Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...

9 Mar 1999 Legislative Assembly 299 

TUESDAY, 9 MARCH 1999 

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. R. K. Hollis, Redcliffe) 

read prayers and took the chair at 9.30 a.m. 

MEMBERS' STATIONERY ENTITLEMENTS 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Honourable 

members, recent press reports have been 

called to my attention. In these reports, a 

member states his intention to flout the spirit of 

the stationery entitlements outlined in the 

Members Office Support Handbook. 

I remind all honourable members that the 

Standing Committee on Members 

Entitlements vested the responsibility of 

monitoring use of stationery in the Speaker. I 

take this responsibility seriously and will 

continue to be vigilant on behalf of the 

Parliament and the taxpayers. 

PETITIONS 

The Clerk announced the receipt of the 

following petitions— 

Bribie Island Bridge 

From Mr Feldman (4,159 petitioners) 

requesting the House to take appropriate 

action to satisfactorily provide suitable lighting 

on the Bribie Island bridge and safety railing 

for the pedestrian walkway on the Bribie Island 

bridge. 

Crime Victims, Confidentiality of Records 

From Dr Kingston (224 petitioners) 

requesting the House to introduce a new Act 

or amend an existing Act to protect the 

confidentiality of records of victims of crime, in 

particular sexual assault victims, by preventing 

access to them, in both common and criminal 

law. 

National Senior Citizens Week 

From Mrs Rose (1,696 petitioners) 

requesting the House to combine in a National 

Senior Citizens Week, to be held annually in all 

States at the same time. 

Petitions received. 

PAPERS 

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 

The following statutory instruments were tabled 

by The Clerk— 

Animals Protection Act 1925, Dairy Industry Act 

1993— 

Primary Industries Legislation Amendment 

Regulation (No. 1) 1999, No. 19 

Griffith University Act 1971— 

Griffith University (Statutes Repeal) 

Statute 1999, No. 17 

Health Act 1937— 

Health Amendment Regulation (No. 2) 

1999, No. 13 

Integrated Planning Act 1997— 

Integrated Planning (Zoning of Closed 

Roads) Transitional Regulation 1999, 

No. 12 

Justices Act 1886, Traffic Act 1949— 

Traffic Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 

1999, No. 20 

Nature Conservation Act 1992— 

Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) 

Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1999, 

No. 18 

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 

1994— 

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) 

Amendment Regulation (No. 1) 1999, 

No. 15 

Transport Operations (Road Use Management) 

Act 1995— 

Transport Operations (Road Use 

Management) Amendment Regulation 

(No. 1) 1999, No. 14 

University of Southern Queensland Act 1998— 

Proclamation—the provisions of the Act 

that are not in force commence 8 March 

1999, No. 16 

MINISTERIAL RESPONSES TO 

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS 

The following responses to parliamentary 

committee reports, received during the recess, 

were tabled by The Clerk— 

response from the Minister for Health (Mrs 

Edmond) to a report of the Public Works 

Committee entitled Townsville Hospital 

redevelopment; and 

response from the Minister for Health (Mrs 

Edmond) to a report of the Public Works 

Committee entitled Redevelopment of the 

Maryborough Hospital. 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT 

Leaders Forum on Drugs 

Hon. P. D. BEATTIE (Brisbane Central— 

ALP) (Premier) (9.34 a.m.), by leave: About 

600 Australians are dying from illegal drug 

overdoses each year. They are 600 compelling 

and tragic reasons why our present methods

300 Ministerial Statement 9 Mar 1999 

of dealing with this problem are not working. 

Make no mistake; no family is exempt from the 

risk of losing a member to heroin addiction. 

That is why we must think again about how we 

try to prevent our young people from 

becoming addicts, how we try to help addicts 

and how we tackle the dealers in death. 

The Leaders Forum on Drugs attended by 

the Premiers on Friday, 5 March, in 

Melbourne, provided an impressive bipartisan 

and whole-of-Government approach to the 

illegal drug trade. All leaders were 

wholehearted in their search for new solutions. 

We looked in detail at new approaches to: 

harm minimisation; awareness and treatment; 

criminal justice; research; and Government 

response. I stressed the need for education to 

be added to the harm minimisation framework 

and for there to be an aggressive approach in 

this area. This was accepted by the other 

leaders. 

Victoria and the ACT decided to go ahead 

with heroin trials. I made it clear that I do not 

support heroin trials but that Queensland 

would organise a parallel trial using 

buprenorphine and naltrexone with identical 

arrangements where possible so that it can be 

determined which of the treatments offers the 

better results—and done on a clinical basis. 

Both Western Australia and Queensland 

voiced concern about the vast coastlines we 

have and the problems that Customs has in 

detecting illegal drug importations due to lack 

of personnel and resources. There was no 

criticism of Customs; it was simply an issue of 

resources. The forum agreed to seek a 

proactive role for the Australian defence forces 

in protecting our coast. 

In examining criminal justice options, the 

forum agreed to evaluate work camp options 

to focus on lifestyle, activity and discipline. But, 

of course, it would have to be part of 

rehabilitation. It also agreed to consider 

introducing nationally the civil forfeiture of drugrelated 

assets. Altogether, some 30 initiatives 

were suggested for future action. Now the 

Prime Minister must find the money, in our 

view, to fund these proposals, and they will be 

put to the meeting of Premiers with the Prime 

Minister on 9 April. 

It is a national problem which needs 

national funding. The Commonwealth should 

provide the funding for the drug trials which are 

being mounted. The Prime Minister and the 

Federal Government should provide funding 

as well for any drug courts that go ahead and 

which are currently being evaluated in 

Queensland. The Commonwealth should 

provide funds for treatment and rehabilitation. 

I am hopeful that, at the Premiers 

Conference on 9 April, there will be significant 

funds forthcoming from the Commonwealth. I 

table for the information of the House the 

outcome of the Leaders Forum on Drugs. 


International Women's Day 


ALP) (Premier) (9.37 a.m.), by leave: It is with 

great pleasure that I inform the House of the 

support my Government is giving to the 70th 

anniversary celebrations of International 

Women's Day, which was yesterday. 

Yesterday, I jointly hosted with Minister Judy 

Spence, on behalf of the Queensland 

Government, a function at Parliament House 

to celebrate the 70th anniversary of 

International Women's Day in Queensland. 

The special guest was writer and women's 

activist Merle Thornton. Merle remarked on the 

irony, saying that last time she was treated to 

refreshments at Parliament House was 34 

years ago, when she was lobbying to change 

a law that prevented her from drinking at the 

public bar of Queensland hotels simply 

because she was a woman. Well, she must 

have felt that she did not receive a proper 

hearing, because the next day she and 

colleague Ro Bogner chained themselves to 

the rail of the public bar at the Regatta Hotel. It 

took another 10 years of lobbying by women 

such as Merle Thornton before the law was 

changed and women were permitted to join 

men in Queensland's public bars. Thanks in 

part to these pioneering feminists, 

Government attitudes to women's policy have 

changed radically. 

Today, I table the first Queensland 

Government Annual Action Plan for Women: A 

Partnership Between Women and 

Government. I urge all members to read this 

plan, because it commits my Government to 

advancing women by listening to their ideas 

and concerns. The plan outlines strategies in 

eight key areas for women, including improving 

safety and justice, enhancing opportunities for 

women in rural and remote areas, and creating 

job and business opportunities. 

An important feature of the action plan is 

the Premier's Council for Women, announced 

yesterday. Twelve high-calibre Queensland 

women have been appointed to the council, 

which is now the Government's primary 

advisory body on women's issues. It was 

approved yesterday in Cabinet, being brought 

there by the Minister. I assure members of this 

House that we will be listening to that voice 

and that voice will be heard.

9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 301 

The council members, who bring a 

diversity of experience in women's issues to 

their roles, are: the chair, Cathy Miller, 

manager of the Logan Women's Health 

Centre and Sexual Assault Service; the deputy 

chair, Lynette Palmen, founder and managing 

director of Women's Network Australia; Elaine 

McKeon, managing director of Koutha 

Aboriginal Development Corporation Ltd; 

Patimah Malone, regional manager of the 

Department of Immigration and Multicultural 

Affairs in the Torres Strait; Frances Harding, 

the co-owner of Hotel Corones at Charleville; 

Christine Scott, a Charters Towers first-aid 

instructor; Madeleine McPherson, a University 

of Southern Queensland librarian; Jeannie 

Mok, the foundation principal of the Asian 

Pacific Institute; Gail Armstrong, principal of 

the Loganlea State High School; Grace Grace, 

assistant general secretary of the ACTU 

Queensland Branch; Mary Magee, former 

chair of the Ministerial Advisory Council for 

Queensland Women; and Dr Kay Saunders, 

reader in history at the University of 

Queensland. 

I look forward to working with these 

women to improve the position of all women in 



Art Built In 

Hon. M. J. FOLEY (Yeronga—ALP) 

(Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and 

Minister for The Arts) (9.40 a.m.), by leave: 

Today the Premier will launch Art Built In, the 

most comprehensive, integrated and visionary 

public art policy ever undertaken in Australia. 

This policy—which is a whole-of-Government 

policy endorsed by Cabinet—allocates 2% of 

major public capital works budgets in the State 

to integrated art and design in public buildings. 

It honours a key election commitment in 

Labor's New Directions Statement for the Arts 

1998. It also heralds a new era for 

Queensland, with long-term cultural and 

economic benefits to our State and to the lives 

of all Queenslanders, now and in the future. 

As the first cultural policy ever to be 

implemented by every State Government 

department, it is also the fruition of long and 

careful consultation with my Cabinet 

colleagues, local government and key sectors 

of the construction, design and arts industries 

in Queensland. 

In general, the 2% will apply to capital 

works building projects in excess of $250,000, 

excluding Government fees and charges, 

WorkCover, and the cost of capital equipment. 

It is not mandatory for Government owned 

corporations or commercialised business units 

of Government. However, they are 

encouraged to use their best endeavours to 

implement this policy. A number of exemptions 

are specified in the policy, such as for prisons 

and for public housing intended for private 

use. It will apply in the 1999-2000 financial 

year, although some Government 

departments are already implementing the 

policy in current projects. 

An example of State and local 

government working together is the Cairns 

Esplanade project, which demonstrates the 

benefits to the community when a policy is 

integrated: that is, built in to the growth and 

needs of that community through community 

and industry consultation from the drawing 

board stage onwards. This visionary policy also 

ensures job opportunities for Queensland 

artists and designers and, in particular, young 

Queenslanders who will gain apprenticeships 

and training through public art projects. For the 

first time, all Queenslanders will be given a say 

in the shaping of their environment so that it 

reflects the inclusive, modern multicultural 

realities of our State. 


Pacific Motorway 

Hon. S. D. BREDHAUER (Cook—ALP) 

(Minister for Transport and Minister for Main 

Roads) (9.43 a.m.), by leave: This is a can-do 

Government focusing on jobs and job security. 

Through a series of major infrastructure 

projects we are improving Queensland's 

transport and roads and creating jobs, jobs, 

jobs: over 1,200 jobs in a $240m upgrade of 

the rail line between Rockhampton and 

Townsville; 2,000 jobs on the South East 

Transit Project; between 400 and 500 

construction jobs on the Brisbane light rail 

project with up to 80 jobs in the operational 

phase; 300 jobs on the Airtrain airport rail link; 

300 jobs on the new diesel tilt train between 

Brisbane and Cairns; over 500 permanent jobs 

for fixed-term employees in Queensland Rail 

with a further 150 to come; and 17,500 jobs 

throughout the State over the life of the $5.3 

billion, five-year Roads Implementation 

Program. 

But today I want to talk about the Pacific 

Motorway. Construction work on the motorway 

is at its peak and over 1,750 people are 

directly employed on the project. As well, 

around 4,000 others are indirectly employed in 

providing goods and services to Main Roads 

and contractors. Quite a number of these 

people live along the motorway, which means


that the project is creating economic benefit for 

the areas that it passes through. 

Construction along the Pacific Motorway 

from the Logan Motorway to Nerang is 

intensifying, with sections of the new motorway 

already in use. Many motorists do not realise it 

but they are driving on the new asphalt and 

concrete pavements in Beenleigh and around 

Pimpama, Coomera and Oxenford. The 

motorway is being built at around twice the 

speed of most road projects. This is made 

possible by having six contractors carrying out 

construction right along the 43 kilometre 

motorway and, of course, by the patience of 

south-east Queensland motorists. 

The Pacific Motorway is setting new 

standards in construction, such as keeping two 

lanes open in each direction during daytime 

hours and maintaining a posted minimum 

speed of 80 kilometres per hour. Travel time 

between Logan and Nerang is monitored by 

vehicles that enter the traffic stream at set 

times each week. On average, the 43 

kilometre trip takes only around five minutes 

longer now than it did a year ago when 

construction had just commenced. The 

number of accidents reported along the 

motorway actually decreased when 

construction started in 1998, compared with 

the previous year. Just as importantly, the time 

taken to clear vehicles after an incident has 

gone down from an average 75 minutes to 

around 45 minutes. 

The majority of motorists have been 

extremely patient during construction and the 

cooperation of the driving public and local 

communities was especially evident during the 

Christmas/New Year holiday period. There was 

a significant reduction in accidents along the 

motorway in December and January. We are 

hoping for a similar response as the Easter 

holiday period draws near. 

As occurred over the Christmas period, 

most construction work will stop over Easter. 

However, the lack of construction will not mean 

that motorists should become complacent. 

Although the road is starting to open up more, 

with road shoulders rather than the constraints 

of concrete barriers, the alignment is changing 

week by week as new sections open and old 

off-ramps close. It is important to remember, 

too, that many holidaymakers will not have 

driven the road for some time and will need to 

pay extra attention to the new arrangements. 

The motorway is on target to be opened 

to traffic in March next year. Recent wet 

weather is not expected to adversely affect this 

date. At the end of January, almost 20% of 

the motorway pavement had been laid or was 

under construction. Of the 90 bridges and 

major culverts, 36 were complete and work 

had commenced on another 34. The Pacific 

Motorway project includes construction of 46 

kilometres of service roads and 29 kilometres 

of that total have already been built. 

The Pacific Motorway is another example 

of this Government getting on with the job and 

delivering—delivering on transport 

infrastructure, delivering on jobs and delivering 

on job security. 


Commercial Activity in Schools 

Hon. D. M. WELLS (Murrumba—ALP) 

(Minister for Education) (9.46 a.m.), by leave: 

In late 1997 the previous Government 

amended the Education (General Provisions) 

Act and the Education (General Provisions) 

Regulations which removed certain statutory 

and regulatory restrictions on commercial 

activities in State schools. Whilst we all know 

that for many years so-called commercial 

activities such as advertising on the back of 

school newsletters had occurred, this change 

in 1997 would have resulted in an "open 

slather" for all types of commercial activity to 

take place in and by schools. The potential for 

inappropriate commercial activity was 

significant. After tremendous pressure was 

brought to bear on the then Minister by my 

colleague, the then shadow Education Minister 

and now Minister for Transport, a working party 

was finally established to look at the whole 

area of commercial activity in schools in 1997. 

Immediately after taking office in July 

1998, I reviewed the terms of reference of the 

working party and advised the chair of the 

working party of the need to include the 

following essential guidelines— 

1. There must be no "free go" or "open 

slather" in terms of commercial 

activity in schools. 

2. Any commercial activities that may 

take place in schools must be 

consistent with the image, ethos and 

core business of State education. 

3. There must be no impact on Stateprovided 

funding for education. 

4. Schools are to report via their 

compulsory school annual reports, in 

an open and transparent way, to the 

school community and public in 

general on any commercial activities 

that they undertake. 

5. The draft guidelines were to be 

widely circulated for general

9 Mar 1999 Ministerial Statement 303 

consultation to parents and staff and 

modified as appropriate in 

accordance with the results of that 

consultation. 

Additionally, I insisted that there was to be one 

additional point that was not open for debate. I 

insisted that there are to be no inappropriate 

billboards, advertising outside schools or other 

unacceptable practices by commercial 

operators within schools. The golden arches 

will not be rising over the tuckshops in any 

State school. 

I have now received the final report of the 

working party. It satisfies the requirements 

placed on the committee and which I have just 

outlined. In the near future, and after due 

processes, my director-general will 

communicate to all school communities a new 

Education Queensland policy guideline 

covering these issues. I table the report. 


Public Housing 

Hon. R. E. SCHWARTEN (Rockhampton— 

ALP) (Minister for Public Works and Minister for 

Housing) (9.50 a.m.), by leave: I wish to inform 

the House of the outcomes of a meeting of 

State and Territory Housing Ministers held in 

Hobart last Friday. I also want to outline the 

potential impact a goods and services tax will 

have on public housing programs in 

Queensland and their flow-on effects to the 

State's building industry. 

Last Friday's meeting had been 

scheduled to negotiate the next four-year 

Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement with 

the Federal Minister for Housing, Senator 

Jocelyn Newman. Shortly before last week's 

meeting, Senator Newman indicated she 

would not be attending if the question of the 

GST were to be raised. The Federal Minister 

did not turn up on Friday, despite the fact that 

she was in Hobart. It seemed odd to me that 

Housing Ministers saw the GST issue as so 

important that they flew to Hobart from as far 

away as Darwin, yet Senator Newman could 

not cross the street to discuss it. 

Based on information available so far, the 

Department of Housing calculates that a 10% 

GST would add $30m a year to its cost 

structure. The GST is expected to apply for 

three of the four years of the next CSHA, 

costing the housing budget $90m. But, over 

the full four-year term of any future CSHA, it 

would mean a loss of $120m, a cut of 800 

dwellings from the building program and the 

consequent loss of 1,300 jobs in the building 

industry. 

In addition to the GST, States and 

Territories face further cuts in funding through 

the Federal Government's unwillingness to 

index CSHA funds and its imposition of a 1% 

"efficiency dividend". It is estimated that the 

lack of indexation of even 2% in the next 

agreement could reduce housing funds by 

$37m over four years. The efficiency dividend 

will cost a further $18m over the life of the 

agreement. So, all up, Queensland stands to 

lose $175m over the full four-year term of any 

future CSHA. That translates to a loss of 1,170 

dwellings from the construction program and 

the loss of an estimated 1,400 jobs. 

It is significant that the concerns I have 

about the GST were shared by all Ministers 

present in Hobart, Labor and conservative 

alike. It was agreed that unless compensation 

for the effects of any GST is forthcoming, then 

all States and Territories—I repeat: all States 

and Territories—may have to consider selling 

off housing stock to meet the shortfall. In 

Queensland, that would mean disposing of the 

most saleable assets, largely our newer 

houses and multiple-dwelling projects. I stress 

that all Minsters regarded this possibility as a 

last resort. I hope it does not come to that and 

that the Federal Government does offer all 

States and Territories adequate compensation 

for the GST and agrees to index future CSHA 

funds and remove a pointless efficiency 

dividend. 

Last Friday's meeting ended with all 

States and Territories—Labor and 

conservative—agreeing to a united approach 

to secure additional funds under the next 

CSHA and compensation for the effects of the 

GST on housing programs. All Ministers— 

Labor and conservative—agreed that they 

would not sign the next CSHA in its present 

form and would continue to press for 

compensation for the effects of the GST. 

Queensland has a significant role to play 

in preparing the case for compensation. 

Ministers agreed last Friday that the 

Queensland Department of Housing would 

prepare detailed estimates of the impact of the 

GST on housing as well as the lack of 

indexation and the efficiency dividend. This 

information will be provided to all Premiers and 

Chief Ministers prior to the next Premiers 

Conference on 9 April. 

All Housing Ministers agreed that they 

should meet again following the Premiers 

Conference. That meeting is scheduled for 21 

April in Adelaide. I hope that Senator Newman 

can find the time to attend on this occasion. In 

conclusion, I stress that all State and Territory 

Housing Ministers are united in their fight for


compensation for the GST and a commitment 

to indexation under the CSHA. Indeed, 

Housing Ministers from conservative States are 

among the strongest critics of the Federal 

Government's approach. 

It is a pity that members of the coalition in 

Queensland are not as vocal. Last week 

before flying to Hobart I appealed for a 

bipartisan approach to this issue from the 

Opposition. All I received was silence. It seems 

that that is still the case. I just wonder who the 

Opposition will start criticising when we have to 

start selling off our stock and putting people 

out of their employment in Queensland. 


Wollemi Pine Project 

Hon. H. PALASZCZUK (Inala—ALP) 

(Minister for Primary Industries) (9.53 a.m.), by 

leave: As I address the House this morning, in 

Sydney the New South Wales Government is 

making an announcement about the rare plant 

pictured in this photograph. The plant is so 

rare that few people on the planet can claim to 

have ever seen it. It is regarded as a living 

fossil with its closest relatives dating back more 

than 100 million years. 

The plant in the picture is the Wollemi 

pine, named after the only place in the world 

where it has been discovered, the Wollemi 

National Park, 150 kilometres north-west of 

Sydney. This morning's announcement 

confirms a Queensland tender has secured 

the exclusive world rights to propagate and 

commercialise Wollemi pine. It is a threatened 

species and commercialisation has been 

recommended as the best way to preserve it. 

The successful Queensland tender, proposed 

by the Department of Primary Industries and 

Brisbane's Birkdale Nursery, will generate new 

jobs and new exports for Queensland. In the 

development phase alone, 50 jobs will be 

created with a multimillion-dollar export boost 

each year. Late last year, the New South 

Wales Royal Botanic Gardens selected the 

Queensland tender ahead of 13 other 

interstate and international proponents. 

This joint arrangement combines the 

world-renowned research and development 

expertise of the Department of Primary 

Industries with the international marketing skills 

and excellence of the Birkdale Nursery. As a 

New South Wales Government spokesman 

said in the Sydney Morning Herald this 

morning— 

"It's certainly something that is living 

on Sydney's doorstep but at the end of 

the day it's important that the most 

capable group gets the job." 

The Department of Primary Industries will 

invest $6m into the development of Wollemi 

pine with two million plants planned to be sold 

annually into the new millennium. Birkdale 

Nursery, which in recent years has developed 

export markets in North and South-East Asia, 

Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific 

islands, will market the plants domestically and 

abroad. 

Wollemi pine was discovered five years 

ago and consists of two natural stands with a 

total of 40 mature individuals and 200 

seedlings. The exact location of the Wollemi 

pine has not been publicly revealed and there 

are tight controls on all plant material removed 

from these natural stands. Birkdale Nursery 

director—— 

Mr Welford: Good electorate, that. 

Mr PALASZCZUK: Certainly. Barbara 

McGeoch sums up the commercial 

opportunities for her company and our State 

very well— 

"Not only will the Wollemi pine 

provide us with an exciting business 

opportunity, but we will be able to offer 

the global marketplace a chance to share 

the enjoyment of owning, nurturing and 

conserving an ancient, endangered 

plant." 

Where else can local expertise and 

innovation be used to ensure a very rare and 

endangered plant, discovered hundreds of 

kilometres away, be preserved for future 

generations while commercialising it, creating 

new jobs and new exports? I ask the question: 

where else but Queensland? 


Cyclone Rona 

Hon. M. ROSE (Currumbin—ALP) 

(Minister for Emergency Services) (9.57 a.m.), 

by leave: Queenslanders in the south-east, 

south-west and far north of the State continue 

to mop up in the wake of widespread flooding 

and Cyclone Rona. I spent a great deal of time 

inspecting damage at Kilcoy, Esk, 

Toogoolawah, Caboolture, Gympie, the 

Sunshine Coast, Maryborough, Cairns, 

Innisfail, Ingham, the Daintree, Mossman and 

Tully. 

I was overwhelmed by the response from 

emergency service workers and volunteers and 

local residents to those communities hit by 

flooding and cyclonic weather. From 

sandbagging, to mopping up, to risking their

9 Mar 1999 Parliamentary Criminal Justice Committee 305 

own lives to save others, these men and 

women excelled. The cooperation between all 

arms of emergency services, local government 

and local residents was absolutely magnificent. 

Both the preparation and clean-up was a real 

team effort, involving thousands of SES 

volunteers, firefighters, police officers, 

ambulance officers, surf lifesavers, helicopter 

rescue crews and local residents. Everywhere I 

went people were full of good humour and 

cheer despite the tragedy and devastation 

surrounding them. It made me proud to be a 

Queenslander. 

Many stories of incredible bravery and 

sacrifice have emerged from the muddy waters 

of the floods. There was the surf lifesaving 

helicopter crew who, incredibly, flew under 

powerlines to pluck a man from raging 

floodwaters. There were the SES volunteers 

who risked their lives to tie down two tankers 

full of ammonia which floodwaters threatened 

to sweep away outside of Gympie. There were 

the volunteer, auxiliary and permanent 

firefighters who, on their days off, came from 

Hervey Bay, Maryborough, Tewantin, 

Caloundra and other places in between to 

assist with the clean-up in Gympie and 

Maryborough. Then there were the rural 

volunteers who helped the clean-up in other 

towns. There were those who knew their own 

homes were in danger of flooding but still put 

others first. 

It is impossible to single out particular 

people for praise—every person involved is a 

hero in their own way and each deserves our 

gratitude. Without them, things would have 

been a great deal worse. Both the Governor- 

General of Australia, Sir William Deane, and 

the Governor of Queensland, Major General 

Peter Arnison, have written to this Government 

expressing their admiration for the bravery and 

commitment displayed by these men and 

women. 

Emergency services were well prepared 

for both the floods and Cyclone Rona, and 

counter disaster operations went according to 

plan. The credit for this rests squarely with the 

people on the ground who worked around the 

clock to minimise damage and ensure people 

were out of danger. We cannot forget, 

however, that six people lost their lives as a 

result of flooding in south-east Queensland. 

There were many other close calls and 

amazing rescues. The great tragedy is that 

many of these deaths could have been 

avoided. 

I cannot stress enough the need for all 

Queenslanders to exercise extreme care 

during floods, cyclones and storms. Parents 

must keep a watchful eye on adventurous 

children who may see flooded creeks and 

streams as a playground. Motorists should not 

attempt to cross waterways or flooded 

causeways and roads during heavy rain. 

People who do not heed the warnings are 

gambling with their lives and the lives of their 

rescuers. 

