time expired.

Mundingburra By-election Campaign

Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (11.40 a.m.):The Criminal Justice Commission is conductinga very public inquiry into the so-called policememorandum of understanding signed prior tothe Mundingburra by-election. Today, I raisematters relating to the behaviour of those inand associated with the former LaborGovernment during the Mundingburracampaign. These activities—the Labor Party's"park people" memorandum of understandingand a fake Independent candidate—alsowarrant a serious and public inquiry by theCriminal Justice Commission. I will not speakto any matters that are before the currentinquiry.

Presumably the CJC is concerned that thepolice memorandum was used to induce theunion to support the coalition during thecampaign. So if the CJC is to be perceived asshowing impartiality, I am certain it willimmediately launch a public inquiry into thefollowing matters. I am also hopeful that thisnew inquiry would be conducted publicly, notbehind closed doors as was the so-calledinquiry into Labor Party inducements offeredto former candidate for Mundingburra KenDavies to go quietly before the by-election.

I now table a memorandum arranged byLabor's Mundingburra candidate, TonyMooney, and signed by five former GossGovernment Ministers—former MinistersWoodgate, Mackenroth, Braddy, Barton andBeattie—and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Council. The covering memorandumstates—

"On 18 January, 1996 Tony Mooney,candidate for Mundingburra"—

and I repeat: Tony Mooney, the Mayor ofTownsville, Labor mate and not a member ofthe State Government—

"announced a proposal which was agreedto by the Chairperson of the ATSIRegional Council."

He was not a member of the Government!The memorandum offered four beds in theTownsville Hospital solely for treating alcoholicAboriginal people, extra staff for those beds,special arrangements such as accommodationfor these so-called park people, a worker for anight shelter and so on. These facilities wereto be provided and funded by the StateGovernment. The covering memorandum wassigned by a senior Health Departmentbureaucrat. It asked that appropriate action betaken to secure the promise made by Mooneyduring the Mundingburra campaign.

While no-one questions the worthiness ofthe need for proper treatment of Aboriginalpeople with alcohol problems, thismemorandum has a number of questionableaspects. Why was the promise for StateGovernment funding made by someone whowas not a member of the State Government?Unfortunately for Mooney, early in theMundingburra campaign he got himself into aspot of bother with local community groupsand civil libertarians when he announced aslash-and-burn approach to dealing with thelongstanding Aboriginal park people problem.The issue had become very emotive andcontroversial in and around Townsville.Mooney refused to act over a long period and,finally in panic, he tried to deal with his neglectand dispose of the park people with a set ofvery strong measures.

The people of Townsville were notimpressed by Mooney's new-found toughness.His Labor mates in the former StateGovernment saw the Australian Women'sParty and the Australian Indigenous People'sParty candidates attacking Mooney'sget-tough stand and the preferencesdisappearing. So in came the boys fromBrisbane with a bagful of State-fundedpromises and "a memorandum of parkpeople" to retrieve the preferences of AWPcandidate Pauline Woodbridge and AIPPcandidate Michael Bourne. Both candidatesinitially told the media that they were reluctantto give their preferences to Mooney becauseof his rough treatment of the park people.


How many female Labor heavies wereflown to Townsville at the taxpayers' expenseto convince the AWP that this memorandumwas enough to make them give theirpreferences to Mooney? We have all heardabout the number of people who flew upthere. As to Bourne—it might be worthconsidering where the funding for hiscampaign budget and his expensivehow-to-vote cards came from. Early in thecampaign, Bourne was strongly opposed togiving preferences to Mooney. Have therigorous CJC investigators pursued theseissues with as much enthusiasm as they didwhen they tried to connect IndependentGreen candidate Antony Bradshaw with theNational Party in recent weeks? Why am I notsurprised that its far-reaching investigation hasnot yet shown the connections betweenso-called Independent business candidateTisha Crosland and the ALP?

The honourable Leader of the Opposition,Mr Beattie, may not be aware of theseconnections because, as we all know, he waskept out in the cold prior to Mundingburrabecause his colleagues did not believe hecould be trusted. He unfortunately had a habitof leaking information to the media in hisvarious failed attempts to destroy his formerleader, the honourable Mr Goss. I offer MrBeattie a friendly warning: he might not beaware but Wayne and his mates thehonourable Mr Braddy and the honourable MrMackenroth are talking of a leadershipcomeback for Wayne—the regurgitated failedleader. The Leader of the Opposition hadbetter watch his back.

I return to Crosland. The Townsville dogswere barking that the ALP was desperate torun a bogus Independent small-businesscandidate, preferably a woman, who woulddirect her preferences to Mooney in the by-election. The burden to small business of suchLabor creations as the unfair dismissal laws,deregulated trading hours and workplacehealth and safety was going to hurt Laborbadly in that campaign. In spite of the angerof the small-business community towardsLabor, Crosland had no sooner nominated asa small-business candidate than sheannounced that her preferences would go toLabor's Mooney. One might ask: why? Theanswer is that Mooney and his great Labormate and No. 1 branch stacker Andy Kehoehad arranged for Crosland to stand. They wereold mates.

When Mooney was trying to get back infrom his rather unpopular attacks on the parkpeople, Crosland and Kehoe tried to get apetition together to back Mooney's slash-and-

burn policy. The CJC should look at the sourceof funding for Crosland's campaign. Herelection posters were printed by PR Graphicsof Rocklea, the same company which printedMooney's election posters. Who placed theorder? Who paid the bill? Who organised herfund-raising? Who organised Crosland's directmail? Her letter was stunningly similar in styleto that used by the ALP. Who was handingout Ms Crosland's how-to-vote cards on theday of the Mundingburra poll? It wasMooney's good mate Kehoe at MundingburraState School, and the honourable member forCaboolture, Jon Sullivan, handed them out atthe Mundingburra South booth. Mike Bailey, aformer staffer of the former Treasurer, theHonourable Keith De Lacy, was handing themout at Heatley.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: I rise to a point oforder. The member is alleging that I handedout how-to-vote cards——

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thereis no point of order.

Mr J. H. SULLIVAN: Mr DeputySpeaker, it is false, untrue and offensive, and Idemand that it be withdrawn.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Themember asks the honourable member forBroadwater to withdraw those remarks.

Mr GRICE: Mr Deputy Speaker, if youask me to withdraw, I withdraw. It was evidenton television. I table photographs of MikeBailey, a former staffer of the formerTreasurer, the Honourable Keith De Lacy,handing out the cards. I table thephotographs. Does the honourable memberwant me to withdraw that?

When interviewed by a newspaperjournalist, Mr Bailey told her the ALP had toomany people to hand out its how-to-vote cardsso he just decided to help Ms Crosland. Whata kind person he is! By the way, he wants theHonourable Keith De Lacy's seat when heretires. That is his next plan. I am sorry toinform Mike that the seat has been promisedto the former member for Barron River, LesleyClark. This desire to help the Independent MsCrosland took over a number of other leadingALP members on 3 February. There werereports that even the former Premier's senioradviser, Ron Watson, who acted as Mooney'spress secretary during the campaign, washanding out Crosland's cards.

I return to our old friend Andy Kehoe.Before Labor decided to crucify poor old KenDavies, Mooney was after the seats of KenMcElligott and Geoff Smith. In an attempt toget these incumbents out, there was, of


course, the infamous Magnetic Island branchstack on 14 November so ably conducted byKehoe and a few of his mates. ALPmembership lists show that on 14 November104 people saw the light and showed up tosign up at Magnetic Island. That is amazingbecause, prior to that night, the MagneticIsland branch had 13 members! But thosejoining up did not just have the wondrousguidance and political philosophy of theQueensland ALP to entice them to hand outtheir hard-earned cash for an ALP ticket. No,they had a lot more than that. The famousKehoe, who runs a service station on ChartersTowers Road, had been heard offering freecar services to the lucky ones who joined up.Join the ALP, hand over your party votingrights and get a free lube—get greased on theway through! How good are membersopposite! It is a hard offer to resist. They wereobviously beating off new members withbaseball bats.

By the way, Kehoe is the money helpercredited with asking officers of the PoliceUnion how many police they wanted from theGoss Government for the Townsville areaduring the campaign. The deal was that thepolice would be provided if the Police Unionwould not run a campaign for more policeduring the Mundingburra by-election. Whatwas the pay-off for Crosland and Kehoe? Thatis simple: Kehoe was promised that he wouldbe the Mayor of Townsville when Mooneywent on to a better superannuation scheme inthe Legislative Assembly. For her services,Mayor Mooney was recently about to appointCrosland to the vacancy on the Townsville CityCouncil which came about as a result ofLiberal Councillor Peter Lindsay winning theFederal seat of Herbert.

Unfortunately, the best-laid plans of miceand Townsville mayors came unstuck the daybefore the announcement of the appointmentwhen the story was leaked to the Townsvillemedia. Mooney had dumped the plan——

Time expired.

Higher Education Places

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (11.50 a.m.):The Federal and Queensland coalitionGovernments are about to preside over thegreatest travesty of justice for Queensland'shigher education students ever witnessed inthis State. Plans by the Federal Governmentto slash funding for student places and capitalworks at Queensland's universities are a slapin the face for the universities, their studentsand parents who want their children to get a

fair go in higher education in Queensland. TheQueensland Government's meekacquiescence to these plans will see itcondemned as incompetent and inefficientand surely not up to the job of running thisState.

Under Labor, Queensland's highereducation services underwent anunprecedented period of growth, especiallythrough the expansion of regional campuses.Substantial further expansion was planned inthe coming years. But all the progress madeover the last six years is about to grind to ahalt and in fact be slammed into reverse asthe coalition Government slashes expenditurein the ideological pursuit of smallergovernment which has no regard for theavailability, quality or distribution of services ina decentralised State such as Queensland.

It is being mooted around the universitiesthat the Commonwealth has targeted highereducation for cuts of up to 20 per cent across-the-board. Not only would this seriously affectevery campus and every student but alsoQueensland would be doubly disadvantagedas our traditionally poor participation ratethrough the allocation of places from theCommonwealth will continue and the dealstruck last year to fund additional studentplaces will amount to nothing. Even the moreconservative estimate of a 10 per cent cutneeds to be viewed in the light that manyuniversities will seek to protect their researchprograms at the expense of undergraduatestudies. Not only that, but those students whoare fortunate enough to secure places atQueensland's universities also face the veryreal prospect of a major hike in the HigherEducation Charges Scheme which willessentially make it far more difficult for manystudents to afford the cost of going touniversity. Parents and their families will sufferas they struggle to assist students throughuniversities in a system of fees reminiscent ofthe pre-Whitlam era. If the hike in HECS feesproceeds, the parents of ordinary working-class families will no longer be able to afford togive their children a university education. Ibelieve that is a major travesty of justice.

New and developing campuses in Cairns,Ipswich, Logan, Hervey Bay, Gladstone, theGold Coast and the Sunshine Coastparticularly are at considerable risk, both interms of student numbers and capital works.The Queensland Education Minister himselfhas admitted that the State Government'scontribution to capital works is heavilydependent on matching Commonwealth fundsand must now be under considerable doubt.He expressed that view in a letter to one of the


Sunshine Coast members of this Parliament,of which I have received a copy.

In the face of this expected onslaught,the reaction of the Queensland Governmentand this Education Minister can best bedescribed as wimpish. For the first six weeks,coalition members went into a state of denial,saying that it could never happen here. Then,finally stung into action by persistent warningbells from the Opposition and the universities,the Minister sought a meeting with his Federalcounterpart, Senator Amanda Vanstone.What happened when the Minister sought thatmeeting? She refused! The Federal EducationMinister thought so little of her Queenslandcounterpart that she refused to meet with him.She is one of the Minister's parliamentaryLiberal Party colleagues and she would noteven meet with him! Mr Quinn even offered tofly to Adelaide on Anzac Day to meet theFederal Minister on her own soil, but she stillwould not meet with him. Not only that, sherefused to answer his letters, she refused toreturn his phone calls, and, in the finalignominy, when they were on a conferencecall, Mr Quinn asked the senator a questionabout when they could meet and she did notanswer—she went silent on the other end ofthe phone. Mr Quinn might as well have beenspeaking French to her!

What happened next? Faced with hisEducation Minister's failure to secure even aconversation let alone a meeting with theFederal Minister, the Premier had to interveneto get a meeting. Last week, the Ministergirded his loins—after the Premier hadintervened on his behalf because Mr Quinnwas too weak in the eyes of his Federalcoalition counterpart to secure a meeting—and charged off to Canberra to do battle withthe forces of higher education darkness inCanberra. What did he achieve? Nothing! Asthe Premier would say, he got nothing—zero,zip, zilch.

Queensland's traditionally poorparticipation rate in higher education is aboutto become permanently embedded in thesystem, to the detriment of thousands ofQueensland students who will continue tosuffer poorer access to higher education thanstudents interstate. This problem ismanifesting itself throughout Queensland. TheBundaberg News Mail ran a story titled "Uniplaces in doubt", which stated—

"Two new Queensland Universitycampuses and about 3000 studentplaces were now in doubt after the federalgovernment on Tuesday failed to

guarantee promised funds for theprojects."

The Queensland Times ran a story titled"Canberra uni cash in doubt", which has theMinister himself admitting that those universityplaces are in doubt. An article in the HerveyBay and Maryborough Chronicle predicts thatHervey Bay's University of SouthernQueensland campus may go ahead butstates—

"However, long-term cuts could affectthe university's plans for the future . . .

'The last government had a . . . firmcommitment to increasing equity inQueensland with other states but if thatdoesn't go ahead, we don't really knowwhat to expect for the future.' "

An article in the Daily Mercury of Mackay,under the banner headline "Fears for uniplaces", states—

"Central Queensland University is'very concerned' about theCommonwealth's refusal to guaranteethat Queensland will hold on to extratertiary places promised by the KeatingGovernment."

The Courier-Mail carried an article with theheading "State bids to stem uni cuts", whichstates—

"Senator Vanstone yesterday againrefused to guarantee Queensland wouldretain more than 3000 extra universityplaces promised by the previous Laborgovernment."

An article in the Sunshine Coast Daily carryingthe heading "Fight on to save Coast uni fromrazor's edge" states that the new SunshineCoast university is under grave threat in termsof its expansion and the much-neededadditional student places as well as additionalresources for capital works. In the Gold CoastBulletin, under an article with the heading"Logan university in doubt as federal fundingcuts mooted", the Griffith University chancellor,Roy Webb, is quoted as making thiscomment—

"More than 4700 tertiary places overthree years—costing about $107 million infederal funds—were promised toQueensland by the Keating government.

But Professor Webb said yesterdaythat funding—and associated tertiarybuilding works in Logan, Ipswich, Cairns,the Sunshine Coast and Hervey Bay—would hinge on Education Minister BobQuinn's talks with his federalcounterpart . . ."


Well, what did Mr Quinn get out of that?Nothing! He got nothing out of his Federalcounterpart. As Peter Morley said in theCourier-Mail on Saturday—

"But what has happened? Vanstonehas refused to say whether she willprovide the 2450 places still to bedelivered and the associated capitalfunding needed for new campuses,especially in regional growth centres."

Morley's column goes on to say—"While she prevaricates, using the

excuse that she will not pre-empt thecontent of the federal Budget which willcontain cuts, the chance of expansionoccurring on time—if at all—is slippingaway.

The only undertaking Quinnmanaged to extract from Vanstone wasthat Queensland would be fairly treatedand get a per capita share of whateverplaces were approved."

That is code for the fact that Queensland willshare equally with all the other States in thecuts, and that is what I say will entrench thesystem of imbalance in Queensland's tertiaryplaces forever. At the end of his column, PeterMorley states—

"If funding is cut short now, it is likelythat—short of a massive injection offunds"—

and that is unlikely, because the Minister hasadmitted that Queensland's contribution isdependent on the Federal contribution—

"Queensland youngsters will never enjoythe national level of access to tertiaryeducation."

Morley is spot-on in that article. I say to members of this House that it is

just not good enough. The people ofQueensland deserve better than a Ministerwho cops a whipping in Canberra on such avital issue and is sent scurrying back toQueensland with his tail between his legs. Icall on the Premier to again intervene at PrimeMinisterial level to ensure that Queensland'shigher education places are secure. I call onevery member of this House, especially thoseon the Gold Coast, the Sunshine Coast,Logan, Ipswich, Cairns, Hervey Bay andGladstone, to redouble their efforts or run therisk of seeing their campuses disappear orrelegated to insignificance.

Waste Management, Far-northQueensland

Ms WARWICK (Barron River) (12 noon):I wish to inform the House of a matter of

urgent and grave importance pertaining to thepeople of far-north Queensland. I refer towaste management strategies in my area. In adamning report just released, titled "Far NorthQueensland Waste Management StrategyOptions", prepared for the Far NorthQueensland Regional Organisation ofCouncils, we have been alerted to problemswhich we must now address.

Domestic waste, which contains manyunacceptable toxic substances, such ashousehold chemicals and solvents, along withbatteries and putrescibles, ends up in landfill.This then becomes a toxic brew. The reportlists some 24 sites in far-north Queensland ofwhich all but one are "environmentallyunacceptable". This is a damning indictmentof past policies and strategies. Presently, weuse landfill predominantly for waste disposal.Experts tell us that there is no such thing as asafe landfill. The basic construction of amodern multi-layered landfill dump has agravel drain system in case of leakage. In theUSA, research shows that landfill systems willleak either immediately they are constructed,because of faults in the joins, or at some othertime in the life of the dump. This is particularlyso in times of floods, cyclones andearthquakes.

North Queensland is in an area wherefrequent heavy rain occurs. It is also acyclone-prone area. I refer to a region which isunique in having two World Heritage areaswithin its confines, namely, the Wet Tropicsand the Great Barrier Reef. The region alsohas significant areas of coastal wetlands whichrequire protection, for example, Trinity Inlet.There are also vast areas of forest outside theWet Tropics World Heritage area, includingremnant rainforest, open woodlands and drytropical forests. Other sensitive areas includethe vast tracts of potential acid-sulphate soilalong the coastal plain which, according to thestudy just released, should not be disturbedwithout appropriate management plans. Thepermeable nature of the soil on much of thetableland also makes protection of groundwater difficult and, therefore, effective landfillengineering is costly.

Suitable sites for landfill on the coastalplain and tablelands are extremely scarce, dueto proximity to environmentally sensitive areasmentioned earlier. Land values are also highand would impact on site acquisition costs.The tropical climate in far-north Queensland ischaracterised by hot, wet summers and mild,dry winters. Annual average rainfall in Cairns is2,195 millimetres, with an average of 140 wetdays per annum. Average humidity in Cairnsranges from 69 per cent in January to 63 per


cent in July. As I mentioned previously, theregion is subject to cyclones, with subsequentrisk of flooding and wind damage. This highrainfall on the coastal plains and much of thetableland makes environmental control inlandfill operation extremely difficult.

We are at a crossroads in terms of wastedisposal in my region. Last Friday, the CairnsPost ran a front-page story headed "No roomat the dump". This article quoted DouglasShire Mayor, Mike Berwick, who is alsochairperson of the Local Authority WasteManagement Advisory Committee. He said—

"Cairns and some other parts of theFar North could start running out of wastedisposal space within months and neededa regional waste management plan totackle the problem."

He went on to say—

". . . the problem would not be easilysolved by digging a giant new regionallandfill in someone else's backyard.

The Far North produces about190,000 tonnes of rubbish a year, ofwhich 80 per cent goes unsorted intolandfills."

The editorial in the Cairns Post that same daysupported the stance which Mayor Berwickhad taken and urged the powers that be totake note of the timely warning issued by him.The editorial went on to say that—

". . . garbage creation is a real growthindustry with the coastal strip aroundCairns being one of Australia's fastestgrowing areas in terms of population andindustry."

The Cairns Post editorial explained that—

"Cairns city, before last year'samalgamation with the Mulgrave Shire,had been seeking an alternative landfillfor several years to replace its rapidlyfilling wetland dump sites. One proposalwas to establish a major regional landfill inthe Lamb Range area, roughly halfwaybetween Kuranda and Mareeba.However, this was knocked back a coupleof years ago by the Mareeba Shire, whichdid not want to be the site of a regionaldump."

And rightly so.

According to the report, it is obvious thatthe option of retaining the current types oflandfill for unsorted garbage on the wetcoastal areas does not appear to be feasible,because it is virtually impossible to manageleachate and stormwater. It is obvious that along-term regional landfill for unsorted rubbish

is out of the question for those reasons andbecause no local shire will want to take theunsorted waste of another. Many existinglandfills in the region, including two in Cairns,are reaching the end of their lifespan and arealready causing environmental concern. Adecision must be made soon, and localauthorities must be courageous and visionary.They must look at options other than landfill,which, in my view, is clearly not a viable option.

What are the western European moderntechnological alternatives to landfill?Incineration and anaerobic digestion. Let usconsider the two. With incineration, the bigcost is in the maintenance of the boiler andanti-atmospheric pollution equipment.Anaerobic digestion does not have a boiler,and the digester has no moving parts. Areadily available off-the-shelf slurry pump isused to pump the prepared waste into thedigester. Ash from an incinerator may need togo to landfill. Residue from the digester isClass A1 compost, with no dangerouspathogens. Several countries are currentlybuilding, contracting and/or operatinganaerobic digester systems. These includeFrance, the UK, the Netherlands, Tahiti,Belgium, Germany, Finland, Austria, the IvoryCoast and Senegal. Additionally, in excess of20 other locations are currently studying theanaerobic digestion options.

With an anaerobic digestion unit, thehazardous waste is sorted, it reclaimsrecyclable materials and it sorts and treatsdigestible waste. Nothing in the waste streamis missed. Digestible waste comprises allputrescibles, not only from households butalso from markets, abattoirs, farms, seweragesludge—which is currently a big problem in far-north Queensland—grease trap sludge, septictank pump-outs, shredded waste paper and allnatural fibres. Of course, let us not forget thegreen waste which, in our coastal regions,represents a large volume of digestible matter.An anaerobic digester waste treatment plant isable to store the methane in compressedform, and the gas can then be used togenerate electricity at peak periods. It is a verysimple matter to shut down the electricgenerating system and continue to store theenergy source, that is, the methane, but toshut down an incinerator quickly is a verydemanding task, and the energy source isthen wasted.

Modern methane digestion technology isnow well proven and fully operational inwestern Europe. This process could be fullyutilised in far-north Queensland and has theadvantage of not being affected by ambienthumidity. There is no release of odours, as the


system is anaerobic. Methane is recovered,which is not the case in composting. Methaneis a very valuable energy source. Methanedigestion has been used for the past 50 yearsin the treatment of liquid waste. The bestexample is in the pig industry, where all largepiggeries use this technology to provideenergy for their own operation. Anaerobicdigestion is a closed system and, as such, it isenvironmentally friendly. A modern digester tohandle 100,000-plus tonnes throughput canbe established on five hectares of land andthe site landscaped to fit in with theenvironment. Such a unit is able to beexpanded at minimum cost—compared tolandfill and incineration—to meet an increasingurban growth, as is planned for the far-northQueensland area by the year 2010.

The current waste collection vehicles inthe City of Cairns could be converted to usebiogas, which would reduce vehicle emissionsby some 50 per cent in nitrogen oxides and 70per cent in carbon monoxide, with no releaseof lead or aromatic compounds and norelease of unburnt hydrocarbon particles inexhaust gases. Soil impoverishment anderosion are global phenomena resulting frommany modern farming practices. The recyclingof organic matter as humus reverses this trendand can be used in restructuring poor ordepleted soils. Soils rich in humus have asuperior biological activity which aids plantabsorption of nutrients and, unlike chemicalfertilisers, avoids the pollution of watertablesand rivers by leachates.

Anaerobic digesters are self-sustainablewithin 28 days of being commissioned. Theydo not require grid electricity. Fluids are treatedwithin the unit through a centrifuge, and thereis no further requirement for water throughoutthe life of the plant. In other words, the unit isself-sustaining, as long as waste is beingprocessed. It is possible that this wastedenergy and environmentally damagingmaterials could be recycled through thedigester and, over a period of years, some ofthe smaller existing dumps could be cleanedup. Over a longer period, possibly even thelarge coastal dumps, such as Portsmith inCairns, could be treated, as waste remains inan inert state when——

Time expired.

Maddern Valuation Services

Mr DOLLIN (Maryborough) (12.10 p.m.):I rise to speak on a matter of public interestthat concerns the valuation industry in generaland in particular a valuation companyoperating in the Wide Bay Region, namely,

Maddern Valuation Services. That companyfirst came to my attention when I receivedcomplaints from nine battling families inAldershot, a village near Maryborough. Thosefamilies were victims of a house and landpackage rort that was being perpetratedagainst them by Peter Coombs, a financebroker and licensed real estate agent.

Coombs advertised that low-incomefamilies could purchase a house with nodeposit required and low repayments for$65,000 all inclusive, no hidden costs, noextras and nothing further to spend. To cut along story short, eight of the nine families whopurchased have now walked away from whatthey believed was to be their dream home.They are financially broke and heart brokenwith little faith left in their fellow man.

The commonly accepted risk in thelending industry is 90 per cent of valuation. Toget around not having a deposit from thepurchaser, Coombs arranged MaddernValuation Services to jack up the value ofthose $65,000 house and land packages to$76,150. This jacked valuation convenientlyallowed for a loan of $65,000 from thefinancier B. H. Knowles and Company whonow has very limited security. Eight of the jerry-built houses are now for resale at $65,000 ornear offer. The builder built the houses for$46,900, which included his profit, and theywere advertised widely for $65,000 for houseand land. It is obvious that MaddernValuations gave not an honest valuation butone to suit a deal, a crooked deal at that. Itable one of those valuations.

I will now explain where, in three otherinstances, Maddern's dubious valuationsalmost cost Hervey Bay ratepayers $1.2m. Iquote in part from the Hervey BayIndependent—

"Hervey Bay Council has narrowlyaverted paying out nearly $860,000 incompensation for the resumption of twoparcels of land after a councillorquestioned the valuations on theproperties. The resumed parcels hadoriginally been valued at $457,000 and$400,000 respectively. However, asubsequent second valuation by adifferent firm of valuers revalued the$457,000 property down to between$47,000 and $82,000 and the $400,000property down to no value at all. It isbelieved Council eventually paid between$80,000 and $150,000 in total for bothproperties. The original valuations, whichwere commissioned by the twodevelopers from the same firm of valuers,had been accepted by Council. So close


was Council to paying out the money thatit had even been set aside in this year'sBudget."

I table that newspaper clipping.

I table a valuation assessed on 23 March1995 by Maddern Valuation Services, signedby N. L. Maddern, regarding an assessment ofcompensation payable by the Hervey Bay CityCouncil to Westlakes Development, Truro andAnn Streets, for their client Mr J. West. Thatvaluation, which I table, is for $400,000. Analternative valuation by Dr J. F. N. Murray andV. L. Brett and Associate Consulting Valuers,which I also table, is for nil value, because thatland is a swamp. I think it is fair to say that$400,000 of ratepayers' hard-earned moneyalmost went west. What a discrepancy—$400,000 against nil. Is valuer Lloyd Maddernacting as a valuer or agent?

There is more! The Lygon group ofcompanies of Carlton, Victoria, contractedMaddern Valuation Services to value a lot atCentral Park, Urraween Road, Pialba, forresumption by the Hervey Bay City Council.This time the valuation by Maddern ValuationServices, which I table, came in at $457,000.The alternative valuation from Murray, Brettand Associates, which I also table, came in at$47,000. That is a difference of a massive$410,000. One might wonder which of thesetwo valuers was right. It is not Maddern, as theHervey Bay City Council is reported to havepurchased both lots for approximately$80,000, saving Hervey Bay City Councilratepayers $800,000. There is one thing I willsay for Maddern Valuation Services: they suretry for their clients and do not allow a fewethics to get in their way!

I turn now to a third very controversialvaluation by Maddern Valuation Services,again involving Hervey Bay City Council. Iagain quote in part from the Hervey BayIndependent. The article, headed "Councilsevers links with valuer", stated—

"The latest controversy involves asection of former rail corridor. This parcelhas been the subject of negotiation forsome time between a Sydney basedcompany and the original owners,Queensland Rail, and then the newowners, Hervey Bay City Council. A recentvaluation by the valuer placed a worth of$240,000 on the site"—

and I table that valuation—

"despite an earlier offer by the Sydneycompany to Queensland Rail of$800,000."

That offer was withdrawn after council boughtthe rail corridor from Queensland Rail. It isbelieved that the company made asubsequent offer to council of $300,000. Asecond valuation from another firm of valuers,which I table, ordered by council's Acting ChiefExecutive Officer, Bob Chambers, has nowvalued the site at $770,000.

This week, Mr Chambers said that in lightof that and the previous contentiousvaluations, council would no longer deal withthat valuer. He stated—

"I don't use that valuer. I haven't haddiscussions with him since the last issueand I have certainly instructed that noneof the people in my department use himagain."

Honourable members should note that MrMaddern is again working hard for his clientbut this time he is undervaluing the ratepayers'assets by $540,000. Had not the recentlyappointed CEO, Bob Chambers, insisted on asecond independent valuation from Murray,Brett and Associates, someone would havepicked up a very easy $540,000. Added to theother two transactions, the Hervey Bay CityCouncil stood to lose some $1.2m. Afterreading the reported instructions by the CEOthat the council would not deal with the valueragain, through FOI I checked through thecouncil records of valuers employed in 1996.Whom did I find on that list? None other thanMaddern Valuation Services! I table that list.