While the worst is now over and people 

have started to pick up the pieces, it is vital 

that we do not become lulled into a false 

sense of security. The cyclone season is far 

from over. The Bureau of Meteorology has 

warned that there may be more severe 

weather in store. Not even heavily populated 

areas like the Gold and Sunshine Coasts are 

immune from the ravages of cyclonic forces, 

including storm surges. Every Queenslander 

needs to do their bit to prepare for cyclones 

and storms by cleaning debris from around 

their homes, clearing gutters and storm drains, 

or preparing an evacuation or action plan. 

Prepared and aware communities suffer the 

least in natural disasters. As we have seen 

recently, an ounce of calm and commonsense 

preparation now could save the burden and 

heartache of major property loss and injury in 

the future. 

SCRUTINY OF LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 

Report 

Mrs LAVARCH (Kurwongbah—ALP) 

(10.02 a.m.): I lay upon the table of the House 

the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert 

Digest No. 2 1999, and move that it be 

printed. 

Ordered to be printed. 

PARLIAMENTARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE 

COMMITTEE 

Report 

Mr LUCAS (Lytton—ALP) (10.02 a.m.): I 

lay upon the table of the House pursuant to 

section 4.7(4) of the Police Service 

Administration Act 1990 the report of the 

Commissioner of the Police Service, Mr J. P. 

O'Sullivan, being a certified copy of the register 

of reports and recommendations made to the 

Minister for Police and Corrective Services 

under section 4.6(1)(a) of the said Act, 

including all ministerial directions given in 

writing to the commissioner for 1998 pursuant 

to section 4.6(2) of the Act, together with the 

comments of the Chairman of the Criminal 

Justice Commission, Mr Brendan Butler, SC. 

Mr Butler reports that he has no comments to 

make in respect of the register. I advise that 

the report was received by the committee on

306 Community-Based Referendum Bill 9 Mar 1999 

25 January 1999 and is therefore tabled within 

a period of 14 sitting days as prescribed by 

section 4.7(4) of the Act. 

OVERSEAS VISIT 

Report 

Hon. R. E. BORBIDGE (Surfers 

Paradise—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) 

(10.03 a.m.): I table a report to the Parliament 

on my recent visit to North America, Argentina, 

the United Kingdom and Denmark. 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

Health Portfolio 

Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) 

(10.03 a.m.): I give notice that I shall move— 

"That this House notes with concern 

the massive $50m budget blow-out hitting 

Queensland’s public hospitals which is 

resulting in severe cuts to patient services, 

the closure of hospital beds and a 

blowout in waiting lists, and condemns the 

Health Minister’s gross mismanagement 

of the health system and her disgraceful 

attack on the dedicated senior staff who 

work in our hospitals." 

COMMUNITY-BASED REFERENDUM BILL 

Mr FELDMAN (Caboolture—ONP) 

(10.03 a.m.), by leave, without notice: I 

move— 

"That leave be granted to bring in a 

Bill for an Act to enable the people of 

Queensland to initiate and vote on 

legislative proposals." 

Motion agreed to. 

First Reading 

Bill and Explanatory Notes presented and 

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

Second Reading 


(10.04 a.m.): I move— 

"That the Bill be now read a second 

time." 

It is a great privilege to introduce the 

Community-Based Referendum Bill 1999. The 

purpose of this Bill is to enable the electors of 

Queensland to have the opportunity to 

participate in the decisions that affect their 

daily lives. The essence of a democracy is that 

people have a right not only to elect persons 

to represent them in the Legislative Assembly 

but also to have a direct input into the laws 

that affect their lives. This is a fundamental 

right in a democracy, and is often called 

participatory democracy. The process is often 

called the popular initiative and referendum, 

and will enable the people of Queensland to 

exercise a constructive and positive role in 

making this great State a better place to live, 

and will positively enhance individual and 

collective community responsibility. 

The Bill will enable the electors to 

positively address areas of community 

concern. It does so only after a proposal to 

address the concern is lodged with the 

Electoral Commission where it will be 

scrutinised to determine whether it is a 

proposal that may be addressed by a 

proposed law. 

The Bill provides for the screening of 

proposals to ascertain whether they 

contravene the rule of law and the rules of 

natural justice, which are proposals that the 

Parliament can properly address by way of 

legislation. There are several matters that may 

not be addressed by a proposal under this Bill. 

For example, no proposal can be accepted by 

the commission if it proposes to block Supply. 

The Bill recognises that administrations do 

need moneys assured to them to perform their 

functions. Following acceptance of a legislative 

proposal, registration of that proposal may 

follow if there is sufficient support from 

electors. This Bill provides for matters of broad 

and substantial community concern to be 

presented to the Legislative Assembly 

following signature of a popular request by a 

broad and representative number of electors 

of the State. This requirement for a broad and 

representative expression of community 

concern promotes an environment for the 

community to work together positively, in 

consultation with each other and for factual, 

non-emotional discussion on matters of 

common concern. 

There is a great need for our institutions 

to be people friendly. Participatory democracy 

is what people are looking for. The times have 

changed. We have one of the best educated 

populations in the world, and people want to 

be positive contributors to a better State. A 

healthy democracy means an active, positive 

community that works together, and 

institutions that enable people to work 

together. 

The outstanding exponent of participatory 

democracy or community-based democracy, 

through the kind of process set out in this Bill, 

is the renowned Ted Mack. The people of the

9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referendum Bill 307 

North Sydney Council responded when they 

knew that not only would they be treated with 

respect, they knew that they would be listened 

to and could vote on and decide issues that 

they considered important. In consequence, 

North Sydney boomed. Not only were 

important community assets not sold off, there 

was no need for them to be sold off. In fact, 

rates were able to come down, with community 

services going up because people—real 

people—were being listened to. 

There are very important reasons why the 

process set out in this Bill is very important for 

re-establishing community confidence in our 

institutions. The last Queensland election saw 

vast numbers of electors so disenchanted that 

they voted for a change towards more 

accountability. They also voted to have a direct 

say on matters that needed to be addressed 

and that were not being addressed by the 

Legislative Assembly. The election result 

should have come as no surprise. The people 

felt that they had been ignored for far too long, 

and that no one was really listening to them or 

to their genuine community concerns. Unless 

the process of participatory democracy is 

available to enable the electors, where 

necessary, to have a direct vote on matters 

that they consider important, it will not be long 

before we see a repeat of the situation in New 

South Wales where one ballot paper will be 

the size of seven newspaper tabloid pages in 

present estimations. 

Many people believe that they are not 

being heard. Under the processes provided by 

this Bill, electors will have the opportunity to 

determine whether there is sufficient 

community concern for a common legislative 

proposal. Presently, genuine community 

concern is often ignored by elected 

representatives and the administration for 

various reasons. The biggest concern is the 

deficit in democracy. To quote the words of a 

famous Queensland Premier, this Bill will 

enable the "free and direct expression of the 

will of the people". He could not have said it 

clearer. 

This proposal to recognise democracy is 

not new to Queensland. It lies at the very heart 

of democracy. There is an urgent need to 

reassure the people of this State that they will 

be heard, and taken seriously, that the 

community is more important than unelected 

lobby groups, etc., and that there is a need to 

provide for balanced and necessary input from 

the community—the real people. There is no 

substitute for democracy. There are 

alternatives to it, none of them satisfactory. 

It goes without saying that representative 

democracy cannot really work if any unelected 

organisation can come between the elected 

representative of the people of the electorate, 

their parliamentary representative and 

themselves. If passed, this Bill will carry forward 

the democratic ideals and visions of a 

democracy which inspired the great T. J. Ryan, 

who had a profound confidence in the good 

sense and good judgment of the people. 

The Popular Initiative and Referendum Bill 

1917 was passed in this very Assembly not 

merely once but more than once, and the then 

Legislative Council also passed it with some 

amendments. These amendments did not 

affect the ordinary application of its provisions. 

Similar Bills were also passed in 1913 in the 

Western Australian Legislative Assembly, and 

in 1916 in the South Australian House of 

Assembly, only to be knocked back by the 

Upper Houses, which in those days opposed 

the concept of direct democracy. 

This Bill in effect recognises the Upper 

House of the people themselves directly, 

providing the necessary checks and balances 

from the community and ensuring community 

access to the democratic process, as the 

community does not surrender its democratic 

rights. Quite simply, if the required number of 

electors sign a popular request, this is 

evidence of substantial community concern. 

The requirement to submit verified monthly 

returns to the Electoral Commission 

demonstrating the quantity of support or lack 

of it will enable both the public and 

parliamentarians alike to assess the popularity 

or degree of support for the legislative 

proposal. This assessment may well lead to 

the Parliament addressing the issue before a 

referendum is held—a process that will 

enhance the democratic and parliamentary 

process. The whole of the process will reinforce 

open government in a democracy. 

Mr Terry Gygar, a former member of this 

Assembly, made a personal investigation of 

the process and reported its beneficial 

contribution to good government in 

Switzerland, where the Parliament benefited 

from being credibly informed of genuine 

community concerns, demonstrated by the 

signing of the required number of electors. He 

reported that 60% of proposals saw legislative 

or appropriate action being taken to address 

these community concerns, with the result that 

no referendum was necessary. 

The same process is what democratically 

spirited people of this State want to see. This 

is the only way in which there can be free and 

direct expression of the will of the people on

308 Community-Based Referendum Bill 9 Mar 1999 

any particular matter of concern—to enable it 

to be positively addressed by a direct vote. 

This direct vote on the specific issues 

presented by the electorate is called "direct 

democracy". The people of Queensland had 

wanted for years to have their say on daylight 

saving. This Bill would have allowed the people 

to put that specific issue on the referendum 

ballot paper, and would have resolved it years 

earlier. People take the long-term view of what 

is in the best interests of the State as a whole. 

They are not vying for the perks of office, and 

they are not trying to get into power. In a real 

democracy they do not have to. 

Under this Bill, a legislative proposal would 

be set in Bill form following professional 

drafting by the Parliamentary Counsel. 

Naturally only the highest standards of drafting 

apply. The legislative proposal will be 

thoroughly checked for compliance with all 

fundamental legislative principles by the 

Parliamentary Counsel. It will then be tabled by 

the Speaker in the Assembly, and then 

examined by the Scrutiny of Legislation 

Committee, comprised of members of the 

Assembly, who will draw attention to any 

matters of concern in the legislative proposal, 

having regard to the criteria set out in the 

Legislative Standards Act 1992. 

Similar to its great predecessor in this 

House, the Popular Initiative and Referendum 

Bill 1917 of the T. J. Ryan administration, this 

Bill does comply with fundamental legislative 

principles, which relate to legislation that 

underlies a parliamentary democracy based on 

the rule of law. It provides for proper 

recognition of the rights and liberties of 

individuals by ensuring that no legislative 

proposal is to be accepted if it contravenes the 

rule of law, the rules of natural justice, or which 

could not be properly made by the Parliament. 

In so doing it provides an up-front screening 

process which automatically applies the 

principles set out in the Legislative Standards 

Act 1992. There is no fear that this Bill would 

enable nuisance or vexatious proposals even 

to be accepted. The Bill also has sufficient 

regard to the institution of Parliament. The 

ability of the Parliament to legislate is in no 

way impaired under this Bill. 

It is important to confirm what this Bill 

does and does not do, to ensure that there is 

no misunderstanding. This Bill does not— 

seek to radically change our present 

governing systems. 

seek to interfere with the right of 

Parliaments to legislate. 

seek to remove the incentive of elected 

representatives in the Parliament to show 

initiative. 

seek to slow or impede the legislative 

processes. 

seek to drive division between 

parliamentarians and electors. 

seek to damage our system of 

representative democracy. 

seek to be able to remove individuals 

from office. 

However, this Bill does— 

seek to enhance the accurate 

representation of Governments. 

seek to ensure a credible voice for the 

community given the undue influence that 

non-elected individuals or groups may 

have with respect to Parliament. 

have a genuine desire to see Parliament 

take the initiative in legislation. 

seek to encourage the awareness of 

matters political within the community. 

seek to achieve a better working 

relationship between electors and 

parliamentarians. 

seek to increase the involvement, with 

knowledge, of the community in the 

decision-making processes. 

seek to make decision making of 

Parliaments both easier and more 

representative. 

allow for a greater input of ideas from the 

community. 

help to make the community more 

responsible for its decisions. 

encourage debate, thereby airing points 

of view that otherwise might not be 

presented. 

remove the heat from genuine debate. 

remove the energy-sapping pressure of 

non-genuine groups, and non-genuine 

issues from the genuine parliamentary 

process. 

In short, the provisions of this Bill will 

enable the community to express its concerns 

on matters with broad representative support. 

This Bill will enable the Government and 

Parliament to make decisions knowing whether 

or not there is a substantial and representative 

mandate from the community on matters of 

expressed concern. In this way the process, 

because of its openness and consultative 

spirit, enhances the betterment of the entire 

community.

9 Mar 1999 Community-Based Referendum Bill 309 

The community should have a set of reins 

to guide Government back onto the track if it 

should deviate too far from the purpose for 

which it was elected, particularly if that 

deviation was caused by minority pressure 

groups or non-elected powerbrokers who may 

desire to bring unreasonable or self-serving 

pressure to bear on members of Parliament, or 

who may attempt by various means to 

manipulate Parliament. The provisions of the 

Bill reflect the desire of the community to have 

a greater input into the decisions that affect 

the community than is presently available. 

Other important provisions ensure that the 

processes are accessible to the community. At 

first the criteria of 2% of electoral enrolment 

would seem low. However, this does mirror 

Liberal and Democrat policy. 

Honourable members interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is too much 

audible conversation in the Chamber. 

Mr FELDMAN: Mr Speaker, I will accede 

to the wishes of the House. I ask that the 

remainder of my speech be incorporated in 

Hansard. 

Leave granted. 

This Bill provides the added safeguard of 

ensuring that the support must reflect the 

wishes of electors spread throughout the state. 

A minimum of 2% of electors on the electoral 

roll in a majority of electoral districts is an 

essential to demonstrate a geographical spread. 

This ensures that only proposals with 

widespread community support throughout the 

State could qualify. Further, it ensures crosssection 

support, ensuring that the proposal is a 

genuine issue. It avoids "city versus country" 

arguments, and it should be mentioned that the 

required support to trigger a referendum is 

among the highest in the world. 

This Bill has been developed over a period of 

many years specifically for Australian 

Parliaments and it combines the best features of 

all the direct democracy systems in the world. 

The process is not at all new to this State. We 

had local option polls under the Liquor Acts, in 

which the people of the area were able, on 

consideration of all the issues, to determine 

what kind of environment they wished for their 

community. For example, the people of 

Buderim twice rejected a hotel, but welcomed 

the tavern which is still there and doing well. 

They were concerned justifiably also with 

reducing the death toll and accidents given the 

state of the roads up and down the mountain. 

The community was the clear winner through 

this very same kind of process. 

We also had similar provisions in the Local 

Government Act for complete enfranchisement 

of the electors by direct democracy from 1920. 

It is now time to restore that direct democracy 

back to the electors so that they can fully 

participate in the promotion of what they 

consider to be in the best interests of the whole 

of their community. 

The cost of a referendum held at the same time 

as a State election or a State referendum poll is 

minimal. The provision of 5% of electors is a 

"safety valve" which would enable the holding 

of a poll at an earlier time, if the concern were 

not sooner addressed by the Parliament. 

Approval requires the vote of a majority of 

electors of the State voting in favour of the 

legislative proposal, which will have already 

been thoroughly scrutinised by the Scrutiny of 

Legislation Committee, and subjected to any 

appropriate amendments. In addition, a majority 

of electors voting on the proposal in a majority 

of electoral districts is necessary for approval. 

Proposed legislation can become law only with 

the assent of the Governor, which presently 

depends on the advice of the Premier to assent 

to any Bill, and the passage of this Bill would 

not change that situation. If, however, the 

electors approved at referendum an amendment 

to the Constitution to require the Premier to 

recommend the giving of assent, that would be 

a different matter. 

The Bill will enable the community to address 

matters it considers important. Notwithstanding 

that the clear vote of the community is not 

formally binding on the Premier to advise 

assent, It would be a brave Government indeed 

to ignore a successful referendum. 

A local community referendum poll in New 

South Wales saw a council reposition a waste 

disposal facility which would have had the 

potential to contaminate the Darling and Murray 

Rivers with carcinogens all the way to the 

Adelaide water supply. The local votes were so 

decisive that the council repositioned the 

facility to a suitable location. The people were 

concerned not for themselves but for their 

fellow human beings, and this vote persuaded 

the council to do the right thing in repositioning 

the facility. This is a simple illustration of how 

minimum expenditure avoided irreversible harm, 

including the very real possibility of birth 

defects. It only happened because the people 

were able to exercise their "free and direct 

expression" on this matter that had been 

concerning them for years. Democracy saved 

the day, and in this instance the poll was held 

informally with the State election and did not 

cost the Government a cent! 

The proposal contained in this Bill has strong 

support of well-known Australians. These 

include Bryce Courtenay, Thomas Kenneally, 

Morris West, Colleen McCullough, Reg Murray, 

Kate Carnell, Cheryl Kernot, Peter Reith, and 

former Senators, Colin Mason and Michael 

Macklin. Russell Cooper declared his 

unequivocal support for the proposal, and is 

sure to honour his word. Ted Mack enjoyed the 

positive support of Frank Walker, former

310 Private Members' Statements 9 Mar 1999 

Attorney-General of New South Wales in the 

Federal Parliament, whose community backed 

him to represent them following his genuine 

support of direct democracy. What is important 

is that there is very strong widespread support 

for the principle and the process in the 

community, as well as from members of 

Parliament. Barry MacKinnon of Western 

Australia has also publicly stated his support. 

The principle of direct democracy was strongly 

espoused by Sir John Grey, then Prime 

Minister of New Zealand, but previously 

Governor of South Australia and of New 

Zealand. It was also strongly supported by Sir 

Isaac Isaacs, Mr Higgins, Mr Deakin and Dr 

Maloney who were prominent and far seeing 

democrats of the time. Alexander Fisher also 

supported it for inclusion in the Governor- 

General's speech. It is necessary to ensure that 

representative Government remains 

representative. 

The Italian people, through this process, broke 

the back of corruption that was so entrenched 

that one-third of the politicians went to jail for 

corruption. The trigger in Italy was 1. 1 % of the 

number of persons eligible to vote, and the 

vote in every electoral district was well over 

90% to get rid of the corrupt electoral laws 

which enabled the corruption of the Parliament. 

This process empowers ordinary people 

against those who can bring undue influence to 

members of Parliament. It ensures openness 

and accountability, and ensures that decisions 

have to be explained to the people. Surely this 

is overdue. 

It is asserted by some that sufficient community 

consultation is now occurring through Cabinets 

holding court at various places through the 

State. This is only token community 

consultation, and also costly. 

The process set out in this Bill will operate with 

less expense, and will ensure that real 

community concerns are presented from the 

real community. It is necessary to ensure that 

the community is not continually disadvantaged 

against professional and special interest lobby 

groups whose objects and goals are in many 

cases quite adverse to the views of the whole 

of the community of this State. Such activities 

are in no way a substitute for the people 

themselves being able to determine and 

address the issues - issues which might 

otherwise be missed. 

It is a fact that even the best of elected 

representatives get out of touch at times with 

the community that sent them to the Parliament. 

This accounts for the changes in electoral 

representation in this State at the last election - 

proof positive that the electors felt that their 

previous representatives were not sufficiently in 

tune with what the community wanted. 

The process set out in this Bill is entirely 

compatible with, and a valuable adjunct to, our 

system of representative democracy. There will 

be very many positive benefits. The electors 

will be able to exercise their democratic rights 

to determine what they want, as well as who 

they want to represent them in the Parliament. 

At present a good member of the Parliament 

could be rejected at the polls because of 

association with some issue. It will greatly 

enhance stability and confidence in the 

Parliament because as issues are resolved 

separately and with community confidence, 

good members will not have to be turned out of 

office on single issues. Further, the process of 

this Bill enables single issues to be dealt with 

and democratically addressed as single issues, 

without spilling over into unrelated areas. 

The Bill recognises democracy as an inalienable 

right of the people of Queensland. 

I commend the Bill to the support of the House, 

and also to the people of Queensland. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Foley, 

adjourned. 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' STATEMENTS 

Minister for Health 


(10.17 a.m.): Today, Health Minister Wendy 

Edmond stands condemned for her 

disgraceful and weak decision to remove the 

district manager, the director of medical 

services and the director of nursing at the 

Toowoomba Hospital. In common with many 

hospitals across the State, the Toowoomba 

Hospital is facing a massive $7m budget blowout 

this financial year. Instead of taking 

responsibility for the financial crisis that is 

gripping Queensland's public hospitals, the 

Health Minister has decided to make senior 

hospital staff the scapegoats for her gross 

incompetence. It is an absolute disgrace that 

dedicated senior hospital staff are now being 

sacrificed by the Health Department to prop up 

the most abysmal Health Minister this State 

has ever seen. 

Queensland now has a Health Minister 

who, in just six months, has almost doubled 

the long waits for semi-urgent elective surgery, 

a Health Minister who in the first quarter of this 

financial year could spend only $77m of the 

$621m Hospital Rebuilding Program budget, a 

Health Minister who, after inheriting the best 

public hospital system in Australia, has already 

put the State's hospitals $50m in the red, and 

the budget blow-out is continuing to grow. 

While the hospital budgets blow out and public 

hospitals continue to cut services and reduce 

surgery, this Minister looks around for 

someone else to blame. The buck stops with 

the Health Minister and it is about time that the 

Premier took action and appointed someone 

to the Health portfolio who is up to the job,

9 Mar 1999 Private Members' Statements 311 

because clearly this Minister is well and truly 

out of her depth. 

maintain the rage and continue to fight for 

justice for women and children. 

International Women's Day 

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) 

(10.19 a.m.): Yesterday was International 

Women's Day—a celebration in Australia of 70 

years of struggle to reach some level of 

equality. International Women's Day is also a 

day of reflection not only to applaud our past 

sisters for their stamina and courage but also 

to reflect on the continued atrocities to women 

that still occur in Australia and around the 

world. Although women in Australia have come 

a long way in achieving their goals, there is still 

a long way to go. If any message were to be 

received loudly and clearly from the Townsville 

women it would be that we should celebrate 

the solidarity and collective anger of women 

and be politically active in standing up against 

male cruelty and violence. 

The tragic death of Maria Giannikos was 

lamented by Dr Betty McLellan, who spoke for 

Maria. She stated that Maria was killed by her 

husband because she was a "bad, unfaithful, 

uncaring wife and mother", who goaded her 

"poor" husband into killing her. The daily 

media reports presented Maria's husband, 

Nick, as a "good upright citizen" who was 

hardworking and caring but whose patience 

was stretched beyond endurance by his 

faithless wife. Bad Maria, poor Nick. Nick was 

telling the story; Maria was dead. 

Nick was found not guilty of murder but 

guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter, for 

which he will serve three years in prison. 

Everyone spoke for Nick, both publicly and 

privately. Maria was rendered irrelevant and 

invisible. The psychiatrist, in his professional 

opinion, said that poor Nick—wait for it—was 

suffering from fragmentation. Is that not a 

pathetic defence for murder? As a mother, I 

constantly feel fragmented, but I do not kill 

anybody. 

What about the Victorian woman and her 

adult son who were charged with the murder of 

their husband and father? After 13 years of 

continued and horrific violence at the hands of 

her husband, Heather Osland and her son, 

David, killed Frank Osland after another 

particularly bad night of violence and abuse. 

David, who struck the blow which killed his 

father, was found not guilty—a just decision. 

Heather was found guilty of murder and is 

presently serving 14 and a half years in prison. 

On International Women's Day in 

Townsville women united in thinking of Maria 

and Heather and the thousands of women like 

them, and renewed their determination to 


Mr JOHNSON (Gregory—NPA) 

(10.21 a.m.): Before I rose to speak, the 

former Minister for Health asked me if I was 

going to speak about women's issues today. I 

have to say that I am intend to talk about one 

woman on the other side of the House 

today—the Health Minister, Wendy Edmond. 

This Minister has been very, very quick to open 

hospitals around rural and regional 

Queensland since becoming Minister, but in 

an unfinished state. 

A Government member interjected. 

Mr JOHNSON: I heard the interjection 

from the other side of the House. Under the 

administrations of the Premier and the Deputy 

Premier—former Health Ministers—money was 

rolled over for six years. It was under Health 

Minister Horan that we saw hospitals built in 

rural and regional Queensland. I will table for 

the information of the House photos of the 

Emerald Hospital in an incomplete state. That 

hospital was opened on 11 February this year 

by the incompetent Health Minister. She 

opened the Barcaldine Hospital on 1 February, 

and the same thing is applicable to Moranbah 

and Clermont in the electorate of the 

honourable member for Charters Towers. The 

one thing I do want to say here today is that in 

December last year—— 

Mrs Edmond interjected. 

Mr JOHNSON: Just sit back and listen, 

you. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! 

Mr JOHNSON: I will withdraw that, Mr 

Speaker, because I only have half a minute. In 

December last year we nearly had a fatality at 

the Emerald Hospital because nitrous oxide 

was put through the pipes instead of oxygen, 

and you know the situation there—a 

deregistered plumber—— 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will 

refer to the Minister as "the Honourable 

Minister". 

Mr JOHNSON: The Honourable Minister, I 

am sorry, Mr Speaker. I will just quote from the 

Minister's letter in reply to my letter. This is 

from Wendy Edmond. It states— 

"I am aware of the circumstances 

that occurred concerning Mrs Pritchard's 

operation. As a result I have taken action 

to ensure that the appropriate regulatory 

bodies are reviewing their legislation to 

ensure that all work undertaken in

312 Private Members' Statements 9 Mar 1999 

connection with medical gas supplies is 

performed at the highest safety levels." 

I table these three letters to show how 

incompetent the Minister is. 

Time expired. 

Clean Up Australia Day 

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) 

(10.23 a.m.): I take this opportunity to 

congratulate the organising committees for 

Clean Up Australia Day, which was held last 

Sunday, 6 March. I also thank the many 

volunteers who turned up all over Queensland 

to join with thousands of other Australians in 

cleaning up our parks, streets and waterways. 