It is beyond my comprehension why acouncil would turn back on its own instructionsand employ a valuation company that almostcost its ratepayers $1.2m through bodgievaluations. I ask the Hervey Bay City Council:why? I ask: how many times has the councilpaid out on Madderns' valuations? I now drawto the attention of the Minister for NaturalResources, Mr Hobbs, that it recently came tomy knowledge that, through being the lowesttenderer, Maddern Valuation Services won amajor contract through its Maryborough officeto do extensive valuations throughout theMaryborough region for the StateGovernment. I believe that the documentationthat I have tabled today indicates without ashadow of a doubt that this company isincompetent or worse. I ask the Minister to actbefore taxpayers' money is wasted.

Mr Mulherin: Was this Maddern theNational Party candidate during the lastelection?

Mr DOLLIN: The same fellow.

I call on the Government to thoroughlyinvestigate the valuation industry in


Queensland as a whole, with a view to makingit a criminal act to tender false valuations—both overvaluations and undervaluations—tosuit particular deals, especially when local,State and Federal Governments are involved.

Flooding in Lockyer Electorate

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (12.17 p.m.): Theweekend before last, my electorate wassubjected to flooding and large areas wereinundated. Homes were inundated and farmssuffered much loss. People in Brisbaneprobably became aware of that flooding whenthey were told that the Warrego Highway wascut and one could not get through toToowoomba.

As members of this House know, whensuch flooding occurs, a lot of personal traumais involved. People suffer large financiallosses. Help is sought from Governments andit behoves the local member to assist thosepeople in any way that he or she can. Myoffice has been inundated with peoplerequiring assistance, and we are trying to pointthem in the right direction.

I thank the Premier and the Minister forEmergency Services who visited the LockyerValley on Monday, 6 May. They experiencedgreat difficulty getting there. They were toleave the Gold Coast by helicopter—as wasfitting—but that flight was terminated atArcherfield, because the conditions were sohazardous that the helicopter pilot had to landwhen he was able to find a place to land. ThePremier and Minister Veivers came to Laidleyby car. Laidley was accessible from theBrisbane side and, from that morning, it wasaccessible also from Toowoomba and Gattonvia the Warrego Highway.

The Premier and the Minister came toreceive a briefing from the Mayor of Laidley,Councillor Moon. Of course, as the localmember, I also attended that briefing. Weobserved that the counter disaster plan wasworking well at Laidley. The mayor himself wasinvolved heavily with that operation. Otherpeople had been working for long hours over anumber of days to provide support to thecitizens of the Laidley Shire. At the same time,the Gatton Shire was inundated. Although thetown of Gatton was not inundated to the sameextent as that small portion of Laidley,considerable damage was done.

I would like to place on record my thanksto Trevor Perrett, the Minister for PrimaryIndustries, who on Wednesday, 8 May,inspected the area. At that time we were able

to see the aftermath of the flooding. TheMinister saw large-scale devastation of thecropping area. We spoke to farmers who, atthat stage, were still in a state of shock and,although some of them would not admit it,traumatised. It is a very testing time for thosefarmers and other people who, over the lastfew days, have suffered losses.

Some people say, "So it was a flood.Farmers should be prepared for floods. Thecitizens of Laidley should have been preparedfor floods. It was a natural phenomenon andthey should have taken steps to avoid it." Thearea had an unprecedented amount of rain forthe month of May, and that caused the majorproblems. Previously, there had been floods inthe area, notably in 1974. The area alsoexperienced floods in 1959 and 1988 and atother times. With the exception of the 1974floods, most of those floods were minor.However, in anyone's language, this flood wasvery large.

In Gatton, the average rainfall for themonth of May is in the vicinity of 43millimetres. The average rainfall for Laidley forthat month is exactly the same and, forLowood, it is 47 millimetres. That givesmembers an idea of the average rainfall forthat area for that month—about 43millimetres. However, during the week leadingup to 7 May, Withcott had 507 millimetres ofrain; Helidon, 584 millimetres; Laidley, 520millimetres; and Gatton town, 433 millimetres,while some of the headwaters hadconsiderably more. Hatton Vale, which isdownstream, had 498 millimetres of rain.Adding to the problem, during the weekending 30 April all of those areas had between22 millimetres and 43 millimetres of rain. Inother words, in terms of the old scale, thoseareas had generally already received about aninch or an inch and a quarter of rain. That wasbeautiful, soaking rain. It was badly neededbecause the area had been through aprolonged period of drought. However, on topof that week of beneficial rain, the area hadthis massive inundation.

Of course, nobody could plan for such aphenomenon. Although in Laidley some floodmitigation work had been carried out, which Iunderstand was quite successful, the farmingareas were not in such a good position. Whenthe creeks burst their banks in certain places,there was a large amount of scouring andinundation of land.

During the time left to me, I want to referto an article by a Mr Terry Black, whichappeared in yesterday's Courier-Mail. TerryBlack is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of


Business at the Queensland University ofTechnology. In that article, he referred to therecent flood rains and stated that, althoughpeople have sympathy for farmers, that doesnot indicate that they support theGovernment's proposed $500m in relief loans.Where on earth did he get the figure of$500m for the farmers in the Lockyer? Thereare probably only a couple of hundred farmersin the area. If the Government gave each ofthem $1m, they would walk off their farms. Ido not know where Mr Black got that figure,but I am very concerned that people who readthat article may have been given a falseimpression and believe that the farmers arebeing given $500m.

Let me place on record that thosepayments are not grants; they are loans madeto people who qualify for them under very tightguidelines. Firstly, people have to apply totheir banks for an extension of their overdrafts.If the banks will lend those people money,they will receive nothing from the Government.The Government is offering to those peoplewho qualify loans at 6 per cent payable overseven years. Members should be aware thatthat interest rate is about 4 percentage pointsbelow the current housing-loan interest rate—Ibelieve that some institutions are offeringhousing loans with interest at 9 per cent.Although the Government's loan is not a gift, ithas a subsidised interest rate.

Secondly, to receive this loan, peoplehave to not only prove that they cannotreceive any more loans from the banks butalso that their farms are viable and that theycan repay the money. So if people can meetthose stipulations, they may be eligible toreceive money from the Government. That is avery narrow financial gate for people to gothrough. I call upon the Government to loosenup the conditions so that people can beassisted and stay in business.

Mr Black states further—

". . . politicians invariably give disasterrelief, farmers have no incentive to takesteps to mitigate the effects of droughtsor floods by building dams."

That is absolute piffle! He should travelthe Lockyer Valley and see the number ofdams that were built during those droughtyears. Although some of them gave smallflows to some farmers, some of them did notyield any water. A couple of farmers who metMr Perrett when he inspected the area toldhim that they had just completed their waterscheme, which cost a large amount of money,and then they were flooded out.

Another matter of concern is that May isthe worst season for the Lockyer Valley to beflooded. The whole cropping program of thevalley—and I am talking about cabbages,broccoli, carrots, lettuce, celery, capsicum,tomatoes, beetroot, French beans, lucerne,potatoes and onions—is for crops to be grownduring the winter months. It is also harvesttime for sorghum and soya beans. Thosecrops had sprouted, and they were lost. Thefarmers have outlaid all of their money to plantthose crops—whole paddocks full of plants.Each plant costs 4.5c from a nursery andthousands and thousands of those plantswent under water; that caused massive lossesto farmers. I invite Mr Black to see what workhas been carried out on farms.

I support totally a scheme to keep thegood farmers in business because we asconsumers need them to survive. I am nottalking about handouts to help those farmerswho cannot manage their properties; I wantthis Government assistance being given tothose good farmers so that they have achance to survive.

Time expired.

Optus Cables

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (12.27 p.m.):Over two and a half years ago I spoke in thisChamber about Optus and its attitude towardsthe people of Brisbane. It was erecting towersin children's playgrounds and various otherplaces in residential areas without so much asa by-your-leave to the people who live nearthem. Despite the fact that I held a pressconference, which was well attended, JJJ wasthe only media outlet to give any publicity tothis matter. The other media outlets ignoredthe matter totally. In that regard, I believe thatthe media fell down very badly.

Today, Optus is putting cables on existingpower poles in some suburbs, including thosein my electorate. It is accepted that powerpoles are well-known traffic hazards. Sooner orlater, we have to take steps to get rid of them.However, through Optus placing its cables onthose power poles, the process of removingthem will be delayed.

On 7 April 1992 I tabled in this Chamber areport from Travelsafe that drew attention tothe fact that police believe that each year inMelbourne an average of 45 fatalities occurredand 785 people were injured because of theproximity of power poles to traffic lanes. Trafficengineers recommend that, in a 60 kilometrean hour speed zone, no power poles or firmobjects should be erected less than three


metres from any travelling lane. Yet, we seethe situation of trees being removed and deadtrees being planted. In a 100 kilometres anhour speed zone, nothing should be erectedwithin nine metres of a traffic lane. Time expired.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Laming):Order! The time allotted to matters of publicinterest has expired.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 May (see p. 816). Mr WELFORD (Everton) (12.30 p.m.): I

am pleased to speak in this second-readingdebate of the Environmental ProtectionAmendment Bill. The Opposition has someconcerns about this Bill. By and large, the Billis procedural and remedies a number of bothtypographical and drafting errors. However,this Bill, like most of the random and ad hocamending regulations that the new Ministerhas introduced, is full of all sorts of errors andthe Opposition will be opposing someelements of it.

Obviously, for some time the Oppositionhas been concerned at the way in which theMinister has extended the moratorium onlicences. Not for one moment do I deny that,as the Minister responsible for this legislation,he is entitled to make decisions aboutextending the time limits within which peoplemight be liable to or exempt from prosecution.However, quite apart from the comedy oferrors which have surrounded the way in whichthe Minister has introduced this legislation, hehas simply delayed the inevitable. He hascreated even more uncertainty and confusionthan he says there was previously. If anything,this amending Bill will conclusivelydemonstrate to any operator who mightundertake activities which fall within thecategory of environmentally relevant that anyattempt by an ordinary person to come toterms with this Bill might as well be given up;they will need legal advice.

Until this amending legislation, and untilthe regulations which the Minister purported tointroduce and which are still subject to adisallowance motion moved in this House,there was some prospect that people readingthe legislation could get a grasp of what theywere required to do. That ends today with thisBill. If this Bill is passed, I urge the Minister tomake appropriate arrangements for theamendments to be incorporated in aconsolidated Bill, so that anyone trying to work

out what the legislation is about does not haveto refer to a dozen different pieces oflegislation. In other words, arrangements needto be made with the Office of ParliamentaryCounsel to issue a fully consolidated version ofthe Bill. I urge the Minister to do that because,notwithstanding my past legal experience, it isno easy matter to get one's head aroundthese amendments, even if one also looks atthe provisions in the substantive legislation.

Of course, at the end of February and inearly March the Government introducedregulations purporting to facilitate the four-month moratorium. As will be seen from mydiscussion on this Bill, it appears that themoratorium will in fact be longer than fourmonths. Leaving aside the validity of theregulations that purported to provide for themoratorium, as people were led to understandit, the idea was that, provided businessoperators carrying out environmentally relevantactivities obtained their licences by 30 June,they would not be liable for prosecution forfailing to have a licence. As I will explain, thisBill seems to shift the ground so that operatorsdo not need to have licences by 1 July; theyneed only to apply for licences by 1 July. Otherprovisions in this Bill allow the department aperiod of up to four months in which toconsider an application for a licence.Therefore, on a technical basis there is anargument that licences will not be requiredunder this legislation until some four monthsafter 1 July. That takes us well and trulytowards the end of the year.

If that is the effect of this amendinglegislation, as I suspect it is—and we havealready debated the merits of it—in terms ofhis administration of the legislation the Ministerhas created an enormous headache forhimself. All sorts of businesses, many of whichare already undertaking environmentallyrelevant activities, will be emitting anddispersing toxic effluent and emissions intocreeks, waterways and the air. The operationof legislation which had been in prospect sinceat least 1992, which was brought into theParliament and passed in 1994—a full twoyears ago now—and which came intooperation on 1 March 1995, is now being putback even further.

The Minister has expressed somelegitimate concerns, which I must confess thatuntil now I had not conceded to him, inrelation to information being available from thedepartment for local authorities—for example,on how they should administerenvironmentally relevant activities in their area.However, I would not have thought that thatwas an excuse for businesses being given


ever-recurring extensions of time within whichto start taking steps towards getting a licenceand, more importantly, bringing their businessactivities up to speed so that they areconducted according to the best practices forenvironmental management. The Ministersays that that is what he stands for and thatthat is what he will continue to endorse, but hehas to concede that my criticisms of hisGovernment over the last couple of monthsare based on the very clear indication, from allthe steps he has taken so far, that he isdemonstrating anything but an unequivocalcommitment to what he says he believes in:namely, requiring businesses to get up to bestpractices for environmental management. Allthe steps he has taken so far have beendedicated towards weakening or delaying theinevitable need for all people in our communityto operate in that way.

Last week the Chairman of the PineRivers Shire called a meeting which up to 200business people of all kinds attended. I do notknow whether the Minister is aware of it, buthe might as well be: the Chairman of the PineRivers Shire is doing her best to underminethe Minister's credibility in that neck of thewoods by criticising him and his Governmentand alleging that fees should not be charged,that they are too onerous and cause too muchhardship. I will tell the House more about thatmeeting in a moment because, in somerespects, it was quite amusing.

As I said, the Opposition accepts that theGovernment is entitled to review any matter ofpolicy that is within its area of responsibility.However, the steps that the Minister has takenso far in respect of environmental protection,and in particular the current legislativearrangements to protect our environment,have created an absolute mess and completeconfusion. Firstly, in late February the Ministerintroduced regulations which left exposed alloperators who have spent the last 12 monthsinvesting in upgrading their businessequipment, facilities and operations. All thatexpenditure was rendered to nought by thefirst round of regulatory amendments that theMinister made. Indeed, part of the mess hasbeen created by the Minister's failure toconsult with the business community. TheGovernment's suggestion that it is makingthese amendments out of a concern for theproblems the business community isencountering completely flies in the face of thefact that none of the business community wasconsulted when the first regulatoryamendment was made at the end ofFebruary.

Businesses immediately phoned theMinister and said, "Look, you have made anabsolute hash of this. You have left all of thegood businesses that were getting on with thejob of putting in place environmentalmanagement practices with no protection orsecurity at all." With respect to the licensingrequirements for all environmentally relevantactivities, anybody who was about to get alicence was left stranded high and dry withoutany protection under the Act. As honourablemembers may be aware, the Act providesprotections for businesses that have a licence.Having compounded the error by making asubsequent regulation, which is also thesubject of a disallowance motion in this place,the Minister then thought, "Well, maybe Ishould go and start consulting. Having madetwo errors, it is about time I consultedsomeone. After all, we did make an electionpromise"—one of the Premier's contracts withthe community—"to set up an environmentalprotection council." However, the Minister wasnot ready to do that.

To address the immediate concerns ofbusiness and the conservation groups, whowere all howling from the rooftops about thecomplete mess that had been made of themoratorium proposal, the Minister then set upa ministerial advisory committee. However, instark contrast to both the Minister's and thePremier's commitment to consultation, theMinister appointed a ministerial advisorycommittee. That committee was nevermentioned during the election campaign. Itwas just another ad hoc review—one of themany undertaken by the Government. Isuggest that none of the current members ofthe committee was consulted before thecommittee and its representation wasannounced.

Notwithstanding commitments given toenvironment groups before the election, thatcommittee was constituted in such a way thatenvironmental representation on it wasnowhere near adequate. Consequently, thecommittee is struggling and experiencingenormous difficulties in addressing theproblems handed to it by the Minister. Thecommittee simply does not have theexperience that many people in theconservation groups have. By going aheadand constituting a committee in a fashioncontrary to promises made by the Premierbefore the election, and by constituting acommittee that did not give equalrepresentation to environmentalrepresentatives, one might conclude that theMinister set out to deliberately provoke a


response from the environment groups, thatis, a refusal to participate on the committee.

The Minister must have known before heconstituted the committee—and, if he did notknow, he ought to have—that theenvironmental groups had consistently told theGovernment that that would be the basis uponwhich they were prepared to participate. TheMinister either knew or ought to have knownthat to be the position. Notwithstanding that,the Minister deliberately confined therepresentation of environmental groups toabout 25 per cent of the committee and, as aresult, guaranteed—perhaps that is what hewas seeking—their rejection of anyparticipation. That outcome has been to theMinister's detriment, because the committee isstruggling to make any progress whatsoever. Itlooks increasingly unlikely that by 31 May theMinister will have anything approaching acomprehensive response to the problems hehas cited.

A number of times last year and againsince becoming Minister, the honourablemember has made allegations about thedifficulties small business is experiencing.However, those problems have less to do withthe fees than with the lack of informationprovided from the department to localgovernment and business. The big problemthat business has in relation to this legislationis neither the legislation itself nor, as theMinister will ultimately find out, the fees per se;the problem is the lack of information at thelocal government level. The Opposition mustaccept some residual responsibility for thatposition. I agree that many small businesses,not unlike some of the members on theMinister's back bench, were absolutelyopposed to environmental protection;however, many businesses were willing tomake the change and improve theiroperations to achieve good environmentalpractices. They simply did not have sufficientinformation. That uncertainty is beingexpressed by business more than anythingelse.

The Minister and those, such as theChairman of the Pine Rivers Shire, who mightnormally be regarded as being of theMinister's ilk, have grasped onto the issue offees as an excuse for taking the action that isbeing taken. I do not seriously believe that thefees are in issue. If they are, the Minister willinevitably have to address the question of howhe and local government will fund properinspections and enforcement of goodenvironmental standards, if he is going toreduce or wipe out part of the fee collecting

capacity under the legislation. We mustrecognise that the potential for fee collectionunder this legislation is much less than that inother States. The Minister may create forhimself more problems than he has solved bytaking the step he has taken. I hope that isnot the case and that he is able to resolve theproblem. In the near future, I hope he is ableto offer more categorical information tobusiness so that its concerns can beaddressed properly. He should adopt thiscourse rather than continuing to whip up theflames of discontent. As I say, the problemstems largely from a lack of information ratherthan from any particular concern aboutelements of this legislation.

I do not think that any business wishes todamage the environment. I do not think thatthe Minister would find any business thatwould openly say that. Certainly, I would hopenot. However, rather than talking aboutproblems with the legislation which he himselfwill not discard, the Minister would be betterserved by talking more about how he is goingto get information out to business. Inparticular, I refer to the complaints of theChairman of the Pine Rivers Shire about feesand her call on the Minister to abolish thelicensing fees. The Minister might care, for theedification of the Chairman of Pine RiversShire, to alert her to the regulations that werealready in place before the Minister came intopower, namely, regulations which allow localauthorities to waive either in part or fully thelicensing fee in respect of any business wherehardship was in issue. I would have thoughtthat provision undermines entirely thecriticisms that the Minister has been makingpreviously—and I suspect he is backing awayfrom those now—and the complaints that theChairman of Pine Rivers continues to makeabout licensing fees. Such complaints wouldbe entirely unjustified in the context of anexisting regulation which gives the discretion tolocal authorities to give a partial waiver of anyfee in circumstances in which a small businesswould suffer undue hardship as a result of thefee imposed.

At the end of the day, we all acknowledgethat the fees are relevant only in terms ofproviding Government with sufficient revenueto enforce the environmental protections thatthis law applies. What is not in dispute is thatthese protections should be put in place. Whatis not in dispute is that the standards that thisAct requires should be the standards that webring Queensland business up to. The onlyquestion is: how do we do it? The Minister willneed to be careful not to undermine his owncapacity to achieve the goals of this legislation


by leaving himself short of sufficient resourcesto police it.

The Minister might care to clarify thematter I raised about his apparent shift ofground on the issue of when a licence will berequired by. Under this amendment, it certainlylooks as though people will not require alicence by 30 June; they need only makeapplication by that time, and no-one will beliable for prosecution after 1 July for at leastsome period even though they do not have alicence. That certainly seems to put back thetime. That has two effects. One, as I havealready indicated, is that it just delays theinevitable and sends the wrong signals toQueensland businesses about the importanceof getting themselves up to speed. It is a bitlate to do it now, but the Minister might havebeen better served to have retained therequirement for applications to be in by 1March or some period shortly thereafter—butcertainly not allowing another threemonths—and to have simply postponed theperiod within which businesses would not beliable for prosecution. Instead, what has beenpostponed is the requirement to apply for alicence—to make application in the firstinstance. To my mind, that is entirely thewrong message to be sending. That isprecisely the concern that I have beenexpressing to the media over the last coupleof months, and it is precisely the concernwhich many of the environmental groups havealso expressed.

Turning to particular aspects of theamending legislation—there is a provision inthe amendments which are part of thesetransitional arrangements which in effectpostpones the offence provisions of thelegislation. Basically, proposed section 236Aprovides that persons are exempt from theoffence provisions if they make applicationbefore 1 July this year for an environmentalauthority and if they continue to carry on anenvironmentally relevant activity after 1 Julybut were carrying on that activity at 30 June1996. So if persons were carrying on anactivity at the end of June and they havemade application and they are still carrying onthat activity on 1 July, then presumably thosepersons are exempt from the offenceprovisions for a period. This is an awfullycumbersome way of dealing with this problem.However, given the circumstances in which theMinister has left himself, there is no other trulyeffective way of dealing with it.

With regard to the validation provisions—and I will turn to some specifics in amoment—they would have to be the mostconvoluted and cumbersome piece of

legislative drafting that I have seen for a long,long time. Even though I do not recall any, Irecall criticisms from then Oppositionspokespeople that this type of draftingoccurred under the previous Government.Coalition members are certainly in no positionnow to make any further criticisms about thequality of legislative drafting that previousGovernments have introduced, because theprovisions relating to validation are absolutedoozies. They are quite extraordinary. I mightmention a couple of them. One provisionstates—

"An unlawful past act is taken to be,and always to have been, authorised tobe done or omitted to be done under thisAct."

What an extraordinary provision! That is apiece of legislative drafting that lets one dowhatever one likes whenever one likes withoutany consequences.

Mr FitzGerald: It doesn't cover thefuture.

Mr WELFORD: We had better have alook at that, because who knows? The furtherone goes into this legislation, the moreconfusing it becomes, and one starts towonder whether there is anything that is notallowed.

Mr Littleproud: What clause is that?

Mr WELFORD: Clause 27, proposedsection 247. The clause goes on to state—

"An application made during thesuspension period for, or for theamendment or transfer of, anenvironmental authority is taken to havebeen made on 8 March . . ."

That may be of some assistance to theMinister in sorting out just when licences arerequired by or just when the period duringwhich the department's consideration of alicence must be carried out, but the Actbecomes almost incomprehensible as a result.

The Minister made some commentsduring his second-reading speech which Ibelieve need to be addressed. Firstly, hestated that part of the purpose of thislegislation is to address "the inequities andanomalies so apparent under theEnvironmental Protection Act but which hadeluded the attentions of the previousGovernment". One matter which had noteluded the attention of the previousGovernment was the concern that might havebeen expressed about the impact of licencefees. If that is what the Minister is talkingabout, then he is misleading the House. It is


false to claim that that matter eluded theprevious Government. The reality was——

Mr Littleproud: You ignored it.

Mr WELFORD: We did not ignore it. Asthe Minister well knows, there are alreadyprovisions in the regulations which address theimpact of licence fees on business and give adiscretion to local authorities to vary licencefees accordingly. There were certainly noinequities under the legislation which hadeluded our attention when we were inGovernment; in fact, we had addressed them.What the Minister is doing here is trying tocreate a false shadow which he then proceedsto box under the pretence that this legislationwas ever justified.

Some of the typographical errors anddrafting errors could have been included underthe provisions of the legislation that the Officeof Parliamentary Counsel can use to addresssuch matters. Those errors did not requirelegislation, although it is appropriate to includethem if there are substantive issues to beaddressed in amending legislation. Apart fromthe complete mess that the Minister made ofhis attempt at the moratorium, there wasnothing that required legislation of this type.The Minister is simply creating a smokescreenbehind which he is attempting to hide bysuggesting that there was anything that ourGovernment missed that justified thislegislation. Let it be clearly understood thatthis legislation is required for one reason, andone reason only: because the Minister and theGovernment have made a hash of theirattempt to allow polluters to escape theirresponsibilities for another four months, andpossibly six months.

The Minister mentioned another matter inhis second-reading speech. He stated thatone of the things the Bill does is to clarify theterm "environmental nuisance", making it clearthat the provisions dealing with environmentalharm apply also to environmental nuisance. Ican only suggest to the Minister, out of themost friendly advice, that he read hisspeeches——

Mr FitzGerald: That's free.

Mr WELFORD: It is free. I am a solicitor.Come to me any time. I am here to help you! Isuggest that the Minister take a moment toread through his speeches before he actuallydelivers them. In reality, this legislation doesnothing to clarify the meaning of"environmental nuisance". There was never areference to "environmental nuisance" in theAct before the Minister introduced it with thisamending Bill. So this legislation does notclarify "environmental nuisance". What the

Minister meant to say was that the legislationclarifies the meaning of "environmental harm",which is defined in the Act.

Mr Foley: It's a generous contribution toLaw Week.

Mr WELFORD: It is indeed. Iacknowledge the very kind reference by theshadow Attorney to my contribution toassisting the Minister on basic matters such asthis during Law Week. Perhaps it would beappropriate if I continued after lunch.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.30 p.m.

Mr WELFORD: As I was saying beforethe luncheon adjournment, the amendmentsto this legislation have the potential to createenormous confusion. I turn now to someparticular elements of that confusion. One ofthe things which this amending legislationpurports to do is allocate powers to localgovernment. In particular, clause 17, whichrelates to the amendment of section 196 ofthe Act, seems to be extraordinarily broad. Iknow that it has drawn comment from theScrutiny of Legislation Committee. It expandsthe powers of local government to makeprovision for fees by way of resolution, not justlocal law. Previously, any adjustment to feesfor which the previous Government providedhad to be made by local law. This expandsthat to allow the adjustment to be made byresolution of the local authority. I have noparticular objection to that.

However, paragraph (b) of subsection (3)provides that the local government may makea law about any matter for which it isnecessary or convenient to make provision forcarrying out or giving effect to the devolvedmatter. Under this legislation, devolvedmatters are all those environmentally relevantactivities for which local governments haveauthority to administer. In a quite extraordinaryway, this provision signs away the authority ofthis Parliament to make appropriate laws forthe administration of environmental protection.It means that local governments throughoutthe State—all 125 of them——

Mr Littleproud: 130.

Mr WELFORD:—give or take afew—can make their own local laws withrespect to particular procedures for enforcingthis legislation. Indeed, as long as it is notdirectly inconsistent with the substantiveprovisions of this Act, they can make their ownlocal laws, for example, specifying whatadditional matters might be in environmentalmanagement plans.

So here we have an extraordinarily wideprovision which gives local authorities the


power to expand upon the requirements ofState legislation on an ad hoc basis from onecouncil to the next without any mechanism forthis Parliament to scrutinise that law-makingprocess. I urge the Minister to turn his mind tothat issue, otherwise we could have 120-odddifferent laws relating to environmentalprotection, quite clearly creating the potentialfor some local government areas to be set upas pollution havens for those businesses thatwant to skirt around the requirements thatother local governments might impose overand above what is required in this legislation.So this provision is fraught with risk.

Obviously, given that nothing which isinconsistent with this legislation can beprovided for in a local law, the requirements forenvironmental management plans and thelicensing conditions for which this legislationprovides cannot be watered down, they canonly be increased by a local authority. So onemight assume that, in some local authorityareas, higher standards may be imposed andthat, in other local authority areas, lowerstandards may be imposed. That may or maynot be desirable in itself, but what is certainlyundesirable is that this Parliament would haveno way of monitoring or scrutinising thedevelopment of those additional impositionswhich local governments might create undertheir own local laws. So while I understand theflexibility which it is desirable to give localgovernment with respect to the fees—and thatis done in paragraph (a)—I simply alert theMinister to the fact that I believe thatparagraph (b) is fraught with extraordinary risksfor the Minister, this Government and theadministration of this legislation. The Ministerought to give serious consideration to whetheror not he allows it to proceed today.

I turn now to former section 240 which,presumably, is replaced by clause 24 of thisBill. I might point out what seem to beinconsistencies in the drafting of theseamendments. For example, specific referenceis made in clause 15 to the omission ofsection 89 and the insertion of a new section.But nowhere in this amending legislation isthere specific reference to the omission ofsection 240, yet a proposed new section 240is inserted. One would imagine that there arenot going to be two separate sections 240.There seems to be an inconsistency in theway this Bill is drafted. In some instances,sections that are replaced are first omitted andthen replaced. However, section 240 is notomitted, but a new one is inserted. Proposednew section 251 is very confusing. Section240 is replaced by clause——

Mr Littleproud: 240 is replaced by 251.