This year I participated for the fifth time and 

assisted a willing band of workers at Nudgee 

Beach, which is adjacent to the Boondall 

Wetlands. 

Clean Up Australia Day is a unique event. 

It is probably unparalleled in the world and it 

should receive our continued and increasing 

support. This year marked the 10th 

anniversary of the event, which was originated 

by Ian Kiernan, who highlighted the need for a 

coordinated strategy to clean up the 

environment in which we live. It is timely, 

therefore, to make some comment about 

Clean Up Australia Day which I hope will be 

taken as a constructive criticism and in an 

endeavour to involve more Queenslanders in 

the annual clean-up. 

While it might have been a pleasant 21 

degrees in Melbourne last Sunday, throughout 

Queensland it was a sweltering 30 degrees 

plus up and down the coast, and in the mid 

thirties in our inland centres. Calling on 

volunteers to toil in the sun in such 

temperatures is a big ask, particularly given our 

campaign to limit exposure to the sun during 

the hotter months. It is time for the national 

organising committee for the Clean Up 

Australia campaign to reconsider the timing of 

this great event. I suggest that the event be 

moved to at least the end of March or another 

month when the temperatures in Queensland 

would be much milder. Queenslanders have 

rallied behind this event since its inception. A 

cooler time of the year would hopefully 

encourage more people to volunteer their time 

and effort to clean up this wonderful country of 

ours. 

Queensland Health 

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP) 

(10.24 a.m.): It has come to my attention that 

certain employees of Queensland Health are 

being threatened and intimidated by being told 

that they are not to discuss any issues 

pertaining to public health with their elected 

representatives. This overbearing practice is 

particularly prevalent on the Sunshine Coast. 

It has got to the stage where health 

workers employed in our hospitals and in the 

community, regardless of their professional 

standard, are fearful of losing their jobs if they 

seek to speak to their member of Parliament 

regarding legitimate concerns they have 

regarding the provision of adequate health 

services, the provision of adequate 

infrastructure and the timeliness of service 

provision. Evidently, the Health Minister, 

Wendy Edmond, has issued a directive to her 

regional managers that, should any 

employees exercise their democratic right and 

speak to their elected representatives, they 

face losing their job. I was unaware until 

recently that we were living in what can only be 

described as a Nazi State. 

When I have questioned this overriding 

practice I have been referred to the code of 

conduct for Queensland Health effective 11 

November 1998. I have perused this 

document in detail and it would be drawing a 

very longbow to suggest that any of the 

principles outlined therein would support this 

action. I understand union officials and their 

membership in public health are similarly being 

threatened and intimidated, and I refer to the 

Sunshine Coast District Health Service report 

of January 1999 signed by Philip Cleaton, 

District Manager, on 4 February 1999, in which 

he says that he has ensured that the newly 

released code of conduct is understood clearly 

by AWU members. 

This code is in line with the Public Sector 

Ethics Act of 1993. It is not intended to be 

used as an instrument of intimidation. 

Perusing the contents, I find that there is no 

mention of restrictive access to members of 

Parliament, although at page 8, under 

principle 3 Integrity, item 7 states that— 

"Employees should observe official 

protocols when communicating with 

members of Parliament." 

I ask the Minister: what is an official protocol? 

Does that mean that one does not go and see 

a member of Parliament? 

I also draw attention to page 7 under 

principle 3 Integrity, item 3, which says— 

"When disclosing official information 

employees must ensure lawful authority." 

Is this an item which may be used to control 

employees? 

Time expired.

9 Mar 1999 Questions Without Notice 313 

Police Beat Shopfront, Garden City 

Mr REEVES (Mansfield—ALP) 

(10.27 a.m.): Prior to the election last year, the 

Labor Party and I campaigned strongly on 

community policing. To be effective in crime 

prevention and management, we must put 

police on the beat where the people are. While 

we did not specifically promise it in the election 

campaign, I am proud to say that the first 

Police Beat shopfront opened under the 

Beattie Government has been opened in 

Garden City in my electorate. 

With over 200,000 people using Garden 

City per week, it makes sense to put our police 

where the people are. Here is an example of 

our Labor Government delivering on our 

election commitments. Just after being elected 

in June last year, I was approached by the 

Garden City management, AMP, to investigate 

the possibility of having a Police Beat 

shopfront in its centre. All past attempts to talk 

to the previous member for Mansfield 

regarding the possibility of having a Police 

Beat shopfront appeared to fall on deaf ears. 

The previous member continued the line of the 

then Police Minister, Russell Cooper, the 

member for Crows Nest, to only pay lip-service 

on community policing and not be fair dinkum 

about the matter. 

So I am pleased to informed the House 

that, while the previous Government put 

community policing on the backburner, Police 

Minister Barton has put it at the forefront in the 

tackling of crime. I believe that having greater 

police presence and visibility will have a 

positive effect on the crime rate, and that is 

why I have worked hard and lobbied the Police 

Minister to ensure that Garden City gets this 

shopfront. 

It is interesting to note that Garden City 

was the very first shopping centre to have a 

Police Beat shopfront back when the Goss 

Labor Government introduced them. That was 

obviously a mobile shopfront which went from 

shopping centre to shopping centre, but it was 

launched initially at Garden City. So I am 

proud to say that now a permanent shopfront 

is situated at Garden City. Having the police 

shopfront where the community shops and 

socialises and from which they commute 

breaks down many of the barriers that people 

have of feeling uncomfortable if they need 

assistance or advice. This initiative is 

particularly helpful to local business owners 

worried about security in their shops. 

I am pleased to work with organisations 

such as AMP which do not just look at what it 

costs but how they can assist the community. 

I want to thank the Police Minister, Tom 

Barton, not only for recognising the need for 

such a police shopfront at Garden City but also 

for what he is doing for community policing 

throughout the length and breadth of this 

State. The Police Minister is delivering on the 

commitment that we would put community 

policing at the forefront in the tackling of crime. 

Time expired. 

Drug Abuse 

Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh—NPA) 

(10.29 a.m.): A national heroin trial is not the 

solution to the ever-increasing problem of drug 

abuse in this country. A heroin trial will not 

assist heroin addicts to kick the habit. Instead, 

it will guarantee that participants will remain as 

heroin addicts. The New York experiment with 

zero tolerance certainly worked for that city, 

although more work needs to be done to see if 

it will work in Australia. Zero tolerance will get 

drug dealers out of concentrated problem 

areas, but may shift the problem to other 

localities. As much of our drug dealing culture 

is imported from overseas, it would be better to 

aim any zero tolerance problem to shifting that 

culture offshore and out of this country. 

Drug courts are a step in the right 

direction, provided proper rehabilitation 

programs are adequately funded, and this 

should be a whole-of-Government initiative, 

not just a bit of a bite out of the limited 

budgets of Health or Corrective Services. The 

State Government needs to fund more antidrug 

and substance-free rehabilitation 

agencies, such as Mirikai, the Gold Coast Drug 

Council's establishment at West Burleigh. 

Mirikai provides residential and outreach 

programs for people who want to kick the drug 

habit and who want to turn their lives around 

from drug dependency and its attendant 

health and social problems. 

Time expired. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for Private 

Members' Statements has expired. 

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 

Toowoomba Hospital 

Miss SIMPSON (10.30 a.m.): I refer the 

Minister for Health to her decision to sack the 

district manager, director of medical services 

and director of nursing at Toowoomba Hospital 

due to the hospital's projected budget blow-out 

of more than $7m. Given that Royal Brisbane 

Hospital is now $14m over budget, Redcliffe 

and Caboolture Hospitals are $2m over 

budget, Nambour Hospital is $2.5m over

314 Questions Without Notice 9 Mar 1999 

budget, the Prince Charles Hospital is $1.8m 

over budget and Bundaberg Base Hospital is 

$1m over budget, will the Minister guarantee 

senior staff at those hospitals that they will not 

be sacked to hide her gross incompetence as 

Health Minister? 

Mrs EDMOND: I thank the member for 

the question. I was waiting for this question 

last week so that I could lay the ground rules 

for what is happening in Toowoomba, but she 

would not ask it; she was not game. The 

reason she was not game to ask this question 

last week is that she knows the facts, because 

they were all in the Estimates papers and the 

changeover briefs she has as part of the 

freedom of information process of this 

Government. The member for Maroochydore 

well knows the issue and the problem. We 

inherited a diabolical budget. Why? It was 

because of the incompetence and the coverup 

of the member for Toowoomba South. 

What did he do? He ran around this State 

saying, "The budget's great. There are no 

budget overruns. We only have negative 

carryovers." That is what we had. We had 

negative carryovers! 

Miss SIMPSON: Mr Speaker, I rise to a 

point of order. Is the Health Minister saying 

that her own Estimates budget papers were in 

fact incorrect when they said that the budget 

was balanced? 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of 

order. 

Mrs EDMOND: There is no point of order, 

because it was all listed in the Estimates 

papers. I said at the time of the Estimates that 

we had this problem with the budget largely 

because of the unfunded enterprise bargain 

that was brought in—$27m of unfunded EB 

that hospitals had to find out of savings when 

the coalition had already ripped out $125m in 

the previous two years in compulsory savings. 

While the coalition tried to hide it until after the 

election, it was there, and it is in the Estimates 

papers. If the member for Maroochydore had 

listened during the Estimates hearings she 

would know that I highlighted it about 25 

times. But she is so silly that she did not listen. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will 

withdraw that comment. 

Mrs EDMOND: I withdraw. We do have a 

problem across this State with budgets 

because of that. Toowoomba was an 

exception because Toowoomba was given a 

carte blanche and told that it did not matter, 

that it could build a Taj Mahal but not look 

after the patients' airconditioning. It could build 

fancy private specialty suites but not look after 

the patients. The patients came last in 

Toowoomba. It does not matter that there has 

been significant support put into Toowoomba 

Hospital; there has been no progress. 

This Government has a responsibility to 

ensure that health funds are well spent. I will 

do that. I will take the hard decisions when 

they need to be taken. Every hospital 

management in this State gets support. We 

have given incredible support to all of them, 

including Toowoomba, over the past eight 

months, but the time has come when, for the 

sake of every other hospital in Queensland, 

changes have to be made at Toowoomba. I 

am quite confident that the new team going in 

there will do a lot to improve services. I am 

also committed to the fact that patient services 

are not going to suffer, and nor are the staff. 

Time expired. 

Roma Street Goods Yard Redevelopment 

Mr SULLIVAN: I refer the Premier to the 

Beattie Government's promise to redevelop 

the Roma Street goods yard, and I ask: will the 

Premier inform the House of the timetable for 

this major project? 

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the honourable 

member for Chermside for his question. Like 

me, he is interested in driving jobs and seeing 

a great future for the capital of this State. 

This is one of the most exciting 

developments in Brisbane. It is part of our 

strategy to put Brisbane on the international 

map. There is a joint task force of the State 

Government and the Brisbane City Council 

which is to have the first and major stage of 

the redevelopment of Roma Street ready prior 

to the Goodwill Games in 2001. As we know, 

the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing is 

pursuing the Goodwill Games in an energetic 

way that, again, will help to put this city and 

this State on the world map. 

We are seeking not only to make Roma 

Street the lungs of the city but also to make 

certain that, with the light rail system, the 

redevelopment of the South Bank site and all 

those sorts of activities in conjunction with the 

Roma Street site, we will end up with a city that 

will enable promotion of the whole of the 

State. 

We know that when the Goodwill Games 

are held there will be a focus on Brisbane and 

on Queensland. That is why the light rail 

project, which is under way from the Minister 

for Transport, is such an important part of that 

strategy, as is the development of South Bank 

and the pedestrian bridge across the Brisbane 

River. All of those will provide the opportunity


to highlight the leisure and the lifestyle of 

Brisbane. 

When we think of some cities of Australia 

and about how they are positioned overseas, 

we realise that Sydney has the advantage of 

the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour 

Bridge. We need to present Brisbane as the 

gateway to Queensland, in many respects. 

The way to do that is to highlight our lifestyle, 

to highlight our openness. That is why the 

redevelopment at Roma Street is so important. 

There is a very strong partnership 

between my Government and the Brisbane 

City Council. That partnership will continue and 

it will bring the redevelopment of Roma Street 

to fruition. As I said, it will be the lungs of the 

city. 

Nambour Hospital 

Dr WATSON: I refer the Minister for 

Health to the financial report for January 1999 

of the Sunshine Coast Health Service, which I 

will table. It shows that Nambour Hospital is 

$2.5m over budget. Taking account of the 

Minister's answer to the question asked by the 

member for Maroochydore, that is nearly $1m 

over any rollovers included in her budget. I 

also remind the Minister of Labor's promise to 

create jobs, jobs, jobs, which the Premier has 

just reiterated. I ask: is it a fact that the 

Minister has taken a decision to deliberately 

leave 25 nursing and administration jobs at 

Nambour Hospital unfilled in order to try to 

fund the hospital's budget blow-out? 

Mrs EDMOND: I do not involve myself in 

the day-to-day running of the hospital, so I do 

not know what positions are unfilled. What I do 

know is that we are employing extra nurses, 

extra social workers and extra health workers 

across the State. 

Mr Cooper interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member for 

Crows Nest will cease interjecting. 

Mrs EDMOND: Our budget included 

sufficient increases to create something in the 

order of 900 new jobs across the State. While I 

do not have the specifics of Nambour, I do 

know that across the State we are employing 

more nurses, employing more doctors and 

providing more services. 

Opposition members interjected. 

Mrs EDMOND: Those opposite should 

calm down. Let us just look at the situation 

under the previous Government. In the May 

Budget the coalition promised $2m across the 

entire State as the increase in hospitals' 

recurrent budgets. We increased that to $63m. 

Also, the coalition was going to take back 

$2.5m last year and $25m next year with 

Horan's hospital tax. Where was that going to 

come from? What do those opposite think that 

was going to do to the employment of nurses 

in this State? Every backbencher on the other 

side should know that every hospital budget 

which involved hospital building would be 

losing a minimum of $2m. The Royal Brisbane 

would lose $25m in recurrent funding—each 

and every year—to pay for Horan's picture in 

the paper. It was about Horan's health tax to 

pay for his picture in the paper. 

We have also heard this nonsense about 

only $77m being spent in capital works. It 

really makes me despair. I agree with John 

Howard that there is an urgent need for 

numeracy skills in the Opposition. 

Unfortunately, it cannot be backdated. Those 

opposite are looking at one small thing, such 

as contracts signed. They ignore the fact that 

there are many works under way. We are not 

signing new contracts, because we signed 

huge ones just a month before. That was for 

one quarter of the year. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

The Capital Works Program is up and running 

and will be fully expended—not $77m. In 

January, $288m was expended, which was 

about twice the figure expended in the 

previous year. We are in a much better 

position to spend all of that funding. We are 

creating jobs across the length and breadth of 

Queensland. We are also providing extra 

health services across the length and breadth 

of Queensland—not just in the Tory 

electorates, as occurred before, but from 

Coolangatta to the cape. 

Leaders Forum on Drugs 

Mr PURCELL: I refer the Premier to the 

Leaders Forum on Drugs held in Melbourne 

last Friday and the announcement that the 

Government is planning to run special 

treatment trials involving buprenorphine and 

naltrexone for heroin addicts, and I ask: why is 

the Government taking this action? 

Mr BEATTIE: I appreciate the question 

from the member for Bulimba, and I thank 

him. There has been a great deal of debate in 

this country about heroin trials. At the Leaders 

Forum on Friday, which was a very bipartisan 

forum in which all Premiers sought to come up 

with solutions to this very difficult problem, the 

Victorian Government and the ACT 

Government indicated that they wanted to 

continue with heroin trials. I signalled at that 

meeting that what was important in all this was 

that there was some comparative clinical


analysis, or some clinical comparison, between 

how the heroin trials would go, and their likely 

success, compared with trials of other drugs. 

As we know, buprenorphine and 

naltrexone are drugs designed to get people 

off heroin. They are designed to break the 

heroin cycle. So their purpose is totally 

different from the heroin trials, which I have 

indicated that I do not support and the 

Government does not support. My view was 

that if the Victorian Government and the ACT 

Government want to go ahead with heroin 

trials, that is entirely a matter for them. 

However, having said that, if they are going to 

go ahead with them, then in a clinical sense 

and at the same time we need to do trials of 

buprenorphine and naltrexone. 

I had a discussion with Professor David 

Pennington when I was in Melbourne in 

relation to how buprenorphine and naltrexone 

could be trialled in conjunction with each other 

to get people off heroin and to break the 

heroin cycle. So what we are seeking to do, in 

a nutshell, is to have parallel trials at the same 

time but obviously in different States. In 

Queensland we would be trialling 

buprenorphine in conjunction with naltrexone, 

but we would be using the same number of 

people who were being used in, say, Victoria 

or the ACT, and the same number of support 

services would be available. 

Often, it is not just the drug, it is the 

number of support services that go with the 

drug that can get people off heroin to begin 

with. There needs to be a determination in 

these clinical trials as to whether it is the 

drug—whether it be buprenorphine or 

naltrexone—that is getting people off heroin, 

or the support services that go with it that are 

helping people to get off heroin. So all these 

tests need to be done. As I said, this 

argument has raged for some time about 

whether we go down the road of heroin trials or 

whether we go down the road of 

buprenorphine and naltrexone. We need to 

have a clinical test to determine which is the 

best way to go. In a nutshell, that is what we 

are seeking to do. 

One of the other things that came out of 

the meeting on Friday—and I have tabled the 

full details for the House—was a national 

approach to assessing the causes of social 

breakdown resulting in drug use, suicide and 

depression. I mention that because we really 

have to get to the causes of drug abuse, as 

well. One of the biggest problems confronting 

Australia at the moment is depression. As we 

all know, about one in five people suffer from 

some form of mental disease during their life. 

Depression is becoming a lot more prevalent in 

the community, and we need to find out why. 

Mental Health Services 

Mr BEANLAND: I refer the Minister for 

Health to the case last month of a Brisbane 

man who threatened to kill his wife and then 

attempted to take his own life. I also refer to 

the fact that doctors could not place this 

particular patient into a mental health bed in 

Brisbane for more than a week, and I ask: 

given the danger that this man was to himself, 

other patients and staff, does the Minister 

believe that it was acceptable that there was 

no mental health bed available in Brisbane? 

And secondly: is it not true that the lack of 

mental health beds highlights her gross 

mismanagement of the State's public 

hospitals, which has resulted in budget blowouts 

and cuts to patient services? 

Mrs EDMOND: I do not discuss individual 

patient histories if I can help it. However, I can 

say that this Government has done more for 

mental health services in the past six months, 

and before the change of Government in 

1996, than the coalition opposite. 

Some of us actually remember Ward 10B. 

Some of us actually remember what conditions 

were like for mental health patients in Ward 

10B and other institutions around this State. 

Some of us remember the Burdekin report and 

the recommendations that came out of it. That 

is why, in our pre-election commitments and in 

our Budget last year, we committed the 

biggest increase to mental health funding that 

this State has ever seen: $29m worth of extra 

services. 

Mr Speaker, you were one of the people 

who approached me about the desperate lack 

of mental health services in Redcliffe. As you 

know, we are addressing that. But that $29m 

is being used. We advertised across 

Queensland, across Australia and 

internationally for an extra 200 mental health 

staff to work in the community, in the hospitals, 

etc. That is something that was desperately 

needed. 

Miss Simpson: There are no beds in 

Brisbane. 

Mrs EDMOND: Members opposite say, 

"No beds". Nothing has changed in the beds 

situation since they were in Government. We 

have opened new mental health beds, yes. In 

fact, I actually have information on that. The 

fact is that there have been only a very, very 

small number of occasions when beds have 

not been made available. Four emergency 

mental health beds are kept for emergencies,


if they are needed. According to the mental 

health services, only about twice in the last six 

months have those beds actually been 

needed to be used. 

We have seen a huge increase—and 

there will be a continuing huge increase—in 

community mental health services, because 

most people are better off in their 

communities, in their homes, with the services. 

But instead of going around trying to whip up 

fear and loathing of mental health patients, 

members opposite should be recognising the 

fact that something like one in five people will 

suffer from a mental illness during their 

lifetimes. Most of those people are better off 

being treated at home with the support that 

they need, and that is what we are providing. 

There is no indication of a shortage of mental 

health beds in south-east Queensland. We are 

providing more than there ever have been. 

Official Party Status for One Nation 

Mr WILSON: I refer the Premier to a 

report in today's edition of the Australian 

newspaper in which it is claimed that former 

One Nation members considered an alliance 

with their former colleagues to qualify for 

official party status and, therefore, get extra 

taxpayer funded resources, and I ask: will the 

Premier inform the House whether he was 

aware of this reported conspiracy? 

Mr BEATTIE: I was not aware of the 

document that has been reported very widely 

in today's Australian newspaper under the 

heading "Rebels reject a return to the fold", 

which says— 

"Former One Nation Queensland 

MPs considered forming an alliance with 

their old colleagues, 'with just enough 

agreed common ground' to qualify for 

party status and to claim extra taxpayerfunded 

resources, according to a 

confidential briefing document obtained 

by The Australian." 

It goes on— 

"The document, prepared by an 

adviser to former One Nation deputy 

leader Dorothy Pratt, was used to brief the 

five new Independents late last week as 

they prepared to lobby Premier Peter 

Beattie for funding." 

According to the article, the document was 

prepared by Ms Pratt's adviser, Bruce Bell, and 

marked "strictly confidential". It says some of 

these things— 

"Option Three 

We have (hopefully all) five 'new 

independents' join with Bill Feldman's 

crew on a limited, strictly agreed basis. 

Get this very clear"— 

and I am quoting— 

"Limited, strictly agreed. Just enough 

agreed common ground to qualify for 

'Party' status and the more than forty 

thousand dollars in extra funding, to be 

used to fight what those who elected you 

wanted you to fight—the unrepresentative 

swill who are the old established parties." 

I have to say that I am appalled by this 

document. I am appalled by the suggestion 

that people would get together to conspire to 

obtain public funds in this way. Talking about 

entitlements, another part of the overview says 

this— 

"The manual is a big fat book full of 

goodies and blank cheques with which to 

procure them. You can have whatever 

you want"—— 

Mrs Pratt: I rise to a point of order. I find 

that whole document totally offensive and ask 

that the Premier withdraw it. 


order. 

Mr BEATTIE: I totally agree with the 

honourable member. I find it absolutely 

offensive. I have referred to an article which 

appeared in the Australian, which I table in the 

House for the benefit of those who have not 

read it. These are not my words; they are the 

words reported in the Australian from a report 

prepared, supposedly, for the honourable 

member. 

This afternoon I am meeting Mr Bill 

Feldman, the leader of One Nation, about 

these issues. My ancestors came from 

Scotland in 1884 and I have a very strong 

tradition of Scottishness in me. Let me tell this 

House that there will be not one cent of 

taxpayers' money wasted on any attempt to 

get money from the taxpayer under what I 

believe are false pretences. It will not happen 

because taxpayers' money should be used to 

look after people and provide services. I 

believe those Independents should be 

explaining to the people of Queensland 

exactly what this document was designed to 

achieve and why they were putting it in this 

way. 

Royal Women's Hospital 

Mrs GAMIN: In directing my question to 

the Minister for Health, I refer her to the case


of a Brisbane woman who last month suffered 

the grief of losing her baby. I also refer the 

Minister to the fact that this particular patient 

was forced to endure five hours of bleeding 

and severe pain at the Royal Women's 

Hospital while waiting for a medical specialist to 

remove the placenta. The woman and her 

husband were informed by hospital staff that 

the five-hour wait was due to cuts in the 

number of doctors and nurses working at the 

hospital. I ask the Minister: will you now admit 

that the financial crisis gripping Queensland's 

public hospitals is severely affecting patient 

care? 

Mrs EDMOND: Again, I do not deal with 

individual patient histories in this place—or at 

least I do so very rarely. However, there is one 

case that I will talk about that involved the 

Gold Coast Hospital. There has been a similar 

claim that a lack of funding led to some poor 

unfortunate chap waiting for 28 hours to 

undergo surgery to his badly cut right arm. We 

had the member for Maroochydore and the 

so-called president of the AMA on the Gold 

Coast running around and saying on radio and 

TV, "This is outrageous. This poor man had to 

wait." 

Why did he have to wait? Well, there was 

a very good clinical reason why he had to wait. 

It is totally dangerous and it is totally counterproductive 

and risky to operate on someone 

who is inebriated. The hospital staff had to wait 

until some of the fumes evaporated. As I said, 

I do not often do this, but—— 

Mrs GAMIN: I rise to a point of order. My 

question did not refer to that patient; it referred 

to a woman who had lost her baby. She was 

not drunk. 


order. 

Mrs EDMOND: All of us here would be 

very sympathetic to the loss of a baby. I 

cannot comment on the circumstances 

surrounding that case. It is always a tragedy to 

lose a baby. It is also a tragedy to see people 

trawling over such a tragic event to score 

cheap political points. Over the weekend there 

were attempts to score cheap political points. 

There were suggestions that three children 

who had come to the hospital in need of 

urgent orthopaedic surgery as a result of 

accidents should have had their treatment 

postponed so that staff could operate on this 

patient. This man would have been put at risk. 

We have the member for Maroochydore 

making clinical decisions about who should be 

operated on and what the priorities should be. 

Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. 

The Health Minister is wrong and offensive. I 

ask that those wrong and offensive comments 

be withdrawn. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has 

asked that the Minister withdraw those 

comments. 

Mrs EDMOND: I withdraw whatever she 

wants. However, let me clearly say that she 

has been trying to make clinical decisions on 

behalf of the hospital over which patients 

should receive priority. In this case she has 

suggested that hospital staff should have 

operated on an inebriated patient even though 

it would have put him at risk. 

Miss SIMPSON: I rise to a point of order. 

I have at no time said that. That is wrong and 

offensive. The Health Minister is out of touch 

and out of her depth. 

International Trade Outlook 

Mrs LAVARCH: I ask the Minister for 

State Development and Minister for Trade: can 

he advise of the recent performance of 

Queensland business in international trade 

and any outlook for the future? 

Mr ELDER: I can, actually. As members 

would be aware, Queensland and Australia as 

a whole are facing a very hostile international 

environment, one described by the Federal 

Treasurer, Peter Costello, as the worst since 

the Second World War. Of course, one of the 

greatest problems concerns our trading 

partners in South-East Asia. Our concern—and 

I would like to think the concern of all members 

of this House—should be on how these 

problems will impact on our export 

performance. 

In the first six months of this financial 

year—July to December 1998—Queensland's 

exports totalled $8.67 billion, compared with 

$8.4 billion over the equivalent period of the 

previous year. That represents an increase of 

3.2% over the previous year, which reflects 

very favourably on the efforts of our exporters. 

I must inform the House, however, that 

forecasts by both the Federal Government and 

my own Department of State Development 

show that we are in for a tough time. I quote 

from the Federal Government's report on trade 

outlooks— 

"The present international economic 

problems, which originated in east Asia, 

rank with the oil price rises of the 1970s 

as the most significant external shock 

Australia has experienced since the 

Second World War—this has major 

implications for Australia's trade and 

economic interests."


In January this year our exports were 

down some 6% on those of last January. 

However, even though our exports were down, 

they grew in value by just under 1%. I would 

like to point out that Queensland is not facing 

this situation alone. It is a situation that is 

reflected in every State's trade performance. 

Australia registered a record trade deficit in 

January when our national exports dropped by 

5%. 

Queensland increased its exports 

marginally while New South Wales dropped by 

some 10% in the same period, Victoria by 5% 

and South Australia by just under 2%. We 

have an unfavourable outlook for our 

commodity prices, given that we are a State of 

price takers in the commodity area. A good 

example of that is coal. We started the 

financial year in a strong position but, given 

the newly negotiated prices on thermal and 

export coal, I suspect we will see a drop with 

respect to that commodity. 

I believe we can hold this slight increase 

in performance that we saw this year. The 

Government is responding to this concern. I 

have commenced a complete review of our 

trade operations to make sure that we have a 

very sharp focus, particularly at this end, on 

where we trade and how we trade. We have 

set up Asia Link to assist Queensland 

companies in their trade relationships, 

particularly in Asia. As we know, Asia is going 

through a difficult period. We are looking at 

new trade operations and we are also 

diversifying our trading patterns in the Middle 

East, South Africa, South America and India. 

As I said, we have seen an increase of 3.2%. 

We will make every effort to keep ahead and 

ensure that we maintain that lead. 

Nambour General Hospital 

Mrs SHELDON: In directing a question to 

the Minister for Health, I refer to a report from 

the manager of the Sunshine Coast District 

Health Service of January 1999 which states— 

"Action aimed at reining in the 

increasing over budget result has been 

approved by the Office of the Director 

General and the Minister's Office. These 

include the closure of beds at Nambour 

General Hospital and a range of other 

actions." 

The report further states— 

"Basically, the problem has arisen 

due to a reduced budget in real terms in 

1998/99." 

I now ask: will the Minister now admit that she 

sanctioned the closure of 36 beds at Nambour 

Hospital? Will she also inform the House how 

many of those beds are still currently closed? 

Can she detail exactly when all the beds at 

Nambour Hospital will be fully operational? 

Mrs EDMOND: Once again, can I say that 

I leave operational matters to the people who 

are paid to manage hospitals. Can I also say 

that Nambour Hospital has not had a reduced 

budget. Not only that, every single district in 

Queensland—all 39 of them—received an 

increased budget under our Government; they 

would not have got that under the coalition 

Government. 

Mr Elder: Look at the member for 

Caloundra's last Budget. 

Mrs EDMOND: Yes, the member for 

Caloundra brought down and approved a 

Budget that would have given an extra $2m to 

that hospital's recurrent spending. The fact is 

that we gave Nambour Hospital more than 

$2m—not all of Queensland's hospitals, but 

Nambour Hospital—which was $2m more than 

what was in the May Budget that the member 

for Caloundra approved. 

Mr Hamill: And she was going to take it 

away again. 

Mrs EDMOND: The member was going to 

take it away again with the Horan health tax 

that we were going to have. Of course, when 

the Nambour Hospital was rebuilt, that would 

have been a further impact from the Horan 

health tax to pay for the media pickies. That is 

what we had under the coalition. 

Hospitals are always under pressure, 

particularly when we have seen significant 

drops in private health cover, which the Prime 

Minister's $1.5 billion seems not to have done 

anything about. At this time, I place on record 

something that really worries me, because it 

keeps being repeated by those opposite. Any 

moves in the cost of private health cover will 

not help in the slightest anyone who is on a 

waiting list. Anyone who is on a waiting list has 

a pre-existing illness. Even if people join a 

health fund tomorrow with the rebate, they will 

have to wait more than a year before they can 

have their surgery. I hear people opposite 

saying, "The Prime Minister has solved the 

waiting list problem by the private health cover 

slush fund", but it will not do one thing. 

In the meantime, we are providing more 

services in Nambour and more operations. In 

the past six months, we have done 4,000 

more operations than the previous 

Government did. 

Mr Horan: More social workers and close 

the beds.


Mrs EDMOND: We have provided an 

extra range of community health services. I am 

pleased that the member for Toowoomba 

South has indicated that, because we are very 

proud of all of the extra mental health 

community workers that we have on the 

Sunshine Coast and across-the-board. 

We have heard it all again about how 

there were no beds closed. However, the 

Premier and I were in Nambour and 

photographed the beds that were supposedly 

not closed under the previous Government. 

We photographed them; we took the TV in 

there, and the member for Toowoomba South 

was shown to be the hypocrite he is. 

Time expired. 

Goods and Services Tax 

Mr PITT: I draw the Treasurer's attention 

to media reports this morning that Queensland 

is refusing to sign off on the Federal 

Government's proposed tax reform package, 

and I ask: what is Queensland's position on 

the GST ahead of next month's Premiers 

Conference? 

Mr HAMILL: Queensland's position on the 

GST ahead of next month's Premiers 

Conference is the same position we had last 

year, the year before that and the year before 

that. We recognise that a GST will be only 

detrimental to Queensland's service-based 

economy. The economic modelling that has 

been presented to the Senate inquiry 

demonstrates the negative impact on jobs the 

GST will have. 

However, the substantive issue is whether 

Queensland is prepared to accept the patently 

unfair proposals of the Federal Government in 

distributing revenue which it wishes to raise 

through the imposition of a goods and services 

tax. That was the issue for us at the Premiers 

Conference last year when, after lengthy 

discussion, the Prime Minister and the Federal 

Treasurer, Mr Costello, sought to have State 

Premiers and Chief Ministers sign off on a 

heads of agreement. 

At that time, we made it clear that not 

only we did not support the GST but also we 

could not support an arrangement whereby 

Queensland taxpayers would face increased 

taxes and Queenslanders would not receive 

their fair share of the GST revenue that was 

being generated. In case anyone has 

forgotten, the magnitude of that figure was 

$465m, which is a very considerable sum of 

money indeed to our State Budget, even if it is 

not such a considerable sum to the 

Commonwealth. 

So we have continued to press our case 

on behalf of Queenslanders—Queenslanders 

who are being asked to pay 25% more tax 

under the GST than they do now. Taxpayers in 

Queensland are being asked to subsidise the 

removal of financial institutions duty and bed 

tax in New South Wales and Victoria and other 

States—taxes that we do not have now. We 

will continue to press this case and we will 

press it in every forum available to us, whether 

it is the Premiers Conference or whether it is 

before the Senate inquiry, because our 

position has not changed. While we do not 

support the GST, we certainly will not sign an 

agreement—any agreement—that robs 

Queensland of its fair share. 

The Commonwealth Government has 

said that the GST revenue pool should be 

distributed according to a Grants Commission 

formula. If that is the way that it should apply, 

then it should apply according to that formula 

from day one. Queensland should not be 

quarantined for three years and be denied our 

fair share of a revenue pool to which, after all, 

Queenslanders have been asked to make a 

considerable contribution. 

Premier's Department 

Mr BORBIDGE: I refer the Premier to the 

growing crisis in Queensland hospitals under 

his Government, including cost overruns and 

insufficient resources, and I ask: why did it cost 

Queenslanders $8.6m more—an increase of 

70%—to run his department for the 

September quarter of this financial year? Why 

is the Premier's Department soaking up $8.6m 

more that could be allocated to hospitals and 

other core services in this State? 

Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the 

Opposition for his question. I guess I kept too 

many of those people such as Wendy 

Armstrong and Greg Goebel—all of those sorts 

of people—who, had the Leader of the 

Opposition been the incoming Premier and 

they had been Labor equivalents, would have 

been sacked. 

My department is run very efficiently. This 

morning, we have seen from the National and 

the Liberal Parties—and it is interesting to note 

that the Leader of the Opposition has asked 

his question towards the end of question 

time—an attempt to try to turn health into a 

political plus. Why are they doing this? For two 

reasons: one, they are trying to cover up their 

incompetence in the time that they were in 

office. 

An Opposition member: What a memory. 

Mr Schwarten: Well remembered.


Mr BEATTIE: Exactly. We have got to 

remember that we have been in office for just 

over eight months now. The Budget problems 

that we inherited from the previous 

Government are significant. 

While we are talking about money, since 

the Leader of the Opposition has raised it, I 

am happy to advise the House that the 

transition to Government costs between the 

different sides of politics are interesting. When 

the Borbidge Government came to office in 

1996, it cost $4,732,768.98 for the transition 

to Government. When my Government came 

to office it cost $1,830,387. 

Mr Borbidge: You spent 70% more in 

one quarter. 

Mr BEATTIE: We saved taxpayers $3m. I 

am happy to talk about costs in the Premier's 

Department. When I became Premier, I found 

out that there was a weekly invoice for fresh 

flowers that arrived every week. That was $35 

for each flower arrangement to the Premier's 

office. Over the time that the coalition and Mr 

Borbidge were in office, it cost almost $5,000 

for those fresh flowers. So what did I do? I 

introduced some native flower arrangements 

and I saved $5,000. I know that the Leader of 

the Opposition may want to have fresh flowers 

every day, but I saved the taxpayers some 

money because that Scottish ancestry of mine 

would not allow me to have fresh flowers sent 

every day like the former Premier did just so 

that he could smell nice. 

The bottom line is that my Government 

has pursued tough administrative 

arrangements. I am quite happy at any time to 

talk about the sort of expenses that we had 

when the former Premier was in office. 

Mr BORBIDGE: I note that the Premier 

cannot explain to the House why he spent 

$8.6m more in one quarter. 

Mr BEATTIE: I am happy to answer that 

question. That is the second question. 

Mr SPEAKER: Was that the second 

question? 

Mr BORBIDGE: I have not asked it. 

Mr SPEAKER: It was not a question? 

Was that the question to the Premier? 

Mr BORBIDGE: No. 

Mr SPEAKER: Could we have the 

question, please? 

Member for Fitzroy 

Mr BORBIDGE: My second question is to 

the Premier. I refer to the member for Fitzroy's 

stated intention to return to the Gordonstone 

picket, and I ask the Premier: is he aware of 

comments attributed to his colleague in the 

Rockhampton Bulletin where he claimed that 

the Emerald business community should be 

wary if it believed it would reap the benefits 

from Rio Tinto's proposed new work force? The 

honourable member was quoted as saying— 

"Rio Tinto will tell the community of 

Emerald anything they want to hear. Rio 

Tinto don't give a stuff about the people 

of Emerald. Their only interest is the deunionism 

of the mining industry." 

I ask the Premier, and I notice the support that 

the honourable member has receive from—— 

Government members interjected. 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the 

Opposition will just ask the question. 

Mr BORBIDGE: I ask the Premier: will he 

now, at long last, publicly dissociate himself 

and his Government from this assessment of 

Rio Tinto's corporate credentials by his 

Government colleague the member for 

Fitzroy? 

Mr BEATTIE: Throughout this debate, I 

have made it absolutely clear that my 

Government welcomes investment in 

Queensland from Rio Tinto. More to the point, 

not only have I made it clear in Queensland 

but I went to London and also made it 

absolutely clear to Rio Tinto. Let there be no 

argument here or anywhere else about 

whether or not we want Rio Tinto's investment. 

Of course we want Rio Tinto's investment in 

this State. 

Having said that, it is appropriate for a 

member of Parliament to be concerned—and 

we have heard the Minister talk about these 

issues—about whether a work force will fly in or 

fly out. That is what this is about. There is an 

ongoing debate in Queensland about whether 

mining projects benefit the local community or 

whether the work force flies in or out. 

Mr Johnson interjected. 

Mr BEATTIE: Like the Federal member 

for Kennedy, the member for Gregory should 

be concerned about a lot of mining operations, 

particularly those in the north-west province. 

We have all heard the Minister talk about this 

and we are trying to do something about it. 

The member ought to be concerned about 

mining projects that do not deliver enough to 

the local community. The honourable member 

for Fitzroy has quite legitimately raised the 

concern about benefits to local communities. I 

say to all mining operations—whether it is Rio 

Tinto, BHP or Mount Isa Mines—that this 

Government wants as much benefit to flow to


the local communities around the mine as is 

humanly possible. 

Let us deal with some other issues that I 

think are of importance. The Leader of the 

Opposition has sought to reassert himself 

today. On the weekend I was intrigued to see 

an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin that 

stated— 

"The dust is not quite settling on the 

recent challenge to Rob Borbidge's 

Opposition leadership. 

The word is there's still bad blood 

between two parties—" 

it is the Horan camp and the Borbidge camp; 

here we go again— 

"over the range of 'shadows', one of 

whom played a leading role in thwarting 

any possibility of a direct challenge by the 

other." 

However, I reckon that the honourable Doug 

Slack, the member for Burnett, takes the prize. 

On 18 January, the News-Mail stated— 

"Mr Slack said division in politics was 

not the way to win back government. 

'We don't want to fragment the 

conservative side of politics,' he said. 'The 

public is looking for cohesion, not 

division.'" 

And he is right. 

Goods and Services Tax 

Mr FOURAS:: I refer the Treasurer to 

claims by the Federal Government that 

Queensland is looking for a windfall from 

proposed tax reform, and I ask: what is this 

alleged windfall and is there any substance to 

the claim? 

Mr HAMILL: The member for Ashgrove is 

citing some remarks that were made by the 

Federal Treasurer in relation to Queensland's 

just claim for a fair distribution of any proposed 

GST revenue. The argument that is being run 

by the Federal Treasurer goes something like 

this: it does not matter that Queenslanders are 

being asked to pay higher taxes and it does 

not matter that Queenslanders are being 

asked to subsidise the removal of taxes 

interstate because, somehow or other, down 

the track Queensland will get some additional 

revenue through the imposition of a goods 

and services tax. Therefore, Queenslanders 

should just happily pay up, pay up, pay up for 

three years and then maybe get some little 

return to the State. 

Mr Purcell: That's if they don't change 

the rules. 

Mr HAMILL: That is a real concern not 

only for the Queensland Government but for 

every other State and Territory Government. 

We have a real concern that the Federal 

Government may seek to use any increase in 

GST revenue to remove specific purpose 

payments from the States. Already, financial 

assistance grants are to be removed in return 

for GST payments. Every State and Territory 

Government is concerned that the 

Commonwealth may wish to wind back other 

payments to the States under the GST 

package. 

We made it clear to the Senate inquiry 

that the Queensland Government has no 

intention whatsoever of benefiting from any 

windfall revenue should Queensland get its fair 

share of a GST pool distribution based on the 

Grants Commission formula, which, after all, is 

the formula that the Federal Government says 

is fine for the future distributions of any GST 

revenue. We went further: our submission to 

the Senate inquiry—a submission that we 

have made public—stated quite clearly that 

the Queensland Government was happy to 

use any revenues to which we were entitled to 

accelerate the removal of the very imposts on 

business that the Federal Government wants 

to see removed under its tax reform package. I 

am talking about conveyance duty and stamp 

duty. Last week, the Opposition asked me 

questions about stamp duty on insurance 

policies. Sure, we would love to see them go 

and we would be happy to see them go, but 

we can only do that if we get a fair share of 

revenue distribution from the Commonwealth. 

Furthermore, Queensland's population 

base continues to grow strongly. Not only do 

we see taxation reform as important but we 

also see the provision of high quality services 

as equally important. We told the Senate 

inquiry that we would use the funds that we 

were entitled to out of the increased taxes that 

Queenslanders would pay under a GST to 

provide improvements in health and education 

services. 

Dingo Bounty 

Dr PRENZLER: I ask the Minister for 

Environment and Heritage and Minister for 

Natural Resources: when one considers that it 

is economically impossible—I repeat, 

economically impossible—to raise, keep and 

breed dogs to receive a paltry $5 bounty for 

pups and a $10 bounty for adult dogs, will he 

give an unqualified apology to the graziers of 

regional Queensland for his inexcusable 

allegation last week that he knows people who 

are breeding dingoes for bounty, or will he give


an undertaking to the House to name the 

people who are breeding dingoes for bounty? 

Mr WELFORD: The honourable member 

does himself no credit in joining the National 

Party to attribute such an absurd suggestion to 

me. That suggestion was never made by me. 

Nothing I said last week, as will be shown by 

Hansard, referred to graziers, rural land-holders 

or other hardworking people on the land. What 

I said last week in Parliament was directed at 

an improved pest management plan to 

operate right across the State to protect 

graziers ,whose hard-earned income is levied 

to pay for the current dingo bounty, which is 

not working. 

Members opposite are asserting falsely 

that this Government has abolished the 

bounty, as the member for Callide did recently 

in the Bundaberg News-Mail. The Government 

has done nothing of the sort. However, the 

Government is reviewing the legislation to see 

whether there are better and more effective 

ways to comprehensively address what the 

Government acknowledges is a widespread 

problem. The proposition that I ever cast a slur 

upon any hardworking rural land-holders or 

graziers is an absolutely dishonest 

misrepresentation of the facts and honourable 

members opposite know it. 

Free Ambulance Subscriptions 

Dr CLARK: I direct a question to the 

Minister for Emergency Services. The 

Government promised to implement free 

ambulance subscriptions for pensioners, 

Seniors Card holders and their dependants as 

of 1 January this year. That policy has been 

implemented and our promise fulfilled. I ask: 

could the Minister please outline the 

community response to this significant 

initiative? 

Mrs ROSE: I thank the honourable 

member for the question and also 

acknowledge the interest that she has shown 

in the delivery of ambulance services in the 

Cairns area since she returned to the House. 

As the member said, at the last election this 

Government gave a commitment to provide a 

free ambulance service to pensioners, Seniors 

Card holders and their dependants. I am 

delighted to inform the House that this policy 

came into effect on 1 January. 

The policy had a very smooth transition 

and has been well received across the State. 

After its implementation, refund cheques were 

posted to 215,000 Queenslanders who had 

prepaid their subscriptions until after the 

implementation date. Both the staff at the 

Queensland Ambulance Service and I were 

overwhelmed when many of the cheques were 

returned in the form of donations to the QAS. I 

am sure that every member of the House will 

be amazed when I tell them that almost half a 

million dollars was returned to the QAS by 

more than 34,000 Queenslanders. Many 

people even included extra donations with 

their refund cheques. For example, one 

Brisbane woman included a cheque for $500. 

She has been a QAS subscriber for 55 years 

but has never used the service in all that time. 

On behalf of the Government, I thank the men 

and women of Queensland for their 

generosity; it will help to save lives. I assure 

people that their money will be well spent on 

essential ambulance equipment and on 

helping others. 

Many pensioners and Seniors Card 

holders who returned their cheques said that 

this was their way of saying thankyou to the 

Queensland Ambulance Service for the 

wonderful service that it has provided to 

Queenslanders for over 100 years. I thank 

subscribers for supporting the Ambulance 

Service. I reiterate that Seniors Card holders 

and pensioners can continue to have a close 

relationship with the Ambulance Service 

through their local ambulance committees. 

The local ambulance committees are 

community based and do a wonderful job of 

raising funds on behalf of their local 

ambulance station for vital lifesaving 

equipment. 

Water Backflow 

Mr LAMING: I refer the Minister for Public 

Works and Minister for Housing to a report in 

this morning's Courier-Mail about the serious 

health risks posed by water backflow and the 

fact that his department has identified 1,192 

sites as having the potential to cause loss of 

human life. I refer the Minister also to the fact 

that only 200 of those deadly sites have been 

rectified and that apparently no money has 

been set aside for the remaining 992 sites. I 

ask the Minister: does he stand by the 

commitment that he gave to the Estimates 

committee in which he stated, "I am pleased 

to say that we are on top of those issues"? 

What urgent action is he taking to rectify this 

situation, given that his department has 

identified so many potentially deadly sites, and 

when was he made personally aware of the 

situation? 

Mr SCHWARTEN: Finally, we have a 

question. I thought the Opposition might have 

asked about the 1,400 jobs that we stand to 

lose thanks to the GST, and I note the 

Opposition's continued silence on that issue.


However, I am happy to deal with the issue of 

backflow, because it is a very important one. 

The Opposition chose to downgrade this issue 

in its last couple of Budgets. The last time a 

Labor Government was in power in 

Queensland, $3.6m was set aside for the 

correction of backflow. Since then a figure of 

$1.5m or $1.8m has been made available. 

Over that time, $8.58m has been spent on this 

very serious and troubling issue. 

Some 232 sites have been identified as 

requiring urgent and immediate rectification. 

That has been done. Some 1,192 sites were 

tested, and varying degrees of intervention 

have been recommended and have taken 

place. The majority of those are well and truly 

in hand through workplace prevention 

methods. If the member is looking to score a 

cheap point on this issue, he is looking in the 

wrong direction. I could have easily given him 

that answer over the telephone this morning, 

had he bothered to take any sort of interest in 

this matter aside from just reading what was in 

the pages of today's Courier-Mail. 

This Government will have to continue to 

address this problem because of the former 

Government's downgrading of this problem in 

its last Budgets. However, I stress to the 

House that this is not an urgent problem; 

people will not need to boil their water in 

saucepans. In reality, although backflow is an 

issue that can confront every single 

householder in Queensland—anybody who 

has a pipe leading into their yard potentially 

faces the risk of backflow—it is an absurdity for 

anybody to suggest that there is an immediate 

problem or that the world will fall apart in the 

next couple of days. As a result of the 

passage of the Sewerage and Water Supply 

Act a few years ago, we are now more mindful 

of this issue. Under 32 years of National Party 

rule in Queensland, no backflow devices at all 

were installed under the Building Act. 

An Opposition member interjected. 

Mr SCHWARTEN: I am glad the member 

said that, because 1992 was the first time ever 

that any Government in the history of this 

State did anything about backflow. Of all the 

issues for members opposite to raise, they 

picked an area where they lead with their chin 

once again. This Government will get on with 

the job of trying to repair all of the neglect that 

members opposite left us with. We were 

starting to do something about this issue in our 

last year in office. Regrettably, members 

opposite have downscaled that work since 

then. As a result of that, we will again have to 

ramp up the program. 

Tourism 

Mr REEVES: I refer the Minister for 

Tourism, Sport and Racing to the inquiry 

established by the Federal Immigration 

Minister to look at imposing bonds on people 

from certain countries seeking visas to enter 

Australia, and I ask: what impact would 

imposing bonds on international visitors have 

on the Queensland tourism industry? 

Mr GIBBS: The report yesterday that the 

Federal Minister, the Honourable Philip 

Ruddock, is considering imposing an additional 

bond, or a form of taxation, on overseas 

visitors is a disturbing factor to all State 

Tourism Ministers. What we have seen is a 

typical knee-jerk reaction from Mr Ruddock in 

reply to some cases highlighted last week of 

illegal immigrants being arrested in the fruitpicking 

areas of the southern States of 

Australia. 

Honourable members need to be aware, 

firstly, that this sort of a plan, unfortunately, is 

aimed at two of our major emerging markets, 

the first one, of course, being China. This 

Government and the previous Government 

have put a lot of work into China over the past 

couple of years. It is one of our major 

emerging markets. In fact, this financial year, 

our Government, through the Queensland 

Tourist and Travel Corporation, or Tourism 

Queensland, as it is now called, will spend 

about $1m on cooperative advertising 

campaigns in both China and India. The last 

thing we need are imposts put up by the 

Federal Government that will deter people 

from coming into this country. 

Figures from the Federal Department of 

Immigration show that at the moment 

overseas overstay rates are less than 1%. 

Less than 1% of visitors who come to 

Australia, particularly from China, are 

overstaying. Interestingly, it was only some 

months ago that Australia was one of only two 

Western nations to be designated as 

approved destinations for tourists from China. 

It is a disturbing factor that at this stage Mr 

Ruddock has failed to sign that agreement 

with China. That is already having an adverse 

effect not only on future trade for our country 

but also on the number of overseas tourists. 

This year, short-term arrivals from China to 

Queensland have risen by an amazing 31.4% 

to 10,292 persons in the year to November 

1998. Given the sort of buffoonery being 

displayed by the Federal Government, we 

have to query its intelligence. The Tourism 

Forecasting Council of Australia predicts that 

visitor arrivals from China to Australia will 

increase to over 600,000 annually by the year

9 Mar 1999 Matters of Public Interest 325 

2006. That is a huge potential market for our 

Queensland tourist industry. 

The Minister's reaction is not only an insult 

to our overseas business but also a deterrent 

in that a lot of the visitors from China are 

people who do not have a lot of disposable 

income. They spend it to come here to have a 

look at our country. The notion of putting an 

additional imposition on them is foolhardy. 

Water Backflow 

Mr DAVIDSON: I refer the Minister for 

Health to an article in this morning's Courier- 

Mail outlining a serious and possibly deadly 

water risk in State buildings, including 

hospitals, because of the backflow of 

contaminated water into pipes transporting 

drinking water. I ask the Minister: does she 

regard the risk of backflow to patients, staff 

and visitors at Queensland hospitals as a 

serious problem requiring urgent attention? 

What actions have the Minister and her 

department taken to address what appears to 

be a very serious health problem? 

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The time for 

questions has expired. 

MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST 

Premier 



(11.30 a.m.): The "can't do" tag is obviously 

getting to the Premier. This was very obvious 

last week, as we saw him retreat time and time 

again into his office to write down on bits of 

paper that he tabled in this place, "This is a 

can do Government. I am a can do Premier." 