Mr WELFORD: That is right. Section240 is replaced by section 251. However,section 251, along with a range of others, isdealt with under clause 27. Proposed newsection 251 is the one to which I am referring.The original section 240 was simply a provisionthat allowed for regulations of a transitionalnature to be made. In other words, regulationscould be made for the transitional periodbetween when the Act came into operationand when licences were required. It was thattransitional provision which the Ministerbreached when he purported to make hissecond amendment to the regulations in earlyMarch. He purported to make the secondamendment to the regulations under thattransitional provision, but the provision itselfhad expired on 1 March.

Proposed new section 251 is anextraordinary provision. Again, it draws specialreference from the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee. In particular, it provides, by way ofa regulation-making power, the opportunity toamend the legislation, that is, the substantiveAct itself. Those members who are familiarwith the extraordinary nature of this processwould know that it is called a Henry VIII clause.In every Parliament of the world, according toproper parliamentary drafting practice, it is notappropriate to allow the ExecutiveGovernment to make regulations whichamend the substantive law. Yet that is whatthis provision purports to do.

The Alert Digest of the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee, which was tabled inthe Parliament today, states—

"Section 251(1)(b) allows a regulationto be made about any matter of asavings, transitional or validating naturefor which this part does not makeprovision or enough provision. This sub-clause therefore clearly anticipates thatthe Bill may be inadequate and matterwhich otherwise would have been ofsufficient importance to be dealt with inthe Act will now be dealt with byregulation."

The Alert Digest continues—"In the Committee's view, this is not

an appropriate delegation of legislativepower. Since the predecessor of thiscommittee (the Subordinate LegislationCommittee) was established in 1975, ithas consistently maintained that if amatter is of sufficient importance to beincluded in an Act of Parliament, that isthe only appropriate place for it to bedealt with. Such a significant matter cannot appropriately be dealt with bysubordinate legislation."


The committee recommends the removal ofproposed section 251(1)(b), and so it should. Itis totally inappropriate for this legislation toauthorise the validating provisions of thisamending Bill and the Act itself to be furtheramended by regulation.

I have already given a certain level ofacknowledgment to the Minister that thisamendment was required because of theerrors that were made with respect toregulations already passed, but I am notprepared to go so far as to authorise theMinister first to make mistakes and then tocome into the House to validate them, andthen to purport further to amend thesubstantive legislation to allow him to correctfurther mistakes without even coming back tothe Parliament. That is entirely unsatisfactory.In the context of the Minister's undertaking toconsult the broader community on his activitiesin this area, that is entirely hypocritical. I hopethat the Minister takes that serious matter onboard.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister referred to an amendment thatensured that where prescribed in an EPP,certain provision of a policy could bemandatorily imposed by an administeringauthority and therefore be legally enforceable.I may be missing something, but I cannot findany such amendment in the legislation. Inrelation to EPPs, the Minister stated that theprevious Government adopted the term"policies", that is, environmental protectionpolicies, in order to obtain a degree ofuniformity with southern States, and that istrue. However, he said that the term has led tosome legal questions over the enforceability ofprovisions of the draft environmentalprotection policies. In his second-readingspeech, the Minister said that there is anamendment in the Bill that addresses thequestion of enforceability of the draftenvironmental protection policies. In his reply, Iwould like the Minister to point to theamendment that addresses that matter,because on my reading of the amending Bill, Ihave not found one. The Minister might furtherclarify just what legal questions ofenforceability are problematic with respect tothe draft EPP, because he does not outlinethem in his second-reading speech. To theextent that there are such questions, theMinister he does not seem to address them inany amendment that I can identify in thislegislation.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister reaffirmed the Government'scommitment to the protocol that had beenestablished previously with local government. I

endorse his action on that front. It is absolutelycritical that, in the administration of thislegislation, there be close cooperationbetween State and local governments.Although local governments will be responsiblelargely for the leg work involved in ensuringthat local businesses in local governmentareas are brought up to standard, they will relyvery heavily on the advice, assistance andinformation that the State Government andthe Minister's department in particular willprovide. I am pleased to see that he willmaintain that close cooperation.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister said that—and I wonder whether itwas said almost facetiously—after ratifyingthose decisions, the Bill provides substantiveoutcomes that will immediately improvecommunity understanding of theEnvironmental Protection Act. I wish him well.As I have outlined here today, there are anynumber of provisions in this legislation that Iimagine will do anything but improve anyone'sunderstanding, least of all the community'sunderstanding of this legislation. It is going tobe difficult enough for the Minister and hisdepartment to follow, without suggesting that itwill improve the community understanding. Iam only hopeful that other information will bedistributed by the Minister and his departmentto give the community and, in particular, thosebusinesses that are conductingenvironmentally relevant activities a clearerunderstanding of their responsibilities underthe spirit of this law.

In his second-reading speech, theMinister mentioned the proposal—which wasan election promise, in contrast to theministerial advisory committee—to establish anenvironmental protection council. He said thatthat will be established in the second half ofthis year. While it is not directly related to thelegislation, I invite the Minister to reinforce thatstatement to his colleagues in theGovernment, because I noticed in the pressjust last week, in his column in his localnewspaper, Mr Perrett, a GovernmentMinister, was proudly proclaiming that theMinister for Environment has established theenvironmental protection council. Either MrPerrett has jumped the gun or the Minister hasmade a mistake or misled the House. Just oneweek after the second-reading speech wasdelivered, it is out of date. The Ministers of thisGovernment are the left hand that does notknow what the right hand is doing.

Mr Fouras: What's new?

Mr WELFORD: Indeed, as the memberfor Ashgrove says, "What is new?"


I draw that article to the attention ofmembers of the Government and not only theMinister, because the members of thecoalition have been trying to beef up theirenvironmental credentials by pretending thatthey have done something positive rather thanthe negative steps that have been taken. Inreality, there is no environmental protectioncouncil yet in place, and those members ofthe Government who are pretending otherwisein their local papers are simply misleading theirconstituents.

An appropriate point on which to concludeis another reference to the second-readingspeech and the Minister's comment that infine tuning environmental policy he proposesto consult with the community, explaining howthe policy changes affect their livelihoods andtheir quality of life. To date, what has occurredin the way of consultation? The Minister tookoffice in a blaze of panic, inflaming fearamong small business where no fear neededto be. He is maintaining the legislation, and sohe should. He has acknowledged thatprovision already existed in the legislation torelieve business of the hardship that mightaccrue from any licence fee. However, underthe pretence of making some positive changeto the law, he has introduced an amending Billwhich remedies a comedy of errors. In hisreply, the Minister might give those of us in thecommunity who have some vestige of concernfor environmental matters, unlike some of hisback bench, a reassurance that theextraordinarily provocative and negligentstatements and media comment, such as thatcoming from Mr Lester and other members ofhis back bench, who want the entire legislationabolished, that he will not acquiesce——

Mr LESTER: I rise to a point of order.There is no way in the world that I said Iwanted it abolished. I find the honourablemember's comments offensive, and I amtaken aback by them.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr J. N.Goss): Order! The member finds thosecomments offensive and asks for them to bewithdrawn.

Mr WELFORD: I withdraw. Later, I willtake the opportunity to table the commentsmade in that media release in which——

A Government member: Haven't yougot it here?

Mr WELFORD: I do not have it with me,no. Why do I need it? I will table it later.

The member for Keppel said that theGovernment should abandon the legislation.He said that it should scrap it and start again.

Mr Lester: You made a mess of it.Mr WELFORD: There was nothing

wrong with it before the Government made amess of it; that is the point. A month ago,when Mr Lester made that comment, I did notagree with him. However, with each newdevelopment from this Government, I ambecoming increasingly at one with the memberfor Keppel, because too many moreamending Bills like this and we will have toscrap the legislation and start again; it will bedisaster.

I urge the Minister to consult and take amore open and proper approach toconsultation than the ambush approach toconsultation that he has taken so far in hisdeliberate attempts to lock out genuine inputfrom environmental groups. I urge him also togive the House the assurance that he will notacquiesce but will maintain the standards ofenvironmental protection that the previousGovernment worked long and hard to put inplace in the face of the outrageous andenvironmentally vandalistic approach that isadvocated by members of his own backbench. They are desperate to make a knee-jerk response to the loony extremists in theirelectorates who do not care about the toxinsthey throw into the creeks or emit into the air.If the Minister has any serious commitment tothis legislation, and he says repeatedly that hedoes, then he will dissociate himself from thecomments of people such as the member forKeppel, who advocates that these important,fundamental environmental protectionstandards be abandoned.

Subject to the matters that I have raised,it is clear that the Opposition opposesfundamental elements of this legislation. Ofcourse, the Opposition does not pretend tooppose some of the smaller corrections to theexisting legislation. However, because thesubstantive purpose of this Bill is to remedyerrors which the Opposition says should neverhave been made, it will be voting against it.During the Committee stage, the Oppositionwill propose an amendment, query somesections of the legislation and, subject to theMinister's clarifications, vote accordingly.

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(2.51 p.m.): I am quite pleased that theMinister has delayed introducing thislegislation to at least allow people to state theirviews. I made it very, very clear indeed thatthe existing legislation just would not work.Many of the people affected by that legislationwere not consulted at all, and I can assuremembers that the comments I made at thetime that legislation was debated needed to


be made. I was astounded earlier when themember for Everton referred to thosesmall-business people who have come to mewith problems because of further taxation andfurther levies as "loonies". This afternoon, theLabor Party has said that all small-businesspeople are a pack of loonies! I do not thinkthat is very good. However, it indicates wherethe Labor Party is coming from.

On coming to office after six and a halfyears of a Labor Government, thisGovernment inherited neglect andmismanagement. The Labor Government didnot care. That has been demonstrated thisafternoon by the Minister calling small-business people a pack of loonies. Theprevious Labor Government did not listen andit introduced legislation that was impractical,unfair and totally ineffective.

Mr FitzGerald: The member said that,not the Minister.

Mr LESTER: I had to make sure thatthe Minister was listening. He was, which isgood. It is now on the record that it was themember for Everton and not the Minister whocalled small-business people a pack ofloonies. That is really what the exercise wasabout.

Mr WELFORD: I rise to a point of order.The member for Keppel is really desperate. Hemisrepresents me. My point of order is that Isaid that people such as the member forKeppel were responding to an element oflunatic extremists in small business. I did notsay that all small-business people are lunatics.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thereis no point of order.

Mr LESTER: There are no lunaticsmall-business people in the electorate ofKeppel. Not one of them is a lunatic. I canassure members that I had to defend thesmall-business people in my electorate.

There is no better example of Labor'sinability to understand how to addressproblems than the fiasco of environmentallegislation. This Government remainscommitted to protecting the environment, butit believes that a balance can be struckbetween protection and sustainabledevelopment. That is really the only way thatwe are ever going to get ahead inQueensland. At the end of the day, if we haveimpractical, unworkable legislation, we do nothave any protection at all. It would be only amatter of time before the shortcomings of theexisting legislation surfaced and its intentwould be lost.

To achieve a successful result, thisGovernment believes that it is vital to listen tothe concerns of all sections of the community.That is what I was doing when I consulted myconstituents. If the previous Government hadbothered to make the same effort as I madeand listened to the concerns of smallbusiness, local government and other bodiesabout the regulatory provisions of theEnvironmental Protection Act, then we wouldnot be in the mess that we are in today.

The environmental protection regulationswere due to come into effect on 1 March thisyear—just a few days after this Government,which the people of Queensland elected inJuly last year, was sworn in. Because of theconfusion over the licensing provisions of theEnvironmental Protection Act, manybusinesses had not applied for licences. Localgovernments, which had the responsibility fordetermining fees and issuing licences, wereconfused about the scale of the fees and thelicensing process. They did not quite knowwhat to do because they really did not knowthe intent of the legislation, how it worked oranything else.

Mr Dollin: About time you fixed it.

Mr LESTER: The member says it is timethat we fixed it. That is what we are doing! Icannot understand why on earth the previousGovernment did not fix it in the first place. ThisGovernment is fixing it. Under nocircumstances could the previous Governmenthave brought the existing legislation into effecton 1 March. That legislation had no chance inthe world because the previous Governmenthad mucked it up.

On coming to office, this Governmentacted swiftly and declared a moratorium onlicensing requirements so that the mess left bythe previous Government could be sorted out.That is what we are doing—sorting out themess by listening to the people. Despite whatthe member for Everton says and what myfriend from Maryborough believes andcontinues to carry on about, the environmentalprotection provisions remain in force in thislegislation. Businesses that are engaged inenvironmentally relevant activities have beentold to apply for licences.

Since the Labor Government and, inparticular, the previous Minister would notlisten to the concerns of business, I will informmembers opposite why they were worriedabout the Act. Larger industries wereconcerned that the previous Government hadno supporting environmental protectionpolicies to guide them. Under the provisions ofthe existing Act, they were unsure about the


cost of compliance. Larger industriesrequested quite reasonable changes to theschedule of activities within the regulations.However, the previous Government did notlisten and it did not act.

Small businesses were concerned aboutthe magnitude of fees which would have beenimposed upon them, particularly when theywere causing little or no environmental harm.That is where the former Government wentbung on this particular legislation. Smallbusinesses were being asked to comply withother environmental regulations—indeed, theydid not really quite know what they were beingasked to comply with. They complained thatthere was no flexibility, and because neitherthey nor local government had full knowledgeof the rules, there were substantial variationsin the levels of fees which were to be applied.Worse, the regulations took no account of thescale of operations, so that small businesseswere being hit with the same licence fees asmuch larger businesses. This was unfair to allconcerned.

Even more damning, the necessaryprocedures required to implement theregulations were not in place by the requireddate. How on earth can we proceed withlegislation when the regulations are not there?Although businesses engaged inenvironmentally relevant activities wererequired to apply for licences, and many did,the bureaucratic support services to processthe applications did not exist. The uncertaintythat was created in both business and localgovernment through the pressure to meetunreasonable implementation deadlinessimply created widespread confusion andconcern.

I will give honourable members a fewexamples. A small foundry on the SunshineCoast employing 60 people at four sitesapplied for a licence within the time frame. Itstill has not had any inspections to advise oncompliance requirements in terms ofmonitoring emissions or on noise levels. Thelocal council has been unable to advise it onsupervising its waste stream or on anappropriate recycling strategy for its wastes. Itdoes not yet know what additional plant andequipment it might have to install to complywith the Act. And honourable members shouldremember: a lot of this plant has to bespecially made. The company is concernedthat the compliance cost might result in itsbecoming less efficient and its product moreexpensive, making it less competitive inrelation to similar businesses elsewhere. Thatmeans that we may end up importing productsthat are not as environmentally friendly as oursare.

Another example is a small foodprocessing company located west of Brisbane.It is the biggest employer in its smallcommunity, employing about 30 people,depending on the season. All its vegetablescraps are used for cattle fodder and it has tomeet local council regulations in relation to thequality of its waste water. Because it is a smallcommunity, the company is closely monitoredby the local council with which it works closely.Monitoring of this company has been going onall along, in cooperation with the council.However, the former Government came alongand required the company to pay a licence feeequal to that paid by a major processingcompany employing hundreds of people andproducing thousands of tonnes of product peryear. How on earth could a small companycompete with that company? Apart from thefact that it did not hear about the regulationsuntil the last minute, this small company isstruggling because of the drought, and nowthe rain, and the general economicmismanagement of Opposition members andtheir Labor mates in Canberra. Now thecompany has to pay approximately $10,000for a consultant to find out what it has to do tocomply with the legislation, in order toduplicate a process that it had in place andwhich suited the local council requirements. Inaddition, farmers in the area, engaged insimilar activities, do not necessarily have tocomply with the regulations because thoseactivities are not clearly defined. Anenvironmentally responsible, small familybusiness is being hit with a double whammyand unnecessary compliance costs to meetregulations which are not being fairly appliedand which do not take into account the scaleof the operation, as bigger businesses pay thesame fees.

Mr Schwarten: You said about thefarmers. Do you think they should pay? Doyou think they should be included in it?

Mr LESTER: I am coming to that. Asmall Brisbane brick-making business,employing 150 people, applied for a licence asrequired, but its application was rejected asunacceptable. It then employed a consultantat $1,000 per day to amend the applicationand resubmit it. Guess what? It was then toldthat the Department of Mines and Energywould process the application. Apparently, no-one knew what was going on, let alone whatwas required to comply with the regulations.That business is affected by the downturn inthe building industry which the formerGovernment and its Canberra matesunfortunately created. In addition to economicuncertainty, the company still does not know


what to budget for in terms of meeting thecompliance costs of the legislation. Thecompany is not unhappy about beingenvironmentally responsible; it is unhappyabout the process which the Opposition put inplace which is cumbersome, costly and difficultfor everybody to understand. The list goes on.

Small businesses are concerned aboutthe costs and the scale of the fees. Everybodyis concerned about the bureaucratic nightmareof applications, inspections, uncertainty ofcompliance costs, the complexity of theregulations and confusion aboutimplementation. The Government is simplytrying to get some order into the chaoscreated by the former Government when itoverreacted to claims that industry wasresponsible for messing up the environment. Isay: hold your fire, boys! Sit quietly and seehow the environment can be protected in aprofessional and lasting way, and thencompare the Government's results with theLabor Party's knee-jerk reaction. TheGovernment believes this legislation isnecessary, and will give careful considerationto the subject before the legislation is finalised.

Mr D'ARCY (Woodridge) (3.08 p.m.): Ijoin this debate on a more global basis bysaying that too often we see coming beforethis House legislation that is produced bybureaucrats organised by Governments withthe best intentions that turns around and givesus a result that we do not hope for.

As other members did, I give the Housean example from my electorate of Woodridge.A small tin smelter, Northern Smelters, whichemploys only a handful of people, came underthis regulation. If the original legislation hadbeen implemented without consultation, thatsmelter would have closed down. Del Hayesruns that smelter, and although its closurewould not necessarily have worried him, itwould have put two or three Woodridgefamilies out of work and left a gap in thecommunity. It would also have left a gap in theindustry. As some honourable members havepointed out, industries such as these arevaluable to Australia, particularly when there isonly a very small number of them left. In fact, Ithink that Northern Smelters is the smallest ofonly two or three smelters left in Australia. Irepeat that bureaucrats sometimes go overthe top with some of the legislation that theyask us to pass in this Parliament, without theinclusion of a grandfather clause to protectpeople who have been operating successfullyand fulfilling a role within society.

The single most important taskconfronting us is the preservation of the

environment and its long-term protection.Although the environment must be protected,we also need a balance. When one looks atwhat Ministers of all political persuasions havedone, it seems to me that there is not enoughcooperation. An interesting statement wasmade at a recent conference on wetlands.The State Environment Minister, Mr BrianLittleproud, was quoted as saying that themost significant threat to Queenslandwetlands was the way in which decisions weremade. He said also that more cooperation wasneeded between State agencies to improveconservation and management.

In speaking to proposed coastalprotection and management legislation, MsRobson stated that the Government would beable to obtain a quicker process fordevelopment applications with environmentalconsiderations up front. She stated that thenew legislation would give developers a clearidea at the planning stage of what was andwhat was not allowed to be approved indevelopment sites. In this place, we often allhave the same goals; we all set out to achievethe same thing—the best outcome forQueenslanders. However, many groups havea vested interest and there is so muchlegislation that things often get confusing. Ourexpectations on members of the public oftenbecome confused when our measures areinterpreted by the bureaucrats and agencieswe employ. This often means that the averageQueenslander loses business and is confused.Consequently, we do not achieve the desiredresult.

Over many years, I have been anadvocate of streamlining developmentprocesses but at the same time protecting theenvironment. Coastal management issomething for which I have fought since Icame into this Parliament. AlthoughGovernments have brought about changes,those changes have often been corrupted inone form or another by bureaucrats. In somecases, because of these changes we see thetype of development that is not whatQueenslanders of the future will want, eitherenvironmentally or commercially. A lot of suchdevelopments are not acceptable. The fact isthat, if we had a fully streamlined and properapproach in which all considerations weretaken into account, we would not see the typeof mess that we end up dealing with at everylevel. When we look at some of thedevelopments that take place on the coast ofQueensland in particular, we see that itappears to be only those developers whomanage to browbeat the local council, breakevery law in the book and every small Act who


are successful in the end. Such developerssay in the media, "Look, the mangroves haveall gone. The place is an environmentaldisaster, anyway. Let me develop it." I am notpointing the bone at anyone, but the point isthat that is what has been happening alongthe coast of Queensland.

Had we had the proper legislation, wewould have had strategic plans for thecoastline of Queensland, and developerswould know from day one whether they coulddevelop and what they could develop inparticular areas. Those areas that we did notwant them to develop would be sacrosanct.Before my time in this place comes to pass, Ihope that a future Government will get struckby lightning as on the road to Damascus, andwe are able to introduce long-term,sustainable economic legislation that will allowdevelopment to take place with considerationfor the environment.

I wish to speak about some of the ways inwhich people and areas get around this typeof development. I return to coastalmanagement. This piece of legislation will givecouncils the power to administer theregulations and the application ofenvironmental legislation. A very good friendwith whom I went to school has been on acountry council for 20 years. He always says tome, "Bill, what should happen is that councilsshouldn't have powers over planning, becausethey don't understand it. They do not have theability." Yet in this place we seem to keepfoisting these types of powers onto councilswhen, in many cases, they do not have thequalifications to apply or understand them. It isa worry that we do not have more regional andstrategic planning.

I wish to refer to a recent example. I willnot name the council, because it will end up inthe newspapers. Under coastal management,we often see flood mitigation programs. Forexample, an engineer will recommend that asafe creek be destroyed along with themangroves. It is ripped up using bulldozersand widened with cement and wire. The resultis a great big drain, which previously was a fishbreeding ground. That work is done uponobtaining a mangrove removal permit from theDPI, which the council applies for. However, ifwe read some of the other legislation in thisState, we will find that it is illegal to removemangroves, that is, unless it is the DPI or thecouncil and it wants, for example, to build agolf course. We can speak about protectionfor the environment, but in this State the factof life is that these are the types ofapplications that get through. It is anindictment of the system that we at this level

cannot administer programs of this natureproperly because the left hand does not knowwhat the right hand is doing. Developers pushthrough a lot of developments in illegal areasbecause we do not have strong enoughlegislation.

In my 20-odd years in this place, I havebeen pressing for that type of legislation.Nobody has come up with successfullegislation. In most cases, such legislation hasbeen changed by bureaucrats. Honourablemembers can sell the idea to every member inthis House that we want full and openenvironmental protection, but the moment wereach the stage of applying it, one bureaucratsays, "That's my corner. I'm not giving thatup." As a consequence, the development andthe plan stalls and we come back again toamend legislation to try to introduceregulations being suggested by one side oranother.

As I said, the clinical questions of whoapplies the fees, who collects them, whatshould they be, who should be fined and whoshould not, should really be addressed as partof the whole planning process. For example,when we chip around the edges of anenvironmental Act to fix up something thatsomebody got partially wrong, we might endup with a bigger mess than we started with.That is basically what members on this side ofHouse are saying. Mr Lester and the shadowMinister might have got it right. They said thatperhaps we should go back to the drawingboards, start from scratch and wipe out someof the bureaucratic decisions that have beenmade and the number of people who have afinger in the pie.

Be it this legislation, coastal managementlegislation or environmental legislation, if welook at the big picture and say in thisParliament, "We want to achieve proper andreal environmental change in Queensland thatis sustainable in the long term, be it coastalprotection or addressing pollution", we have toadopt a streamlined approach. If honourablemembers and the public of Queenslandunderstand and support it, the bureaucrats willnot be able to mangle it.

Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (3.17 p.m.):The Environmental Protection Amendment Bill1996 is a timely and necessary move toaddress the shortcomings of theenvironmental legislation introduced by theformer Labor Government, a Governmentwhich, in spite of concerns expressed byorganisations such as the LGAQ, the QCCI,the MTIA, the QFF, small business and theothers who cried out when the legislation was


being introduced, would not listen. The formerMinister for Environment procrastinated forthree or four months until his dilemma wasrelieved by our coming into office. Themember for Woodridge is obviously one of thefew thinking members on his side of theHouse, because he recognised that theprevious legislation was far from perfect. Icommend him on his foresight in that regard.

A number of points have been raised bymembers on the opposite side of the Houseboth today and previously in relation to thisenvironmental Bill. After six years of failure toformulate legislation that would provide theright protection for the environment—something which members on both sides ofthe House want to achieve—it is rather a sadsituation that the Opposition is now claimingthat the Government is not doing the rightthing by trying to tidy up the mess andproviding some degree of certainty andcommonsense that is required so that all theplayers in this scenario—the business sector,people concerned for the environment;everyone who has a place in Queenslandsociety and Australia as a whole—can goabout their business while providing for themaintenance and ongoing preservation of theenvironment in as pristine condition aspossible.

The thrust of the previous legislation wasto unnecessarily penalise people who wereessentially trying to do the right thing—trying topreserve the environment and trying to goabout their daily business in a careful andconsiderate way. Unfortunately, the previouslegislation was framed in such a way thatsome people were being penalised for doingthe right thing. Such an approach offers noencouragement to anyone. After decades ofignorance when we did not pay it the attentionthat it warranted, we are now finally starting toaddress the preservation of the environment.Given that our economy is emerging from aperiod of stagnation caused both byGovernment policy and the world economy,we should be saying to small businesses andothers, "We will give you a chance to get backon your feet." Only if we have a prosperoussociety can we address the fundamentalphilosophical issues involved with caring forthe environment. That comment relatesdirectly to the previous legislation, whichsought to penalise those who could haveprovided the funding for bigger and betterenvironmental initiatives.

I am sure that all members would supportmore resources being allocated to protect theenvironment. But as we all know, everythingcomes at a price. Governments can spend

only as much money as they collect. Revenueis generated through taxation and the otherfees and charges which are usually levied onbusiness as a significant provider ofGovernment income. Let us be clear in ourminds that we must protect the goose thatlays the golden egg. This amending legislationis designed to achieve that end.

It is not the intention of the Governmentthat polluters get off scot-free during theinterim period of the moratorium. Theenvironmental harm provisions included in theAct are not being removed or tampered with inany way. The administering bodies—thecouncils—need to be clear on how toadminister the regulatory provisions coveringthe licensing aspect of the legislation. Mostlocal governments are reeling under theresponsibilities that have been thrust uponthem over a number of years in differentareas. The environment is just anotherexample of that.

Most councils take environmental issuesseriously. I would not be too far short of themark in suggesting that the vast majority ofcouncils in all parts of this State and all overAustralia adopt a fairly responsible attitudetowards the environmental issues under theircharge. When we devolve to localgovernments the responsibility foradministering an Act, we must give them thetools with which to do so effectively. Localgovernments have raised many questionsabout the regulatory provisions of theEnvironmental Protection Act. For that reasonalone, this amending legislation is not a badthing. Anything that is taken on without cleardirection can have horrendous ramifications.Even with all the best intentions, localauthorities could have made extra impostsupon small businesses and could havedemanded excessive requirements from them.This uncertainty needs to be addressedquickly so that we do not head down thewrong path.

The member for Everton referred to thecomposition of the committee established bythe Minister to clear up the confusion whichcurrently exists. The member for Evertonclaimed that the committee did not have anycommunity involvement and that the playerswere floundering in trying to come to someresolution. Although I do not have any directknowledge of the deliberations of thecommittee to date, I do know that when onetries to assemble a cross-section of thecommunity in order to take a broad approachto a particular issue, it is not always possible toget everybody to agree with one another.Although there are players who have gladly


taken up the opportunity to serve on thecommittee, some other players who wereinvited to participate chose not to do so. Thatis the prerogative of any group in thecommunity. It has to make a decision onwhether it will abide by the rules of consensusand work harmoniously with other communitygroups. Some groups choose not to beinvolved in a certain process if the agenda isnot going to be set by them or if it does notfollow the course that they want to follow. It isunfair and inaccurate for the member forEverton to allege that the committee that theMinister has established is not representativebecause several people have chosen not totake up the offer to participate.

The Opposition seems to be obsessedwith the aspect of licensing. That is not thethrust of this amending legislation. It is notabout the collection of fees; it is about theprotection of the environment. If we can makethat distinction, we will go a long way torealising what this legislation is trying toachieve. The licensing process aims to identifythose businesses which need to be monitoredbecause of the type of activity in which theyare engaged. But to collect fees frombusinesses for doing the right thing inproviding the necessary equipment andinfrastructure to mitigate the effects on theenvironment of the by-product of their activitiesis not the best method of protecting theenvironment. I want to highlight that point. Weshould not penalise those businesses whichare endeavouring to provide the necessaryequipment. They have incurred a lot ofexpense in just meeting their obligations underthe new regulations to dispose of their harmfulby-products. We should not impose a furtherheavy fee on them. As has been pointed outby other speakers, that fee is not alwayscommensurate with their activities. Thereseems to be a standard fee for large andsmall operations. In that regard, we have toask: are we being fair and equitable? Ireiterate that small businesses should nothave to suffer through unnecessarily heavyimposts.

If we consider the thrust of theseamendments, the sentiment behind them andthe objective that they are trying to achieve,there should not be too many objections fromthe Opposition to this legislation. A fewtechnical aspects of the clauses have beenhighlighted, and I do not believe that anyonewill object if those matters are rectified, butthat is up to the Minister. In conclusion—Ibelieve that we have moved in an appropriateand timely fashion to correct the shortcomingsof the Environmental Protection Act. I believe

that we will gain the support not only ofbusiness but also of the environmentmovement and the public at large in ourefforts to maintain the environment in themost pristine condition possible. I support theBill.

Mrs ROSE (Currumbin) (3.30 p.m.): I ampleased to speak to the EnvironmentalProtection Amendment Bill 1996. However,this Bill does little more than further delay theimplementation of regulatory reforms underthe Environmental Protection Act. Themoratorium, which this Government claims isnecessary to provide more time to review thewide range of adverse impacts on business, ismerely an attempt to influence business andindustry into thinking that the Act, in its presentform, is formulated in such a way as to have adetrimental effect on them. That is not thecase. The majority of businesses haveovercome any inconvenience or uncertaintythat they may have had, and they haveacknowledged the long-term benefits, both ineconomic and environmental gains. They alsoacknowledge that the licensing enforcementguidelines are necessary to reduce risks to theenvironment so that the best environmentaloutcome is achieved for all concerned. I donot believe that postponing the licensing iswelcomed by the majority of business andindustry, as they see it as this Government'sprocrastinating on yet another of itsenvironmental promises.

The Environmental Protection Act is oneof the most important landmark pieces oflegislation that the former Labor Governmentintroduced. It is to the credit of former LaborEnvironment Ministers Pat Comben, MollyRobson and Tom Barton that this State wasrescued from the slash, burn and develop-at-any-cost era of the previous National PartyGovernment.

There is an expectation in the communitythat Governments provide the legislativeprovisions which will ensure the protection ofthe environment. There is an acceptance inthe business, industry and rural sectors thatthey have a role to play in the formulation ofenvironmental policies and management. Onlywith a collaborative effort will we minimise theimpacts that may be felt in some sections ofindustry. The previous Labor Governmentrecognised business and industry as essentialparts of the community and consulted widelywith them during the drafting of theEnvironmental Protection Act.

There is recognition in the businesscommunity that cooperation betweenGovernment and industry is preferable to a


Government-imposed regulation approach.Business and industry on the southern GoldCoast have been very cooperative indeveloping and establishing environmentalprotection measures. They are keen to complywith best practice standards in relation toenvironmental management and protection.The wider southern Gold Coast communityhas a deep appreciation of our natural localenvironment. We are fortunate to live in anarea with two very diverse naturalenvironments. To the east, the southern GoldCoast boasts some of the world's mostbeautiful beaches. To the west, merelykilometres away, is the spectacular MountCougal National Park, which preserves areasof open forest and rainforest.

The southern Gold Coast community as awhole welcomed legislation which provided themechanisms for environmentally responsiblepractices which could actually save money forbusiness and the community. They can seethe benefits in the Environmental ProtectionAct to our Gold Coast community which, eachyear, welcomes thousands of tourists who visitthe area to enjoy its natural beauty andbenefits. Our communities welcomed theEnvironmental Protection Act, which wouldprotect the coast's environment, along with theother natural wonders and environs of ourState. They welcomed the efforts of the LaborGovernment in meeting the challenge ofproviding laws to protect, restore and enhancethe quality of the environment in balance withmaintaining ecologically sustainabledevelopment.

On the other hand, the coalitionGovernment, by its dillydallying, has put ourenvironment at risk. Future generations inQueensland will hold this Government incontempt for any attempt to water down theformer Labor Government's commitment tothe environment. One could be forgiven forfeeling that we are going back to the futurewhen this Government, in its infancy, seems tobe no more attuned to environmental issuesthan were the Governments which ruledQueensland in the sixties, seventies andeighties. It is a sad indictment of membersopposite, who claim to represent people in theinterests of the environment, if they supportdelaying legislation that was designed to keepour State special. Those members shouldhave the courage to stand up for theirconstituents and demand that this State and,indeed, the Gold Coast get the environmentalprotection they deserve.

Members opposite have selective recallwhen it comes to remembering their promises

to protect the environment before the lastelection. They cave in to the concerns of aselect few who still want to make a profit at theexpense of our fragile environment. This votetoday will be a test of the coalition'scommitment to looking after the environment.The Government's move to delay Labor'slegislation will have far-reaching impacts ifallowed to proceed. As I mentioned earlier, theenvironment will be the main loser. However,other areas will also suffer. The hundreds ofthousands of people who visit the Gold Coasteach year because of its environment injectbillions of dollars into the economy andprovide thousands of jobs. This Government,through its actions, places those dollars and,consequently, jobs at risk. People do not wantto visit the Gold Coast or Queensland to seepolluted rivers or beaches. They come fromJapan, Britain, Korea and Sydney to escapeenvironmental degradation. It appears that thecoalition wants our State to be no differentfrom those places.

Businesses on the Gold Coastunderstand that they need to play a role inpreserving our environment. Under the formerLabor Government, the Act ensured that ourState's environment received the protection itdeserved. The Labor Government respondedto calls from the community to reformenvironmental management measures.Queenslanders and, most certainly, southernGold Coasters want clean rivers, fresh air andsafe disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes.The Environmental Protection Act provided forenforcement of environmental standards, andthose people who chose to ignore theirenvironmental duty did so at the expense ofthe environment, the community and all thosewho obey the law. Those who break the lawshould pay a penalty for any damage thatthey cause to the environment.

One component of the legislation is thedevolution of enforcement powers to localauthorities. Local governments of the past inthe Gold Coast region have shown little or noregard for the environment. Development andprofit dollars were a priority for many aldermenand Government representatives on the GoldCoast. There has been some change in thisattitude by many councillors who acknowledgethat the haphazard development of the pasthas left a permanent blur and causedirreversible environmental damage to ourcoastline. The Government must ensure thatlocal governments do enforce the regulations.They cannot be allowed to abrogate theirresponsibility to supervise and apply penaltieswhen the regulations have been breached,regardless of who breaches the regulations.


Environmental awareness is not goodenough by itself. It means providing thelegislative processes for the enforcement ofmanagement practices in environmentalprotections. Those regulations as laid down inthe Act should be implemented. I will bejoining with the Opposition in opposing thisamendment Bill.

Mr ROWELL (Hinchinbrook) (3.39 p.m.):I rise to support this legislation and themoratorium that has been placed on theEnvironmental Protection Act. I would like totraverse the importance of small business.Small business really has the capacity toemploy large numbers of people and, overtime, that has proved to be the case. In fact, ifan additional worker were placed in each smallbusiness, we would not have anywhere nearthe current unemployment levels or thenumber of social security payouts.

Small business has been burdened withthe requirements of a tax file number,superannuation, workers' compensation andworkplace health and safety. Those are thesorts of things with which business mustcomply. Before an employer makes a dollar,these are the sorts of things that he or shemust take notice of and comply with. Smallbusinesses, being small operators, often donot have the capacity of larger businesses tooperate the you-beaut computer programsthat ease the workload involved inimplementing Government regulations.

Problems have existed in the past and stillexist in relation to apprenticeships. Smallbusiness tradespeople are reluctant to take onapprentices. That is critical, because it resultsin a reduction in the trained work force. If morepeople are not trained by skilled tradespeople,Australia will find itself looking elsewhere fortradespeople. Many countries, such asMalaysia, have to look beyond their owncountry for skilled workers. England certainlyfinds itself in that position and seeks peoplefrom the Continent to provide the special skillsrequired.

Many small businesses have retracted tobecome one-man operations. As I have said,those operators find it extremely difficult tocontend with all the regulations involved inemploying staff, which require a considerableamount of book work. As a result, many smalloperators have decided to dispense with staffand do whatever they can on their own, so asto avoid the rigours of tax file numbers,superannuation and other requirements.Those operators are struggling and have greatdifficulty staying afloat. Many of them are on

the bread line. Some of them are working forless than a fair reward for their efforts.

Too often small businesses have had topay the same environmental protection levy aslarger organisations. When considering theenvironmental protection legislation, very littleconsultation was carried out by theGovernment of the day with groupsrepresenting small business. The formerGovernment may have consulted the bigoperators, but the small operators did not getmuch of a say, and they are finding it prettyhard going to comply with that legislation. Forexample, boilermakers or engineeringelectrical machine manufacturers have to paya fee of $500. A small business operator inthat field pays $500, which is the same feepaid by the very big multinationals. Motorvehicle workshops pay $500. Sometimes verylarge agencies, which compete against smalloperators, have the capacity to pay $500without affecting profits, but that is a large sumto small operators. Sawmills are in the samecategory. You-beaut, computerised sawmillspay the same licence fee as a sawmill thatemploys only three or four people. Batteryreprocessors pay a very high fee—$1,880.

Anyone who wanted to engage in anaquaculture venture would think twice beforestarting up under the process of the formerGovernment. They would have to find alicence fee of between $500 and $3,300,depending on the size of their ponds, and thatis before the viability of the business had beenproved. In my electorate, new ventures in thatindustry are experiencing considerableproblems getting off the ground, and they donot need deterrents such as an environmentalprotection levy or the difficulties associatedwith compliance. Certainly, they should ensurethat they fit into the environment and that thedischarges are properly dealt with. However,such operators pay only a flat fee of $400 inVictoria, and from $100 to $300 in SouthAustralia, depending on the tonnage of theirharvest. That is quite a substantial differencein an industry competing with southern States.

A piggery in New South Wales does notattract a licensing fee, but here in Queenslandan operator would have to front up with$2,200. At least, I suppose, that would havekept an unemployed former Prime Ministerwhere he belongs.

Storing chemicals in this State costs$1,740; it costs $400 in Victoria; and no fee ischarged in New South Wales. Honourablemembers might think that it would be moreattractive to operate a foundry in Queensland,where the licence fee is $5,540 per year, as


opposed to $10,000 in Victoria. However, thelicensing requirement necessitates almost acomplete weather station to monitor theeffects of climate on emissions. Whether ornot the operator would have to employ ameteorologist is a moot point. In Queensland,operators involved in alcohol distillation pay afee of $5,540 per year; in South Australia,from $137 to $1,092; and there are noenvironmental licence fees in Victoria or NewSouth Wales. That could place BundabergRum on the endangered species list.

This Government is not opposed to theprinciple of user pays. It is not opposed topractical measures to control or monitorenvironmentally harmful or potentially harmfulby-products of manufacturing industries. Weare determined that Queenslanders will beenvironmentally responsible and we will dealwith those who are irresponsible and whoneedlessly pollute the environment. We areequally determined that, whatever provisionsare put in place to regulate the EnvironmentalProtection Act, they will be fair, practical andenforceable.

I return to compliance, which is not clearlydefined. Often large fees have been paid toconsultants to unravel the mess. Costs toupgrade to required standards can beprohibitive. Many small businesses operateout of rented or leased premises. Structuralchanges are often required for compliance.Some of those businesses have a short-termtenure of lease and one must consider thebuilding owner's position and whether he orshe accepts those structural changes. Manysmall businesses have major problems inrelation to compliance, particularly out ofrented premises.

Consideration for staging theimplementation of the necessary requirementof sound environmental policy will be a majorundertaking. It does not matter which party isin Government, currently massive changes areoccurring and there is little doubt that peoplehave more impact on the environment todaythan ever before. The Minister has establisheda ministerial advisory committee, which willinclude five representatives from industry,three representatives from local governmentand two representatives from theenvironmental lobby.

It was somewhat disappointing that theenvironmental lobby decided not toparticipate. It is essential that its voice is heardand I believe that it should reconsider itsposition. If the environmental lobby does notparticipate, it will be left out. Later, it maydecide that it wants to have a say but, by that

time, it could be too late. If the environmentallobby is playing ducks and drakes, it shouldconsider seriously what it is doing. The findingsof that advisory committee will be valuable indeciding the best direction to take. We have toinvestigate the problems that have occurredwith the existing legislation and I believe thatthis advisory committee could come to termswith some of those problems.

Apart from clearing up anomalies in theAct, this amending legislation gives businesspeople breathing space during which they canput forward their concerns. I believe that thereare a number of concerns, and I have touchedon some of them very briefly. However,through representation on the ministerialadvisory committee, business will be able tomake the Government and the Minister awareof how the environmental protection levy isimpacting on them. It is not just a matter ofthe levy; it is also the compliance. Thosepoints are extremely important. I do not thinkany Government wants to place people whoare contributing towards society in difficultcircumstances. By the same token, thisGovernment has the important task ofensuring that businesses have a minimumimpact on the environment.

One might say that the environment is adelicate beast. We do not want environmentaldamage to reach the point of no return. Ibelieve that we will have to be even moreconcerned about the environment in the futurethan we have been in the past. However, Ithink it is going down the wrong track to simplysay to business, "You have to do this, youhave to do that, you have a very limitedamount of time in which to do it, and we willnot pay a great deal of regard to yoursituation." The previous Government tooksomething like two years to consider all theprovisions that were incorporated in theEnvironmental Protection Act. ThisGovernment has taken only three months toamend it and, yes, as the shadow Minister hasindicated, the Government might take a fewmore months to amend it further. However, itis extremely important legislation, and it maytake a little longer to get it right.

I would like to touch briefly on theresponsibility of councils to carry out theday-to-day administration of the Act. Theyhave been placed in a very delicate position.There is a degree of uncertainty about what ishappening with the current Act. After thelegislation was passed, the formerGovernment said to local authorities, "Here itis. You look after it. You administer it." There isvery little doubt that councils are the bestentities to administer the legislation. However,


they have to be well equipped to enable themto do so, and they do not want to have to tryto resolve contentious issues. The degree ofuncertainty in relation to the current Act hasmade the task difficult for councils.

The members opposite may criticise theGovernment but, when they were inGovernment, they were pretty slow to do muchabout such issues. I believe that a degree ofdiscretion should be allowed under the Act. Iam not referring to a discretion in relation topollution; I am talking about a discretion as tohow people go about complying with the Act.Certainly the polluter has to pay. There is verylittle question about that. The Act ensures thatthose people who are creating effluent areresponsible for its disposal. However, if wereach the point at which the whole process istoo onerous, we may well find that people willtake short cuts. If people are in financialdifficulties, they will probably not do the rightthing if they can get away with it. If we say tothem, "We want you to adopt a responsibleattitude," I am absolutely certain that we willreceive a good response.

This legislation relates to extremelyimportant issues. The Minister has gone aboutaddressing the problems in the best possibleway. He is going to provide a level ofconsultation that was not available prior to thisGovernment coming to office. I am certain thatpeople who are experiencing difficulties will belistened to. At the end of the day, despitewhat the shadow Minister has said aboutsome of the technicalities of the Act, there willbe a greater level of goodwill because thestakeholders in industry will be consulted. Thatdid not occur under the previous Government.I believe that with this legislation we are goingdown the right track in relation to protectingthe environment.

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (3.56 p.m.):This Bill is a further exercise in procrastination.That is what it is all about. In September 1994,this House passed a Bill which broughtQueensland into line with the provisions of theCommonwealth Act. It took the formerGovernment 12 months to undertake all theconsultation processes to enable it tointroduce a Bill that was adequate and gavepeople plenty of time in which to conform to areasonable standard of environmentalprotection. Instead of continuing that process,which the former Government had virtuallycompleted, this Government has carried outthe usual activity it engages in when it comesto environmental protection and procrastinatedfurther.

Many Government members have notexperienced what happened under theprevious National Party Government, but Ihave. Over the past 20 years, I have beenclosely involved in proceedings. Under theprevious National Party Government, all wehad was procrastination and cancellation ofany legislation which tried to hobble peoplewho wanted to pollute the atmosphere, theland and our rivers. I was a member of the AirPollution Council, which was set up by theprevious National Party Government. It actedas a smokescreen and took away theresponsibility from the then Minister of the day,one Mr Tenni, who overruled just about everyaction that was taken by members of thatcommittee and also by the officers involved.During those days, I never saw public servantsas frustrated as those officers who were tryingto do something about air pollution. Airpollution was not our only problem. Our creekswere polluted. They turned black because ofthe rubbish that was poured into them. I referto the creeks in Brisbane. Our rivers werepoisoned.

Mr Palaszczuk: Oxley Creek.

Mr ARDILL: Oxley Creek and itstributaries are prime examples—StableSwamp Creek, Rocky Waterholes, Moolabin.They were monitored continually by theBrisbane City Council and community groupsthat tried to prevent the shocking situation thatexisted in those days because of the totalinactivity by the National Party in Government.The National Party Government was not theleast bit concerned about the pollution of ourrivers and streams.

According to those Government memberswho have spoken on this Bill, small businessesare honour bright and are concerned aboutthe environment. That is not what this Bill isabout; it is about the people who areinterested only in profit and could not care lessabout the damage that they do to ourenvironment. As I said, the problems ofpoisoned rivers, polluted streams, wastedeposited out in the bush, arsenic levels in theland, the problems at Willawong—even theresidue from industrial waste that wasdeposited legally—occurred because theGovernment would not take any action. Whenthe Brisbane City Council said that it was goingto stop Willawong from being filled withdisgusting and poisonous rubbish, theGovernment said, "We will issue an Order inCouncil to force you to keep it open."

Mr Palaszczuk: And I think they stillwant to do that.


Mr ARDILL: There is no doubt.Business people who do look after theenvironment and do take necessary steps areunfairly disadvantaged by those who have noconcern whatsoever for the environment.

This Bill comes about because of themistakes made when the coalitionGovernment first came to power. It failed toproceed with what the Labor Party hadstarted, and this Bill is an attempt to overcomethat difficulty. For 200 years, people havebeen polluting the Australian environmentand, instead of proceeding with legislation tostop that pollution, this Government has givenoffenders a further six months in which topollute. There is no excuse for thatwhatsoever. There is no reason why peopleshould not be conforming right now.

The one way that companies will learn toconform to reasonable standards is topenalise them. The only one way in whichthese matters can be policed is by theprovision of sufficient funds. Therefore, inorder to provide that funding for necessarypolicing, it is necessary to tax the people whoproduce toxic substances.

Mr Hobbs: Are you being a monkey onthe back of small business?

Mr ARDILL: No, I am not. Any businesswhich is involved in producing toxic substanceshas to pay the cost, which will be passed on tothe consumer, as happens now anyway. ThisBill allows the present situation to continueuntil sometime in November when, in mostcases, local government will be made tohandle the situation.

There has to be a fair cost structure in thefees that are charged. I have no objection tothe matter being closely questioned andmonitored to ensure that the funds derivedfrom the licensing system are necessary toprovide only for adequate policing, particularlywhen that job will be performed by localgovernment. It is very important that there aresufficient funds available, and it is alsoimportant that businesses are not saddled withany unnecessary charges. I am quite sure thatthe charges, however fair they may be, will notbe accepted by or acceptable to the businesssector and, therefore, the Government has tobe prepared for criticism.

Government members tend to go into batfor people such as Keith Williams, who is nowattempting to pollute the HinchinbrookChannel—people who have a history of beingbad corporate citizens in terms of the rubbishthat they have poured into our oceans, riversand streams. I have absolutely no sympathy

for people on the other side of the House whotry to justify what those people do.

As I have said, the fees charged must befair, and they must also be sufficient to meetthe costs of policing. This Bill, late as it maybe, is aimed at just that. To that extent theOpposition supports it, but I certainly do notaccept that there should be a further delay inenforcing the requirement to apply for alicence, which is merely giving people furthertime to pollute our environment.

Ms WARWICK (Barron River)(4.06 p.m.): It gives me great pleasure tosupport the Environmental ProtectionAmendment Bill 1996. When the implicationsof the Environmental Protection Act were firstrealised by small business people in my area,my phone and fax ran hot. These people wereappalled at the compliance requirementsunder this Act. They had no idea that theserequirements would be so onerous. I amtalking about small business—in someinstances, a one or two person operation. Iwould like to point out to the Oppositionspokesperson for Environment that these arenot lunatic businessmen.

One man contacted me and told me thathe owned a garage, but probably spraypainted only three cars in the course of theyear. He sold a small amount of petrol and alittle fruit, and generally netted only $15,000per annum. Under the provisions of the Act,he would be required to spend large amountsof money installing equipment which was mostlikely totally unnecessary. He sent me a copyof a letter that he had sent to the thenEnvironment Minister, Tom Barton. In thatletter he said—

"I have a small business a garage. Ihave been approached by council onbehalf of the Qld State Govt for new statetaxes and charges that I can only saymay force me to shut my doors. Not onlythat, the so called environment costs ofadditions to my workplace would costmore than my garage."

The people of Barron River do not supportindustrial pollution, and neither do I. In fact,during the election campaign I protested veryvigorously against the illegal dumping of whatwas probably millions of litres of toxic waste ona property in my electorate. The dumper gotaway with this irresponsible action because ofa loophole in the law. We must ensure thatthis type of action never again occurs,especially in an area so close to the waters ofthe Great Barrier Reef. I will not support anybusiness which knowingly or wilfully pollutes


the environment, especially if that is done inorder to make a profit.

If I may be allowed to digress, I will correcta statement made in the House last week.The former Minister for the Environment, themember for Waterford, in attempting todiscredit my green credentials, informed theHouse that I was elected on Greenpreferences. I would like to point out that he isquite incorrect; he was obviously confusing mewith my colleague, the member for Mulgrave.

I am extremely mindful of the fact that wemust regulate and police business to ensurethat the highest standards of environmentalresponsibility and accountability are met andmaintained, but we must do this in acommonsense way. It is acknowledged by alland sundry that small business is thebackbone of our nation. We should be makingit easier for small business to stay in businessand employ people. That is why I object to theoutrageous, unfair compliance requirements ofthe Act in its present form. The potential isthere for small business to be sent to the wall.

Whenever I go around my electorate, thecommon cry is for government to facilitatesmall business recovery. We must put in placemeasures which will assist small business togrow and enable them to employ morepeople. We must not place impediments intheir path which will serve only one purpose,and that is to force them out of business, thusplacing more people on the unemploymentscrap heap at the expense of the public purse.

In its present form, the EnvironmentalProtection Act is a dark and negative piece oflegislation. It was obviously ill-thought throughand not designed to assist the electorate atlarge. That is why I, along with many of mycolleagues, approached the Minister forEnvironment to urge him to address theanomalies and inequities apparent under thisAct. I cannot allow an opportunity to go bywithout reminding members opposite that, ifthey had been more in tune with the people,we would not be in the situation in which wenow find ourselves of having to amend thisAct.

In response to community concerns, thecoalition Government reacted immediately.Steps were taken to introduce a moratoriumwhich has provided time to review the widerange of adverse imposts on business, and inparticular small business. The moratorium willprovide a much-needed breathing space forbusinesses and industries yet to lodgeapplications. In addition, the Minister has setup an advisory committee to examine ways ofmaking the licensing system more effective,

fair and practical. Written submissions,comments and suggestions were invitedbefore 1 May, which is evidence of the factthat this Government is serious about thepeople of Queensland and about honouringits election promises. I am very disappointedwith members of the conservation movementwho declined the invitation to join thiscommittee. The committee, which will reportback to the Minister by the end of May, willlook at ways of making the environmentalregulations more acceptable to business whilestill safeguarding the environment.

The Borbidge/Sheldon Government iscommitted to the sustainable management ofthe environment, and that will be maintained.However, we must assist in a sensible way thepeople of Queensland by ensuring that licencecompliance costs are kept at reasonable levelsrelevant to the environmental risks involved.Many small-business operators were not ableto install new equipment on day one; newertechnologies take time to introduce andsignificant investments can be involved. Wehave responded to the needs of the people ofQueensland by allowing a reasonable time forbusinesses to achieve compliance. In somecases, the environmental risks are soinsignificant that small businesses should notbe required to spend vast amounts of moneyon new equipment. This is money that mostcan ill afford and the expenditure would meanthat they would be forced out of business. TheGovernment will provide environmentalprotection, but it will also protect the interestsof the small-business community and willensure balance.

I am concerned at the handing over ofthe administration of this legislation to localauthorities. I am told by many business peoplethat council officers cop a fair amount ofabuse because they are untrained andtherefore unsure of the guidelines required forthe administration of this legislation. Most ofthose council officers were appalled at theimplications of the Act and sympathised withthe people whom they had to police. I ampleased that the Borbidge/SheldonGovernment will assist councils with training sothat local council officers will be able to carryout their duties efficiently and confidently inadministering this Act.

Later this year, the Minister will also set upan environmental protection council which willbe broadly representative of all communityinterests—industry, local government,community and environmental interests.Those stakeholders will help to ensure thatproper environmental controls are in place and


that the rights and interests of all members ofthe community are upheld.

By way of a history lesson, I remind theHouse of the chain of events that precededthis debate. The Environmental Protection Actwas passed in 1994 and was to commence on27 February 1995. A future date, described asthe applicable date, was set as 1 March 1996.Clearly, the commencement date was set sothat it could be said that the Act wasoperational prior to the 15 July election. Theapplicable date was also set at this time, thatis, with a 12-month lead time. However, that,too, would be known before the election. Asmainly administrative work was to beundertaken in the lead time, it went to groundand came to the surface only when the feestructure was released. It was at that time thatsmall businesses realised that there was aproblem ahead and that they were almostcompletely locked into a time frame whichwould have disastrous implications for them.

There was complete chaos. Anyinformation was complex and misleading, andno-one appeared to know what washappening. Today, the member for Evertonadmitted that his Government was responsiblefor that lack of information. My office wasinundated with complaints. The GossGovernment must have realised that manyactivities could be in question and that otherfactors were emerging, with some itemsplaced in the wrong fee bracket, withsubstantially wrong cross-referencing and acompete lack of clarity surrounding the wholeexercise. Clearly, remedial action was needed.Consequently, the former Labor Governmentproduced the Environmental Protection InterimRegulation 1996 No. 1. That regulation wasmade on 15 February 1996 and needed to beproduced then because the transitionalsection of the Act became ineffective on 1March 1996; the applicable date had beendeclared. This regulation postponed theoperation of the interim regulation relating tointensive animal industry, that is, feedlots,piggeries and poultry farms.

By supporting this Bill, I will be able to goback to the residents of Barron River and tellthem that I have represented their interests. Iwill be able to answer in a positive way theconstituent who wrote to me asking, "Whenare all these hidden costs going to stop? Ihope I'm entitled to the dole when I have toclose my business." I support the Bill.

Mr BARTON (Waterford) (4.16 p.m.):Although I do not intend to speak for verylong, I wish to try to put to bed some of themistruths about the impact of the current

Environmental Protection Act. I am veryconcerned that this legislation is primarilyabout covering up some very badly draftedregulations. It demonstrates a clear lack ofcommitment by the new Government to theenvironment. The legislation is a step backand a reinforcement of the moratorium putinto place and has the capacity to wreck all ofthe very good work done in implementing thelicensing provisions under the EnvironmentalProtection Act—something that was absolutelynecessary.

These changes are unfair on thebusinesses that have complied with theprovisions, as opposed to those people whowere being tardy. The people who were beingtardy have got away with it. They have beengiven additional time. An awful set ofcircumstances was in place—at least for awhile until the Minister started to bring downone poorly drafted regulation afteranother—that meant that the people who hadcomplied were required to uphold thestandards and those people who had notcomplied were home free, without anyeffective standards being applied to them.That is very bad.

I am very concerned that this is nothingmore than a holding mechanism before theMinister and the new Government set out tototally gut the current EnvironmentalProtection Act with the inquiry that is nowrunning. What was said publicly all the waythrough prior to the terms of reference beingannounced was that the fee structure wouldbe looked at. However, we find that one of theterms of reference is to examine whether thereis even any need for an EnvironmentalProtection Act. The whole issue is back up forgrabs. In time, I hope I am proven to beincorrect, but I am concerned that this isnothing more than a holding provision to gutthe existing legislation out of existence. That iscertainly on the table now.

I wish to speak briefly about some of thefalse premises on which the Minister made hisdecision, both with respect to the regulationsand to this Bill, because intrinsically they aretied together. The Minister has been veryvocal in his claims that there was noconsultation with business and that localgovernment and businesses are in uproarbecause the fees are too high; that there is noneed to license many of the environmentallyrelevant activities; that the basis of theEnvironmental Protection Act should beminimum licensing provisions and that thereshould be prosecutions against only thosewho are proven to be polluters. The Ministerhas claimed that standards were not in place


and that licence levels are unfair to smallbusiness in comparison with big business. I willgo through each of those accusations briefly,because nothing could be further from thetruth.

The experience of the implementation ofthis Act certainly showed that there were someteething problems. However, during the termof the Goss Labor Government and while Iwas the Minister for Environment thoseteething problems were being addressedsystematically, and certainly would have beenaddressed by the time we reached 1 March.However, instead a new Government came inand, in a very inept way, moved to look aftersome of its small-business mates, particularlythose who were in small organisations in theMinister's electorate, as opposed to lookingafter the environment of this State.

In terms of ineptitude—I have to say thatthe interim regulations in relation to whichthere are disallowance motions currentlybefore this Parliament are an example of theworst possible ineptitude. I am amazed thatthe Minister attempted to implement thoseregulations. I am sure that if the Minister hadbeen given proper advice he would have beenonly too aware that he could not pass thoseregulations, particularly regulation No. 3 of 8March. As Minister, I was given consistentadvice about my inability to bring downregulations after that date, particularly whenwe were still engaged in negotiationsregarding mining activities and thememorandum of understanding for the miningindustry and also for licensing proposals withregard to feedlots and poultry farms, whichwere mentioned only a little while ago. Therewas a clear understanding within thedepartment, at least in terms of the advicethat I was given as the previous Minister, that Icould not bring down the sorts of regulationsthat this Minister attempted to bring down.