He even tried to give us a list of his 

achievements, and he started out detailing his 

achievements by referring to the fact that the 

Queensland economy has generated some 

35,000 jobs in the first seven months of the 

year, which he said was in excess of the 

30,000 forecast in the Budget. Of course, he is 

right, because what he did in his September 

Budget was drop the expectation from the 

40,000 new jobs that we had projected in the 

Budget that we handed down in this place in 

May. So if he dropped the target, of course he 

stands a reasonable chance, even if he is a 

can't do Premier, of beating that particular 

target. 

Even that number—our more positive 

number in relation to the performance of the 

private sector in its ability to deliver new 

jobs—was heavily down on 1997-98's 60,000- 

plus new jobs because Treasury was 

estimating at that time a far greater impact 

from the Asian crisis. That impact up until now 

has been relatively modest. So twisting the 

numbers does not really serve the can't do 

Premier's cause. If he sets a target that is 

down a quarter—a cut of 25%—on the target 

of his predecessors, then he is giving himself 

some leeway, plenty of room for failure. He 

drops the target, he then exceeds it, then he 

runs around Queensland saying, "Aren't we 

great? Aren't we achieving enormous things?" 

But the real fact is that under this Premier 

and this Government failure is the name of the 

game. The real measure in the jobs issue is 

how Queensland is performing relative to the 

other States because our strength has been in 

leading the nation in jobs growth. During the 

life of the coalition Government, Queensland 

was generating about 40% of all new jobs 

created around Australia. A State with just shy 

of 20% of the population was delivering almost 

half the jobs. In the first six months of the 

Government of the member for Brisbane 

Central we manage just 22% of the new jobs 

in the country—almost a population base 

number. That means that the rate of 

Queensland's job growth has stalled under this 

can't do Premier. Our performance relative to 

the rest of the country has slipped, and slipped 

dramatically. 

While the can't do Premier acts, others 

are performing. That is really the core issue in 

relation to this Government's performance on 

jobs—not that the Premier can exceed a 

deflated target, but that Queensland is no 

longer out in front. The can do State is back in 

the pack under its can't do Premier. 

Mr HAMILL: I rise to a point of order. The 

Leader of the Opposition is deliberately 

misleading the House. The job data that you 

state—— 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr D'Arcy): 

Order! There is no point of order. 

Mr BORBIDGE: In fact, another claim was 

that this Government has started the stalled 

Capital Works Program. In fact, the capital 

works programs under the coalition were the 

largest in the history of the State. There was 

nothing stalled. But according to the latest 

Midwood report, construction work 

plummeted—and that was the very word 

used—in Queensland in the September 

quarter last year. The only stalling in the 

Capital Works Program has been the stalling 

that has occurred under the can't do 

Government of the member for Brisbane 

Central. There was just $77m in health project 

starts in that quarter, backing up on $500m in 

the last quarter of the coalition.

326 Matters of Public Interest 9 Mar 1999 

Another of the achievements the Premier 

claimed last week was winning the Goodwill 

Games. Of course, the Goodwill Games were 

won for Queensland by the coalition. All this 

Government did was achieve an excuse for an 

early trip for "Bollinger Bob" to go and sign a 

few documents. There was no doubt—never 

any doubt—he would be the first to lift off. The 

fact that Olympic teams were coming to 

Queensland for pre-Olympics training was 

another alleged achievement of this 

Government. Of course, the major teams had 

been locked up and announced by the 

coalition, not by this can't do Government 

which simply gets more blatant by the day in 

trying to claim the credit for projects that it has 

had nothing to do with. 

A couple more examples of this were the 

Premier's references to the airport-rail link and 

to what he cannot bring himself to call Briztram 

in the hope that people will not see the eerie 

similarities between what he proposes and the 

long announced coalition initiative. I would 

remind honourable members of some of the 

Premier's own words on that very topic, uttered 

when he thought he might lose out on $65m 

of project specific funding from the 

Commonwealth that was linked to Briztram. 

This is what he said on the Caroline Tucker 

program. He said— 

"I mean, the whole purpose is the 

same. It's in the same city, it's generally in 

the same location although there are 

some changes in terms of not having a 

cross river link near the university, but it's 

the same thing." 

"It's the same thing", he said when he was 

scared he was going to lose the Federal 

money. But now, of course, he has got the 

Federal money and it is a different project. It is 

a bigger project. It is a better project. It is a 

Labor project. It is nothing of the type, by the 

Premier's own admission. Like almost 

everything else he claimed last week, it is not 

the can't do Premier's at all. 

Another furphy claimed by the Premier 

last week was that this Government had 

revamped the electricity industry. The reality is 

that the Government has dealt with one corner 

of the industry by removing from rural and 

regional Queensland any autonomy and any 

input into distribution issues. A restructure was 

rejected by the previous Coalition Government 

on the basis that it would cost jobs. But what 

was missing in this Government's 

restructuring? Only the centrepiece: the breakup 

of the generators! That was the motivation 

for the entire restructure. The generators had 

to be broken up, but the couldn't do Premier 

couldn't do it. 

He said the generators had to be broken 

up to fix the maintenance problem: the 

maintenance regime that had given 

Queensland power station availability at the 

absolute cutting edge of world's best 

practice—90% plus, more than 10% better 

than the world average. Of course, 

someone—finally someone—somewhere in 

that well-oiled unit opposite worked out that 

Wayne Goss had signed off on National 

Competition Policy and they could not break 

up the generators anyway, except at massive 

cost. Of course, they should have known that 

in the first place. One would think that one 

member of the Government would have 

remembered what Wayne Goss had done. 

Of course, then there is Expo—the 

symbol of the can't do credentials of this 

Premier and the can't do credentials of this 

Government. They wanted it until it was 

offered to them. Then they had their second 

chance—the big chance to host the 2002 

event. The Premier in 1999 begged off 

because he said he would not have enough 

time. He said he could not do it. He said it was 

all too hard. He said it was all too difficult and 

he orchestrated this stunt trip to Paris to 

orchestrate reasons why the can't do Premier 

couldn't do Expo. 

But then there are a host of other 

examples. Instead of a new power station in 

Townsville, we are going to have half a power 

station. In Roma Street we are back to where 

we were two years ago. In fact, the big 

announcement from the can't do Premier 

yesterday: they did not even have any 

drawings, any plans, any schematics in terms 

of the press conference, because the can't do 

Premier thought he should announce 

something. We had the Millennium Gardens. 

We had the opportunity for an international 

garden exposition to showcase Brisbane and 

Queensland, but it was too hard for this can't 

do Premier and this can't do Government. 

In fact, the only people this Premier can 

do anything for are the striking union picketers 

at Gordonstone and his other trade union 

mates, with the industrial relations legislation 

that is just around the corner. With regard to 

everything else, this is a Premier and a 

Government without substance and without 

performance—a Government led by someone 

who does not know the difference between 

performing and acting, a can't do Premier 

leading a can't do Government that is taking 

Queensland back to the middle of the pack 

instead of leading this great State of ours in


terms of job creation and economic 

development, a Premier who this morning 

stood up for a member of his Government who 

had attacked a major corporation that wants 

the privilege of spending in excess of $4 billion 

in this State. 

Time expired. 

Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road 


(11.40 a.m.): Today I will make the House 

aware of the No. 1 issue in my electorate. I, 

along with the members for Mount Gravatt, 

Sunnybank and Archerfield, have great 

concerns regarding the increasing number of 

trucks using Kessels Road, McCullough Street 

and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road. 

The introduction of the southern bypass a 

couple of years ago sought to reduce the level 

of truck usage of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, 

but obviously this has not been achieved. As I 

have my electorate office on Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road and live close by, I know what 

the residents are going through and I know 

about the number of trucks using this route to 

get to the Gateway Motorway. Not only is the 

traffic build-up a major problem but also the 

noise is causing heartache for the residents. 

While the problem is not new, it has been 

escalating slowly over the past few years and 

now is at a critical point. 

Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road was never 

really a busy road prior to the construction of 

the Gateway Motorway some 13 years ago. 

Not only does it now carry more traffic from the 

Cleveland and Redlands areas as a result of 

the development that has occurred there, but 

it is also carrying the extra traffic generated by 

the Gateway Motorway. Mt Gravatt-Capalaba 

Road was never designed to take the traffic 

that it carries currently. To see that, one has 

only to look at the gradients of the road and at 

its many declines and bends. 

I am extremely concerned about the 

current action by the Federal Government, 

aided and abetted by the member for 

Moreton, Gary Hardgrave. It is my 

understanding that the Federal Government is 

trying to get the road declassified as a 

federally funded road. Mr Hardgrave has said 

at great length that that will stop trucks using 

the road, but all declassification will mean is 

that the State is left to fund Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road—the problem the Federal 

Government has created. This will do nothing 

to reduce truck usage on this road. 

Declassification will be used by the member for 

Moreton only as a political selling point; it will 

do nothing to improve the quality of life of the 

residents who live close by. 

I am sure that my parliamentary 

colleagues will go to great lengths to ensure 

that the people of the Moreton electorate 

know that Mr Hardgrave is passing the buck 

politically. What the people of Moreton want, 

particularly those who live on Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road and close by, is some longterm 

planning that will see their quality of life 

improve. 

I have been working with the other three 

State representatives of the area to try to 

come up with some options. The options we 

have been discussing are all for a long-term 

solution—not a short-term remedy just to make 

it politically saleable. I and the other relevant 

State members of Parliament have not been 

developing these options in isolation. I have 

met with the community on this matter. I have 

had very fruitful discussions with members of 

the QRTA, particularly those who have many 

trucks that use Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road. I 

thank the QRTA and its members for being so 

constructive in their discussions regarding Mt 

Gravatt-Capalaba Road and Kessels Road. 

The No. 1 disincentive for trucks in using 

the southern bypass is the toll. I think we need 

to get a bit smarter in encouraging trucks and 

others to use the southern bypass because, 

let us face it, the function of a bypass is to 

have people bypass major residential areas. 

Encouragement such as incentive-based tolls 

could have a major impact. 

The problem at present is that when the 

major truck companies get their bills at the end 

of each month, they see large amounts for the 

southern bypass toll and nearly have heart 

failure. While using the southern bypass might 

have advantages in terms of truck 

maintenance, the maintenance bills do not 

look as horrific as does the monthly toll bill. 

The other major problem is that probably 

50% of the users of Kessels Road and Mt 

Gravatt-Capalaba Road are owner/operators 

coming from Toowoomba and Ipswich. These 

owner/operators work on percentages, not on 

time, so there is no incentive for the 

owner/operators to use the southern bypass if 

it is going to cost them $7, or $14 for a round 

trip, compared with no cost to use Kessels 

Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road. 

I am reliably informed that trucks using 

the southern bypass take about 35 minutes to 

travel from Redbank to the Gateway Motorway 

at Mansfield. Those using Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road and Kessels Road in nonpeak 

times take about 40 minutes. The 

difference in kilometres is minimal. The big


difference is the toll of $7, or $14 for a return 

trip. It is quite obvious that we must come up 

with an incentive for the truck owners and 

operators to use the southern bypass. 

To simply say that the trucks should not 

use Kessels Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba 

Road does not recognise the reality of the 

situation. Many of the major truck companies 

are based around Rocklea, Fairfield, 

Archerfield and Acacia Ridge. To say to them 

that they have to go backwards to go forwards 

would be farcical. To think that they would do 

that is ridiculous. 

It has become apparent from 

conversations that I have had with truck 

owners that many use Ipswich Road and the 

Story Bridge to get to the Sunshine Coast, 

particularly early in the morning. If any ban is 

placed on trucks using this route by the city 

council or by us the ramifications for Kessels 

Road and Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road will be 

horrific. The increase in usage by trucks would 

be almost doubled, particularly in the morning, 

and the quality of life of those who live along 

those roads will be further diminished. Another 

major disadvantage of Mt Gravatt-Capalaba 

Road compared with other roads on the route 

is that people live on both sides of the road, 

and large housing estates at Upper Mount 

Gravatt and Wishart are very close to it. 

Another option that warrants further 

investigation is a truck restriction lane, which 

would allow trucks to travel in only one of the 

three lanes on Kessels Road or Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road. It is my understanding that 

this system works very effectively in Perth. 

Another problem spot that needs to be 

reviewed is the intersection of Mains and 

Kessels Roads. It is quite obvious, because of 

not only truck use but also car use of the 

intersection of Mains and Kessels Roads, that 

a grade separation must be undertaken. The 

longer we leave it, the more the problem will 

escalate and the higher the costs will be. I 

believe it is essential that this review occurs 

sooner rather than later. 

Another option that requires examination 

is a truck turning lane from Kessels Road onto 

the freeway and onto the Gateway Motorway. 

This would ensure that the problems at the 

intersection of Logan, Kessels and Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Roads would be improved 

dramatically. The golf links estate in Upper 

Mount Gravatt, in the electorate of Mount 

Gravatt, would have greatly improved access. 

This action would have the greatest single 

effect on the usage by trucks of Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road. The quality of life for all those 

who live along and close by the road, 

especially in the suburbs of Upper Mount 

Gravatt and Wishart, would improve 

dramatically. Unless those options are 

implemented, the problems of Mt Gravatt- 

Capalaba Road and their effect on people's 

lifestyles will not go away. In fact, they will 

increase. 

I have informed the Transport Minister 

that I believe those options must be keenly 

investigated. I believe that an incentive in 

relation to the toll on the southern bypass 

should be introduced immediately. Prior to 

doing that, a movement study should be 

undertaken to calculate how many trucks 

coming from Ipswich and Toowoomba are 

using Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road and how 

many are using Ipswich Road. After the 

introduction of an incentive, a study could be 

done to determine its effect. An educational 

and promotional package must be developed 

to encourage truck drivers, particularly 

owner/operators, to accept the proposed 

incentive. Once it is put in place, consultation 

about the other three options should start 

immediately. 

My greatest concern regarding those 

options relates to funding. I firmly believe that 

the longer we leave it, the higher the price will 

be, so action must be taken now. However, 

the actions of the member for Moreton in 

trying to get this road declassified will have a 

major bearing on this issue. If Mr Hardgrave 

has his way in passing the buck, we will be left 

holding the bunny. What Mr Hardgrave is up to 

is ensuring that the blame can be placed on 

the State Government, when in fact it was the 

Federal Government that created the mess. 

Mr Hardgrave is in the papers, week in and 

week out, complaining about the trucks using 

Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Road, yet now he is 

trying to wash his hands of the whole affair, 

not willing to put his money where his mouth 

is. 

I put it to the member for Moreton that 

the people who live in Wishart and Upper 

Mount Gravatt are not as silly as he thinks. 

Both levels of Government must be 

responsible for the long-term future of these 

areas. We must quickly review those options 

and come up with the funding packages to 

implement a solution to the problem. The 

quality of the life of people who live in Upper 

Mount Gravatt, Wishart and Mansfield depend 

on it. I will go to any lengths to ensure that this 

issue does not just get swept under the carpet 

by the Federal Minister or in fact by our own 

department.




(11.49 a.m.): This is a can't do Government. 

We have a Government that will not take 

action to get rid of a Health Minister who is 

dangerously out of control. If Government 

members were not appalled by the Health 

Minister's performance this morning during 

question time, they need some medical 

treatment as well. 

There is approximately a $50m budget 

blow-out, and we know that, in the seven 

months since this Government took over, 

surgery waiting lists around Queensland have 

nearly doubled in the semi-urgent surgery 

classification. We know also that, after what 

this Government did to Toowoomba, it will stop 

at nothing to look for a scapegoat for its Health 

Minister and the mistakes that she has been 

making. The Royal Brisbane Hospital has 

something like a $14m budget blow-out; the 

Prince Charles Hospital has something like a 

$1.8m budget blow-out; Caboolture/Redcliffe, 

$2m; Nambour, $2.5m; and the Toowoomba 

Hospital, $7m. 

What happened at Toowoomba? That 

hospital was on budget—within budget—when 

we were in Government, and it was within 

budget up to the election. But since the 

change of Government, what has happened? 

There has been a $7m blow-out, elective 

surgery waiting times are going through the 

roof and the Health Minister's action is to look 

for a scapegoat. I happen to know that the 

Queensland Nurses Union is very concerned 

about what has happened and is having 

discussions with the Health Department today. 

I believe that the rest of the staff at that 

hospital would be quite rightly concerned—very 

concerned—because unless the Health 

Minister is going to put more money into that 

hospital, it will continue to have problems. 

Let us have a look at the language used 

to describe that bloodbath in Toowoomba. 

This Government called it "an administrative 

restructure" of the Toowoomba District Health 

Service. Perhaps it is time for the Premier to 

have an administrative restructure of his front 

bench. In this press release, the Government 

talks about how confident it is that the 

restructure will bring about a new era of health 

care. The only way to deal with that problem is 

to give the hospital more money. Or is the 

Government proposing to chop jobs? That is 

why the staff are worried and, quite 

understandably, very worried. 

Members on this side of the House have 

already outlined earlier today the sleight of 

hand that this Government has employed at 

the Nambour Hospital. It has not filled some 

25 full-time equivalent positions—permanent 

positions. Those positions have not been filled 

with permanent people. They have not been 

advertised. That has been a deliberate ploy of 

this Government. I will be seeking to talk to the 

Queensland Nurses Union about that as well. 

A lot of its members are badly affected. Under 

this Minister, they have been put into casual 

positions, or there has not been the 

opportunity to take on that permanent work. 

I am talking about a major hospital which 

has a $2.5m budget overrun. I have the 

Budget papers here, and they show clearly 

that that overrun is owned by this current 

Government, not by the previous Government. 

The Nambour Hospital is a very fast growing 

hospital. But the Health Minister, vaguely and 

suddenly, does not know about those 25 fulltime 

equivalent positions. I have the 

documentation, and I am happy to table the 

documents that show clearly that the Health 

Minister was well aware that 36 beds were 

closed at that hospital. Or has she been 

signing other letters that she has not been 

reading? Members saw the Health Minister's 

performance here in Parliament this morning. 

This is a do-nothing Government with a donothing 

Minister who does not even know what 

she signs. Those 36 beds were closed, and 

they are still closed. I challenge the Minister 

right now: get your television cameras and let 

us go in there and have a look at those beds. 

They are still closed. 

Surgery waiting lists at the Nambour 

Hospital are going through the roof. I have 

letters from constituents who are in pain 

waiting for surgery, particularly for orthopaedic 

surgery, for which the list is extremely long. For 

the benefit of the record, I will get the exact 

figure for the semi-urgent waiting list for 

orthopaedic surgery as at 1 July 1998, which 

was the last period for which figures were 

available when the coalition was in 

Government. For orthopaedic surgery, the 

figure was 1.7% for long waits for semi-urgent 

surgery. Under this Government, that figure 

has jumped to nearly 30%. That represents a 

lot of people on the semi-urgent surgery 

waiting list who are waiting for very necessary 

operations. That situation is continuing to get 

worse. I have letters from constituents. It is real 

people who are paying that price. 

Even the district manager, in his reports, 

has said that, in real terms, they have gone 

backwards with their budget. So all this talk 

about having increased budgets is just a load 

of baloney. Under the coalition Government, 

something like half the percentage of people 

were waiting too long for semi-urgent surgery.


But under this can't do Government, what has 

it done? In fact, it has doubled the percentage 

of people who are waiting too long for that 

surgery. The district manager's report states— 

"Action aimed at reining in the 

increasing over budget result has been 

approved by the Office of the Director- 

General and the Minister's office. These 

include the closure of beds at Nambour 

General Hospital and a range of other 

activities. The bed closures have already 

generated media attention." 

Let us get the cameras in and go and see the 

beds that are still closed. The Government 

tried to claim at the time that it was seasonal. 

If it was seasonal, it is now March, those beds 

are still closed and people are still waiting. 

I now want to address the mental health 

issue and the Minister's appalling response 

during question time this morning. She said 

that there was no indication of a lack of acute 

beds in south-east Queensland for mental 

health patients. Who on earth does she talk 

to? Who on earth is briefing the Health 

Minister? She certainly is not listening to the 

psychiatrists in the AMA. The AMA put out a 

press release last week in which it said— 

"A not uncommon scenario is for a 

patient to be sent from the Brisbane area 

to Nambour because none of the 

Brisbane Hospitals have acute psychiatric 

beds available." 

In a question this morning, the member 

for Indooroopilly outlined an example of a man 

who had threatened to kill his wife and himself. 

He had OD'd. He was taken to the hospital. 

They could not get him a mental health 

bed—once he was cleaned up after having 

OD'd—and he had to go into a medical ward in 

a public hospital. I am talking about a man 

who had threatened to kill himself and his wife. 

If Government members think that is 

appropriate, and if their Government thinks 

that is appropriate, and if the Health Minister 

thinks that is appropriate, then that is a 

disgrace. 

Psychiatrists from the AMA and the Royal 

Australian and New Zealand College of 

Psychiatrists have been asking for a number of 

months for a review of mental health beds in 

south-east Queensland. But the Health 

Minister stood in the House today and claimed 

to know nothing about it. I think that she had 

better start talking to those people who have 

been calling for that. There is a need for a 

review. Members on this side of the House 

outlined an example of that this morning. 

There are other examples. 

Obviously, the Health Minister was not 

listening to the media last week when the AMA 

put out a press release about a bed crisis for 

psychiatric patients. The AMA went on to 

say— 

"A lack of beds in south-east 

Queensland hospitals means at times 

acute psychiatric patients are not being 

admitted to psychiatric units." 

There is something terribly wrong. This Health 

Minister has no idea. She is out of control, and 

the Government and the Premier are going to 

do nothing about her performance. 

Members would also be aware of the 

situation on the Gold Coast. The Health 

Minister obviously still thinks it is acceptable for 

someone to wait 28 hours for surgery. There is 

a problem on the Gold Coast. They still need 

additional money and additional staff. But the 

Health Minister thinks that that waiting time for 

surgery is acceptable. As I understand it, 

medical staff on the Gold Coast have said that 

it would take about six hours for a person who 

was inebriated to be ready for anaesthesia. 

Yet a person in those circumstances still had 

to wait more than 20 hours for very important 

surgery. Obviously there is a problem when 

there are not enough people in accident and 

emergency and on the operating staff to be 

able to deal with a situation like that and the 

other priorities that are coming through the 

door. That that person had to wait so long is 

an absolute disgrace. The Minister has not 

taken responsibility. She will obviously be 

looking for a scapegoat there, as well. 

Then there is Bundaberg. We all know 

that the Health Minister does not read her mail 

about Bundaberg, because she signed off on 

the closure of the general outpatients clinic in 

Bundaberg. She sent me a letter three days 

before she went up there and the media 

asked her about it. She went all vague, 

because she does not know what mail she 

signs. Services in our regional hospitals are 

being reduced. This Government is failing to 

fund those regional hospitals. It is also failing 

to fund the hospitals in Brisbane. 

This Health Minister is out of control. She 

does not know what is going on. There is a 

$50m blow-out in the Health budget. Surgery 

lists are going through roof. And when it 

comes to people's real issues and real 

problems, she does not know what is going 

on. Furthermore, in light of the Health 

Minister's claims that there were budget 

overruns carried into this financial year, and 

despite the Minister's Budget papers stating 

that "as expenditure was within the approved 

budget no budget supplementation was


necessary", the question will continue to be 

asked of the Minister: if she is claiming that 

there were budget overruns, is she still going 

to pay her director-general his $60,000 

performance bonus? 

Time expired. 

Cardiac Catheter Laboratory, Calvary 

Hospital 

Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (12 p.m.): I rise 

to speak about an innovative and very 

important new health service for the people of 

Cairns and the far north of Queensland. It is 

an initiative of Queensland Health and one on 

which I happen to be well informed. I refer to 

the establishment of a cardiac catheter 

laboratory at the Calvary Hospital in Cairns. 

Through a contract which has now been 

signed, this facility will serve both public and 

private patients. 

As the former chair of the regional health 

authority, I am aware of two earlier proposals 

put to the Health Department for a cardiac 

catheter laboratory in Cairns. Neither of those 

proposals was successful. In fact, on both 

occasions cardiac catheter laboratories were 

approved for Townsville. This has been a fairly 

difficult pill for the people of Cairns and the far 

north to swallow. 

We understood why the first laboratory 

was established in Townsville. It is 

geographically more central and we 

understood that the first facility should go there 

so that people in the northern half of our State 

could have access to this important diagnostic 

and treatment facility. It was harder when the 

second proposal for Cairns and the far north of 

the State was lost. It appeared to us that 

people in Brisbane do not realise that it is not 

just a matter of people in Cairns having to go 

to Townsville for treatment, but people from 

the far-flung communities of Cape York, the 

Gulf of Carpentaria and the Torres Strait. 

These people have difficulty accessing 

services in Cairns and they are particularly 

disadvantaged by being required to spend 

further time travelling to Townsville. 

Another difficulty that will now be solved 

by the establishment of this service in Cairns is 

the problem of the waiting list. Yesterday a Mrs 

McGilvray of Cairns was prepared to tell her 

story in the Cairns Post about how she has 

been waiting since December for an 

angiogram at the cardiac catheter laboratory in 

Townsville. Twice her test has been delayed 

and her best guess at the moment is that it will 

be May, if she is lucky, before she is able to 

travel to Townsville. 

Mrs McGilvray's situation is, unfortunately, 

common. It has been a common problem in 

areas of small populations. In having to wait 

for specialised services, people have to put up 

with periods of considerable disruption to their 

lifestyle. They are unable to make plans until 

the diagnosis has been completed and 

treatment undertaken. As we all understand, 

people in such a situation live with a level of 

anxiety. This is difficult for not only the patients 

but also their families. 

It is good news that, having a facility in 

Cairns, people in the far north of the State 

should not have to endure such waiting 

periods in the future. I understand that the 

start date for the cardiac catheter laboratory in 

Cairns is July. However, that is a matter for the 

authorities at the Calvary Hospital to 

determine. 

This unit is only proceeding on the basis 

of a contract between Queensland Health and 

Calvary Hospital. These public/private 

arrangements are easy to support in principle, 

particularly in regional areas where the 

population base will not support some of the 

sophisticated and costly health services that 

we would all like to have close to home. Our 

present health system cannot afford such 

facilities. Patients in the Cairns area can use 

this public/private facility and this is obviously a 

positive and appropriate direction for the 

department to take. 