We do not need to wonder why theMinister is receiving bad advice, because thebest person to give him advice is the personwho was appointed as the director-general,who is still sitting at home—and the Ministermay have a laugh and a giggle—on leave onfull pay waiting for the message boy to arriveevery Friday evening to tell him whether he isstill on full pay. Depending on who is providingthe advice to this inept Minister, is it anywonder that at this point in time there is nounderstanding within the department ofimportant environmental issues?

Let us examine the lack of commitment tothe environment on the part of this Minister. Iwant to repeat something that I said on 20

February. In January this year in one of hislocal newspapers, the Northern Downs News,in a column titled "Local Member's Views byBrian Littleproud MLA", the Minister had this tosay about the environmental protectionlevy——

Mr Palaszczuk: Which paper was this?

Mr BARTON: The Northern DownsNews. The Minister stated—

"The Environmental Protection levy ishigh on my list of priorities if the Coalitioncan seize government after theby-election in Mundingburra.

My own personal opinion is thatpolluters should be made to comply andbe fined if they do not. All others shouldnot be asked to pay yet another tax to theState Government."

The Minister made good on that promise. Itwas a promise that he had made previouslyon 9 November 1994 in the ToowoombaChronicle. I will not read that quote, but it isvery similar to the one in the Northern DownsNews. From the very beginning, this Ministerhas had an attitude of tearing down thelicensing provisions of the EnvironmentalProtection Act, and it is simply not goodenough. This Minister was prepared to back asmall minority group operating in a couple oftowns in his own electorate—an organisationnamed BANG, Business Against NeedlessGovernment. To my knowledge, that groupoperated in only three small country towns,two being in the Minister's electorate, Dalbyand Oakey. The group attempted to establisha branch in Kingaroy, but it was more of awhimper than a "BANG"! The self-interest ofthis Minister in looking after some noisy,irrelevant small-business groups in his ownelectorate has led him into taking this action,which is based on a very false premise.

Mr Palaszczuk: It was the Liberalswithin the coalition who actually rolled him onthis.

Mr BARTON: That is interesting. It mustbe noted that this Minister is taking actionwhich is totally inappropriate and which is notin the best interests of the environment in thisState.

I want to talk about one of the other falsepremises—that extensive consultation was notundertaken on the fee structure before it wasput in place. Much of that consultation tookplace under my predecessor, Molly Robson, atthe time when the original legislation waspassed through the Parliament. There wasextensive consultation with all of the peakindustry councils and many individual


employers. They included the QueenslandConfederation of Industry, the MTIA, theAustralian Sugar Milling Council and theMining Council. I can vouch for the fact that,as soon as I became the Minister, all of thosebodies beat a path to my door—and many,many others as well—to talk about this issue,among others,and to talk about some of theconcerns that they had about the teethingproblems. In turn, they all became supportiveof ensuring that the licensing structure got up.Bodies such as the Motor Trades Associationwere running positive articles in their own localinternal magazines.

I want to stress that the fees were set bya body which had representatives from thosepeak councils on it. The very people whom theMinister claims to be defending and protectingnow were very much part of the whole processof setting the fee structures and declaringwhich were the environmentally relevantactivities. It is not something that they canwalk away from now and claim that there wasno consultation, because they were very muchat the heart of the consultation process all theway through—before the Bill was enacted andcertainly during the entire period of itsimplementation. I can speak of the six and ahalf or seven months that I was the Minister,when those groups just about lived in myoffice when they had any concerns about thislegislation.

I want to make some other commentsabout the fees supposedly being too high.They are not. Not only were they set inconjunction with business but fees can also beaggregated. This is something that seems tohave escaped the mental giants on the otherside of the Chamber. If a person owns a smallbusiness or a string of small businesses in acountry town which undertake a range ofdifferent activities and operations—a range ofenvironmentally relevant activities—thatperson can hold one licence. A person is notrequired to have multiple licences; they canhave one licence. It is an aggregated fee thatis worked out based on the highest licencethat a person would have had to pay for anindividual one. People are running the line thathigh fees are being paid and that people arebeing caught up in all sorts of differentlicences for different things. That is simply notthe case, and it is something that isunderstood by the business organisations, thelocal authorities and the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland.

I want to try to nail home something thatwas said by the member for Barron River.Most of the complaints that come in are aboutsmall businesses, such as the gentleman in

her electorate who spray paints only three carsa year. But he sometimes spray paints them inthe open; they rub them down and wash themdown so that all of the muck goes into thegutters. If mechanics are servicing cars onfootpaths, these are the types of things thatget constituents in all of our electorates upsetand are the types of complaints that come intothe department or through individualmembers' offices. Those are the sorts ofissues that this legislation, as originallyenacted by the Labor Government, wasintended to resolve.

Some members have claimed that theresponsibility for licensing has been kicked offto local authorities. There was agreement onthat, because local authorities have in the pasthad most of the responsibility for these typesof activities. Apart from the major industry thatwas licensed by the department directly, localauthorities did have the licensing devolved tothem. They were not thrown to the wolves. Iwill admit that there were a few teethingproblems. This was a major change, and therewill always be some teething problems thathave to be worked through. But there weresubsidies in place for councils. Over the pastyear, a total of $2.5m worth of subsidies wasallowed for. Each local authority was paid a$500 fee for every licence that it put intoplace. There were some very significantamounts paid to local authorities in this State,and the local authorities that were pro-activeliked it that way and worked very heavily tomake sure that the licensing regime was putinto place.

There are also some benefits forbusiness. Not every business has to belicensed but only those—such as the motorrepair shop or the spray painter or maybe thesmall foundry which got a mention before—which are potential polluters. If they have alicence and they keep to those standards,then under the legislation they are protectedfrom prosecution. Similarly, there are certainprovisions which can apply if businessescannot meet the new standards straightaway.I have been in motor repair shops that have allthe entrapment systems for waste water andwaste oil, but if a business is not in a positionto outlay that capital expenditure immediately,environmental management plans that arepart of the licensing regime could be drawn upthat give them time to put that in place over aperiod of years. They are still protected,provided they do the right thing within theirenvironmental protection licence. There wasnot this great onus on small business. We hada few vocal rednecks in electorates such asthose of the Minister, the member for Western


Downs. This Government has pandered tothat small minority of rednecks.

The difference with what the former LaborGovernment was putting in place was that thelegislation provides for a pro-active approach.It is not a heavy hand. It is a pro-activeapproach whereby the environmentallyrelevant activities are identified, thebusinesses that undertake them are identified,and they are licensed in a manner whichencourages and allows them to improve theirenvironmental standards over a period. Theoutcome that the previous Government wasseeking to achieve, and which thisGovernment seems to be prepared to throwaway, is that we end up with a betterenvironment. It is not a question of going backto the days when that lot on the other side ofthe Chamber were last in power, when theysaid, "We will prosecute the offenders whopollute." We did not see many prosecutions,did we?

Mr Pearce: One in 32 years.

Mr BARTON: Yes, one in 32 years. Itwas proved that that system did not work. Itwas not a matter of saying, "We will runaround with big penalties and flog everyonewho pollutes." It was a matter of working withindustry, individual businesses, peak councilsand local authorities to put in place a pro-active regime which meant that theenvironment was improved over time, we knewwhere the people were who potentially hadproblems, and that licensing system was put inplace. I will not belabour this point. I didmention that there were some teethingtroubles. Several members have spokenabout that issue and made great play of it.Yes, there were a few anomalies. NorthernFoundries in the electorate of Woodridge wasone of which we were aware. The licensingsystem was in place. It had been throughCabinet. It had not reached the point of beinglegislated, because of the change inGovernment. However, we were aware ofthose anomalies, and they were in the processof being worked through.

Great play has been made of the fact thatappropriate standards were not in place. Imust admit that, as the relevant Minister, I wasfrustrated by our incapacity to get some of theenvironmental protection policies through asrapidly as had been intended initially.However, interim standards were in place.Business and the local authorities which weredoing the licensing were aware of thosestandards. A great deal of assistance wasprovided to ensure that that licensing tookplace within those interim standards until the

final EPPs were put in place. In about Octoberlast year, we became aware that some localauthorities were falling behind. Agreement wasreached between the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland and myself, and aconsiderable amount of additional resourceswas applied to those local authorities. Somehad been doing it very well and did not needthat assistance. Others had fallen behind. Wehad to put more resources into training andsupport to make sure that we could reach thatdeadline of 1 March this year.

Those types of actions were taken. Whathappened? There was a change ofGovernment a month before that deadline.The new Government came in, threw out thebaby with the bathwater and put in place amoratorium. I stress that my greatestconcern—and why I am really opposing thisBill—is that I believe that this is just the holdingstep while this Government ensures that itsmoratorium on licensing is made legal for thepeople who have not followed the procedureand got their licences properly, so that thisGovernment can tear the heart out of thislegislation. I oppose this Bill.

Mr MALONE (Mirani) (4.34 p.m.): I ampleased to speak to the EnvironmentalProtection Amendment Bill 1996. ThisGovernment has honoured its commitmentmade when coming to office to address theanomalies and inequities of the EnvironmentalProtection Act which the previous Governmentfailed to recognise. In doing so, I am pleasedto say that the coalition Governmentimmediately introduced a moratorium in orderto review the wide range of adverse impactson business. That included small business inparticular. I was especially pleased to hear theMinister, in his second-reading speech,acknowledge the problems which localgovernments face in administering theEnvironmental Protection Act. The Bill providesfor local governments, as administeringauthorities, to be able to set fees by resolutionunder the Environmental Protection Act ratherthan through a process of establishing a locallaw.

It was pleasing to hear the member forWoodridge talk about the imposition of thesetypes of Acts on local government. I have sixlocal authorities in my electorate, only one ofwhich is rather large. I am sure that all of themwould have real difficulty in dealing with thesevery complex Acts that are passed by theParliament. They need all the protection andthe resources that can be provided by StateGovernments. I must admit that there hasbeen a lot of heartache among localauthorities in regard to this legislation.


This is in line with fee setting for otherapproval processes administered by localgovernments in Queensland. Although localgovernments will have a degree of autonomy,where a fee has been set by regulation thatfee will be the maximum that a localgovernment will be able to impose. Localgovernments have confirmed that they have acommitment to, and an understanding of,environmental management issues and aretruly in partnership with this State Governmentin protecting Queensland's environment.

The State Government has given acommitment to the Local GovernmentAssociation of Queensland to maintaininfrastructural support to local governments,including provision of training and guidelinesfor administration of the legislation. TheGovernment has further reaffirmed thesecommitments by agreeing to re-sign theprotocol with local government. Theamendment Bill provides for a four-monthtransitional period in which to address anumber of issues where inequities forbusinesses regulated under the EnvironmentalProtection Act have arisen or would arise inthe future.

I would like to talk about some of theadverse and ridiculous situations that havearisen in my electorate. Just the other day, Ihad a call from a small operator—a singleoperator of a mobile heavy equipment repairbusiness. He was approached some time agoby the local government to comply with theEnvironmental Protection Act. Membersshould realise that this chap works out of theback of a truck. He travels to outlying areas inmy electorate to work on equipment. As such,his business has no premises. He wasinformed as recently as a week ago that hisoperation would attract exactly the same feeas that paid by Tulk Goninan or HastingsDeering or one of the other big operatorswhich work on hundreds of machines.

An Opposition member interjected.Mr MALONE: I can assure members

that it is the case. I have a letter here, ifmembers would like me to read it.

There are a number of reasonably smallsawmillers in my electorate. In the clear light ofday, some of those people would probably bebetter off if they decided to give up and go onthe dole. But they are proud people. The one Iam talking about is a fourth-generationsawmiller. His sons work in the mill with him.They do not earn a lot of money, but inrelation to their quality of life and that sort ofthing——

Mr Stoneman: Don't name him; if everthey get back into power, they will wipe himout.

Mr MALONE: I know that. I am notgoing to do that. They enjoy a particularquality of life as a small family organisation,and they contribute substantially to thecommunity. However, that fellow has beenasked to comply with the regulations and willbe charged exactly the same fee as that paidby a multinational operation that is sawinghundreds of thousands of cubic metres oftimber a year. His operation is among a dairyfarming community. There is no sign ofpollution in that area. The creeks run as clearlyas they ever did. The grass around hisproperty probably grows better than it ever did,simply because of the amount of sawdust thatis spread around. Yet under theEnvironmental Protection Act he has tocontribute in a very substantial way. In theclear light of day, the reality would have beenthat that small family company would havegone to the wall and those people would havedisappeared into a community on which theywould have to rely for support.

I refer also to another situation in myelectorate relating to the supply and extractionof sand and gravel from local streams. Thissituation is quite ridiculous. I intend to readselectively from a letter that I received recently.It relates to one company, but there are fouror five large companies that operate in thatsituation. The letter states—

"Our company is the major supplierof sand and gravel to the concrete andbuilding industry of Mackay and Sarina.

The only available coarse sandsupply for the area is in the Pioneer River.

The sand deposits of the riverupstream of the Ron Camm Bridge toDumbleton Weir are now largelyexhausted—this is the area that hassupplied the district from Mackay'sbeginning until the present day.

. . . The river bed downstream of the Ron

Camm bridge to the mouth containsmillions of cubic metres of coarsesand—sufficient to supply the district formany years to come.

This area had huge quantitiesremoved in the late 1970's to fill theCaneland Shopping Centre development.This area has now totally replenished as aresult of annual flooding and tidalinfluences.


The river bed from Ron Camm Bridgeto the river mouth is totally filled withsand—what used to be a deep rivernavigable to quite large vessels, right tothe centre of Mackay is now only kneedeep at low tide.

. . .

No environmental damage can resultfrom the removal of sand from theseareas—this would only assist the river inreturning to its original state.

The Pioneer River Improvement Trustis currently spending approximately threemillion dollars on levee banks in the areato prevent flooding in the city. We, assand removal contractors, are assisting toclean out the river bed, and PAY FORTHE PRIVILEGE of doing so.

Our company's royalty payments"—

amount to $30,000. The letter continues—

"Prior to June 1995 all Mackay areasand removal permits were issued andadministrated by the Mackay PortAuthority and permits outside the Mackayarea were issued and administrated bythe Harbours Corporation of Queensland.Since that time"—

June 1994, a crucial point in time—

"all permit issues and administration werehanded to the Department ofEnvironment and Heritage and this iswhere the problems really began."

To highlight the problems, the lettercontinues—

"Our company has eight differentapplications before the department overthe period from 30.06.94 to 26.06.95. Wehave paid the relevant application feesand survey fees for the different areas, anobtained all relevant approvals, yet havenot received permits for sand removalfrom any of the areas requested."

As a result, that company is operating illegally.The letter continues—

"Our company has, without fail,submitted regular monthly sand removalreturns to the Mackay Port Authority andpaid royalties to that authority, althoughthey are no longer the responsible body.At a meeting with one of their seniorexecutives in recent weeks I was informedthat various other sand removalcontractors in the area no longer bother tosubmit returns nor pay royalty.

Our company recently received a'please explain' letter from the

Department of Environment and Heritageas to why we were removing sandquantities in excess of our permitapplication . . .

Our company took a deputation tothe Department of Environment andHeritage, Brisbane . . . We came awaymost disappointed. Our impression oftheir attitude was that they had beenhanded the extra work of administeringthe states sand removal industry, withoutfunding, staff or expertise to do the workand were not particularly interested."As that letter shows, the sand removal

industry in Mackay is in utter chaos. I havetalked with the Minister about that problemand we are trying to work through it.Unfortunately, as a result of the currentEnvironmental Protection Act, all different sortsof problem exist. Four or five companies existin that area, each operating millions of dollarsworth of equipment, and the building industryis screaming out for material. We are workingtowards resolving that problem, but it islongstanding; it has existed for almost 18months and, so far, we are getting very little inreturn for our efforts. Hopefully, the Minister willsoon rectify that problem.

The terms of reference of the ministerialcommittee that will report to the Minister by 31May include the need for a regulatory systeminvolving licensing and approval of industriesthat have significant environmental risk toensure that they are aware of theirenvironmental requirements, which is veryimportant; the appropriateness of theschedule of environmentally relevant activities;and the need to ensure that aggregate licencefee revenue is commensurate with the cost ofadministering the environmental protectionregulation by the administering authorities.That is, whatever comes in will go out inadministration. That makes that the commentof the former Minister a lie. This Governmentwill make the process cost effective, and wewill ensure that the income from fees will coverthe costs involved in administering theEnvironmental Protection Act.

The ministerial committee will alsoinvestigate the need to ensure that the leveland nature of a licence fee bears arelationship with the environmental risk andharm of that activity. That reflects the attitudeof this Government in relation to businessesthat pollute: they should cover the cost of anypollution and should have to bear the cost ofclean-up.

The ministerial committee will alsoinvestigate the implementation costs of any


conditions contained in such approvals orlicences and the opportunities for business toutilise environmental management programsto gain protection for a reasonable time toallow implementation of improvements that willmeet approval or licence conditions in a timelyand financially viable manner. The committeewill also seek and receive advice fromstakeholders, which it appears has not beendone before. The committee will be providedwith information from previous investigationsby the Department of Environment andpreviously established committees. Thecommittee will be required to report to theMinister prior to 31 May 1996.

In summary, the coalition Government iscommitted to the people of Queensland tofinetune environmental policy, to consult withthe community and to explain the policy andchanges that will affect their livelihoods andthe quality of life. The policy of ourGovernment is to protect the Queenslandenvironment.

Hon. B. G. LITTLEPROUD (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) (4.47 p.m.),in reply: I congratulate all members whoparticipated in this debate. It has beendebated in good spirit and in the right mood.We are more productive in this House whenwe debate in a reasoned manner, notshouting across the Chamber but listening towhat members have to say. I have taken noteof various points on which I will comment indetail in this reply.

I renew a call that I made quite often, asrecently as last week in Townsville, to allbusiness people in Queensland who have notapplied for a licence to get on with it, becausethis Act will be enforced. I make it quite clearthat there is no intention to abandon or to gutthe Environmental Protection Act. I know of atleast two prosecutions being processed since Ibecame the Minister.

With regard to the amendments to thelegislation and claims that they left the Statecompletely unprotected from environmentalharm—that is not the case. The State hasnever been left unprotected. There alwaysexisted penalties that could be applied underthe Act. Now, not only penalties can beimposed but also action can be taken forbreaches of a licence. It has beenacknowledged by various speakers on theother side of the Chamber that localgovernment representatives still have somemisgivings about the legislation and a lack ofinformation. They accepted the opportunity forme to prolong the licensing period. Later, I will

quote from some of the mail that I receivedfrom those people.

I have heeded the strong call frombusiness speaking about this legislation ashighlighted by the members on this side of theHouse. I listened to the comments made byvarious speakers. Consultation occurredcertainly with the major stakeholders, themajor industry bodies, but the reality is thatsmall-business operators are now allowed tobelong to peak bodies, and those operatorswere the ones who had every reason to realisethat the system was not fair. I believe that theGovernment had a moral responsibility to acton that. I inherited a policy developed by thecoalition well before July last year. It was notas if I was reacting to some ratbags in myelectorate, as the member for Waterford sounkindly referred to those people. That policywas drawn up by the coalition policycommittee well before the State election inJuly last year. That committee knew about theconcerns that exist in the community and thatpolicy included a promise to review thelegislation and, more importantly, theregulations pertaining to it and the schedule offees—hence my decision to act when Ibecame Minister for Environment.

The member for Everton referred to areport tabled in this House today by theScrutiny of Legislation Committee. Thechairman of that committee, the member forCunningham, is in the House. I advise theHouse that I was alerted to the commentsmade by that committee about proposedsection 251. I have discussed the matter withthe chairman and pointed out that the wordsin proposed section 251 of the amendinglegislation are almost word for word thoseused in the Act—I think it was section 240. Irecognise the comments of the Scrutiny ofLegislation Committee and assure the Housethat I will address that matter in the future.

I will make some specific comments aboutthe contributions made by various people.Obviously, the major speech from theOpposition in this debate was by the memberfor Everton. He stated that we should have aconsolidated Bill. I accept that. It is a goodsuggestion and I have passed it on. It issomething that I will consider. There may besome more amendments to the legislationdown the track. Certainly, it would be a goodidea to put it all together to make it mucheasier for the practitioners to use.

There was an accusation made that themoratorium is longer than the promised fourmonths. Yes, it is true to say that theGovernment has changed the wording to say


that as long as people have applied for alicence before 1 July they are complying withthe Act. However, they are still liable under theAct. I am advised that the vast majority ofbusinesses had only a four-month extension.Those businesses that were already licenceholders had to comply by 1 March 1996.

My commitment to seeking the bestenvironmental practice was queried. I assurethe House that this Government is committedto ensuring the usage of the best practice thatis possible. However, the Government alsowants to make sure that it carries out itsresponsibilities as a Government, and that isto facilitate development and facilitatebusiness in this community. We are acommunity that relies upon business to createthe wealth that provides us with our quality oflife and our infrastructure support.

The member for Everton questioned theneed for the second amendment that I madeto the legislation at the end of February. I willexplain the circumstances for thatamendment. On the last Monday in February,I was sworn in as the Minister for Environment.That same afternoon at 2 o'clock, Cabinet metfor the first time. Recognising that theEnvironmental Protection Act came into forceon Friday, 1 March—the Friday of thatweek—we had to get the ECMs to ExecutiveCouncil by the Tuesday afternoon. A decisionwas made by Cabinet that I should movequickly to carry out a coalition promise. So Iwent back to my staff. They worked allMonday night and into Tuesday morning tocome up with an amendment, whichsubsequently was taken to and adopted byExecutive Council. After that I was approachedby Mr Greg Hallam of the Local GovernmentAssociation, who expressed concern that thelegal advice that he had received was not thesame as the legal advice that I had received.To accommodate his fears, some seven dayslater I made that second amendment to thelegislation. Given the same circumstances andthe same time lines, I would not hesitate doingthe same again. I want to thank publicly thestaff of the department who were prepared towork as quickly as they could and to liaise withParliamentary Counsel to draft that firstamendment on the Monday night. If furtherdown the track I have to make this legislationwork better, I will do it again. However, therewere time constraints in that I was sworn in onthe Monday and we had to get somethingbefore Executive Council by Tuesdaylunchtime.

The comment was made that the Premierpromised equal representation forconservation groups. I defend the stance that

the Government has taken in this regard. Theministerial advisory committee that isinvestigating the licensing and compliancecosts is made up of three people from localgovernment, three from major industry groupsand three from conservation groups plus twoothers. I think that any fair-minded personwould recognise that three people from majorindustry groups, three from local governmentand three from conservation groups is equalrepresentation. In fact, the Government tookthe trouble of investigating councils andcommittees that had been set up by thedepartment over recent years, and therepresentation given to conservation bodieson those councils. In those circumstance, itwas never the case that conservation bodiesmade up more than half the committee. Infact, there was proportional representation. SoI believe that I can rebut that accusation.Previously, I have spoken in this House aboutthose people from the conservation groupswho did not take up the offer. In fact, thechairman of the Queensland ConservationCouncil wanted to take up the offer, but hewas talked out of it. The former Minister for theEnvironment, Pat Comben, also wanted totake up the offer, but he was dissuaded by hisown organisation.

Over the last couple of weeks, becausepeople from conservation groups have chosennot to be part of the committee, I have invitedMr Bruce Fleming from the QUT to come onboard. He is a man who has academicexcellence in environmental matters. Iwelcome his contribution.

The member for Everton raised an issuethat has been exercising my mind, and that isthe funding that will be required so that thedepartment can adequately carry outinspections and licensing. We are aware ofthat. The Local Government Association ofQueensland has also made strongrepresentations in that regard. I recognise itsproblems and I also recognise how therequirements apply to the department itself.We are taking that into account in ourdeliberations.

The member for Everton also referred tocomments made by the Chairman of the PineRivers Shire, a former colleague of mine in thisHouse, Councillor Chapman. I was notpresent, but the reports that I have receivedindicate that she was certainly critical of theregulations and she was certainly expressing apersonal opinion about licensing. However, Ido not think that she made any personalattacks on me. In fact, over the years she hasbeen a pretty good supporter of mine.Although I was not present, I believe thereports that I received.


The member for Everton referred tosections in the Bill that related to exemptions.The member will probably refer again to thosematters during the Committee stage. However,I have sought advice on those matters and Iwill discuss that with the member at that time.

The member for Everton claimed thatthere were no inequities in the GossGovernment legislation, that it was all outthere ready to go, that everything was rightand that the Goss Government had taken intoconsideration the concerns of businesspeople. I will refer to a few press releases thathave been issued since I announced thereview. I refer firstly to an article in the HerbertRiver Express, which states—

"The Australian Cane FarmersAssociation has endorsed the morepractical approach to environment mattersthat was outlined recently by the newQueensland government's Environmentminister Brian Littleproud.

. . .

Mr Littleproud's recent remarks thathe intends to balance environmentalconcerns with the need for economicgrowth and development was hearteningnews for Queensland's 6500 canefarmers.

. . .

Now it looks as if Queensland's newEnvironment Minister is about to inject abadly needed dose of commonsense andpragmatism into what has become a veryconfused and misunderstood area ofpublic policy."

An article in the Gympie Times states—

"Cooloola Shire Mayor AdrianMcClintock yesterday welcomed anannouncement by the State governmentto review all environmental legislationintroduced by the former state Laborgovernment."

The article stated further—

"One of the most controversial piecesof environmental legislation passed by theformer government was theEnvironmental Protection Act whichsparked dissent from small and largebusinesses across the State facingexpensive mandatory upgrading ofpremises and hefty licence fees.

Cr McClintock yesterday describedthe Act as being 'in some cases over thetop'.

Welcoming a review of the licencefees, he said more time 'has got to begiven (to business proprietors)'."

I believe that those types of comments givethe lie to the fact that, as the member forEverton claimed, everything was perfect. Infact, everything was not perfect. I refer now tothe Local Government Association, and what itthought about it. I refer to a facsimiletransmission dated 26 April which was sent tome from the Local Government Association ofQueensland. It is addressed to Sharleene,who works in my office. The facsimile states—

"Herewith further copy of our letter toThe Honourable Tom Barton MLA dated16 November 1995. We do not appear tohave received a reply to this letter. Couldwe please have your reply to this letter."In fact, Sharleene enclosed a copy of the

letter, in which it referred to a resolutionpassed at the 1995 annual conference of theLocal Government Association, which states—

"That the LGAQ be requested tofinalise arrangements for the infringementnotices system under the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1994."

That letter was dated 16 November 1995, andit was never answered by the previousMinister.

The same group of people saw fit to putout a news release, under the name GregHallam, which states—

"The state government's move toextend the moratorium on environmentallicence fees was welcomed by councils,Local Government Association ofQueensland executive director GregHallam, said today."

The news release is dated 30 April. So Ibelieve that there was recognition that all wasnot right. That was even conceded by theprevious Minister. He certainly may have donea fair bit to improve matters that existed underhis predecessor, Molly Robson. She made ahell of a mess when she introduced thatschedule. He retrieved the situationsomewhat, and I acknowledge that. However,it still was not perfect and it was a matter offinetuning. While the member for Waterfordwas not present in the House, I said that it wasthe small-business people who were notproperly represented by the major industrygroups, and they were the ones who reallyhad a beef.

Turning to the contributions of othermembers, I point out that the member forKeppel has built a reputation in this House,and throughout Queensland, as a good


grassroots politician. Therefore, there is nonebetter able than he to talk about how this Actwill apply to the people he knows best. Iserved with the honourable member when hewas the Minister responsible for business andTAFE, and he was very effective and knewhow to make things relevant. His commentstoday were very relevant to the action beingtaken by this Government.

The member for Woodridge, who also hasa long history in this House, made a goodcontribution. He talked about the relationshipbetween Government and the public service,and how that relationship affects the sort oflegislation that is introduced to this House. It isdifficult for members of Parliament, whilerepresenting the interests of all sorts of peoplefrom all parts of the State, to put togetherlegislation that will work hunky-dory. Thehonourable member also focused on theimportance of the environment and ourconsiderations in relation to it. His contributionwas a good indication of the fact that theenvironment debate has matured. We nolonger have a debate typified by the hand-over-heart style, and spruiking forth with a fairbit of hype. More reasoned thoughts nowprevail. The member for Woodridge is a veryreasonable man and has a goodunderstanding of the problems involved inintroducing legislation which impacts onbusiness.

The member for Redlands listed all thebodies and people I consulted with throughoutthe State. He mentioned the Metal TradesIndustry Association, the QCCI, the TimberBoard, urban developers, the QueenslandFarmers Federation, the QueenslandGraingrowers Association, the LocalGovernment Association and the Major CitiesAssociation. Representatives from all of thoseorganisations came through my door, andalways high on their list of items to discuss wasthe Environmental Protection Act and theregulations pertaining to it. All expressedsupport for it, but all could quote anomalies.The big manufacturers were more concernedabout the compliance provisions thanlicensing, and small business certainly hadconcerns.

The member for Currumbin made theaccusation that the Government was simplydelaying. I assure her that that is not the case.Indeed, she reverted to the sort of debate thathas become old fashioned: she let forth withbit of hype and, really, went over the top,saying that we will go back to all the terriblethings that have happened in the past. I cantell the honourable member, and the memberfor Archerfield, that there were approximately

30 convictions under the environmentallegislation during the term of the NationalParty Government. That type of debate isreally getting old fashioned, and we shouldstay with the sort of contribution made bythe——

Mr Ardill: You will be hearing more of it.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I can imagine that.It will not do me any harm at all because thereasoned debate is the one that is winning.

The member for Hinchinbrook targetedthe unfair impact of too much legislation onsmall-business owners. He talked of thebroader picture, and how there is an operatingcharge even if a profit has not been made.That really concerns the people in smallbusiness and the people in private enterprise,because too many of the costs they bear noware not paid after profit but are setting-up andoperating costs. The honourable memberrelated that problem to this particular Act.

The member for Archerfield accused theGovernment of procrastination. I have alreadymentioned that quite a number ofprosecutions have been launched. I remindthe member that it was the QueenslandConservation Council which accused the GossGovernment of delivering on only about 30 percent of its environmental promises. Therefore,the honourable member should not bethrowing around too many accusations. Themember also talked about the previousNational Party Government forcing theBrisbane City Council to retain Willawong. Iseem to remember that it was the GossGovernment that used its jackboots to imposethe Gurulmundi toxic dump on the people ofMiles. It is a case of tit for tat, and there areplenty of other examples I could cite. Themember for Archerfield is a nice chap, but Icould not resist that!

The member for Barron River, who comesto this House with strong environmentalcredentials, made a very fine contribution. Sherepresents the understanding of theGovernment of the need to strike a balancebetween protecting the environment andachieving sustainable development. That is apoint of view that is prevalent within industryand the community in general. We need toacknowledge that we are all on the same side,whether we are conservationists, businesspeople or industry people. It is not a case ofus and them; we are all in this together. Whenwe have finetuned those sorts of things, wewill have a more mature debate. I thank themember for Barron River for her contribution.

The previous Minister, the member forWaterford, made some references to his


experience when Minister. I acknowledge thatthe honourable member picked up one hell ofa mess from his predecessors. He consultedwidely.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I identified that, butthe honourable member said that he had hada lot of consultation. I reiterate his criticismthat, although he consulted with big business,small business felt they were not wellrepresented because they do not belong, orare not allowed to belong to the largeorganisations. Therefore, there was still a needfor finetuning, and that is what I have tried todo since becoming Minister by reviewing thelicensing system.

Rightly or wrongly—and I think wrongly—from 15 July 1995 there was an expectation inthe business community that there was a verygood chance that there would be a change ofGovernment. Some of those blokes werethinking, "If we get a change of Government,she's out the door." They are in for a surprise.I have made numerous calls to tell thosepeople that they must obtain a licence.Nevertheless, they refused to do that and, allof a sudden, in the last few days of February,the phones in the ministerial office ran hot.The local governments could not possiblyhandle all the people who were applying forlicences. I was aware of the coalition's policypromise and agreed that we had to dosomething about the situation. That is why Ihave reacted as I have. Those people mayhave been a little shonky, but they will getcaught. The previous Government devolvedthis responsibility to local government, and itproved to be an administrative mess. From theresponses I am now receiving from localgovernments, they are pleased with the actionthat I took. I reaffirm in this House that we willnot walk away from the EnvironmentalProtection Act, but I will make it fair.

The last speaker was the member forMirani, another man with vast experience inthe private business sector and also a fellowwho knows all about the people who are beingcaught up with this process and are finding itvery tough. He confirmed our greatest fears,that small business are not properly consulted.They knew about the inequities and they werethe ones who had to speak up. The memberfor Mirani, and others like him, spoke up in thisplace and told us that we had to put equityinto the process and consider the cost ofcompliance with the Act for the businesseswhich had to change their processes.

I thank all members for their contributionsand commend the Bill to the House.

Question—That the Bill be now read asecond time—put; and the House divided—AYES, 41—Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett,Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Watson,Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll

NOES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D'Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Hamill, Hollis, McElligott, McGrady,Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Welford, Wells, Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

Pairs: Woodgate, Borbidge; Gibbs, Warwick;Hayward, Baumann

Resolved in the affirmative.

Committee

Hon. B. G. Littleproud (WesternDowns—Minister for Environment) in charge ofthe Bill.

Clauses 1 to 7, as read, agreed to.Clause 8—

Mr WELFORD (5.15 p.m.): Clause 8addresses a concern that I raised earlier in thesecond-reading debate. The Minister mightrecall that I raised the issue of an amendmentthat he referred to in his second-readingspeech. I refer to the enforceability ofelements of the environmental protectionpolicies. During my speech in the second-reading debate, I indicated that it was notclear that there was any such amendment, butI now note that this clause and clauses 9 and15 have the effect of enforcing environmentalprotection policy provisions. I simplyacknowledge that to the Minister.

However, I wish to make one other pointin relation to the Minister's comment about ourassertion that everything was perfect. Wehave never asserted that everything in relationto the Environmental Protection Act wasperfect. However, what we did say—and what Ihave repeated here today—is that theamendments to regulations and the Act itselfwhich we had put in place before the Ministercame to office addressed all of the concernsthat the Minister and members of theGovernment back bench raised during thesecond-reading debate today. All of the issuesto do with equity and the impact of licensingfees were already addressed. It puts the lie tothe proposition that members of theGovernment back bench are supporting this


amending Bill on the basis that it addressesthose concerns. This Bill does not do any ofthose things. All this Bill does is validate theerrors that the Government has presided overwith respect to regulatory amendments. Thereis no fee relief in this legislation. That is yet tocome; it is still to be determined by theministerial advisory committee, as the Ministerhas acknowledged.

The real issue with respect to theoutcome of that assessment is: how manyenvironmentally relevant activities can be doneaway with before we cease to have theresources to enforce the legislation properly atall? That is the real balancing act that theMinister has yet to address. Let us not kidourselves into believing that this legislationdoes anything to remedy what Governmentmembers claimed were the limitations of thelegislation. There was already ample discretionfor the variation of licence fees to protect smallbusinesses or indeed businesses in hardship.That point needs to be reinforced. It would dothe Minister well to reinforce it, otherwise hewill have many businesses expecting muchmore to come out of his review process thanhe can realistically deliver.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: If the formerGovernment, now the Opposition, believesthat it addressed these problems with regardto the regulations, and in particular theschedules, it did not do that very well, becausethere was enormous pressure and peoplecomplained about it. I explained in my reply tothe second-reading debate that, becausethere was so much anger and a hope that thiswould all be done away with, theadministrative backlog had to be addressed. Ihad to act to ensure that things would work. Ilistened to local government officers whenthey said, "Please help us. We are swamped."The amendments providing for the moratoriumwill help to ease the administrative backlog. Ireiterate that, although the formerGovernment may have thought that itaddressed those problems, they were notaddressed to the extent that the people werepacified.

Mr WELFORD: I acknowledge that theMinister is making an effort to address what hesees to be the concerns raised by business.However, the point is that there was nothing inrelation to the equity of the licensing fees thatwas the cause of their concern. The cause oftheir concern was uncertainty. If the Ministerdoes nothing other than address theinformation shortfalls that business has inrelation to this legislation, my guess is that hewill largely overcome any concerns about thelicensing fees as such. If business has greater

certainty and an understanding of what thislegislation does—namely, that it givesbusinesses time to come up to speed andthere is no immediate requirement for themovernight to spend many thousands of dollarsto come immediately entirely into line; the Actspecifically contemplates that progressiveimprovements will be implemented—a lot ofthe so-called concerns that the Minister hasmade great play of whipping up will bedissipated. Sooner or later, the Minister willhave to come to an appreciation of the factthat the longer he keeps whipping upconcerns about this issue in the businesscommunity the more difficult he will make it forhimself, if indeed he does not intend to gutthe legislation.

Today, the Minister again called onbusiness to apply for a licence. I applaud himfor doing that, but there is one problem. Not asingle business today knows whether, at theend of May after this review committeereports, its activity will require a licence at all. Ifsome of the environmentally relevant activitiesnow in place are not still environmentallyrelevant activities for the purpose of a licenceafter the review committee reports, businesseswould be silly to apply for a licence now forone of those activities because they may findout that they will not need one. Why wouldany business respond now to a call from theMinister to apply for a licence if within a coupleof months it will find out that its activity doesnot require a licence? That is the dilemma andthe conundrum that business faces, and thatconfusion has been created not by thelegislation bequeathed to this Government bythe former Labor Government, it has beencreated by the Minister's actions.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I think it is theheight of speculation to claim that there will beno licensing fee whatsoever. In fact, I amreminded of the comments by the member forWaterford during the second-reading debate. Ihave in front of me a copy of the terms ofreference of the ministerial advisorycommittee. Nowhere in there does it state thatthe licensing fees will be gutted; it is just notthere. I table those terms of reference for thebenefit of members.

Mr WELFORD: I think the Ministermissed my point. I was not saying that therewould be no licensing fees at all. What I amsaying is that if some of the environmentallyrelevant activities listed in the schedule areremoved, then no-one will require a licence foran activity that is not listed in the schedule. Inother words, why would a person apply for alicence now if in two months' time, after thereport comes down, anything adopted by the


Minister that removes one of those activitieson the list means that they do not require alicence? People will not have to get a licence,let alone worry about a licence fee.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: The member forEverton is being hypothetical. He cannotpre-empt what is going to be in that report,and he cannot pre-empt what I will considerand what Cabinet will decide. I think themember is being hypothetical, but I take hispoint.

Clause 8, as read, agreed to.


Clause 10—Mr WELFORD (5.23 p.m.): I move the

following amendment—

"Insert—

'(4) To avoid doubt, Section 42applies to applications under thissection.' "This amendment clarifies the provision

relating to those who hold a provisionallicence, and this applies to a number oforganisations which under the existing lawapplied for a provisional licence pending thecollection of sufficient information to apply fora full licence. Under this provision, the holdersof provisional licences can convert to a fulllicence, but it is not clear whether in applyingfor a full licence some of those major——

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is toomuch audible conversation in the Chamber.

Mr WELFORD: The point of thisamendment is to protect the community andprotect the accountability of this legislation.Members of the Government will be awarethat under the legislation anyone who appliesfor a licence will, when it is proclaimed, berequired to give notice of their application. Thisallows people who have concerns about themanner in which a licence is to be addressedor what conditions should attach to a licenceto make an appeal or lodge an objection to alicence being granted. The right to receivenotice is covered under section 42 of the Act.This amendment seeks to clarify that, inaddition to people who apply for a new fulllicence, people who apply under this clause forthe conversion of a provisional licence to a fulllicence will also have to give notice.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I have lookedcarefully at the member's amendment. If infact it had the capacity to clarify this provisionof the legislation, I would have been preparedto accept it. I sought advice from mydepartmental officers. I will read the advice Iwas given. It states—

"This amendment may cause acompany to give public notice twice forone licence within a short period of time.

There is no special application for aProvisional Licence—hence when s42commences, public notice will be requiredto accompany the original application,and again when the licence is 'converted'to a full licence.

Business should not have to gothrough two public consultation processesfor one activity.

Further, no provisions relating topublic notifications have commenced,therefore such a clause would not havethe effect desired by the member forEverton."

That was the advice I was given. I have givendue consideration to the amendment. If it wasgoing to help me, I would have taken it onboard, but I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr WELFORD: The exception to that isthis: there are a number of organisationswhich already have provisional licences andobtained them without giving notice because,as the Minister pointed out, the currentrequirement under section 42 for notice hasnot yet been proclaimed. The Minister doesneed to proclaim those notice provisions, butin any event there are a number oforganisations which currently have provisionallicences which will not be required to give twonotices; in fact, they will escape giving anynotice at all unless the Minister accepts thisamendment and proclaims the noticeprovision.

What I am saying is that we need thisamendment and the proclamation of thenotice provision under section 42 to ensurethat those who already have a provisionallicence will give notice at some point,otherwise they will never have to give notice.Some of those organisations have significantand quite substantial environmental impacts.That is the point of the amendment. Theamendment obviously does not stand on itsown; I acknowledge that. It requires thisamendment and the coming into effect ofsection 42—which ought cause the Minister noangst anyhow; he could do that within amatter of days by virtue of Executive Councilminute—to ensure that some of thesesubstantial organisations with enormousenvironmental impacts will, at some stagethrough the process, at least be subject tosome measure of scrutiny that is not just thedepartment's scrutiny.


Mr LITTLEPROUD: My departmentalofficer was engaged in conversation withanother person at the time of the membermaking that point. I will give him thisassurance: I will study what is in Hansard, takeon board what the member has said inresponse to the response I gave, and ifnecessary I will act at a later time.

Mr WELFORD: I am not sure wherethat leaves the amendment. In thecircumstances, assuming that the Minister'sadvisers are as on the ball as I am, I believethat he will accept this amendment. I amafraid that I must press the amendment.

Question—That the words proposed tobe inserted be so inserted—put; and theCommittee divided—

AYES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Hamill, Hollis, McElligott, McGrady,Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Welford, Wells, Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.

NOES, 41—Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke,Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan,Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Watson, Wilson,Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll


Resolved in the negative .



Clause 12—

Mr WELFORD (5.36 p.m.): Clause 12relates to new environmentally relevantactivities. This clause provides for the timewithin which a person must apply for a licencewhen some new environmentally relevantactivity comes onto the list of environmentallyrelevant activities after 1 July this year. It ispleasing to note that, in the context that therehas been a lot of advocacy to the Ministerabout cutting back the list of environmentallyrelevant activities, he has included a provisionthat allows new ones to be created. It willcertainly be interesting to see whether or notanything happens on that front. I dare say thatthose small-business representatives who litterthe Government back bench will be runningout to tell small business about theamendment that this Government isintroducing, which allows new businesses to

be added to the list of relevant activities to belicensed under this legislation.

This clause provides that the section willapply within four months after the day theactivity becomes a new environmentallyrelevant activity. Once a person applies, theadministering authority has to decide on theapplication within three months. So I supposethat, overall, the time from the declaration of anew activity to the issue of a licence could beas long as seven months. How did the Ministercome by these arbitrary four-month andthree-month periods?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: My briefing notesstate—

"Section 12 inserts a new section(s.61A) which provides transitionaltimeframes for activities which becomeenvironmentally relevant activities for thefirst time. An operator has four months toapply for an environmental authority afteran activity first becomes anenvironmentally relevant activity.

Despite section 43(1) of the Actunder which an administering authorityhas 28 days to consider an application,the amendment provides three monthsfor such consideration for those activitieswhich have become activities for the firsttime.

This new section also provides thatonce an application has been submitted,an applicant cannot be prosecuted forcarrying out an environmentally relevantactivity without an authority until thelicence takes effect or has been refused."

Mr WELFORD: So this means that, ifany new environmentally relevant activities aredeclared as a result of the Minister's currentreview of the list and the licences, anyone whoneeds to be licensed under that provision willhave another seven months after 1 July thisyear—taking us into February next year—inwhich to obtain a licence?

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I will put it this way:the person then has to make an application.As long as he has made an application, he iscovered. It takes a certain time after that forthe application to be granted as a licence.


Clauses 13 to 16, as read, agreed to.Clause 17—

Mr WELFORD (5.40 p.m.): I didmention this clause during the debate on thesecond reading of the Bill. This clausedelegates to local authorities all the power tomake any local law about any matter


necessary or convenient to give effect to adevolved matter. A devolved matter simplymeans those environmentally relevantactivities which local government licenses andwhich it will administer. As I indicated earlier,this provision seems to be far too broad. Itcreates the potential for all sorts of differentstandards of licensing procedure andenvironmental management programs fromone local government to another. When thereare 125-odd local authorities—give or take afew—I believe that is a cause for greatconcern and raises the possibility of confusion.

The point is that this provision shouldsomehow be limited. As the Minister would beaware, these sorts of provisions whichpreviously gave authority to local governmentwere limited to specific circumstances. In otherwords, they could vary fees, but only onspecific grounds. This gives local authoritiescarte blanche to make local laws. I believe thatcould cause all sorts of problems in terms ofthe different standards applying between localauthorities, and it could create the opportunityfor pollution havens.

I will conclude my story to the Ministerabout the actions of the Mayor of the PineRivers Shire, Mrs Chapman. After a meeting ofsmall-business people in her area, many ofwhom expressed very angry concerns duringthe first part of the meeting, an owner/operatorof a paint and panel shop rose and told themeeting how business people should get offtheir backsides and bring their business intoline and stop polluting the creeks and theatmosphere. After that, the meeting settleddown and discussion proceeded on the basisthat business needed to lift its game and thatpeople had legitimate concerns. At the end ofthe meeting the mayor gratuitouslyvolunteered a resolution of the meeting,without putting it to the meeting, and said thatshe was going to call on the Minister to abolishlicence fees. No doubt the Minister has beenshaking in his boots waiting to receive thatcorrespondence, and in due course he willacquiesce to the Mayor of Pine Rivers Shire,abolish all licence fees and provide her with allthe funds necessary to maintain the standardsin her area.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: I say facetiouslythat she may be planning a second career inState politics after she leaves the Pine RiversShire.

The member for Everton said that theamendments may cause problems. I refer himto clause 17(3)(b) and the bracketed words"not inconsistent with this Act". I am advisedthat that provision covers his concerns. On the

other hand, I understand that he was referringto the flexibility given to local government andthat the fee set by local government may notbe higher than the fee set by the Act. That feehas to be consistent with the spirit of the Act.The provision gives the Minister of the day theopportunity to stop blaring inconsistencies.


Clauses 18 to 26, as read, agreed to. Clause 27—

Mr WELFORD (5.44 p.m.): This finalclause of the amending Bill contains a numberof provisions, include two provisions ofparticular concern. One relates to proposednew section 247 that effectively legitimisesevery unlawful past act that has ever beencommitted against this legislation. Thelegislation states—

"An unlawful past act is taken to be,and always to have been, authorised tobe done or omitted to be done under thisAct."

This is an extraordinary provision. Thedefinition of unlawful past act in proposed newsection 242 is incomprehensible. It states—

" 'unlawful past act' means a past actthat—(a) caused serious or material

environmental harm or anenvironmental nuisance; and

(b) would have been authorised to bedone or omitted to be done under anenvironmental authority if theEnvironmental Protection (Interim)Regulation 1995, section 64A, hadnot commenced."

How small businessmen are supposed tomake any sense of that is beyond me. On itsface, clause 27 seems to authorise unlawfulpast acts which include those that causeserious or material environmental harm. Whywould the Minister, who professes to beconcerned about the environment and saysthat he will not allow the environmental harmprovisions to fall into a black hole, allow aprovision such as that?

Mr ELLIOTT: I had a meeting with theMinister in regard to clause 27, proposed newsections 251(1)(b) and 251(2) and (3). TheScrutiny of Legislation Committee believes251(3) to be a Henry VIII clause and we hadsome difficulty with the other two that I justmentioned. The Minister has indicated to methat he will be bringing this legislation back tothe Chamber around June. The Ministerpointed out that, as the time was so short fromwhen I was able to speak to him about it and


when this was brought on for debate, it wouldbe difficult to change those sections as therewas not sufficient time to investigate the legalramifications of such changes. I appreciate theundertakings that he has given, and I wouldappreciate his comments.

Mr WELFORD: I do not know whatundertakings have been given to the Chair ofthe Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, but I donot think that an undertaking to bring thelegislation back into the Chamber at a latertime and to investigate the matter issatisfactory.

Proposed new section 251 can have nolegal ramifications for the amendinglegislation, because it can only apply from thetime the legislation receives assent. Therefore,it can apply only to regulations that will bemade by Executive Council after this provisionis passed. If the Government was genuine inits concern about the effects of this provisionand its Henry VIII effect—that is, undercuttingthe authority of the Act by potential futureregulations—this provision would not proceed;the Minister would withdraw it now.

This is the final issue on which theOpposition contests this legislation inCommittee. We believe that that provision isunsatisfactory. We endorse and agree with thecomments of the Scrutiny of LegislationCommittee. We do not see that there is anybasis upon which the Minister can say that heneeds that provision. It does not protectanything done in this amending legislation; itdoes not protect anything done under theprevious legislation. It can only serve toauthorise regulations which should be in thelegislation. That is the point of the commentsof the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee. TheOpposition opposes the provisions and willdivide accordingly.

Mr LITTLEPROUD: In response tothose comments, I remind honourablemembers that the words being referred to inproposed new section 251 are almost word forword those of the original legislation. I lookedat the two Acts this morning, and I reiteratewhat I said during the second-reading debate.The member for Cunningham, the Chairmanof the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee,should bear in mind that the report of thatcommittee was handed down today and thatthis debate came on before lunchtime.Members would appreciate that it was difficultfor me to have access to ParliamentaryCounsel to make any changes to thelegislation. I note the comments of themembers, especially in regard to proposednew section 251(3), and I agree with

honourable members that it is most likely thatthere will be further amendments to thelegislation in the near future, at which time Iwill address that particular problem. I hopemembers understand today's problems.

The member for Everton spoke aboutproposed new section 247. Section 242defines "past act" in these terms—

" 'past act' means something done oromitted to be done during the suspensionperiod."

The suspension period was the period from 1March 1996 to 7 March 1996. That provision isnot ongoing; it covered the period betweenamendment 2 and amendment 3. It is nownull and void. It existed to validate actions oromissions during that time; it does notcontinue. The member's fears about the futureare without foundation.

Question—That clause 27, as read,stand part of the Bill—put; and the Committeedivided—AYES, 41—Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud,McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett, Quinn, Radke,Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, Stephan,Stoneman, Tanti, Turner, Veivers, Watson, Wilson,Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, CarrollNOES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Hamill, Hollis, McElligott, McGrady,Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Welford, Wells Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B.


Resolved in the affirmative.Bill reported, without amendment.

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

read a third time.

QUEENSLAND SCHOOLSCURRICULUM COUNCIL AND BOARD

OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLSTUDIES

Mr BREDHAUER (Cook) (5.58 p.m.): Imove—

"That this Parliament—

(a) recognises the legitimate concernsexpressed by the Queensland


Council of Parents and CitizensAssociation, the QueenslandIndependent Parents and FriendsCouncil, the Queensland CatholicParents and Friends Federation, theQueensland Teachers Union and theQueensland Association of Teachersin Independent Schools aboutproposals by the Education Ministerto abolish their positions on theQueensland Schools CurriculumCouncil and the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies; and

(b) calls on the Minister to guaranteerepresentatives from these parentsand teacher groups positions on thetwo boards."

Last week, Queensland's minorityGovernment took another step back in time tothe pre-Fitzgerald corruption inquiry days. In aleaf straight out of Bjelke-Petersen's industrialrelations and community consultation manual,Queensland's Education Minister hasindicated that he intends to terminate unionand parent representation on the QueenslandSchools Curriculum Council and theQueensland Board of Senior SecondarySchool Studies.

The Minister can couch it in whateverterms he sees fit, but there is no doubt inanyone's mind that the QTU is the target andthe Minister does not mind taking a few othergroups with it. In fact, today the Ministerrefused to meet with representatives of theQueensland Teachers Union when, togetherwith representatives of the other organisations,they came to meet the Minister to presenttheir united position. I acknowledge that in thepast the Minister has had meetings with theQTU but today he delivered a letter toJulie-Ann McCullough, whom I met standingout the front, and told her that she was notwelcome.

Not since the bad old days of the SEQEBdispute have we seen such blatant anti-unionedicts emanating from Queensland'sExecutive Government. However, the Ministerhas not only excluded Queensland TeachersUnion representation from these boards butalso he has sought to exclude parents frominvolvement in Queensland's curriculumdevelopment for students—State schoolparents, Catholic parents and independentschool parents who are simply trying to ensurea high standard of education for their childrenin the system of the parents' choosing. Onehas to ask the question: why would theMinister exclude two of the key stakeholders to

the education process from representation onkey educational boards in Queensland?

However, the Minister has brought aboutone significant achievement. In one day hehas incensed and then united in a strategicalliance the Queensland Council of Parentsand Citizens Associations, the QueenslandIndependent Parents and Friends Council, theQueensland Catholic Parents and FriendsFederation, the Queensland Teachers Unionand the Queensland Association of Teachersin Independent Schools, which have formed aunited front to fight these proposals by theEducation Minister.

Members should be aware thatQueensland teachers and parents have longplayed an important role in the developmentof curriculum and the oversight of educationfor Queensland students. And why shouldthey not? They are key stakeholders in thedelivery of education services and bring apractical and professional perspective todeliberations on issues such as curriculumdevelopment and the maintenance ofsyllabuses and work programs.

The Minister claims to have released adiscussion paper, but this is draft legislation.There was no consultation prior to the draftand no input from interest groups or thecommunity generally. There are no options oralternatives, it is just a legislative draft.Therefore, I ask myself: what was theMinister's rationale for destroying the workingpartnership that had been built up betweenteachers, parents and their various systemswhich had delivered education to Queenslandstudents over decades? What made it soimportant to abolish the representation ofthese organisations on the QueenslandSchools Curriculum Council and the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies? There isonly one answer: the Minister is purelyideologically driven. In his statements releasedat the time that the so-called discussion paperwas published, the Minister asserted that theboards needed to be smaller. In theideological pursuit of this vague notion ofsmaller government, the Minister is preparedto place at risk the goodwill and workingrelationship with teachers and parents acrossQueensland so that he can have smallerboards, and for no other reason.

The Minister has no evidence to suggestthat the current arrangements are unworkable;he has no evidence to suggest that thecurrent arrangements are inefficient; and hehas no evidence to suggest that the newarrangements will deliver better outcomes forQueensland students. In fact, in the legislative


draft that he presented, he admitted the highstandard of the work of the currentQueensland Schools Curriculum Council bysaying that the new arrangements will adopteverything that the council had done in thepast. However, because he wants fewernumbers, less people, he is prepared tosacrifice teacher and parent representation onthese respective boards—to sacrifice theparents of State, Catholic and Independentschool students and QTU and QATISrepresentatives.

There is further evidence of the singularlyideological bent behind these moves in theMinister's statements in relation torepresentation by the Queensland TeachersUnion. On 9 May, in the Townsville Bulletin,the Minister admitted that some interestgroups, particularly the Queensland TeachersUnion, would be offended. He indicated thatthere was some scope to include parents andindividual teachers on the boards, but hewould make no concession to include unionrepresentation. The Minister said—

"The interest group that's not onthere, that's got it's nose out of place, isthe Queensland Teachers' Union. That'san industrial organisation. I don't see anylink with industrial matters and schoolcurriculum, quite frankly."

Quite frankly, I am astonished at thoseremarks, as are the 33,000 QueenslandTeachers Union members, and the QATISrepresentatives and parents who have beenoffended by the Minister's flippancy. This manis the Minister for Education and a formermember of the Queensland Teachers Union,and it is this which smacks of the worstexcesses of union bashing of the oldBjelke-Petersen days. The QueenslandTeachers Union has played a role inprofessional development issues acrossQueensland's education system for 107 years.Even the current director-general, FrankPeach, was once a QTU representative on theBoard of Senior Secondary School Studies.We can see the pedigree that representationby the QTU on those boards breeds.

The Minister is prepared to concede thatthe Queensland Teachers Union shouldcontinue to be represented on the Board ofTeacher Registration—the body dealing withprofessional matters for teachers and studentsin Queensland, which ensures that schoolshave properly qualified teachers—but he is notprepared to allow it to play a role on theQueensland Schools Curriculum Council or theBoard of Senior Secondary School Studies.

The inconsistency in the Minister's argumentmakes it unsustainable.

Furthermore, the Minister claims that hehas the capacity to appoint parents orteachers to the boards, but will not appointrepresentatives of parent and teacherorganisations. It should be noted that theMinister is under no obligation to appointeither parents or teachers as his nominees,even though he has a couple up his sleeve.However, the Minister misses the whole point:by having parents and teachers, who have aStatewide constituency and who are a partStatewide representative organisationsinvolved in the delivery of educational servicesthroughout Queensland or who have aninterest in the quality of those services, we willhave people on the board for whom delivery ofquality outcomes for Queensland students ispart of their charter.

One can pick a teacher from a school inBrisbane and put them on the board, but theydo not represent anyone but the Minister; theyare not responsible to anyone but the Minister;and they are not accountable to anyone butthe Minister. In fact, one might say that if theMinister appoints them to the board, they arebeholden to him for their position. One canpick a parent from a parents and friendsassociation in Toowoomba and, likewise, theyhave no constituency and they have noresponsibility except to the Minister. The follyof the Minister's position is further evidencedby the vehement campaign which is emergingfrom the strategic alliance formed by parentand teacher groups.

The inclusion of representatives of theparent and teacher groups ensures that theybecome a part of the process of curriculumdevelopment and educational evolution in theinterests of the highest standard of educationfor Queensland children; their exclusionalienates them from the process. The Ministerhas clearly, and in my view very shortsightedly,alienated them by releasing the so-calleddiscussion paper at this time, thus inflamingthe debate unnecessarily. When will theMinister stop flying kites? If it is not anundisclosed means to attract more maleteachers, it is the concept of elite schools orthe debate over OP scores. The Minister lightsthe fuse, stands back, waits for the explosion,and describes the ensuing outcry as a debate.It is not a debate, it is not focused and it is notgoing anywhere.