The public/private arrangement means 

that patients can be looked after closer to 

home. They are with their families and are not 

worried about having to travel elsewhere for 

diagnosis and treatment which are likely to be 

speedier. Disruption to people's work, social 

and family life will be minimised. There will also 

be a reduction in anxiety and concern over a 

patient's future health. 

The public/private arrangement is a cost 

effective arrangement, though a difficult one to 

negotiate. The benefits for the private health 

sector—in this case Calvary Hospital—are 

apparent, particularly as we have seen a 

decline across Australia in the membership of 

private health insurance funds. As a result of 

the decline in membership many private 

hospitals have faced funding difficulties. 

Australians wish to have a choice between 

private and public health services. In this case 

the two services will work together and, as a 

result, Calvary Hospital will benefit and at the 

same time the public patients will be cared for. 

In negotiating a contract between public 

and private health services we need to 

recognise that they are two different systems. 

The private health system is smaller and much


more segmented, but is much quicker, 

therefore, in making decisions. It is much more 

based on the private business paradigm of 

getting on with the job without the imperatives 

of accountability and size that the public sector 

must face. It is easier for a private health 

business, such as Calvary, to reach a future 

plan and to have the details ready for 

negotiation than it is for the public sector. In 

making such an arrangement, the public 

sector has the normal concerns of ensuring 

that proper standards are met. This is 

particularly important when we are dealing with 

people's lives and wellbeing. 

However, in making these arrangements 

between public and private sectors there are 

particular imperatives that the Minister has had 

to take into account, including: ensuring 

access for all people from across the far north; 

ensuring access to the facility regardless of 

income or any other socio-demographic factor; 

ensuring that the approach offered by a 

private sector institution will be suitable to 

public sector clients; ensuring that there are no 

differences in the services provided and the 

way the services are provided to public and 

private sector clients; ensuring that the costs 

are reasonable for the public sector to bear; 

and ensuring that there are sufficient numbers 

to support a contract that will last well into the 

future. 

These negotiations have taken some 

time. Several times I have been disappointed 

with the comments of Mr Frank Tuohy of 

Calvary Hospital when he has expressed his 

frustration over the time being taken in the 

negotiations by Queensland Health. I believe 

that his frustration, so expressed, reflects his 

understandable ignorance of the public system 

and of the important standards of 

accountability with regard to service and 

financial management. These standards are 

far more difficult for the Minister than they are 

for Mr Tuohy, who has only a single hospital 

under his management. Nevertheless, those 

comments of frustration about how long the 

negotiations have taken have spoilt the news, 

to a degree, for people in Cairns and far-north 


The situation is as follows. We have a 

negotiated contract for the Calvary Hospital to 

provide public patients as well as private 

patients with the services of a cardiac catheter 

laboratory. So long as Calvary Hospital's plans 

run to time, this service will commence in July 

this year. This is great news not only for people 

such as Mrs McGilvray who are suffering 

difficulties and require diagnostic tests and 

treatment but also for their families and many 

others of us who know that the time will come 

when we or those close to us will require these 

services. It is great news for the people of 

Cape York and the Torres Strait because it 

brings the services closer to them. 

I congratulate the bureaucrats in Brisbane 

who have negotiated this contract with Calvary 

Hospital; they deserve the commendation of 

all people in far-north Queensland. I 

particularly thank the Minister for Health, 

Wendy Edmond, who has insisted that this 

contract proceed, despite the difficulties, in full 

awareness of the advantages of this advance 

for the people of far-north Queensland. On 

behalf of very many people in north 

Queensland, I thank the Minister and her staff. 

This facility will be well received. 

Sugar, Banana and Pawpaw Industries 

Hon. T. R. COOPER (Crows Nest—NPA) 

(12.09 p.m.): Queensland's $2.2 billion sugar 

industry is in dire straits. In just over 12 

months, world sugar prices have collapsed due 

to the 50% currency devaluation in Brazil, the 

world's biggest sugar producer and exporter. 

The New York futures contracts have fallen to 

US5.7c a pound from an average of US8.7c a 

pound in 1998 and US12.1c a pound in 1997. 

The price collapse comes on the back of 

extensive damage as a result of Cyclone 

Rona, Cyclone Sid and Cyclone Justin. Last 

year, Cyclone Sid hit the Ingham, Tully and 

Townsville areas very hard and Cyclone Justin 

hit Innisfail very hard, causing enormous 

damage. Of course, Cyclone Rona has caused 

damage on top of that. 

The article by Gordon Collie in today's 

Courier-Mail about the sugar industry is 

commendable. It is the sort of publicity that is 

needed for these industries that have been hit 

and hit hard so that the State and the nation 

can know that there is a problem of major 

proportions in the north of this State. There 

should be more coverage about these issues. 

Canegrowers in the far north have also 

endured declining commercial sugar content 

levels, which have slashed growers' viability. 

The industry estimates losses of the order of 

$200m from weather damage and low sugar 

content. With the price downturn, those losses 

are estimated at $500m this year. Sugarcane 

is Queensland's most significant primary 

industry, worth some $2.2 billion, supporting 

some 6,500 canefarmers, most of whom are 

family farmers, and providing over 20,000 jobs. 

The slump will have a huge negative impact 

on the viability of those family farms, those 

jobs and, of course, the Queensland economy 

as well.


It is not only that the sugarcane industry 

has been hit and hit hard over the past two or 

three years, but also the banana industry. This 

year, the banana industry is valued at about 

$160m. The losses for that industry alone are 

$100m. The pawpaw industry has also 

suffered losses of about $10m. Those farmers 

have suffered from three cyclones and price 

downturns over three years. As a result of all of 

those losses, we should look at the issue of 

crop insurance—that old thing again. The 

State Government charges 8.5% stamp duty 

on crop insurance. As an example, one farmer 

paid a $30,000 premium on crop insurance for 

banana losses. The State Government's cop 

out of that is $2,550—8.5%. The New South 

Wales Government charges only 2.5% and the 

Victorian Government charges virtually nothing 

at all. The Borbidge Government abolished 

stamp duty on crop insurance and the Beattie 

Government put it back. I know that we have 

talked a lot about this issue, but we are going 

to keep on talking about it until it is gone. 

Although people may think, "What is $2,550 

out of a $30,000 premium?" I can say that to 

any farmer, be they banana growers, pawpaw 

growers, or sugarcane growers—it does not 

matter what—$2,500 is a lot of money. It 

sends a message to them that the 

Government does not care about them, 

whereas when they are in such dire straits they 

should be getting the message that the 

Government does care and will do something 

about it. 

I worry also about the effect that the 13- 

year low in the price of sugar is having on the 

Queensland economy. To its credit, the sugar 

industry hedged its sales from last year to this 

year, so it was able to take advantage of 

higher sugar prices through some risk 

management, for which it should be 

commended. However, with the price now 

having dropped to such a low, there is not 

much that the industry can do about it and the 

growers are going to feel it. The member for 

Hinchinbrook, Mr Rowell, has made very strong 

representations to both the Leader of the 

Opposition, Mr Borbidge, and me. To that end, 

we will be again touring the area right 

throughout the north. We will be talking not 

only to all of those people who have been hurt 

but also to people in small business, the local 

authorities, big business and the various 

groups and organisations. Most certainly, we 

will be talking to those family farmers on the 

ground who have been hurt and hurt hard. I 

commend the member for Hinchinbrook for his 

representations. Obviously, it is a massive part 

of the State and it is of major importance. 

Quite often, people in that area feel cut off 

from the south—be it the south of the State or 

the south of the nation. We must maintain the 

links that we have with the northerners to 

make sure that they are included. 

I believe that we are looking at a major 

natural disaster. It did not spring up overnight. 

Apart from the natural disasters caused by the 

cyclones, the 50% currency devaluation by 

Brazil, which is the largest sugar producing 

nation in the world, has had a massive effect 

on prices. Therefore, we have a crisis that I 

believe involves all Governments, local, State, 

and national. I do not want to hear any more 

talk from the Government in this State or 

anyone else making excuses and saying that 

the Government in Canberra should do more. 

All Governments can do more. As the 

Government of the day, the members 

opposite should show us a strategy—a policy 

and a full rescue package—that outlines fully 

what is going to be done for those growers so 

that they know what sort of support they might 

be in line to receive. 

Apart from abolishing the 8.5% stamp 

duty, which should be a fait accompli, I believe 

that the State Government should also 

consider providing rates relief for those people, 

especially those in the Johnstone Shire but 

also for those in other shires as well who, even 

last year, could not pay their rates. Those 

people could not pay their rates then, so I 

cannot see how they are going to pay them 

now they are in an even worse situation. So 

rates relief is something that I believe can go 

on the list of what the State Government can 

do. We also need to get away from this 

business of saying, "They can just apply 

through QRAA for a loan." The Minister knows 

and I know only too well that anyone applying 

for a QRAA loan cannot fit within the 

guidelines. 

Mr McGrady interjected. 

Mr COOPER: I am not talking about me, I 

am talking about the growers in north 

Queensland and those other people in the 

south-west of this State—people who have 

been hit hard: grain growers, banana growers, 

pawpaw growers, horticulturalists and 

sugarcane growers. It does not matter who 

they are; I am talking about people who have 

been hard hit by things that the member 

cannot understand. That is the problem. 

Mr McGrady interjected. 

Mr COOPER: No, he does not. That is the 

problem. That is why those people are not 

receiving any help from the Government, 

because it does not know what to do or how to 

do it. I am telling the members opposite what


to do and how to do it so that those people 

can be helped. Whether the Government 

members like those people or not—and they 

do not like them—they are still human beings, 

they are still productive people and can be and 

will be productive in the future. The main thing 

is that we maintain them. 

I return to the loans. The fact is that those 

people cannot fit within the guidelines. QRAA 

says either, "No, you are not viable. Therefore, 

you do not qualify", or, "No, you are too viable. 

Therefore you do not qualify." 

Mr Musgrove interjected. 

Mr COOPER: That character 

opposite—God knows what electorate he is 

from—is so insignificant that he does not really 

matter. The fact that he is from the city 

indicates how hopelessly ignorant he is on 

such an issue. 

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr D'Arcy): 

Order! The honourable member for 

Springwood should not interject from other 

than his correct seat. 

Mr COOPER: All that members opposite 

can do is disparage and rubbish the people of 

north Queensland, particularly in their hour of 

need. I am going to continue to support those 

people in their hour of need and spell out their 

needs very, very clearly. I am saying that there 

is a national crisis in the making, because 

those people up there have suffered for up to 

three years now through no fault of their own. 

They have tried risk management—they tried 

all of those various methods for which they 

should be commended—and after one natural 

disaster after another they are in trouble. 

There has to be a coming together of the 

Federal and State Governments so that a 

strategy can be devised that will rescue these 

people. In time, those people always come 

back and pay their taxes. Time and time 

again, that has been proven. 

Mr Pitt: You raised a very serious point 

before about the crop losses the banana 

industry has had. I spoke to some banana 

growers and they've suggested that perhaps 

with the labour-intensive nature of the 

industry—— 

Mr COOPER: This is a long interjection. I 

have only one minute to go. 

Mr Pitt: It is very important. 

Mr COOPER: I know that the industry is 

very important. That is why I am speaking out 

in favour of it. I dare say that the member has 

also done plenty of talking about it. However, I 

doubt that his Government is doing nearly 

enough for those industries. We need to make 

sure that we focus our attention Statewide and 

nationally on those people who are now 

suffering enormously, as I said, through no 

fault of their own. There has to be a coming 

together of the Governments. We cannot 

continue with the rhetoric that we hear 

constantly from members opposite about what 

other Governments should do. We should be 

spelling out clearly what the State Government 

can do. I have spelled out three points. 

A Government member: What did you 

do? 

Mr COOPER: Every time these situations 

occurred, the previous Government acted. I 

am telling the members opposite what they 

can do. They can start by abolishing stamp 

duty on crop insurance. The previous 

Government did that; the current Government 

put it back. That is just one thing. The 

Government can offer rates relief for those 

people who are in dire trouble. There are 

many, many things that the Government can 

do. 

Time expired. 

Regional Communities Program 

Dr CLARK (Barron River—ALP) 

(12.20 p.m.): Governments that lose touch 

and stop listening to the community are voted 

out of office. The Beattie Government has 

learnt that lesson, and it has learnt it well. The 

Cabinet now meets in regional centres every 

three weeks and local people have 

unprecedented access to the Premier and his 

Ministers. The success of that initiative, which 

commenced in July of last year in the seat of 

Mulgrave in far-north Queensland, is 

indisputable and I commend the Premier for 

the initiative. 

Another program that I want to talk to the 

House about today will also ensure that the 

voice of people in regional Queensland is both 

heard and responded to. That program is now 

under way. Last Friday in Cairns I joined the 

Minister for Local Government, Planning, 

Regional and Rural Communities, Terry 

Mackenroth, my parliamentary colleagues 

Desley Boyle and Warren Pitt, and over 500 

people from the Cairns community at a 

community conference to launch the Regional 

Communities Program in far-north 

Queensland. This program is an initiative of 

Minister Terry Mackenroth. It complements the 

regional Cabinet meetings and the existing 

work of the Office of Rural Communities, which 

provides a communication channel to 

Government for people living and working in 

rural and remote communities.


The Regional Communities Program 

involves eight regional centres throughout the 

State. It will provide a means for regional 

communities to identify and prioritise their 

specific issues and needs, and will influence 

the Government decisions affecting their 

regions. Ministers will hear first-hand how 

people in regional Queensland want the 

Government to respond to their needs. 

I refer to a Cairns Post article that was 

published on the Saturday after the 

conference, which referred to some comments 

that were made by the Minister. The article 

states— 

" 'I am here to listen to what you say,' 

he told the 500 delegates from all over 

the Far North. 'What should the 

Government do?' 

Mr Mackenroth agreed it was no 

longer good enough to tell people what 

the issues were. 

'These days you want to work 

together with us to achieve outcomes,' he 

said. 

The minister said later the program 

would give the regions 'a direct line to the 

executive building in Brisbane'." 

That is the kind of influence and involvement 

that people in regional Queensland are looking 

for. 

One of the key features of the program 

will be four quarterly ministerial forums that will 

be held in each region each year. Two 

Ministers will attend each forum, together with 

20 local community delegates who will 

represent the various social, business and 

Government sectors that make up the 

community. Those members will be selected 

by local community leaders who will 

themselves have been nominated by the local 

community. This process will be genuinely 

driven by the community rather than by the 

Government. The forums will not just be 

talkfests or an airing of grievances, because 

the Government knows that it is not good 

enough to just listen; it needs to act on what it 

hears and it needs to deliver to regional 

Queensland. The Ministers will report back 

either before or at each of the forums, 

describing the action that the Government has 

taken concerning the issues or projects that 

were raised at the previous forum. 

The agenda for the first ministerial forum 

in each region will be set by the outcomes of 

community conferences such as the one just 

held in Cairns. At the Cairns conference, 

members of the community had an 

opportunity to select one of eight specific 

interest areas and then, in a small group 

setting, generate ideas and issues and report 

back on their group's deliberations. I 

congratulate the manager of the program, Nick 

Ryan, and his team who did an outstanding 

job of facilitating the process throughout the 

State. Certainly the feedback I received in 

Cairns was overwhelmingly positive, even from 

people who regularly attend functions such as 

this and who, I can assure the House, are 

quite discerning when it comes to methods of 

consultation. 

I would like to share with members some 

of the highlights from the reports of those eight 

interest sectors to give members a feeling for 

and a better understanding of the priorities of 

our region. These are only some of the issues 

that have been selected from a whole range 

that were presented by each group. They 

certainly do not comprise all the issues and 

priorities that the groups raised. 

The business and industry group 

proposed that within two years all State 

Government decision-making policies and 

practices be allied with the region's own 

identified economic destiny. The community 

development group proposed the building of 

an academy of sport and the arts in the region 

by the year 2000 to develop the potential of 

young athletes and performers in far-north 

Queensland. I will come back to that issue and 

discuss it in further detail at another time. The 

community support group's priority was to 

establish regional one-stop shops for 

information referrals and issues advocacy, to 

bridge gaps between clients, services and 

Government and to promote service 

development, to be in place by the next 

Budget. 

The education group referred to the need 

to develop a strategic direction that has broad 

bipartisan support. It proposed that the 

Minister should set up a task force to develop 

a strategic direction for education for the next 

5 to 10 years. The environment group called 

on Government to address sewage and waste 

infrastructure, eliminate the impact on the 

environment, and investigate and implement 

innovative technology. The health group called 

for the provision of equitable health services 

throughout the far-north Queensland region by 

outreach strategies such as community 

consultation, the review and prioritising of 

funding resources and the establishment of a 

task force to compare health needs and 

resources. 

The law, order and justice group, including 

emergency services, wishes to see the 

utilisation of a broad range of programs and

336 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Bill 9 Mar 1999 

new innovative strategies to positively reduce 

the actual crime rates and prison populations. 

The group also called for classroom education 

in responsibilities involving personal, family, 

community and safety issues. That group also 

proposed the broadening of public education 

programs of emergency services to enable 

citizens to obtain a better understanding of 

their roles and their responsibilities to 

themselves and their communities. It was 

particularly encouraging that the law, order and 

justice group really seems to have received the 

message about how important it is to actually 

combat the causes of crime, that we must 

involve the community in doing that and that 

we need to develop innovative strategies. The 

primary industries group, which obviously 

represents a very critical sector in our part of 

the world, recommended that there be 

recognition of the importance of primary 

industries as the backbone of Australia's 

economy, remote regional infrastructure 

development and improved access to 

education and training. 

That should give members a good 

understanding of the range of issues that 

people in regional Queensland, particularly 

Cairns, are concerned about. I look forward to 

being involved in the forums as they progress. 

As I said, two Ministers will be present at each 

of those forums and local members will be 

invited to attend them. I will certainly take 

advantage of that opportunity. I will liaise with 

people in the various industry and sector 

groups to ensure that they raise the issues 

that are important to them. It is essential that 

communication takes place, so that people 

understand what the Government is doing and 

how it responds to those initiatives. 

In conclusion, again I congratulate the 

Minister on this $7m program. Officers will be 

stationed in each of the eight regional 

community centres. Each office will have a 

staff of three to facilitate the process and to 

ensure that it delivers results for the region. At 

the conference, the Minister gave something 

of a warning that I think needs to be repeated 

to ensure that there is a degree of realism in 

this process. The Cairns Post states— 

"However the minister had a warning 

for anyone being too enthusiastic in their 

demands. 

'Remember, the Government has to 

pay for what you want and that means 

ultimately you the taxpayer has to pay.' " 

It is important that people do not think that 

there is a bottomless bucket of money. We are 

saying to people, "This is the amount of 

money that we have to spend, so what are 

your priorities? What should the Government 

be doing with your money to make sure that it 

really meets your needs?" I will leave the 

matter on that note. As I said, I shall take up 

some of those particularly important regional 

matters at another time. 


Answer to Question Without Notice; 

TABCorp 

Hon. R. J. GIBBS (Bundamba—ALP) 

(Minister for Tourism, Sport and Racing) 

(12.29 p.m.), by leave: In October last year, in 

answering a question without notice I sought 

to make an example of the predatory 

behaviour of the Victorian wagering company 

TABCorp in the Queensland club and gaming 

market. On Wednesday, 14 October 1998, an 

article appeared in the Toowoomba Chronicle 

naming TABCorp as a likely financial backer of 

a new club venture involving the Toowoomba 

Clydesdales. In the opinion of the 

Government, this arrangement, which has 

subsequently been legislated against by the 

Treasurer, is against the spirit in which the 

gaming licence was granted to TABCorp by 

the previous Government. 

It is a well-known fact that Mr Healy, the 

honourable member for Toowoomba North, 

had been chairman of the Toowoomba 

Clydesdales during 1998. On 20 October last 

year my office telephoned the Toowoomba 

Rugby League to seek details about the 

TABCorp/Clydesdales issue raised in the 

newspaper article. My office specifically asked 

who the chairman of the Clydesdales was. A 

female staff member of the Toowoomba 

Rugby League said that we should contact Mr 

Healy or alternatively Mr John Barrett, who was 

chairman of the South West Division of the 

Queensland Rugby League. On that premise, 

it was assumed by my office staff and by me 

that Mr Healy was still in fact at that stage the 

chairman of the Clydesdales club. It has come 

to my attention that that was not the case, and 

I wish to formally apologise to the honourable 

member for any embarrassment that I may 

have caused him. 

MOTOR ACCIDENT INSURANCE 

AMENDMENT BILL 

Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP) 

(Treasurer) (12.31 p.m.), by leave, without 

notice: I move— 


Bill for an Act to amend the Motor 

Accident Insurance Act 1994." 

Motion agreed to.

9 Mar 1999 Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Bill 337 

First Reading 


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


Hon. D. J. HAMILL (Ipswich—ALP) 

(Treasurer) (12.32 p.m.): I move— 


time." 

In 1936 Queensland introduced 

compulsory third-party—CTP—motor vehicle 

insurance to this State. In so doing it ensured 

that those people injured on our roads as a 

result of negligence were guaranteed 

compensation and, likewise, the legal liability 

of owners and drivers was fully protected. In 

1994, in recognising the lengthy delays in the 

settlement of claims and the lack of 

rehabilitation assistance for injured claimants, 

the scheme was redesigned and new 

legislation in the form of the Motor Accident 

Insurance Act 1994 was introduced. With the 

objective of early resolution of claims, the new 

legislation introduced strict time frames on 

both insurers and claimants. The scheme's 

focus on personal injury management has 

been of immense benefit to those negligently 

injured in motor vehicle accidents. 

This amendment Bill brings about some 

technical amendments to the operation of the 

scheme, but its main feature is to provide for 

optional six-monthly registration/CTP 

insurance, an initiative previously announced 

by the Government, with a planned 

implementation of early April 1999. As the 

former Minister for Transport, I am only too 

familiar with the financial burden on families of 

an annual combined registration and CTP 

insurance bill. For those motor vehicle owners 

who elect to take the half-yearly option, minor 

administration fees will apply. However, motor 

vehicle owners are expected to welcome the 

opportunity to split the annual bill. The 

surcharge will comprise a small additional 

premium of $8 for the CTP component, to 

cover the loss of investment income and 

added administration costs, plus just a $6 fee 

associated with the extra work and loss of 

income by Queensland Transport in relation to 

the registration component. 

The Bill also makes changes in respect of 

the premium review process. If the scheme is 

going to continue with private sector 

underwriting and with the premium determined 

by Government, it is incumbent on the 

Government to ensure that the premium is 

determined in a fair and independent manner. 

The Bill seeks to improve the process by 

providing a degree of flexibility in the timing of 

reviews, enabling the Insurance Commissioner 

to review the levies, administration fee and 

premiums at such times as warranted by 

scheme experience. Such an action would 

only be taken more than once a year if the 

scheme experience dramatically altered. 

The amendment Bill also addresses a 

shortcoming in the legislation in respect of the 

Government's handling of the Insurance 

Commissioner's recommendation. The 1998- 

99 premium review highlighted a serious 

deficiency whereby the former Borbidge 

Government, just prior to a State election 

being called, avoided its responsibility by 

taking no action on the commissioner's 

recommendation. On the change of 

Government in July 1998, as the responsible 

Minister, I finally had to act on the 

commissioner's advice and increase the 

premiums, whilst at the same time also 

imposing a $3 loading on motor vehicle 

owners to cover the losses attributed to the 

late introduction of the premium adjustment. 

Such a gross mishandling of administrative 

responsibility, for purely political purposes, is 

deplorable. This amendment in the Bill will help 

stop such irresponsible actions, as displayed 

by the former coalition Government, from 

occurring in future. 

The Bill also provides in special 

circumstances for a temporary gratuitous 

insurance. Under legislation it is an offence to 

drive an uninsured motor vehicle on a road or 

in a public place. A vehicle stopped by 

enforcement officers and found to be 

unregistered/uninsured should not be moved 

until the vehicle complies with all requirements. 

An enforcement officer, though, can authorise 

the transport of a vehicle to a secure location. 

However, if the driver is involved in an accident 

causing personal injury, the driver could be 

faced with the cost of the damages claims. 

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs are 

not beyond possibility. 

The amendment in this legislation will 

provide the necessary insurance cover through 

the Nominal Defendant scheme. The cover will 

be restricted to the terms and conditions 

authorised by the enforcement officer under 

the provisions of the Transport Infrastructure 

(Roads) Regulation 1991. Conforming with the 

authorisation under this regulation, cover has 

an absolute limit of 24 hours. The intention is 

to provide sufficient time for the driver to take 

the vehicle home or to a safe place, as 

authorised. However, if it is later discovered 

that there was a CTP policy of insurance in 

force at the time, the gratuitous insurance 

should have no effect. It is not intended that

338 Corrective Services Legislation Amendment Bill 9 Mar 1999 

the gratuitous insurance should lead to a 

situation of dual insurance with any proportion 

of liability attaching to the Nominal Defendant 

Fund. 

Another technical amendment contained 

in the Bill relates to the appointment of 

referees. From time to time disputes arise 

between insurers over matters such as liability 

between tortfeasors or which insurer is to act 

as the claim manager. This situation is more 

likely to occur in the event of a multi-vehicle 

accident and it can be the reason for stalling 

the claim process, impacting on an injured 

party's claim settlement. The amendment in 

the Bill will specifically identify the appointment 

of a referee as a function of the commission. 

I would also draw the attention of the 

House to clause 16 of the Bill. This is a 

transitional arrangement. With the proposed 

introduction of six-monthly registration and 

insurance in April of this year, there is not 

sufficient time to undertake the procedural 

steps specified in the legislation. For several 

months now the Motor Accident Insurance 

Commission, the insurance industry and the 

Department of Transport have been working 

together to put in place the necessary 

mechanisms for the system to be available for 

motor vehicle owners. Stakeholders have not 

been disadvantaged by the non-compliance 

with the procedural steps set out in the 

legislation. I commend the Bill to the House. 

Debate, on motion of Dr Watson, 

adjourned. 