If I could discern some educationallyrelevant reason or rationalisation for theMinister's decision, then I would be preparedto consider it. However, it is clear that the


Minister's position is ideologically driven. Ittheorises that smaller is better, irrespective ofwho is offended or excluded, and it will lead tothe establishment of a rarefied curriculumcouncil lacking the important perspective ofgrassroots practitioners drawn from amongparents and teachers. I have no doubt thatthe QCPCA, the Queensland IndependentParents and Friends Council, the QueenslandCatholic Parents and Friends Federation, theQueensland Teachers Union and theQueensland Association of Teachers inIndependent Schools are today askingthemselves: is this coalition Government up tothe task of governing Queensland andproviding educational services in the interestsof all Queensland children, or is it hell-bent onpursuing its own ideological objectives,irrespective of the implications for the quality ofservice delivery in this State? Once again, wesee this coalition Government harking back tothe pre-Fitzgerald days and demonstratingthat it is not up to the task. I call on all parentsand teachers to write and protest to thisMinister about their concerns.

Time expired.

Mr BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—Leaderof the Opposition) (6.08 p.m.): I second themotion. In doing so, I say very clearly to theMinister that he has antagonised not onlyevery parent but also every teacher in thisState. He is telling parents and teachers thatthey have nothing of value to contribute interms of the way in which children should beeducated. The Government is saying thatparents and teachers should not be consultedabout the way in which children should beeducated. The Government is saying toparents and teachers, "Keep out! Go away!Leave the education of children to us." As aparent, I find that offensive.

Let me make it clear that the next StateLabor Government, elected at the next Stateelection, will ensure that parent and teacherorganisations will be represented onauthorities which decide what children aretaught. I make that very clear commitment inthe House tonight.

This proposed education Bill, whichintends to drop the main parent and teacherorganisations from the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies and theQueensland School Curriculum Council, theorganisations which decide what our childrenare taught, is offensive to every parent andteacher in this State. For the information of theHouse, I table a letter written by the presidentof the Queensland Council of Parents andCitizens Association, Rosemary Hume, to all

P & C presidents. In referring to theQueensland Curriculum Council, the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies, the TertiaryEntrance Procedures Authority and the Boardof Teacher Registration, Ms Hume states—

"As well as changing the status ofthese bodies into separate statutoryauthorities, the Minister proposes slashingtheir membership in half. This would beachieved by excluding parents, teachersand employer/industry representation.

The implications of this proposal ifadopted, would eliminate anyopportunities for the balance ofperspectives that parents, teachers andother community members are able tobring to the decisions made by theseauthorities.

Just as serious for parents is theconcern that the proposal indicates thatthe Minister does not believe parentshave any role to play in the importantcurriculum decisions affecting the learningachievements of every child in everyQueensland school."

What a disgraceful start to the Minister'sstewardship of the Education portfolio! TheMinister had the audacity to say in a pressrelease that he gave himself 10 out of 10!Parents and teachers in Queensland aregiving the Minister zero out of 10. I againquote from the letter, which states—

"Two recent major curriculum reviewsin Queensland strongly supports QCPCA'spolicy which advocates for a partnershipof students, parents, professionalsthrough representation in all decisionmaking processes associated with theeducation system."

If that is not enough, the letter also highlightsexactly how much opposition there is to theMinister's proposal. The bottom part of theletter states—

"The Officers also decided"—

that is, officers of the QCPCA—"to meet with representatives from othernon-government peak parentorganisations, teachers unions, and otherinterested education stakeholder groups.Representatives from the followingorganisations attend a subsequentmeeting on Friday 10 May."The letter listed the following groups: the

Independent Parents and Friends Council—Queensland; the Parents and FriendsFederation—Queensland; the QueenslandTeachers Union; the Queensland Association


for Teachers in Independent Schools; and theQueensland Council of Deans of Education.They unanimously expressed alarm at theMinister's proposals and resolved to meet withthe Minister to inform him of their "collectiveconcerns as a matter of urgency". The Ministeris the first Minister to combine and unify thewhole education area in opposition tohim—every one of them. The Catholic system,Parents and Citizens and teachers—all ofthem oppose the view that the Minister hastaken.

Mr Bredhauer: That is exactly why.Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly why.

In another disgraceful performance, todaythe Minister excluded the QueenslandTeachers Union from a meeting. What did wesee tonight on television? Tonight we sawmembers of the Teachers Union standingoutside the Parliament. The Minister would noteven listen to the Teachers Union. He tried topretend that a previous meeting that theyattended was sufficient for their view to be put.Let us be very serious about this issue. As aparent, I find it offensive that the Ministerwould take the position of excluding parents'organisations from curriculum development.Until this time, I thought that the Minister wasmaking a reasonable fist of the portfolio. Notonly has the Minister blown that perception outof the water; he has also behaved in a waythat is offensive to all teachers and parents.

Time expired. Hon. R. J. QUINN (Merrimac—Minister

for Education) (6.13 p.m.): The motion beforethe House will not be supported by theGovernment, because it is a piecemealapproach to what we are trying to do withrespect to reforming the education system inthis State. Several days ago, we did not skulkaround in the dark like the former Governmentdid with respect to putting forward ideas toreform education; we came out with a paperwhich stated clearly what we wanted to do andwe put it in the public arena so that all of theinterest groups could see what we wereproposing. The front cover of the paper itselfstates clearly that it is a discussion paper.

Mr Beattie: It said "a Bill".Mr QUINN: On every page of the

document, it says also that it is a discussionpaper.


Mr QUINN: I will read the front page;there seems to be some confusion. It states,"The preliminary legislative proposal isprepared for the purpose of discussion andcomment." It goes on to state that it "does not

commit the Government or the Minister forEducation to a particular direction for futureaction." The idea is to put this in the publicarena and ask for comment. We have askedfor written comment within two or three weeks.When those written submissions areforthcoming, we will look at what is proposed.

The focus of the debate and the publiccomment so far has been on about two pagesof this document. The vast majority of thedocument has received overwhelming supportfrom both the non-Government and the Stateschool sector. Both sectors realise that this is agiant step forward for education in this State.There is some debate—and I will acknowledgethat—over the composition of the board.However, what is in the discussion documentis not the final position. There is room to movefor both the Government and the variouspeople involved.

It is not true that, in consulting with thevarious groups, I have locked out theQueensland Teachers Union. In fact, I orrepresentatives of my office have met with theQTU three times in the past four days. Itsrepresentatives came to my office on Fridayfor at least a full hour. I spoke at theQueensland Teachers Union State Council onSaturday for an hour or so and took questions,and then again on Monday representatives ofthe QTU met with representatives of my office.We have met three times in four days. Whenthe meeting was arranged for today, theoriginal intent was to meet with the parents. Itwas arranged by the representative of theQueensland Council of P & Cs, and theindications to my office were that only theparent groups were coming. There was nomention at all of the unions. So it is notsurprising that, when they turned up here, Iwanted to meet with only the parents.

Having met with the QTU three times inthe past four days and having met with theparents today, I have now madearrangements to meet with the IndependentTeachers Association tomorrow. So in thespace of three or four days I will have met withall the various interest groups on a number ofoccasions. The outcome of the discussionstoday was that we would meet again in thefuture. So there is a commitment to ongoingconsultations about the contents of the paper.It is not a final position by the Government, asthe member for Cook is trying to suggest.

The motion tonight simply pre-empts orlocks in the current situation. If that is thecase, there is not much use having thisdiscussion paper. We might as well tear it upand go back to the current situation. However,


that is not the intent of this Government. Weare about improving the education system inthis State, and we will do it by publicconsultation. If people wish to make publiccomments about it, they are free to do so. Wewill not skulk around in the dead of night likemembers opposite did when they tried tochange things that they knew would becontroversial. They tried to keep the lid on theissue because they were afraid of a publicdebate.

Time expired.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN (Chermside)(6.18 p.m.): The proposal to exclude parentand teacher representatives from majoreducational bodies has been widelycondemned by many groups throughoutQueensland. The minority BorbidgeGovernment has turned back the clock to thebad old days of former National PartyGovernments. Under the oppressive Bjelke-Petersen regime, many interest groups wereignored and the people of Queensland weretreated with disdain. In so many ways, theBorbidge/Sheldon coalition Government isreturning to a form of Government that hasbeen rejected by the people of Queensland. Iam surprised that the current EducationMinister, whom I believe generally to be aperson who has listened to people, has evendeigned to consider this proposal.

For six and a half years under the GossLabor Government, statutory authorities,boards and consultative organisations in somany areas had memberships that reflected awide cross-section of views from manydifferent sections of society. It is essential thatparents and teachers be sitting at the table atwhich decisions are made. Just expressingviews through a written submission does notequate to being one of the decision makers.For six years, I was the independent teachers'nominee on the Board of Teacher Education,which is now the Board of TeacherRegistration. There were also representativesfrom the Queensland Teachers Union, theCAEs, universities, parent groups, employingauthorities and community representatives.The make-up of that body and any otherdecision-making body is important.

In Parliament we see examples of debateon appropriate representation—for example,when members speak about the gendermake-up of a Cabinet, the urban/ruralcomposition, or how many Liberals orNationals there should be in a decision-makingCabinet. Where people come from isimportant. It is not necessarily because ofmalice or bloody-mindedness that a person

tends to vote along certain lines of interest; itis simply because a person's knowledge,experience and work environment necessarilyshape that person's thinking and decisionmaking.

Parents and teachers must berepresented on educational bodies if theirviews are to be given due regard. It is an insultto teachers and parents that their loss ofrepresentation is even being considered bythe coalition Government. During hiscontribution to this debate, the Minister saidon a number of occasions that no finaldecision has been made. I accept that, and Iam certain that this will never be the finaldecision. However, the mere fact that it is evenbeing considered shows that there is a majorproblem.

Mr Bredhauer: That's what they'rethinking. It's in their legislative draft.

Mr T. B. SULLIVAN: It is in theirlegislative draft. Even so, the Minister shouldhave come out and said, "I reject this proposaleven being considered."

Parents are the first and foremosteducators of their children. Children's attitudesand values are largely formed by the time theyset their foot in the schoolroom for the firsttime. Teachers recognise that they stand inloco parentis—in the place of parents.Teachers do not usurp, overturn or negate therole of parents, and that is why, under Labor,parents were given a greater say in manyschool matters. Whether it be the schoolbudget review committee, human relationshipscourses, religious instruction classes, schooluniforms or behaviour managementstrategies, parents were involved. Most peopleacknowledge the primary role of parents asthe first and primary teachers of their children.

With respect to teachers—they are theeducated professionals who have theday-to-day responsibility for implementing theschool curriculum and the policy of the schoolor the department. Their knowledge,experience and expertise in so many areas isessential. It is unthinkable that teachers couldbe left off major educational bodies that aremaking decisions about what is to be taught inschools and about the future of our children.

In the last week at C and K meetings, atP & C meetings and at another communitymeeting, I have been asked the question: whowill make the decisions? My answer had to be:we do not know, but I presume it will beacademics, employers and industryrepresentatives. How can the Minister evenconsider leaving parents and teachers offeducational boards? This proposal is a


disgrace, and I am disappointed in the currentMinister that he is even considering it. Theresponse from the QCPCA, the QueenslandParents and Friends Federation, theIndependent Parents and Friendsorganisation, the Queensland Teachers Unionand QATIS, the independent teachers union,indicates that there is a rejection of thisproposal. Perhaps the Catholic P and Ffederation was a bit slow in its initialresponse—and there might be a particularreason for that—but the general responsefrom the Government and non-Governmentschool sector and parents' organisations wasto reject this proposal. I hope that the rest ofthis Parliament will also reject it.

The Minister has said that the finaldecision has not been made. Let it be clearlystated by every member of this House that wedo not accept that parents and teachersshould be taken off educational bodies. Theymust be there, they must have their say andthey must be part of the decision-makingprocess.

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore)(6.23 p.m.): I wish to set the record straight ona number of important issues concerning thepreliminary legislative proposal for anEducation (P-10 School Curriculum) Bill 1996.The first point to make is that this is still only adiscussion paper—a carefully considered andquite precise document, as one would expecton a subject of such importance at this level,but a discussion paper nonetheless. In otherwords, its express purpose is to generateconstructive, reasoned debate and facilitatemeaningful consultation with the variousinterest groups concerned. To that end, theHonourable Minister for Education has made itabundantly clear from the outset that he wouldwelcome any and all submissions. Theinvitation has been extended, and it is now upto those concerned to present their case.Those submissions will be accepted right upuntil the close of business on Friday, 24May—Friday of next week. That is still morethan 10 clear days away, so to some extentthis debate is rather premature.

The second point I want to make is thatthis discussion paper is a sizeable documentof some 29 pages incorporating eight parts,85 provisions and several schedules. Of those85 preliminary provisions, the public debateover parent and teacher representationconcerns just two provisions—membership ofthe Queensland Schools Curriculum Council at2.7 on page 5 and the constitution of theBoard of Senior Secondary School Studies at5.7 on page 20. In the absence of any

indication to the contrary, I can only concludethat there is broad public backing for the other83 provisions. According to my calculator, thatis an initial success rate of almost 98 per cent,which would seem to suggest that the Ministerand his department have done an exceedinglygood job. As far as I am concerned, thatmakes an absolute mockery of recent criticismby the Queensland Teachers Union that theMinister is out of touch—quite the contrary.

That brings me to my next point. Whyshould an industrial organisation be givenautomatic entry to the boards of thesestatutory organisations? The QTU's primaryconcern is not the efficient administration ofcurriculum development in this State or eventhe welfare of students. Its first and paramountresponsibility is to protect the interests ofteachers or, to be absolutely correct, theinterests of those teachers who are unionmembers. So it is more than a little perplexingto hear QTU bosses claiming that theirpresence at board level is essential for thefuture good of our schools and our children. Itis even more surprising when they threaten togo out on strike or prevent Year 12 schoolleavers being issued with senior certificates.So much for caring about the welfare ofstudents! Even so, the Minister has gone toconsiderable lengths to give union officials afair hearing and to assure them that theirconcerns will receive due consideration. Infact, he or his most senior advisers have metwith the QTU on three separate occasionsalready during the past week.

As if that were not enough, I am told thatthe union also tried to gatecrash the Minister'smeeting today with parent representatives.That raises another crucial point. There seemsto be a widespread misconception that thisproposal seeks to exclude teachers andparents from the process of curriculumdevelopment. That is totally false andmisleading. There is not one provisionanywhere in this document that seeks tosecure such an outcome. What this paperdeclines to do, however, is confer anautomatic right of representation. Even underthese preliminary proposals, the Minister hasample discretion to appoint parents orteachers to the relevant bodies, but the onusis on them to justify their inclusion. The reasonfor that is simple. There are at least six majorparent and union bodies vying forrepresentation. They cannot all beaccommodated in the organisationalhierarchy, and we do not intend to try. If westart down that road, we will eventually end upwith boards of 50 representing everyeducational splinter group in the State.


I am also disappointed by the QCPCA'sapparent backing for the QTU's threat toescalate its industrial campaign. How anyresponsible parent organisation could publiclycondone strike action or the use of innocentschool students as union cannon fodder isquite beyond me. I can only hope that coolerheads will prevail. After all, whatever the finalcomposition of these boards, the Minister hasalready offered repeated assurances thatparents and teachers will play a key role at thebusiness end of curriculum development—writing new syllabuses. That is where the realaction is, and that is where we really do needtheir expertise and input.

Time expired.

Ms BLIGH (South Brisbane) (6.28 p.m.):The issue which goes to the heart of thisdebate and which has really been called intoquestion by the actions of the Minister is therole of public sector unions in public sectoractivity and deliberations. A quote from theGladstone Observer and other regionalnewspapers from the Minister in which hestates that the QTU is an industrialorganisation and "I don't see any link withindustrial matters and school curriculum, quitefrankly" typifies the attitude of not only thisMinister but also this Government to the roleof public sector unionism.

I want to touch briefly on the constructiveroles that public sector unions have to play inthe deliberations and activities of public sectororganisations. Firstly, there is therepresentative role. For example, the QTUrepresents 33,000 teachers in this State. Itbrings to the deliberations or discussions ofany board the policies and views of itsmembers. This is not to be easily dismissed ifwe are looking for good outcomes that will beimplemented effectively. Secondly, unionsbring professional expertise. The history ofpublic sector unions is that they wereessentially professional organisationsrepresenting, for the main part, theprofessional interests of their members. Overtime, these organisations have developed totake up industrial issues, but they have neverlost their professional base. The professionalinterests of teachers have a very clearrelevance to curriculum matters. Thirdly,unions have a duty to monitor and protect theinterests of their members. This is an entirelylegitimate role for which their members payunion fees. In the education realm, thoseinterests will inevitably be affected bycurriculum changes.

However, Mr Quinn is not alone in hisactions. Various other Ministers have made it

clear to the unions in their field that, when itcomes to representation, they can lookelsewhere. For example, the Premier and theMinister for Industrial Relations have beenkeen to claim that they have an open-doorpolicy for unions and have been keen to claimthat they want to consult with unions. Butwhen it comes to actual consultation, therehas been none. In relation to the recentmaternity leave decision, we saw that theunions were told long after the media release.There was no consultation with the relevantunions, and they had no involvement in thedevelopment of alternative proposals.

In relation to the public service Act, whichis being drafted in secret by the Premier's staffand officers of his department—the ACTU hasbeen told that it will hear about it when it istabled in the House. That is hardly constructiveconsultation. We see this attitude reflected ina number of the current reviews which arebogging down the Queensland economy andthe public sector. It is a very clear reflection ofthe attitude of this Government to theinvolvement of unions when the review of thebuilding industry's security of paymentsinvolves no representatives of the buildingunions. These unions have a long history ofpursuing payments on behalf of theirmembers. They are, therefore, well placed tomake a valuable contribution to the review. Infact, in many cases they probably have abetter understanding of how difficult it is topursue payments from some builders.

Mr Purcell interjected.Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for

Bulimba for his contribution.

In relation to the workers' compensationreview—again, the very people who represent,and advocate on behalf of, injured workersday in and day out are excluded from thedeliberations of that review. So it really comesas no surprise that this Minister wants to lockthe unions representing teachers out of thepolicy and decision-making boards of hisdepartment. In common with his colleagues,the Minister is hell-bent on demonisingunions—like some 1950s eccentric. However,the modern workplace has moved beyond thiskind of nonsense. The legitimate role ofunions and respect for their place in the publicsector is now well accepted. All the wishfulthinking of this Minister that he can create abackward pocket of elite policy development,locked away from the scrutiny and involvementof the unions and organisations whichrepresent the people who have to implementhis new decisions, is a complete and utterfantasy and it will not work.


We have heard a lot of discussion fromthe Minister and the member forMaroochydore that this is just a draftdiscussion paper; that we should not bealarmed; and that organisations such as theQCPCA, which have been referred to thisevening as a splinter group, are whipping uphysteria for no reason at all because it is just asmall possibility. If that is the case—if this isjust a possibility that is really not on theagenda—then this debate is theGovernment's opportunity to rule it out. This isthe opportunity to finish this conflict andupheaval, to finish the uncertainty across theeducation community once and for all, and toprove that the Government is not hell-bent onbeing in conflict with teacher unions andparent representative organisations. I urgeGovernment members to do this by supportingthis motion. But, of course, they will not beable to do that because, as I outlined earlier,this is not about what the Government wantson these boards; this is about delivering anideological agenda to those people whom thisGovernment sees as part of its constituency.

I promise that the Minister will regret theabsence of teacher union representatives andparent organisations on the boards that arerepresented in his department. I encouragethe Minister and those who are advising him toreconsider, because reconsideration is theonly thing that is going to get him and theGovernment out of the mess that they havebought for themselves over the last two weeksby deliberately stirring up and completelyfailing to put anybody's mind at rest.

Time expired.

Mr HEGARTY (Redlands) (6.34 p.m.):By moving this motion, the shadow Minister forEducation has not sought to evaluate the realconcerns in this State about the developmentof curriculum. The announcement by theMinister for Education that he was going tocreate statutory bodies out of the existingQueensland Curriculum Council, the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies, the TertiaryEntrance Procedures Authority and the Boardof Teacher Registration must be welcomedwithout reservation. This move cements thelong-held view of the coalition that suchorganisations should be removed from thepolitical fray and placed in an environmentwhich is free from any interference. After all,the education of our children and the integrityof the teaching profession is something whichshould be beyond the overwhelming influenceof any one person or organisation.

The media storm surrounding a reductionin size of the boards that will govern two of

these statutory authorities is unfortunate. Thestorm shows a real lack of understanding ofthe stated position of the Minister and of theimportant role that these organisations will playin the provision of education to studentsacross Queensland. Similarly, the media stormignores the many indisputable good points ofthis proposal that have been heralded acrossthe education profession. Such good pointsaddress issues that have been neglected foryears, because the previous Government didnot have the vision and stamina necessary tomake such fundamental changes.

Comments in today's Courier-Mailsuggesting that the Queensland TeachersUnion would force its members to withholdinformation necessary to the calculation of OPscores underline the necessity to keep theQueensland Schools Curriculum Council—preschool to Year 10—and the Board ofSenior Secondary School Studies free frompolitical interference. I am absolutely disgustedto think that an industrial organisation such asthe QTU would try to hold students to ransomin order to blackmail the Minister into givingthem a position on the council—preschool toYear 10—and the board.

It is even more alarming that theQueensland Council of Parents and CitizensAssociation has announced its support for thisoutrageous proposal. It is hard to believe thatan organisation that represents parents couldbe prepared to support an industrialorganisation in a threat to disadvantagestudents. In spite of the threats and theestablishment of a strategic alliance betweenthe QTU and the QCPCA, it must beremembered that the document that is beingdebated has been circulated purely for thepurposes of discussion. It is my understandingthat all parties involved in the existing boardsof these organisations were invited by theDirector-General of Education to attend abriefing on the proposed changes.Furthermore, an invitation was subsequentlyextended to all groups to make a submissionon this proposal. If groups such as theQueensland Teachers Union and theQueensland Council of Parents and CitizensAssociation are so sure of their need to berepresented on the QSCC—preschool to Year10—and the BSSSS, then I would expect theirsubmissions to be comprehensive, objectiveand worthy of consideration by the Minister. Itis without doubt that the Minister will considerthese submissions.

In an interview on ABC radio this morning,the Minister made it abundantly clear thatnothing had yet been cast in stone and thathe will not make any firm decisions until every


interest group has had the opportunity tocomment.

An Opposition member interjected.

Mr HEGARTY: I invite the member toget the tape and listen to it.

The decision to challenge the status quowould not have been an easy one to make. Inthe political environment that exists today, itwould be very tempting for someone such asthe Minister for Education, when confrontedwith having to make a decision like this, to tryto take the easy option, but he has not. TheMinister has proved that he is a man ofintegrity who supports the concept ofproducing curriculum and students of thehighest calibre.

It is about time that the honourablemember for Cook began to appreciate theimportance of the education system,considering he is shadowing that portfolio. Ioppose the motion that has been moved bythe honourable member for Cook.

Mr Bredhauer: You even had to getsomeone to write this speech for you.

Mr HEGARTY: If I had left it up to themember, I would not be anywhere. I urgemembers opposite not to take a leaf out of thebook of the member for Cook, and give theMinister a chance in this very important issue.

Ms SPENCE (Mount Gravatt)(6.38 p.m.): I rise to support this motion thatthe House calls on the Minister for Educationto guarantee representatives from parent andteacher groups positions on the two newcurriculum boards. This is an extraordinarymove by the new Education Minister byanyone's standards. To remove teacher andparent representatives from major curriculumboards in this State flies in the face of currenteducation thinking. Members can ask anyonethe following question: who are the majorplayers in our children's education? They willbe told that it is the children, their teachersand their parents. What affects theeducational outcomes of our children? It is thequality of the teaching, the influence of thecurriculum, and the input and encouragementthey receive from their parents. Education isfundamentally about the student, the teacherand the parent. Yet none of these groups is tobe represented on Mr Quinn's revampedcurriculum boards.

Mr Quinn is very quick to acknowledge theimportance of parents when it comes tocriticising them for producing students withbehaviour problems. His shameful attacksblaming single mothers for disruptive childrenwill not be forgotten by the education

community in this State nor, indeed, by allthose single mothers he offended with hiscallous, offhand remarks. It is all right to blameparents when children fail, but Mr Quinn doesnot want these same parents to have theopportunity to contribute to their success.

Do Mr Quinn's attempts to eliminateteachers from the new curriculum board revealhis lack of understanding of the important roleof teachers in the education process, or is thishis thinly veiled attempt to reduce therelevance of the Queensland Teachers Union?I heard Mr Quinn's speech tonight, saying thathis proposal is just a discussion document, butwho can believe him when we read in this lastmonth his provocative statements in the pressabout the Queensland Teachers Union? MrQuinn can put forward whatever reasons helikes for his course of actions, but virtuallyno-one in semi-educational circles believesthat it is anything other than a move toexclude the Queensland Teachers Union.

Whether Mr Quinn likes unions or not, heis very foolish if he fails to appreciate howrepresentative the QTU is of the wholeteaching body. The union is the voice ofQueensland teachers and they are satisfiedwith the job their union performs inrepresenting their interests. The member forMaroochydore fails to understand that. Sheasks why a union should be represented on acurriculum board. The member forMaroochydore has never been a teacher andfails to understand the culture of teachers,how important the union is to them and howthey believe that their union represents theirinterests, and that is precisely why it should berepresented on a curriculum board. TheMinister for Education risks losing theconfidence of teachers in this new curriculumboard if teachers are not properly represented.As Tony Koch in his Courier-Mail article "ACopybook Mistake" explained, this is likecreating a wheat marketing board and notallowing farmers representation on it.

I think we all might legitimately ask: whatis wrong with the present Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies that this newEducation Minister would want to change it? Isit incompetent? Is it inefficient? Is it notperforming? Of course, none of those couldbe further from the truth. Among its otherduties, that board has produced over 50 newsyllabuses for subjects from Years 7 to 12 overthe past six years. I believe that Mr Quinn hassupported, accepted and approved thosesyllabuses. That organisation has been sosuccessful because it has a diversity of inputfrom industry, parents, teachers, thebureaucracy and vocational educationalists.


Parents and teachers are not the onlypeople Mr Quinn wants to exclude fromcurriculum decisions. His proposal is toeliminate representation from vocationaleducation and early childhood education. At atime when an integrated curriculum isincreasingly recognised, it is amazing that thisMinister should reject that type of expertise ona curriculum committee. The Board of SeniorSecondary Studies currently has arepresentative from VETEC and one employerrepresentative. Those are the people whomMr Quinn would like to remove from the board.At a time when he has proclaimed his supportfor the convergence of general and vocationaleducation, such a move is astonishing. Overthe years, those people have been able togive the Board of Senior Secondary SchoolStudies expert advice on syllabus andcurriculum material.

Time expired.

Mr BAUMANN (Albert) (6.43 p.m.): It isimportant that we consider the size of theboards that the Minister has proposed toreduce. Examination of those boards revealsthe extent of the bureaucracy that has to datecurtailed the effectiveness of the QueenslandCurriculum Council and the Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies. The QueenslandCurriculum Council has, as prescribed in theEducation (General Provisions) Act 1989, atotal of 21 members. Those members includesix official members, 15 members appointedby the Governor in Council, and any additionalmembers that the Minister may wish toappoint.

The official members are the GeneralManager, Queensland School CurriculumOffice, the chief executive and one otherdepartmental officer nominated by theMinister, one nominee of the QueenslandCatholic Education Commission, one nomineeof the Association of Independent Schools ofQueensland, and the executive officer of theBoard of Senior Secondary School Studies.

The appointed members are onenominee of the Queensland Teachers Union,one nominee of the Queensland Associationof Teachers in Independent Schools, onenominee of the Queensland Council ofParents and Citizens Associations, one personfrom the non-State school sector jointlynominated by the Independent Parents andFriends Council of Queensland and theFederation of Parents and FriendsAssociations of Queensland, one member ofthe Vocational Education, Training andEmployment Commission nominated by theVocational Education Minister, one employer

representative nominated by the VocationalEducation Minister, one nominee of theAustralian Council of Trade UnionsQueensland, one person from the tertiaryeducation sector nominated by the Minister,one person from the early childhood educationsector nominated by the Minister, one personfrom the distance education and openlearning sector nominated by the Minister,three practising teachers—two from the Statesector nominated by the Minister and onefrom the non-State sector jointly nominated bythe Queensland Catholic EducationCommission and the Association ofIndependent Schools of Queensland, and twonominees of the Minister. This is anextraordinary number of board members. Howon earth any decision could be madeobjectively by this board is beyond me. With21 board members, one really must call intoquestion the intention of the previousGovernment when originating the council. Wasthe council to actually try to achievesomething, or was it established in such amanner that it would be stymied by internalbureaucracy?

The Board of Senior Secondary SchoolStudies is very similar. Currently, that boardconsists of one nominee of the Minister, whoshall, on appointment, be designated andshall be chairperson; three nominees of thedirector-general; two representatives ofteachers unions, who shall be practisingsecondary education teachers with experiencein senior secondary education, one each to benominated by the Queensland TeachersUnion and the Queensland Association ofTeachers in Independent Schools; onerepresentative of the Vocational Education,Training and Employment Commissionnominated by the Vocational EducationMinister; three representatives of communitygroups involved in education, all of whom atthe time of appointment as members of theboard shall be parents of students currentlyattending Queensland schools and enrolled ineither Year 11 or 12; one each to benominated by the Queensland Council ofParents and Citizens AssociationsIncorporated, the Parents and FriendsFederation Queensland and the IndependentParents and Friends Council of Queensland;one nominee of the Minister for Employment,Training and Industrial Affairs or other Ministerof the Crown for the time being charged withthe administration of the Employment,Vocational Education and Training Act 1988;two representatives of institutions of highereducation, nominated by the Higher EducationForum, one of whom shall be a practising


teacher educator; two representatives of theindustry and commerce sectors, nominated bythe Minister; two representatives of non-Statesecondary schools providing secondaryeducation, one to be nominated by theQueensland Catholic Education Commissionand one to be nominated in accordance withthe procedure prescribed in the regulations bythe Association of Independent Schools inQueensland and other non-State secondaryschools providing secondary education; andone person nominated by the Minister if, in theopinion of the Minister, additionalrepresentation is desirable. That is a totalmembership of 18 people.

Comparisons with other statutoryauthorities and private corporations indicatethat, of private industry boards that have beensurveyed in Queensland, most seem to havea maximum of 10 or 11 members. Recently,the overwhelming trend has been to reducethe size of boards. A smaller board facilitatesless red tape, efficient decision making, theminimisation of interest group pressure, and agreater emphasis on the calibre of boardmembers.

Time expired.

Mr SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton)(6.48 p.m.): I rise to support the motion beforethe House tonight and in so doing I warn theHouse that, if the Minister is to proceed alongthese lines, he will effectively disenfranchise ahost of people in rural Queensland whodepend upon peak bodies for representationon bodies such as these. The QCPCA andQTU are the bodies that are competent tocarry the voices of the parents and teachers inthis State into the policy-making processesand the curriculum-making processes of thisGovernment. That has always been acceptedin this State. The Minister is making a verydangerous error in judgment if he tries to takethose people out of the game.

I suggest to the Minister that his recentderisive comments about the QueenslandTeachers Union have not gone unnoticed. Byassociation, his derisive comments aredirected at his own director-general, becausehis director-general served as a QueenslandTeachers Union representative on the veryboard from which the Minister now seeks todisenfranchise teachers. The Minister'scomments on ABC radio this morning werenothing short of disgraceful. He suggestedthat teachers could have their representativesin the lower ranks, but when it came todecision making, they were not wanted. Hemade similar comments about parents. Icaution the Minister not to go down this track.

If he does, it will be at his own electoral peril.He will be on the nose with his ownGovernment; he will be on the nose with thepeople of Queensland. There will not be apiece of chalk under which he could hide.

A dangerous precedent is being set thatwill affect members from rural areas. I see themember for Mirani is in the Chamber. He hasexpertise in the sugar industry and has servedin that capacity on various boards. He heldthose positions only because of his knowledgeof that industry, and that principle was wellaccepted. The former Government alsoaccepted that principle and, as a result, Ibelieve we had a pretty good master plan. Ifthe tories knock the teachers and parents offthis board, and then knock the farmers andother stakeholders off all the otherrepresentative boards, they will see how theyget on with their own constituents.

The other point that I would like to makeis that I believe that this Minister is allowing hisown personal dislike for the QueenslandTeachers Union to get in the way of gooddecision making. The Minister's dislike of theQueensland Teachers Union is well known byhis peers. In fact, yesterday one of theMinister's peers rang me to tell me what theMinister used to say about the QueenslandTeachers Union before he escaped from theclassroom into the haven of some resourcecentre. However, the Minister now talks aboutteachers not pulling their weight in schools. Ibelieve that it is bad politics to allow one's ownpersonal hatred to get in the way of gooddecision making.

Mr Bredhauer interjected.

Mr SCHWARTEN: As the honourableshadow Minister informs me, it clouds one'sjudgment.

What is the real agenda behind thismove? If one refers to the Gold Coast Bulletinof April 1995, one would gain some insightinto the Minister's real agenda. In that articlethe Minister stated that now was the time tocut out the claptrap which was being forcedupon teachers by the Government's socialpolicy agenda. Of course, the social "claptrap"to which the Minister referred were initiativessuch as workplace health and safety andgender equity.

I have taken the trouble to obtain fromone of the schools located in my electorate anexcellent document titled Enough's enough!,which was prepared in our schools. I suggestthat the Minister and every other member ofthis place obtain a copy of this documentbecause it gives us an insight into what isactually happening in our schools. As a former


teacher, I am horrified by what is contained inthe document. As a parent, I am disgusted bythis behaviour that is occurring in our schools. Idoubt if the Minister has even seen thisdocument. However, the statistics that havebeen gathered from research such as thatwhich is contained in this document will benobbled as a result of the Minister taking theparents and the Queensland Teachers Unionout of the process. For example, thedocument states—

"Approximately 13 000 charges werelaid against boys; around 1 300 chargeswere laid against girls." Documents such as Enough's enough!

identify clearly the need to adopt an agendato address problems such as those created bythe gender imbalance. I will not quote furtherfrom the document. Instead, I suggest thatany member of the press gallery should gethold of the document. The Minister will standcondemned if he takes teachers out of theprocess, because they are the people whopush that agenda. I can tell the Minister thatthat is very important for the kids in theschools in my electorate. I do not want them inplaces where these sorts of activities aretaking place. As I said earlier in this debate,the Minister will take teachers and parents outof the overall decision-making process at hisperil. I warrant that the Minister has not evenread the document. I warrant that the Ministerhas not even taken this matter intoconsideration. However, that is how curriculumin this State is developed.

Time expired.

Mr BRISKEY (Cleveland) (6.53 p.m.): Irise to speak in support of this motion. Thequestion that needs to be answered is: whywould the Government put forward a proposalto abolish teacher and parent participation onthe Queensland Schools Curriculum Counciland the Board of Senior Secondary SchoolStudies? The answer can only be that theGovernment is continuing down that same oldworn-out track of yet again turning back theclock. We have seen decision after decisionmade by this minority Government to turnback the clock, and this is yet anotherdecision.

The Education Minister said that thechanges were intended to reduce red tapeand increase efficiency. How? What red tapeis involved? If there are 10 members on theboard instead of 18, what red tape is cut? Ifthere are 11 members on the curriculumcouncil instead of 21, what red tape is cut?Likewise, why is a 10-member Board of SeniorSecondary School Studies any more efficient

than an 18-member board? Why is an 11-member Queensland Schools CurriculumCouncil any more efficient than a 21-membercouncil? There is no logic to the Minister'sstatement, let alone any sense. Not only willthere not be less red tape and more efficiencyas a result of the cuts but also there will be agreat loss of expertise.

Teachers and parents have much to offerthose two bodies. Since they have beenmembers of those bodies, they have provedtheir worth. Parents need to have an input intocurriculums; they need to have their say.Educating our children should not be left toone group; it should be a communityresponsibility. Parents are being encouragedas never before to take a more active role ineducating their children.

The former Labor Government went outof its way to encourage more parentalinvolvement in children's education. It is awell-documented fact that children do better atschool if their parents are involved in theireducation. What message does this proposalsend to parents in Queensland? The messageis clear: the Queensland Government doesnot want their input; the QueenslandGovernment does not want their involvementin their children's education. That is the typicalpre-Fitzgerald, National/Liberal Governmentway of doing things. That action is turningback the clock to those days.

What about removing teachers fromhaving their say in curriculum development?That is an equally retrograde step as theremoval of parents' involvement in theprocess. It is imperative that teachers have asay. After all, they are at the coalface. Theymust teach the curriculum and, therefore, it isimperative that they have input into what isand is not included in the curriculum.

Time expired.

Question—That the motion be agreedto—put; and the House divided— AYES, 40—Ardill, Barton, Beattie, Bird, Bligh,Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Burns, Campbell,D’Arcy, De Lacy, Dollin, Edmond, Elder, Foley,Fouras, Hamill, Hollis, McElligott, McGrady,Mackenroth, Milliner, Mulherin, Nunn, Nuttall,Palaszczuk, Pearce, Purcell, Roberts, Robertson,Rose, Schwarten, Smith, Spence, Sullivan J. H.,Welford, Wells Tellers: Livingstone, Sullivan T. B. NOES, 41—Beanland, Connor, Cooper,Cunningham, Davidson, Elliott, FitzGerald, Gamin,Gilmore, Goss J. N., Grice, Harper, Healy, Hegarty,Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Laming, Lester, Lingard,Littleproud, McCauley, Malone, Mitchell, Perrett,Quinn, Radke, Rowell, Santoro, Sheldon, Simpson,Slack, Stephan, Stoneman, Tanti, Veivers, Watson,Wilson, Woolmer Tellers: Springborg, Carroll



Resolved in the negative .

ADJOURNMENT

Mr FITZGERALD (Lockyer—Leader ofGovernment Business) (7 p.m.): I move—

"That the House do now adjourn."

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy) (7.01 p.m.): TheQueensland Government, and in particular theEducation Department, must demonstrate itsinterest in the concerns of parents who havebeen lobbying for Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder to be recognised as adisability. It is time for bureaucrats andGovernment Ministers to pull their heads outof the sand and take seriously the problem ofADHD. There is too much evidence to supportthe argument of some that ADHD is simply abehaviour disorder or the product of poorparenting.

In the 1930s, children with learningdisabilities were considered to have emotionalproblems, mental retardation or were thoughtto be socially or culturally disadvantaged. Anew theory emerged in the 1940s where,because children looked normal, it wasconsidered that brain damage must beminimal, hence the term "minimal braindamage". Tests revealed that these childrendid not have brain damage, but they haddifficulties with the way the brainfunctioned—with the exception of writing—hence the term "minimal brain dysfunction"was used. A review of this dysfunction, tabledin 1966, found that these children were ofnear average, average and above averageintelligence, but they had learning andbehavioural problems which stemmed fromthe central nervous system. In 1968, theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisabilities officially recognised the disorderunder the classification of "hyperkineticreaction of childhood". This characterised anindividual with the disorder as beinghyperactive, impulsive, easily distracted,fidgety and having a short attention span.

In 1982, the same manual renamed thedisorder, while acknowledging the previousclassifications. However, the term ADD wasbroken into two subtypes, one withhyperactivity and one without. Further, it wasrecognised that there is a residual type whichsuggests that the condition continues intoadulthood, but disregards the hyperactivity

probably because adults become bettermanagers of the disorder. In 1987, themanual changed the name to Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder because, althoughinattention was an issue, hyperactivity playeda major part in the disorder.

Contributing to the problem is the lack ofcommunity awareness and acceptance of thecondition. From my observations, unless oneis the parent of a child with ADHD, or a studentor teacher in a classroom with a child sufferingfrom ADHD, it is difficult to gain anunderstanding of the problems encounteredby the sufferer, their families, fellow studentsand teaching staff. The condition is notselective. Just because it cannot be seen asphysical impairments does not mean it doesnot exist. Therefore, it should not be sweptunder the carpet.

I publicly challenge the Minister to call foran immediate review of the behaviourdisorder, ADHD, and to give due considerationto having this disorder recognised as adisability. There are at least 40 groups inQueensland representing 24,000 studentsenrolled in Queensland State schools. TheMinister and the Government cannot continueto ignore the level of behaviour disorders, thefact that they are disabilities, and the fact thatthe children with these disabilities needspecialist support services. The Governmentmust also recognise that teachers and parentsneed support. It must invoke policy decisionsso that the Departments of Education, Health,Families, Youth and Community Care andCorrective Services can work together toprovide a more appropriate, global strategy tosupport those with these disabilities.

The question for consideration is this: isthe Minister his own man or is he controlled bythe same bureaucrats who have stuck theirheads in the sand for the last 50 years? Thisissue will not go away and the Minister couldshow commonsense and leadership bymoving quickly to address what is a realproblem.

I have been working very closely withdozens of Rockhampton parents—and themember for Keppel, Mr Lester, is aware ofthese families—who have children with ADHDand other behavioural disorders. One has tospeak with these people personally and listento their stories to realise just how muchpressure their families are under. Familybreakdowns and divorces are not uncommon,and there is a feeling of desperation forsomeone to listen and understand about theirchildren, their families, and the problems theyhave to live with. Governments in Queensland


have treated children with ADHD as outcasts.There is no-one willing to help and no-one whocares about their future, and that attitude mustchange. I am saying: give these children thesupport they need to get a good education,despite their disabilities. Someone must listen.

Attention Deficit HyperactivityDisorder; Beach Erosion

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel)(7.06 p.m.): I thoroughly agree with thecomments made by the member for Fitzroy inrelation to children with ADHD. This is a veryserious problem. It is a problem that is notunderstood by authority and it is a problemthat is not understood by the people whocould make the decisions to help.

The children who have this disorder havea problem; it is as simple as that. If one goesinto the home of an ADHD sufferer, one cansee that the difficulties that exist in trying tokeep these families together are immense.These children can cause enormous damage,they can cause problems for neighbours andproblems in the classroom. In saying that, Iam not knocking the children or the parents; itis a fact of life. Some of these parents are themost caring parents in the world. Other peoplemay look down on children with ADHD andtheir parents. I wonder how well they wouldcope if their child had ADHD. I assure theHouse that the parents of ADHD children arethe modern martyrs of our community. Wehave to give more care, understanding andservices to help them. I cannot endorseenough any comments aimed at helpingthese people.

What I really wanted to talk about tonightis my great concern over beach erosion. Thesouthern media has had an enormousamount to say about the erosion of thebeaches of the Gold Coast and the millions ofdollars being demanded to fix them. I remindthe powers that be that two beaches in myarea have an erosion problem, Kinka Beachand Keppel Sands. We hear about GoldCoast beaches getting bucket loads of money,and that is well and good—I am not againstthat. However, I do suggest that one or two ofthose buckets be given, as promised, to therestoration of the horrific problems at KinkaBeach and Keppel Sands. It is absolutelyimperative that this happens and that we notbe forgotten. I make it abundantly clear, and Iam speaking on behalf of the people ofcentral Queensland: we must not be forgotten.In recent times, almost 50 metres of beachhas been eroded. If that is not seriousenough, I do not know what is.

In addition, there seems to be a Mexicanstand-off as far as beach erosion isconcerned. The Livingstone Shire Councildoes not have a lot of money, so obviously itwants help from the Government. It is thoughtthat beach erosion in that shire will reach themain road before very long, and it has beensuggested that it will then be a TransportDepartment problem. I know what will happen:it will just fix the bit that is being eroded, andthe rest of the beach will be left as it is. Wehave to deal with the whole problem and fixthe whole problem.

I do not know how long I have to preachabout this, but enough is enough. Somethinghas to be done. I will continue to fight thePremier on this. Let me put it this way: whenMolly Robson was the Minister, she came andhad a look at these beaches and then forgotabout them. The Premier has a look at theproblem——

An Opposition member interjected.

Mr LESTER: No, he has not forgottenabout it, and I assure the House that I willmake sure that he does not forget about it.That is why tonight I am talking about it in nouncertain terms.

Mr Pearce interjected.

Mr LESTER: Some of the constituentsof the electorate of Fitzroy have homes atKinka Beach, so naturally I would except thesupport of Mr Pearce. This is a very seriousissue. It will not go away; it will get worse. Atthe end of July the study will be completed,and I want to ensure that money will beavailable to fix the problems. This is not arecent problem; notice has been given and itis nearly time to find out the results of thestudy.

Time expired.

Brisbane-Gold Coast Road and RailLinks

Mr ARDILL (Archerfield) (7.11 p.m.): Theproposed widening of the Pacific Highwaybetween Eagleby and Nerang to eight lanes isa scandalous waste of public money. Apartfrom the deleterious effect that offering suchan encouragement for more traffic to use thehighway will have on the environment of theGold Coast and Brisbane and on the peoplewho live in between, the spending of $620mon the least-used section of the highway issimply a non-justifiable waste of public moneyto satisfy an ill-conceived, pork-barrellingexercise dreamed up by the Premier duringthe July election campaign.


The Premier should realise his mistake ofpromising an eight-lane highway fromBrisbane to the Gold Coast when it is obviousthat six lanes is all that are justified in the thirdof the highway under discussion, while eightlanes provides the maximum width available inthe most heavily trafficked section south of theGateway turn-off and over the Captain CookBridge. The overpasses already provided overthe Eagleby-Nerang section allow for only sixlanes, as competent engineers did not expectto have to contend with an extravagantpolitical decision to overcome all reasonableplanning. This is a major part of the blow-out incost from $244m to $630m, together with anunreasonable widening of river bridges whichwere built for six lanes, not eight.

I urge the Government to accept that anerror has been made and that eight lanes arenot needed for 40,000 to 50,000 vehicles perday, when double that number of vehicles areaccommodated further north on eight lanes.Some 113,000 vehicles use six inbound andoutbound lanes from Mains Road, and overthree times that volume use the freeway fromWoolloongabba to the city. Any additionalavailable funds should be used to speed upthe construction of the Gold Coast railway tothe border. Instead of an unnecessary $286mbeing spent on the Premier's personalpathway to glory, that funding should be puttowards an urgent extension of the railway.

Because of smart marketing, the GoldCoast railway has done very well, but it will notsustain that impetus unless it is extended tothe Gold Coast beaches. The cold fact is thatthe railway line does not improve on the traveltimes in the old steam train days of thecoordinated service to Coolangatta. The 1938timetable provided for train/bus services viaSouthport leaving South Brisbane at 8.45 a.m.and 4.10 p.m. and arriving at Coolangatta at11.20 a.m. and 6.25 p.m. The modernequivalent coordinated services leave SouthBrisbane at 8.54 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. andarriving at Coolangatta at 11.38 a.m. and7.17 p.m.

The return trips were: Coolangatta,7.45 a.m. and 4.30 p.m.; South Brisbane,10.28 a.m. and 7.20 p.m. The modernequivalents are Coolangatta, 7.40 a.m. and4.42 p.m.; South Brisbane, 10.26 a.m. and7.19 p.m. It can be seen that although someservices are slightly faster than steam, othersare much slower. There are many moreservices. It is an excellent rail service as farsouth as Helensvale, but the bus connectionsare totally inadequate. That is no reflection onthe bus operators, but it bears out thepredictions of anyone who considered the

matter prior to its introduction. The simple factis that the distance between the rail terminusand the destination is too great. Too manystops occur and traffic congestion intrudes.

Individual bus connections are needed toa number of points along the rail line to andfrom the beach suburbs, with an ultimateterminus at Coolangatta. Instead of disgorgingall passengers at Helensvale, those going toSurfers Paradise would go to Nerang, aswould those from Broadbeach and Miami, infive minutes; Miami to Robina in 12 minutes;Burleigh Heads to West Burleigh in 20minutes; and Palm Beach to Elanora in 25minutes. The extension of the line toCoolangatta will reduce journey times by up toone hour. Bus connections to intermediatestations will create lesser time savings. Thesection of the line already built is necessarilyovercapitalisd. The injection of the further$286m would be profligate waste on thehighway, but it would provide urgently neededfunds for a useful extension of the railway.

Violence in SocietyMr LAMING (Mooloolah) (7.16 p.m.):

Following the recent tragic murders at PortArthur, Tasmania, there has beenunderstandable public shock, outrage andresolve that such an occurrence should notrecur either in Tasmania or anywhere else inAustralia. To his credit, the Prime Minister hasalready assembled the Police Ministers ofvarious States to commence a legislativeapproach to adopting uniform gun laws inAustralia.

However, it is not gun laws that I wish todiscuss tonight. The problem of violence in oursociety is much more deep-seated than thegun debate. Violence has been an outcomeof human conflict since the very firstdisagreements over land, food and shelter. Aspopulations grew, the stakes grew higher, asdid the scale and methods of violence.Virtually all societies have always encounteredviolence. Some civilisations gainedtemporarily, some lost and some evenvanished because of it. No corner of the worldthat possesses the mark of human presencehas escaped it.

The method of inflicting violence and thereasons for it are the only two variables in theequation. The tools of human damage anddestruction have been the object of immensechange—from stones and clubs to spears,swords and arrows; from rifles, canons andbombs to NBC horror, that is, nuclear, bacterialand chemical warfare. Just as we see thedawn—or the false dawn—of a possible


reduction in these new forms of massive worldconflict and violence, Western societies arenow being confronted with a new type ofviolence. It expresses itself in our streets andour homes. It can be random and senselessor targeted against those who either disagreewith the offender or from whom the offenderwould expect to receive and in turn giveprotection and affection.

Why is this? Why when modern scienceand technology have given us the opportunityto lead such a rewarding civilisation doesviolence make up such a large part of it?Violence is not simply a gun any more than itis a stone, a club or a bomb—they are merelytools. Violence is a state of mind translatedinto an act against another human being.Does that state of mind find its source in ournow much-relaxed religious and socialcustoms? Can we blame a lack of control dueto alcohol or drugs? Perhaps the hugepressures of unemployment and otherstresses within a sophisticated society aresimply too much for many to bear. Theseprobably all contribute, but I believe that thereis a more pro-active violence in our society thatis feeding on existing frustrations andweaknesses and may contribute in no smallway when an offender takes the violent option,either against society in general or againstparticular individuals.

Could it be that the underlying level of"accepted as normal" violence in films, on TVand in videos which has been formallyapproved by our legislative classifications hascontributed? I might add that I expressed thisconcern during the last Parliament when theClassification of Films Amendment Bill wasbeing debated. The Minister in charge of thelegislation responded to my concern that theCommonwealth Censor had taken a verymoderate and sensible position in relation tothe classification of films. I did not agree thenand I do not agree now. I personally believethat there is too much graphic violencedepicted on our screens. The graphic, moving,coloured image is a powerful tool that I amsure can have a tremendous impact on ayoung mind or on a mind that is alreadyaffected by stress, drugs or alcohol.

Proving the connection—or lack of it—willbe difficult. I am pleased that the PrimeMinister has also raised the question of filmviolence, and I encourage Queenslanders toexpress their views. I encourage all membershere and people in the wider community not toallow this issue to become lost in the smoke ofthe gun debate. For those who recoil from thethought of censorship, I might remind themthat we already practise it with the ban on

tobacco advertising. I suggest that violence isa far greater threat to our society.

Alternative Energy Policy

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa)(7.21 p.m.): In February last year, the formerPremier and I launched the QueenslandGovernment's energy efficiency andalternative energy program. This program wasto cost $35m over a three-year period. Whenthe policy was announced, it certainly capturedthe imagination of all Queenslanders, but inparticular young Queenslanders. The policywas designed to try to change the culture ofQueenslanders in their use of power andenergy. The policy was the result of massiveconsultation with industry groups, greengroups, conservation groups and indeedordinary Queenslanders. The policy includedmany incentives for the people of this State.The main one was a $500 cash discount topeople who moved away from electric hotwater systems to solar hot water systems, butthe policy included many other incentives.

We now find that the new coalitionGovernment has put the big freeze on thatpolicy and indeed has abandoned the mainprinciples of it. I believe that that is very sad.Not only did the former Government offer cashincentives to the people of Queensland to tryto change their culture but it also establishedan Office of Energy Management. That wasthe first time in the history of this State that theGovernment had tackled some of thealternative energy issues. After theannouncement of the policy, we receivedinquiries from within Queensland, withinAustralia and from right around the world.Queensland was seen as a leader inalternative energy.

Regrettably, the lights have gone out.This Government has cut the funding for theincentives offered by the previousGovernment. This is a sad and sorry day forQueensland. In addition to this, there are theactions of the Minister with regard to theDaintree—a very special and unique part ofour planet. The Labor Government declaredthat no further mains power would be allowedin that area. The coalition Government hasreversed that policy and intends to run powerthrough that unique part of our planet. If thatwere not bad enough, the Minister has statedalso that he intends to proceed with theTully/Millstream proposal. Of course, that willnever occur, because the Minister's colleaguesin Canberra simply will not allow it to happen.

This Government is being petty in theextreme, because the amount of money which


it is trying to save is minute. The coalitionGovernment is turning back the clock.Queensland had set the scene in relation toalternative energy sources. This State hadgiven a lead to the other States. Instead oftrying to progress that initiative, thisGovernment has turned back the clock. Weare returning to the days when theGovernment was an environmental vandal.Nobody could ever accuse me of being agreenie—far from it. When I visited theDaintree and saw that beautiful part of ourbeautiful State, I was convinced that to allowmains power into that part of Queensland wasa mortal sin. Yet one of the first acts of thenew Minister was to ridicule the stance takenby the previous Government and me and togive a commitment that power could be runthrough that region. I make a forecast in thisParliament tonight that before long therelevant local authority will receive applicationsfor industrial activities to take place in thatunique part of our State. The Government andthe Minister stand condemned, not just bypeople like me but also by youngQueenslanders who thought that theirGovernment had a vision.

Time expired.

Mundingburra By-election Campaign

Mr GRICE (Broadwater) (7.26 p.m.): Thismorning I raised matters that I have asked theCriminal Justice Commission to investigatewith the same rigour as it has pursued theso-called police memorandum ofunderstanding. They were the ALP's bogusIndependent candidate in the Mundingburraelection, Tisha Crosland, and the former StateGovernment's park people memorandum ofunderstanding. I would like to add more detailwhich would be of use to the CJC should it findthe time to investigate the improper behaviourof the Labor Party and its friends during thatelection campaign. I again challenge the CJCto investigate these matters publicly, as it isdoing with the police memorandum ofunderstanding—that is, if the current criticismthat the commission is beginning to look likethe Toowong branch of the ALP is not to gaincredence.

But back to the story of Mooney's mateand the ALP's "Independent" candidate in theMundingburra election, Tisha Crosland. MayorMooney planned to reward Ms Crosland forher services and preferences in the election bygiving her a casual councillor's vacancy on theTownsville City Council. He dumped that ideathe day before the announcement when theplan was exposed in the Townsville media.

The Mayor then filled the vacancy with anothermate, Geoff Plante, who is one of Mooney'sfundraisers.

So how much help did those candidateswho handed their preferences to Labor getfrom the ALP? Crosland, Australian Women'sParty candidate Pauline Woodbridge andAustralian Indigenous People's Partycandidate Michael Bourne certainly got someLabor Party help on polling day. In thepre-dawn, ALP booth workers were observedunloading material for all three candidates andsetting up their booths. Labor Party supporterswere full of the milk of human kindnesstowards their alleged political opponents on 3February. Particularly in the case of Crosland,one begins to wonder whether she had anygenuine input into her campaign at all.

With the park people memorandum ofunderstanding, it is worthy of note that one ofthe five Ministers who signed the documentwas the honourable Leader of the Opposition,Peter Beattie. The State Governmentmemorandum quotes failed ALP candidateMooney as making promises for extra healthfunding for Townsville Aborigines which wassigned by five Goss Government Ministers—Mr Beattie of course and, among others, thethen Family Services Minister, MargaretWoodgate. The memorandum givesremarkable prominence to the wishes of theTownsville City Council—the council which, ofcourse, is headed by Mayor Mooney. Whilethe public hospital system was in chaos andpatients were dying in corridors waiting fortreatment, this document committed the StateGovernment to a most generous program forTownsville's park people.

Like most of Labor's promises andcommitments pre-Mundingburra, thememorandum is not costed. But thecommitments are generous and include theconstruction of a diversionary centre on StateGovernment-owned land at Old CommonRoad. The memorandum notes—

"The Townsville City Council hasurged the State Government to proceedwith the construction of the diversionarycentre at the earliest possible time."

While I am sure that all honourable membersare delighted that the park people ofTownsville had such influential friends asMooney—that is, after he realised that tryingto dispose of these people by driving andharassing them out of the park wasconsidered a little inhumane and not greatpolitical wisdom—perhaps other Aboriginal andcommunity groups throughout the State mightwonder why they did not get such favoured


treatment from the former State Government,and they certainly exist. Was it because theseother groups lacked AWP candidate PaulineWoodbridge and AIPP candidate MichaelBourne, who could give their preferences toLabor in a crucial election?

If the CJC holds a public inquiry into thebehaviour of the ALP and its mates inMundingburra, perhaps it might like to look atthe cost to the taxpayer of State Governmentstaff working on the Mooney campaign. JackiByrne, the former Director-General of theDepartment of Family Services, Labor AWUfaction king-maker and new-found friend of thehonourable Leader of the Opposition, MrBeattie, would be a good starting point. TheMinister for Families, Youth and CommunityCare, the Honourable Kev Lingard, hasalready tabled Ms Byrne's hefty hotelexpenses while she was in Townsville duringthe Mundingburra campaign. She was, ofcourse, officially on leave. That is an old LaborParty hack's trick. It works like this——

Time expired.

Motion agreed to. The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.

Legislative Assembly 993 14 May 1996 - Queensland ...

Documents

Transcript of Legislative Assembly 993 14 May 1996 - Queensland ...