CORRECTIVE SERVICES LEGISLATION 

AMENDMENT BILL 

Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) 

(Minister for Police and Corrective Services) 

(12.38 p.m.), by leave, without notice: I 

move— 


Bill for an Act to amend the Corrective 

Services Act 1988 and the Corrective 

Services (Administration) Act 1988, and 

for other purposes." 


First Reading 


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


Hon. T. A. BARTON (Waterford—ALP) 

(Minister for Police and Corrective Services) 

(12.38 p.m.): I move— 


time." 

The objective of this Bill is twofold—first, to 

abolish the Queensland Corrective Services 

Commission and the Government owned 

corporation Queensland Corrections and their 

boards; and, secondly to provide a head of 

power for the management of maximum 

security prisoners within the correctional 

system. 

I would like to provide the House with a 

brief summary of the report titled Corrections in 

the Balance—a Review of Corrective Services 

in Queensland. This report, prepared by Mr 

Frank Peach and his team, was tabled on 9 

February 1999 and fulfils obligations to review 

the operation of the Corrective Services 

(Administration) Act 1988 and the Corrective 

Services Act 1988. The report made 58 

recommendations for improvements to the 

corrective services system. 

It was recommended that the 

Queensland Corrective Services Commission 

and Queensland Corrections be abolished and 

replaced by a Government department. All 

assets, liabilities and staff of the two agencies 

will be transferred to the new department. It is 

important to note that, in making these 

changes, the Government has made a 

commitment that no permanent staff will lose 

their job as a result of the restructure. 

In the course of the review, Frank Peach 

and his team undertook extensive consultation 

with staff about the operation of the 

corrections system and their role within it. As 

Minister, I spoke personally with most staff 

across the State in a series of meetings and 

telephone link-ups in relation to the 

recommendations. I have told staff that I am 

determined that these changes will be made 

with the least possible disruption to ensure 

safety for the community through the 

continued efficient operation of the correctional 

system and stability for staff. 

As recognised by the Peach review, the 

Queensland Corrective Services Commission 

board had accomplished the outcomes it had 

been designed to achieve. Before the 

commission's establishment in 1988, the 

prison system was in crisis. The current 

commission and board structure was designed 

to increase community input into reforms to 

overcome that crisis. The board's work was an 

important part of preparing our correctional 

system for the 21st century. 

But times have changed. Today there are 

many more opportunities for community input 

into the system, for example, freedom of 

information, judicial review legislation and

9 Mar 1999 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 339 

regular stakeholder meetings—to name just a 

few. The proposed Bill will further enhance 

these remaining avenues of community input 

through the establishment of a ministerial 

advisory council, which will be broadly 

representative of stakeholders. From a political 

perspective, this structural amendment 

reinstates clear lines of accountability between 

the prison system and the Minister responsible 

for that system. 

At the end of the day as Minister, the 

people of Queensland hold me responsible. 

As it stands, if there is an escape or a death in 

custody, it is not the board—the policy 

makers—who are responsible; it is me in my 

role as Minister. Indeed, the Leader of the 

Opposition appears to agree. In the Courier- 

Mail on 24 October 1998, Mr Borbidge was 

reported to have said— 

"There has been a tendency in 

recent years for Governments to hand 

control of the public administration of 

certain policies to unelected commissions 

or councils." 

He continued— 

"They are not interested if the 

Government of the day has delegated 

responsibility to someone else because, 

at the ballot box, the someone else is not 

accountable." 

He further said— 

"Governments have not had their 

hands on the levers and have paid the 

ultimate political price." 

We are now regaining hold of the levers and 

restoring the direct lines of accountability to the 

Minister. 

I would now like to turn to the 

amendments to the Corrective Services Act 

1988 that provide a head of power for the 

management of maximum security prisoners. 

The Bill outlines conditions necessary for a 

prisoner to be placed on a maximum security 

order and then accommodated within a 

maximum security facility. The purpose of 

these facilities is to provide intensive 

supervision and management of prisoners who 

have been assessed as highly disruptive within 

the correctional system. 

Of the group presently accommodated 

within the maximum security unit at Woodford, 

55% have committed murder. Of those, 15% 

are multiple murderers and 45% have been 

convicted of, or are under investigation for, 

murders within a prison. This "hard core" group 

of prisoners have a propensity for violence and 

must be managed accordingly. And 75% of 

prisoners in the maximum security unit have 

either tried to escape and succeeded—many 

on more than one occasion—or have put staff 

in danger through their involvement in 

attempts to escape. The proposed 

amendments also set out the basis for a 

maximum security order to be authorised. 

These orders will be limited to six months' 

duration. However, consecutive orders can be 

made. 

These provisions are required urgently, as 

are all of the above amendments. We need a 

system that keeps pace with the demands 

confronting it, a system that cannot afford to 

relax in the eyes of the community, yet a 

system that has a responsibility to rehabilitate 

and integrate offenders as best it can to 

ensure the community's safety. Queensland 

needs a system that improves on the 

successes of the past, a system which 

provides the security in our prisons which the 

public demands and is entitled to expect. 

I commend the Bill to the House. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Horan, 

adjourned. 

TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL RECOGNITION 

(QUEENSLAND) BILL 


Resumed from 6 August 1998 (see 

p. 1724). 



(12.45 p.m.): I am in the somewhat unusual 

position of speaking or responding to a Bill that 

I had the privilege of introducing into this 

place. Needless to say, I find this splendid 

piece of legislation somewhat difficult to 

criticise. However, I would like to make certain 

comments and certain remarks, because this 

is an important piece of legislation that has 

taken some time to be debated in this place. 

There is broad bipartisan support for the 

principles embodied in the closer economic 

relations arrangements which bring Australia 

and New Zealand together in what is still the 

world's best and most effective example of a 

common market. In an uncertain world 

economic climate, Queensland can only 

benefit from its entrenched place within the 

Australasian market created by CER. Our 

interests are directly served by strengthening 

the community of interest between Australia 

and New Zealand. 

Recent events have produced an impetus 

to look beyond the former almost exclusive 

focus on East Asia. Japan remains deeply 

mired in an economic morass from which it will 

extricate itself only by the application of

340 Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill 9 Mar 1999 

political and fiscal measures for which, 

regrettably, it has so far shown little taste. 

Other East Asian markets, while beginning to 

climb back from the depths to which they 

plumbed last year, are also looking at the 

medium term at best for full recovery. 

The North American Free Trade 

Agreement countries—the United States of 

America, Canada and Mexico, and, 

increasingly, Argentina and Chile in South 

America—are looking to round out their 

substantial advances within market free trade. 

CER stands as an example, albeit a small one, 

of the real benefits of ever closer cooperation 

and market convergence. 

This Bill, which, as I indicated earlier, the 

Opposition fully supports, gives effect to the 

international treaty binding Australia and New 

Zealand into further development of the CER 

process. Indeed, I was a signatory to that 

particular arrangement post Premiers 

Conference with the Prime Minister, with the 

New Zealand Government and with the other 

State Premiers. In the new international 

environment it is no longer impractical to view 

linkages between CER and trans-Pacific 

markets as a viable policy option that could be 

explored. 

The New Zealand link is important to 

Queensland. It represents an additional de 

facto domestic market of more than three 

million consumers. It may not be going too far 

to suggest also that it is an important 

balancing agent in the otherwise overwhelming 

influence of the southern Australian market 

where Queensland, with its unique perspective 

and position in the Australian Federation, is 

concerned. 

This Bill was introduced a year ago by the 

coalition Government in the first full session of 

State Parliament for 1998. Commonwealth 

and New South Wales legislation was enacted 

in late 1997. New South Wales had lead 

jurisdiction duties among the States. I notice 

that when the Premier introduced the Bill he 

was somewhat critical that the coalition 

Government had not progressed this 

legislation prior to the State election. I respond 

by saying to the Premier that it is a pity the 

new Government's priorities in the spring 

session of 1998 did not include facilitating 

passage of necessary Queensland legislation 

relative to CER and its ongoing development. I 

would not have raised this if the Premier had 

not been critical of my administration, but I 

make the point, which I am sure he will take in 

good faith and the manner in which it is 

intended, that debate on this issue was 

adjourned on 6 August last year. Obviously 

there has also been a delay under the Labor 

Government in this State. 

In response to some of the concerns 

raised by the Premier at the time of his 

introduction of the legislation, I say that the 

Commonwealth legislation did attract some 

interest in the Senate which prolonged the 

process in that particular jurisdiction. Indeed, 

one senator in particular took it upon herself to 

substantially delay the passage of that 

legislation. I think that is a pity and something 

the Democrats might like to take on board in 

the light of the very special relationship we 

enjoy with New Zealand and the fact that this 

had the support of all State Governments, as 

well as the Federal Government and the 

Government of New Zealand. Despite that, we 

had this prolonged activity in the Senate which 

led to some delays in enacting the legislation. 

The effect of the Queensland Bill, which 

mirrors the Commonwealth and New South 

Wales legislation, is that if goods may be 

legally sold in Australia they may be sold freely 

in New Zealand, and vice versa. The 

Queensland legislation provides for some 

sensible restrictions on these freedoms so that 

important elements of existing State 

regulations continue to offer Queenslanders 

the protection they are entitled to and which 

has long been part of our regulatory framework 

in this State. For example, the liberal rules we 

are passing through the Parliament do not 

affect Queensland laws regulating the manner 

of sale of goods, transport, storage or handling 

of goods under health, safety or environmental 

regulations, nor do they impact on inspection 

of goods under the same provisions. 

The Opposition shares with the 

Government the desire to facilitate and 

promote increased trade between Queensland 

and New Zealand and the generation of new 

private sector jobs that will flow from increased 

trade. A stronger economy will add a further 

layer of protection for Queensland against the 

increasing difficulties that affect many 

economies around the world, particularly in our 

region. 

The Australia/New Zealand common 

market is a powerful economic engine in the 

regional framework. However, it is important 

that all Governments proceed with caution 

where competition policy and free trade 

particularly are concerned. We must always 

ensure that the playing field really is level and 

that we are not allowing a situation to occur, as 

has occurred in the past, whereby Australian 

industries and Australian jobs are sacrificed to 

devout economic rationalism, where major 

trading partners have not played the game


and reciprocated to the extent that 

Governments on both sides of the political 

fence in Australia have been prepared to do 

over a number of years. 

National Competition Policy has been an 

element of Federal economic policy which the 

Commonwealth has used to increase its 

financial control over the States. It is now clear 

that across the political spectrum there is a 

great deal of sympathy for the view that it is 

time for some serious rethinking of National 

Competition Policy, and I take this opportunity 

to welcome the Federal Government review 

into National Competition Policy at this time. 

That is long overdue and I express the hope 

that we will see responsibility for National 

Competition Policy taken from the National 

Competition Council and Mr Graham Samuel 

and given to the appropriate body, which in my 

view is the Council of Australian Governments, 

that is, the Premiers sitting down with the 

Prime Minister and the Federal president or 

chairman of the Australian Local Government 

Association. 

In the context of the ongoing review of 

CER, we must use this opportunity to examine 

progress and ensure that measures adopted 

through national policy or through international 

treaties, now properly subject to State 

influence through the Treaties Council, are 

genuinely beneficial to all parties to the 

agreement. 

I think one of the significant initiatives of 

the Howard Government probably has not 

been given the degree of attention that it 

deserves. That is, over a number of years we 

had Governments running around the world 

signing international treaties, and those 

international treaties never had to go to 

Parliament. Those international treaties in 

many cases were deemed by the High Court 

of Australia to carry the force of law. We ended 

up in a situation where the Australian people 

essentially had been bypassed in that 

particular process. The Howard Government 

established the Treaties Council, which 

comprises the Prime Minister, the Premiers 

and the Chief Ministers. It is a very worthwhile 

and appropriate forum. For the first time we 

now have access by the States to the 

decision-making process that determines 

whether the Federal Government of Australia 

will sign an international treaty. I think that is a 

significant change. 

Having said that, in my view CER has 

been an outstanding success. It has not been 

without its problems over the years, but it has 

been an extremely worthwhile exercise. It is 

important that we support the ongoing 

development of CER and that we accept that 

this legislation comes to this place today with 

the support of the major parties in the 

Parliament, who share a bipartisan approach 

in dealing with this matter. It is good 

legislation—I could not have drafted it better 

myself—and I look forward to its speedy 

passage through the House. 

Mr MICKEL (Logan—ALP) (12.57 p.m.): I 

also support the Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition (Queensland) Bill. Before I make 

some comments about the Bill, I will correct for 

the House something I said last Thursday 

night. I came into possession of a document 

which purported to be an apology from AAP 

about its coverage of statements by former 

Queensland Cabinet Minister Pat Comben. 

While speaking during the debate I quoted 

from this document, saying that AAP accepted 

that Mr Comben's comments had been 

reported inaccurately and inappropriately. My 

statement was made in good faith and based 

entirely on the document. Since then it has 

become clear that my statement was 

inaccurate. I therefore unreservedly apologise 

to the House and to AAP for inadvertently 

misleading this House. It is clear that AAP had 

nothing to do with the preparation of the 

document. 

This Bill is modelled on mutual recognition 

legislation in the European Community 

introduced in 1992. The completion of this 

mutual recognition regime makes the Closer 

Economic Relations agreement the only 

regional trading arrangement outside the 

Economic Union which takes into account 

mutual recognition standards. 

The bilateral relationship has as one of its 

most enduring aspects the free movement of 

citizens of both countries, who may now live, 

work and study in either country without visas 

and permits. It will eliminate tariffs on virtually 

all trans-Tasman trade. This finalises a process 

of tariff reduction begun not just by the 

Borbidge Government but in 1992, when tariffs 

on 129 items were reduced to the preferred 

British rate. 

The current CER agreement was initiated 

in 1983 and concerned itself with the reduction 

of tariff and non-tariff barriers against goods 

entering each country from the other. The 

second stage, between 1988 and 1990, 

accelerated the movement to free trade. This, 

then, is the third stage. It covers initiatives to 

widen the trade and economic relationship to 

encompass a single aviation market and 

mutual recognition of standards for goods and 

occupations. 

Mutual recognition was modelled on the 

mutual recognition legislation in the European


Community introduced in 1992. This Bill will 

make the CER agreement the only regional 

trading arrangement outside the Economic 

Union that accommodates mutual recognition 

standards. 

Australia has been the frontrunner in 

forging open trade groupings. Queensland is 

the centrepiece for a very significant trade 

round which will help our great primary 

industries. The group, which formed in 

Cairns—appropriately named the Cairns 

Group—consists of Australia, New Zealand, 

Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, 

Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and 

Thailand. This group was significant in the 

Uruguay Round negotiations on agriculture, 

which will benefit Queensland primary 

producers. The Cairns Group met in Sydney in 

April 1998 to work on a strategy for the next 

round of World Trade Organisation 

negotiations on agricultural trade, to begin this 

year. These groupings give Australia and New 

Zealand a clout they could never achieve if 

acting individually. 

The forum in our region which closely 

resembles CER is the APEC forum, begun in 

1989, focusing primarily on promoting open 

trade and economic cooperation as a 

cornerstone of Australia's regional trade policy. 

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 

2.30 p.m. 

Mr MICKEL: Under the Bogor Agreement, 

APEC members are committed to achieving 

free and open trade by 2010. The Bureau of 

Industry Economics—— 

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. 

Unless my eyes are misleading me, we do not 

have a Minister in charge of the business 

before the House. 

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr Clark): 

Order! Indeed, we do not. The Leader of the 

Opposition is quite correct. I will just consult 

with the Clerk. The member for Logan may 

continue. 

Mr MICKEL: The Bureau of Industry 

Economics has forecast that the reforms 

contained in the Bogor Agreement could add 

another $3.6 billion per year to Australia's 

agricultural exports. Movements towards freer 

trade create winners as well as losers. 

Mr BORBIDGE: I rise to a point of order. It 

is unprecedented in this place for—I see that a 

Minister has just arrived. I was just going to 

make the point that it is unprecedented in this 

place not to have a Minister in charge of 

legislation before the Parliament. I just make 

that observation. 

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The 

member should continue. 

Mr MICKEL: We, as legislators, must be 

sensitive to the adjustment process being felt 

by the communities who lost. We need a 

commitment to retraining displaced employees 

as well as developing an industry policy which 

looks at opportunities for industry. In 

Queensland, I think we had a traditional focus 

on primary industries. Some might say that it 

was over-focused on these to the exclusion of 

the development of an industry policy. The 

Goss Government gave us a regional focus 

when it opened a number of trade offices in 

the Asian region. And to its credit, the 

Borbidge Government continued with this and 

expanded it with the Indonesian office. The 

Beattie Government's State Development 

Department correctly brings the business 

development sectors into a trade focus. 

I think it is fair to say that what has been 

missing from our business sector throughout 

this century has been a trade ethos. We have 

produced for the domestic market. Australia's 

multicultural policy, so often derided by our 

opponents, actually strengthens our ability to 

develop an export culture. It enhances the 

prospects, because it can tap into networks 

between chambers of commerce and business 

groups. My colleague the member for 

Sunnybank has reaffirmed that with me, with 

experiences in his own electorate. 

In applying this to New Zealand, a House 

of Representatives Standing Committee on 

Primary Industries, Resources and Rural and 

Regional Affairs had this to say— 

"New Zealand is an impressive role 

model with its strong export focus in its 

agricultural sector." 

New Zealand, with three million people, has 

had to export. South Africa, with about six 

million people who could afford to buy most 

fruits and vegetables, had to export. The same 

is the case in South America. With 18 million 

people in Australia, it is a good-sized domestic 

market, and that is where many people stay 

focused. However, a better trade emphasis 

and a better trade focus is occurring. Trade 

liberalisation Bills such as this are in 

Queensland's long-term interests. Tariffs can 

protect jobs in the short term but cannot 

provide job security in the long term. They also 

impose costs that reduce opportunities and 

jobs in other more efficient and competitive 

industries. 

Members of this House have implied that 

people do not mind paying a bit more for 

highly protected goods. I am advised that the 

facts are that tariffs lift the costs faced by


Australian exporters by around 3%. Even 

conservative estimates suggest that, in the 

past decade, the average Australian family 

has gained around $1,000 a year from tariff 

reductions. Families have access to a wider 

range of affordable and high-quality products. 

For instance, imported motor vehicles would 

cost around 25% more if the 1988 tariffs still 

applied. That represents an extra $5,000 on a 

$20,000 motor car. And clothing and footwear 

would cost around 14% more, that is, an extra 

$300 for the average family to maintain its 

dress standards. 

In the confidence motion debate, the 

member for Crows Nest, in a state of perhaps 

high emotion, and certainly hyperbole, said— 

"Once upon a time we could actually 

build a car. Weren't we terrific! Now, we 

cannot build anything—everything has to 

be imported from everywhere." 

I have spoken to the member for Crows Nest 

about that, and what he was referring to, of 

course, was the perception that is held in the 

community. Perception it is, but it is certainly 

not factual. Let us look at the facts. 

Holden Australia is now the most 

productive General Motors plant for medium 

volumes and the centre for engineering 

excellence in the region. World exports could 

exceed $1 billion by the year 2000. Toyota in 

Australia is now more efficient, and exports are 

up from $47m in 1990 to $329m in 1996. 

Mitsubishi has expanded its export production 

in Australia. If we look at component 

manufacturers like PRR Automotive, Air 

International, Bosch and VDO—Australia 

requires local car manufacturing to make 

production in Australia viable, but all are very 

much export oriented due to the small and 

mature Australian market. 

In the textile industry, which people 

believe is nonexistent, Bradmill, which 

produces cotton and denim, Blundstone, 

which produces boots, and Gosh Leather have 

built export bases, whilst YAKKA and RM 

Williams have developed niche domestic 

markets. Firms like ATCO, Incat and Austral 

Ships, which construct ferries, ERG, Keycorp, 

which is influential in IT, and Air International, 

which is involved in vehicle airconditioning, 

have expanded and created jobs. In the 

primary industries sector, Australian food 

producers like Australia Meat Holdings, Kiwi 

Orchards, Ardmona, which specialises in 

canned deciduous fruit, the Sumich Group, 

which specialises in fresh and processed fruit 

and vegetables, and Tassal, which specialises 

in Atlantic salmon, are doing well. 

In Queensland, with groups such as 

Cotton Queensland and Cotton Australia, the 

cotton industry is one of the great success 

stories. It exports 95% of its product. This year, 

its production will exceed one million bales. I 

understand that it has even taken over one of 

the mills in the southern parts of America. The 

cotton gins in Goondiwindi provide significant 

regional employment. Now entrepreneurs are 

getting into textile manufacture. I praise 

particularly people like Sam Coulton and the 

people of Goondiwindi for their efforts in 

working with the TAFE colleges and getting 

this industry under way. I am very pleased to 

show the House today one of the fine-quality 

products made at Goondiwindi with 

Goondiwindi cotton. 

Mr Robertson: Table it. 

Mr MICKEL: I do not want to table it; I 

want to wear it. That company gave one to the 

Premier, and even managed to produce one 

in his size. Full credit goes to the Queensland 

industry. These things are happening right 

here in Queensland. It is a fine, outstanding 

product, and one that is providing employment 

in regional Queensland. I would be delighted if 

we had a spinning mill here in Queensland as 

a direct result of the cotton industry. 

I also want to mention the Australian dairy 

industry. This year, it will provide over $2.2 

billion in exports, which is a phenomenal 

performance by any measure. Closer 

economic relations with New Zealand have 

provided additional competitive pressures on 

Australia's domestic and export market 

activities. The current Domestic Market 

Support Scheme, which will phase out by 30 

June 2000, places our industry at a 

disadvantage to New Zealand. The DMS does 

not require the New Zealand Dairy Board to 

pay the domestic product levy for New Zealand 

products sold on the Australian domestic 

market. The majority of Australian dairy 

companies believe that this places them at a 

competitive disadvantage to New Zealand 

dairy products marketed on the Australian 

domestic market. This arrangement, I must 

stress, is not a result of this legislation. I 

understand that some processors did not want 

the levy imposed on New Zealand. I raise it 

because we have to be very careful not to 

disadvantage ourselves in the name of 

competition. I must say in passing, too, that 

New Zealand prides itself on being totally 

deregulatory in dairying, yet it still retains a 

single-desk seller, the New Zealand Dairy 

Board, for its products, and it still has a big 

residual access into Europe under the last 

GATT round. There are many Queensland


dairy farmers who would welcome that type of 

access. 

There are pressures coming on the 

Queensland dairy industry. There will be some 

shake-out in the Queensland industry as the 

post-farm gate deregulation comes into effect 

Australiawide next year. I want to praise the 

Minister for Primary Industries for urging 

Queensland dairy farmers to take out business 

plans to see exactly where they stand currently 

in their operations and the price of milk that 

they will need to make a profit. 

Nevertheless, there is in Queensland at 

the moment significant investment by dairy 

processors, such as Parmalat and National 

Foods, which gives us room for confidence. In 

other words, my appeal to everyone is this: let 

us talk up Queensland and Australian 

prospects. Certainly, in some cases, factories 

have closed as a result of reforms, but in food 

processing and a range of elaborately 

transformed manufactures, education, tourism 

and other services are performing well. 

Contrary to the public perception, Australia's 

manufacturing sector has increased its export 

growth. From 1986-87 to 1996-97, exports of 

manufactures grew by an average of 12% per 

year in real terms, compared with an average 

of 6% from 1976-77 to 1986-87. Of special 

note, growth of exports in elaborately 

transformed manufactures, that is, those with 

a high value-added component, has increased 

strongly over the past 10 to 15 years. 

Manufactured exports have grown at nearly 

twice the rate of all other exports over the last 

10 years. 

Trade liberalisation, on its own, is not 

enough. It will need a coordinated policy 

approach, including financial and employment 

packages targeting affected areas. Microeconomic 

reform, including the labour market, 

has already shown its capacity for flexibility and 

good management in the public and private 

sectors. This Bill is another step along the path 

which Queensland and Australia have to travel 

to become a world competitive nation. 

Dr PRENZLER (Lockyer—ONP) 

(2.41 p.m.): The Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition legislation will allow any goods 

sold in New Zealand to be sold in Australia, 

and will allow any person practising an 

occupation in New Zealand to also practise in 

Australia. How will we get unemployment down 

in Queensland by opening the floodgates to 

cheap New Zealand labour and imports? 

What is Queensland, or Australia for that 

matter, supposed to get out of this 

agreement? It is a far better deal for New 

Zealand to have open slather on Australia's 18 

million strong market than it is for us to have 

access to New Zealand's tiny market of three 

million. I wonder whether the Labor member 

for Fitzroy will oppose this Bill. He is rightly 

concerned about the jobs of his union 

members. This Bill can only make things 

worse. I wonder whether the Labor member for 

Mulgrave will oppose this Bill. He condemned 

the casualisation and globalisation of the 

Australian work force and he spoke very 

strongly against the National Competition 

Policy and the damage that it has done. This 

Bill can only exacerbate the problem. 

Do these Labor politicians realise that 

Labor Governments have been responsible for 

much of the damage that they are 

complaining about? Likewise, coalition 

members should understand that their parties, 

along with the Labor Party, are responsible for 

all the bad policies inflicted on the Australian 

people over the years. As has been proved 

over time, when it comes to economics, both 

Labor and coalition Governments have almost 

the same policies. This Beattie Bill is identical 

to the Borbidge Bill introduced into the 

Legislative Assembly on 17 March 1997. What 

is the difference between conservative and 

progressive politics in Queensland? In this 

case, absolutely nothing! 

When it comes to changing Queensland 

laws to comply with Commonwealth law or 

international treaties, Labor and coalition 

Governments alike trip over themselves in 

appeasement. The Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition Bill is only one of a multitude of 

tangled bilateral and multilateral treaties that 

Australia has signed and which continue to 

overrule our domestic laws. 

This Bill has been made necessary in 

order for Queensland to comply with the 

Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition Act 1997. This Act in turn was 

derived from the Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition Agreement which emerged from 

the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic 

Relations Trade Agreement of 1983. Going 

back a little further, we find the inspiration for 

the Closer Economic Relations Trade 

Agreement to be the Australia-New Zealand 

Free Trade Agreement of 1965. Before the 

Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement 

we had the Australia-New Zealand Agreement 

of 1944. 

What do all these treaties have in 

common? They are all supposed to be good 

for us. By eliminating tariffs and globalising our 

industries, employment is supposed to 

increase and a better standard of living is 

assured for all. One of the main objectives of


the Australia-New Zealand Agreement of 1944 

reads as follows— 

"There should be cooperation in 

achieving full employment in Australia and 

New Zealand and the highest standards 

of social security both within their borders 

and throughout the islands of the Pacific." 

How miserably they have failed! Politicians can 

rattle off all the statistics they like about how 

many jobs they created when they were in 

office but they cannot ignore the reality. The 

reality is that there are about 2.5 million 

unemployed or under-employed people in 

Australia, and I believe that in New Zealand 

the situation is not much better. 

Despite the thousands of treaties that 

Australia has signed, unemployment keeps 

getting worse, crime is getting worse, drug 

abuse is getting worse, and the Trans-Tasman 

Mutual Recognition Bill will not make a bit of 

difference. The increase in centralisation of 

law-making and the shifting of power from the 

State Government to the Federal 

Government—of which this Bill is an 

example—is reducing the justification for State 

Governments. The tendency for Australian law, 

and by extension State law, to be increasingly 

derived from international agreements means 

that less and less backbench parliamentary 

scrutiny is necessary or desirable. 

This is possibly why this Bill and the 

parent Commonwealth Act both contain Henry 

VIII clauses which allow the Act to be 

amended by regulation made by the Executive 

arm of Government, completely bypassing the 

House. The Governor-General has the power 

to change a Commonwealth Act by regulation, 

and therefore by virtue of section 109 of the 

Constitution the State law as well, completely 

bypassing the Queensland Parliament. 

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee is 

rightly suspicious about the Henry VIII clauses 

included in this Bill. The predecessor to the 

Scrutiny of Legislation Committee, the 

Subordinate Legislation Committee, had this 

warning about Henry VIII clauses— 

"The solution to this problem lies in 

Parliament's own hands, for as long as 

Parliament permits the inclusion in Bills of 

clauses which allow the amendment of 

Acts by Orders in Council, it will continue 

to place the scrutiny and control of its 

legislation outside its own power." 

Clause 4(1) of this Bill adopts the 

Commonwealth Act under Section 51 Part 37 

of the Australian Constitution. The more power 

the Queensland Government gives to the 

Commonwealth, the less justification that 

remains for the existence and considerable 

expense of State Governments. 

I see that in Schedule 4 of the Bill medical 

practitioners are lucky enough to be exempt 

from the operation of the Act. What is the 

justification for this exemption? I would think 

that dentists, veterinary surgeons, actuaries 

and even bricklayers and shearers will all be 

cranky when they discover that they now have 

to fight New Zealand competitors for a slice of 

the business pie. 

I notice that the High Court has just 

decided that New Zealand television programs 

are now classified as Australian content. The 

High Court said that our obligations under 

international treaties override our domestic law. 

I will say it again: the High Court has decided 

that international treaties override our 

Australian law. 

Let there be no doubt in our minds that all 

international treaties have legal force and they 

override our domestic laws. Even if Parliament 

does not enact legislation to comply with the 

treaties, the courts consider them valid, as 

numerous decisions of the High Court prove. 

Because of this objectionable agreement, 

Australia may now have to accept potentially 

substandard food and other imports from New 

Zealand. These products may contain 

pesticides, heavy metals and anything else 

that the Australia-New Zealand Food Authority 

will permit. I wonder whether people are aware 

that the regulations governing the purity of our 

foods must now be lowered to meet our treaty 

obligations with New Zealand. Our presently 

low cadmium limit in foodstuffs must be raised 

because the Australian-New Zealand Food 

Authority says so. 

Australia and New Zealand now have 

mutual recognition of occupations and 

professions, common food standards, and 

even television programming. Suddenly the 

concept of a common currency does not seem 

so far-fetched. But the question begs to be 

asked: just how far will economic and legal 

harmonisation be carried with New Zealand 

and other countries? At least New Zealand is 

an English-speaking nation, fairly similar to our 

own. But what will happen when we are forced 

to harmonise our laws with foreign countries 

which have nothing in common with us and 

whose people do not speak English? 

This Bill is just one more step in the 

creation of a single global monolithic entity in 

which Australia is being forced to discard any 

valuable consumer protections in the emerging 

"one size fits all" world economy. For these 

reasons we express our opposition to such a 

Bill.



(2.48 p.m.): I rise to support this Bill. The 

Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill is a 

logical step in the continued integration of the 

Australian and New Zealand economies. The 

objective of this Bill is to eliminate regulatory 

barriers to the movement of goods and service 

providers between Australia and New Zealand. 

In his second-reading speech, the Premier 

highlighted that this Bill will promote an 

increase in trade between Queensland and 

New Zealand which should, on all accounts, 

increase job opportunities for Queenslanders. 

For Queensland businesses considering or 

participating in trade with New Zealand, red 

tape and costs will decrease and trade should 

be more vigorous. 

Access to a larger market coming and 

going across the Tasman will, of course, 

increase competition and suppliers of goods 

will need to ensure efficiency to cope with that 

increase. However, for the consumer greater 

competition means more choice. In allowing 

for mutual recognition of registered 

qualifications, the Bill will also make 

appointments easier between the two regions. 

As with the mutual recognition scheme 

covering Australia, occupations are considered 

equivalent if the activities authorised to be 

carried out under each registration are 

substantially the same, whether or not this 

result is achieved by the means of the 

imposition of conditions. The Commonwealth 

Administrative Appeals Tribunal may make a 

declaration that occupations carried on in two 

jurisdictions are not equivalent if certain facts 

exist. Alternatively a Minister from New 

Zealand and a Minister from each one or more 

Australian jurisdictions may jointly declare that 

specified occupations are equivalent or 

describe conditions that will achieve 

equivalence. 

I want to take the opportunity today to 

look at a matter of which I have a particular 

interest. In my contribution today, I want to 

recap and review mutual recognition in 

Australia in relation to the legal profession. The 

legal profession is covered under the 

Australian mutual recognition scheme and will 

be covered by the proposed trans-Tasman 

scheme. Under the Australian scheme, lawyers 

who are admitted to practise in one State or 

Territory are deemed to be allowed admission 

in others despite the fact that different 

admission requirements for lawyers still exist 

from State to State. If one looks at each 

State's admission requirements for lawyers, 

one finds the following: in Queensland, we still 

have a divided profession. 

A law graduate intending to practise as a 

solicitor in Queensland must serve either two 

years' articled clerkship to a solicitor or 

complete the one year legal practice course 

conducted by QUT. Persons who complete 

that one year course receive a conditional 

admittance and must serve as an employed 

solicitor for one year in order to obtain a full 

practising certificate. In New South Wales, a 

law graduate must complete one of the 

practical training courses recognised by the 

Legal Practitioners Admission Board. In 

Victoria, a law graduate must complete either 

a period of one year as an articled clerk or the 

course on practical training run by the Leo 

Cussen Institute. In Western Australia, a law 

graduate must complete one year as an 

articled clerk before gaining admission. In 

South Australia, a law graduate must complete 

the five-month graduate certificate in legal 

practice to qualify for admittance. In Tasmania, 

a law graduate must either complete the sixmonth 

legal practice course followed by a oneyear 

articled apprenticeship or complete two 

years as an articled clerk. In the Australian 

Capital Territory, a law graduate must 

complete the five-month legal workshop 

course to qualify for admission. Finally, in the 

Northern Territory, a law graduate must 

complete one year as an articled clerk before 

being admitted. As members can see, there is 

a great variance in the admission requirements 

between the States and the Territories. 

As a practical matter, the admission of a 

solicitor or barrister in Queensland under the 

mutual recognition laws is more of a paper 

admission rather than an initial admission to 

enter the roll. Under standard initial admission 

procedures, a graduate who qualifies for 

admission by completing the legal practice 

course, articles of clerkship or, for a barrister, 

the bar practice course, is admitted by the 

Supreme Court under the Supreme Court 

rules. Where an interstate admitted solicitor or 

barrister applies for admission to practise in 

Queensland, under the mutual recognition 

laws this admission is authorised by the 

Supreme Court registrar upon the receipt of 

the correct forms and fee without any 

formalities. 

I understand that at the time mutual 

recognition of the legal profession was first 

discussed, the Australian legal profession was 

presented with a choice: it could either 

formulate a national uniform standard or be 

forced under the mutual recognition legislation 

to recognise and work with colleagues from 

interstate who may have been admitted in 

their own States with so-called lesser 

qualifications. For many of the professions, this


trend is the impetus behind moves to create a 

uniform national admission standard. 

However, what has been implemented for 

the legal profession is merely a national 

acknowledgment of 11 core subjects that must 

be completed in a law degree to satisfy the 

academic admission requirements of any 

State and Territory. Aside from requiring that 

these core subjects are studied, the admission 

requirements still vary from State to State. At 

present, there is no uniform national admission 

standard aside from the 11 core subject 

requirement. Further, in response to the threat, 

the Law Council of Australia presented to the 

Council of Australian Government proposals 

for a national legal services market. The 

proposal was a detailed document titled The 

Blueprint for the Structure of the Legal 

Profession, a National Market for Legal 

Services. The general principles in this 

blueprint were developed by a network of 

committees and working parties established by 

the law council and its constituent bodies in 

July 1994. The focus of the law council's work 

was to establish the key elements of a national 

legal services market in which there could be 

easy mobility of practitioners between 

jurisdictions. The objective was to establish a 

system whereby a lawyer who is admitted and 

has a right to practise in a State or Territory will 

be entitled to practise anywhere in Australia 

without having to meet any further 

requirements. 

In a letter to the then Prime Minister and 

other COAG members, the then Law Council 

President, Stuart Fowler, said that for a 

national legal services market to operate 

efficiently it was essential for a lawyer who 

practised in more than one State or Territory to 

be subject to the rules and regulations which 

were substantially similar throughout Australia. 

To further this aim, the Law Council developed 

its blueprint for a national market, which aimed 

to keep the standards and practice at a high 

level. It includes uniform requirements for 

practical legal education before and after 

admission, the establishment of a national 

committee to accredit the nation's law schools 

and a uniform code governing legal practice 

throughout Australia. There was also a 

national specialist accreditation scheme 

proposed. 

Concerns expressed regarding mutual 

recognition were that it might encourage a 

levelling down to the lowest common 

denominator. A national model may alleviate 

that problem. New mutual recognition 

legislation for the legal profession would need 

to be enacted for the Law Council's blueprint 

proposal to be implemented and its reforms 

are far too advanced to fit under the existing 

mutual recognition regime. Although mutual 

recognition has gone some way towards 

facilitating a national market for legal services, 

considerable barriers remain. Admission and 

entitlement to practise in one jurisdiction do 

not entitle a practitioner to practise in all other 

jurisdictions. Rather, interstate practitioners 

must apply for recognition and pay for 

admission and practising rights in each State 

where recognition is sought. 

I have been and continue to be a keen 

advocate of a national legal profession. Since 

its inception in colonial Australia, the legal 

profession has been organised around each 

State's jurisdiction. Before mutual recognition, 

the argument against the mobility of the 

profession was that each State had its own 

laws and each State's laws are different. More 

and more we are seeing uniform legislation 

being initiated from a Federal level and 

enacted in each State. Many areas of law are 

now covered by Federal courts. 

This leads me to the last point that I 

wanted to make in today's debate, and that is, 

the ability of the Parliamentary Scrutiny of 

Legislation Committee to adequately scrutinise 

Commonwealth legislation. I know that 

previous committees have continually raised 

this point and it has been raised again by my 

own committee. Bills that form part of the 

national scheme legislation impact upon the 

institution of the State's Parliament bringing in 

that legislation. In fact, I understand that 

scrutiny of national scheme legislation is a hot 

topic for a number of States. Of course, the 

reality is that once legislation is passed in the 

Federal Parliament there is little or no 

opportunity for a scrutiny of legislation 

committee in a State to determine whether the 

Act meets fundamental legislative principles for 

that State. 

The objective of this Bill is to make 

Queensland a participating party in the trans- 

Tasman mutual recognition arrangement by 

national scheme legislation via adopting the 

Commonwealth Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition Commonwealth Act 1997. The 

Commonwealth Act implements the mutual 

recognition principles. However, under the 

Commonwealth Act these principles are 

subject to a number of exclusions and 

exemptions. These are on the grounds of 

public health and safety and protection of the 

environment. 

In addition, the Bill sets out in detail that 

this mutual recognition scheme will not affect 

the operation of Queensland laws regulating 

the manner and sale of goods; the


transportation, storage or handling of goods 

and directed at protecting health and safety or 

preventing environmental pollution; or the 

inspection of goods if the inspection is a 

prerequisite to sale and the laws are directed 

at protecting health and safety or preventing 

environmental pollution. It also restricts sales 

to goods that can only be sold legally in 


The Bill also makes several attempts to 

ensure that any future changes affecting the 

operation of the scheme in Queensland will 

not occur without the consent of the 

Queensland Parliament. Predetermined 

legislation and predetermined amendments to 

State legislation have raised strong objections 

from State Parliaments. 

It has also been essential to the 

argument that there should be a process 

whereby the States have input into the scrutiny 

of the head Commonwealth legislation. This is 

an evolving concept and, no doubt, the 

Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the 

Queensland Parliament will be making its 

contribution to the national debate. Having 

said that, I still welcome the legislation and 

look forward to a new and more mature 

arrangement and interactions with our trans- 

Tasman neighbour. I commend the Bill to the 

House. 

Mr SLACK (Burnett—NPA) (3 p.m.): It had 

not been my intention to speak to the Bill, 

because I expected the House to be universal 

in its support for it. However, I was prompted to 

speak after listening to the contribution of the 

member for Lockyer who, for some reason or 

other, sees great dangers in the Bill before the 

House and feels that we may be swamped 

with imports from New Zealand. Over many 

years, we have had a strong two-way trading 

relationship with New Zealand that has 

presented many opportunities for us. That will 

continue to be the case. This legislation can 

only further those opportunities. I cannot 

understand anybody in this House having such 

a regressive and negative attitude towards the 

potential strengthening of ties with a country 

that can give Queensland increased 

opportunities for jobs and prosperity. 

We are a trading nation and over 80% of 

what we produce is traded. We must enhance 

all opportunities to further our ability to export 

what we produce. For example, my own area 

of Bundaberg has many horticultural producers 

who export to New Zealand. I cannot for one 

moment understand how anybody can feel 

that we cannot compete if we are going to 

operate in the marketplace with New Zealand. 

I pay every tribute to New Zealand exporters. 

They have done very well. They can show us a 

thing or two; we can learn from them. They 

perform very well in the international 

marketplace and they are very good at 

packaging. In certain areas, I have looked at 

them with some respect. However, at the end 

of the day any cooperation that we can 

engender between New Zealand and 

ourselves can only be to the benefit of both. 

We are talking about a mutual 

understanding—a Bill of cooperation—to 

ensure that we maximise our opportunities in 

the marketplace, not just for Australians and 

New Zealanders but also for the rest of the 

world. This is particularly so for Asia. 

While Asia has its problems, it is still a 

major outlet for Australian and New Zealand 

products. Together, we can penetrate that 

market. We can learn from each other and 

benefit from the fact that we have had a long 

association. We are ANZACS; broadly 

speaking we have a similar history, we have 

similar laws and a similar outlook on life. We 

want to see each other prosper. I think that 

anybody who stands in this House and says 

that we should take a regressive step in our 

relationship with New Zealand is not living in 

the 21st century. Unfortunately, such a person 

must be living in the 17th or 18th centuries. 

That has certainly not been my view from my 

experience in the trading area. 

I do not want to knock One Nation, 

because obviously that party has some 

supporters who feel that jobs would be under 

threat through increased imports from 

wherever it may be. However, I return to the 

point that 80% of what we produce is 

exported. There are many opportunities to 

export to New Zealand as there would be 

opportunities for New Zealanders to export to 

Australia. Surely Queenslanders can compete 

in the marketplace, which is what we are being 

asked to do. We should have every 

confidence that we can do that. 

If we do not have the confidence to 

compete in the New Zealand marketplace, 

how can we have the confidence to compete 

in the marketplace in Japan or the US, where 

we are doing very well, thank you very much. 

For the information of the Premier and the 

House, I state that we took the initiative to 

diversify our trade into markets other than 

Asia. That move meant no disrespect to Asia, 

but the reality was that we saw that it was 

unwise to have, as some people say, all our 

eggs in one basket. We also realised that we 

are competitive in the US and European 

markets. Australians and Queenslanders can 

take pride in the fact that our products are as 

good as any products from anywhere else in


the world, and I defy anybody to say 

differently. For example, the backdrops that 

are produced in Queensland for the movie 

industry are equal to or better in quality than 

those produced in California and they are 

cheaper. One will find the same thing in the 

European market. What we produce is as 

good as anything that the Europeans produce 

and it is cheaper. Of course, the problem is the 

Asian market, where our goods may be a little 

more expensive but our quality is better, so it is 

a matter of weighing quality against quantity. 

At the end of the day, the Queensland 

coalition Government took the decision to 

diversify into markets such as Europe and the 

US and, as the Deputy Premier mentioned this 

morning, the UAE and other Arab countries. 

Last year I led a delegation to the UAE, which 

resulted in very positive signs for increased 

trade with the UAE. I also led a delegation to 

the US, which also had very positive results. I 

do not have the figures in front of me, but 

trade to those countries has expanded quite 

substantially. Africa and India are also 

potential outlets for Queensland trade. There 

are plenty of trade opportunities, but we have 

to be very positive about approaching those 

opportunities. If we adopt a negative attitude, 

we will find ourselves going backwards. People 

will find themselves out of work and the 

farming communities that export their produce 

will lose their international markets if we 

approach this issue in a haphazard or a timid 

way. 

While I am on my feet I shall speak a little 

about tariffs, because there is some fear that 

Australia, being a low tariff country, is at the 

mercy of other countries. The fear is that those 

countries will look after themselves and will 

increase their tariff barriers or will enforce tariffs 

that we cannot compete with. The reality is 

that tariffs throughout the world are coming 

down. It is easy to say that Japan, China and 

elsewhere have not reduced their tariffs 

significantly and that they still have tariffs of 

50% or 100%. However, in many cases over 

the last few years tariffs have been halved. In 

the future, we need to position ourselves to 

take advantage of the lowering of tariffs 

throughout the world. Currently, we are not 

taking advantage of them to the extent that 

we should be. 

I know that the problems that, for 

example, Korea is facing are putting it under 

pressure. It is the same with Japan, China and 

other Asian countries. However, as yet I have 

not seen any signs that they are not 

progressing with their program of lowering 

tariffs. Early in the next century we will see 

quite a significant lowering of tariffs, to the 

extent that countries such as Korea will have 

virtually no tariffs. As a country that exports 

80% of our goods, that can only be to our 

advantage. We need to encourage trade 

cooperation between countries. As I have said, 

we have already diversified into Europe, the 

Arab countries, Africa and the US. We must 

diversify wherever we can. We need to foster 

close cooperation between all of the countries 

with which we have built up a strong trading 

relationship. In other words, we should not 

forget Asia. We should maintain those markets 

in their time of need. Having said that, now is 

not the time to be regressive or to even think 

about not endeavouring, as best we can, to 

have closer cooperation with New Zealand. 

Mr ROBERTSON (Sunnybank—ALP) 

(3.09 p.m.): I rise to support the Trans-Tasman 

Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Bill and 

some of the statements made by the 

honourable member for Burnett, in particular 

his response to the member for Lockyer's 

disgraceful contribution to this important 

debate. When I put my name onto the list of 

speakers for this debate, I noticed that no One 

Nation members intended to make a 

contribution. Although we hear a lot of bluster 

from One Nation members about the reduction 

in tariff barriers destroying the country, when 

push came to shove they did not show. Given 

the contribution of the member for Lockyer, it 

would probably have been a better option for 

One Nation not to have put any names onto 

the speakers list. 

Today in this House, in respect of a vitally 

important issue, we yet again heard a 

contribution from One Nation without any basis 

in fact whatsoever. During his contribution, the 

member for Lockyer admitted that he does not 

want to know the true position or what the 

statistics show, because that does not suit 

One Nation's argument. Statistics can be cited 

proving that over the past 10 years since the 

CER was signed exports from Australia to New 

Zealand have increased by 300% and imports 

from New Zealand to Australia have increased 

by 250%. However, One Nation members do 

not want to know about those facts, because 

they do not suit their position. 

As the member for Burnett said, I do not 

know how we can achieve a 300% increase in 

exports and at the same time not generate 

jobs. That defies logic. For example, I do not 

know how we can increase exports of motor 

vehicles manufactured in Australia from a 

value of $2,719m in 1986-87 to $11,300m in 

1997-98—a 400% to 500% increase—and not 

create jobs in our economy. I recommend to 

the member for Lockyer an interesting 

quarterly publication by the Australian Bureau


of Statistics titled International Merchandise 

Trade. That publication not only outlines our 

export and import performance country by 

country, it also examines and puts a value on 

every other category of Australian production 

and exports. The December quarter 1998 

edition shows how our export performance has 

grown dramatically over the past 10 years. 

However, for its own very narrow and ignorant 

purposes, One Nation does not wish to talk up 

the victories and improvements in Australian 

export performance under both Labor and 

coalition Governments; it wants to talk us down 

all the time and tell untruths about the effect of 

tariff reductions. 

Mrs Lavarch: They don't understand. 

Mr ROBERTSON: As my friend the 

member for Kurwongbah said, they simply do 

not understand. 

However, I do not wish to speak only 

about One Nation in my allotted time; I wish 

also to speak about another trade initiative 

that will prove to be extremely beneficial to 

Queensland. Entering into trade agreements is 

only part of the equation in improving 

Australia's and Queensland's export 

performance. It also takes imagination by both 

Government and industry to explore new ways 

to establish strong trading relationships. To this 

end, I will mention a new initiative by the 

Graduate School of Business at QUT, which 

has the support of Rotary, the Australian 

Industry Group, the Queensland 

Confederation of Commerce and Industry and 

the Department of State Development, to 

leverage trading opportunities over time from 

the international students who come to 

Queensland to study for their MBAs. 

QUT recognised that these students, who 

come from all over the world—India, the South 

Pacific, China, other parts of Asia, America 

and Europe—more often than not come from 

families with significant business interests in 

their countries of origin. It also recognised that 

the experience of students while studying in 

Queensland was overwhelmingly positive. A 

couple of months ago, one of the lecturers at 

the QUT School of Business, Mr Ken Gilbert, 

approached me with the idea of placing these 

students with Queensland industry as a means 

to gain practical experience and establish 

contacts and partnerships which could be 

developed further when these students 

returned home. With the help of the 

Department of State Development this pilot 

scheme, although still in its infancy, can 

provide an additional means to promote 

Queensland overseas and create new trading 

opportunities. 

I wish to read into Hansard a letter that I 

received from one of those students who 

comes from India. He was speaking about the 

value of this initiative, as he saw it, in 

establishing a closer trading relationship 

between his family's company in India and 

Queensland companies. He states— 

"We thank you all for the concern 

shown, and for giving us the platform to 

present our products and ourselves. We 

have representatives in the areas of 

Textiles, Plastics and chemicals, Food 

Industry, Handicrafts, Minerals, Electronic 

goods. We have reasons to show that we 

are interested in building constructive 

trade relationship with Australia." 

He goes on to speak about his interests in 

developing trade relationships with 

Queensland. Of his family's company, he 

states— 

"... we have representatives who have 

their own manufacturing base in India, as 

also we have agents as representatives 

for Indian firms, it would be easier to 

negotiate and have face-to-face 

communication"— 

as a result of coming to Queensland to study 

for his MBA. Yes, he is talking about exporting 

goods from India to Australia, but that is the 

nature of trade. Trade cannot be one way. If 

we want to expand our trade horizons, we 

have to expect that potential trading partners 

will want to do the same. I know it comes as a 

surprise to One Nation, but that is how trade 

works. He then stated— 

"Some of us are interested to 

promote Australian products in India 

because of the superior quality or better 

technology, especially to cater to the 

needs of growing discerning customer 

profile." 

He is obviously talking about the emerging 

middle class in India. He goes on to speak 

about some specific opportunities. These 

opportunities arise from the fact that this 

young man is studying an MBA at QUT. His 

family owns businesses in India and, 

interestingly enough, they also speak English. 

I appreciate that the fact that they may not 

speak English was a difficulty that One Nation 

expressed earlier in respect of closer economic 

ties. However, when he was talking about the 

land of the stranded diphthong, I perhaps was 

with him for a while. 

The way forward for Australia is to pursue 

this initiative and use our contacts at whatever 

level and supplement them with international 

trade agreements. There is no other option. 

We cannot put up the walls again and hope


that the rest of the world will go away. It does 

not work that way, and not one job will be 

created by taking the path that One Nation 

suggested today. 


ALP) (Premier) (3.19 p.m.), in reply: I thank 

honourable members for their contribution to 

this debate. In particular, I thank the 

Opposition for its support for the Bill. I will not 

respond to the point that the Leader of the 

Opposition made about the delay with this Bill. 

I think he waited two years before he 

introduced it, but those trivial matters do not 

deserve to be raised in this House. As he 

knows, I promised new standards and I do not 

intend to raise those sort of issues. 

Having said that, the Leader of the 

Opposition did raise some interesting points in 

relation to National Competition Policy, and by 

and large I share his view in relation to them. I 

think I should advise the House that I have 

written in the strongest terms to the Prime 

Minister, urging him to review the role and 

authority of the National Competition Council. I 

have implemented policies which ensure that 

only those competition reforms which pass a 

public benefit test will be implemented. I have 

maintained Queensland's position in respect of 

major reforms to achieve our competition 

payments without selling off all our assets, as 

they have in Victoria. This is a very important 

point. 

In many respects the sale of public assets 

in Victoria, such as the electricity industry, is 

going to deprive future generations of their 

opportunity to control that industry in their own 

State. My concern is that it will be controlled by 

the boardrooms of New York and London, and 

I do not think that is in the interests of regional 

development or Australian development. In 

particular, I think National Competition Policy 

works very much against States such as 

Queensland. If one considers that Melbourne 

has something like 70% of Victoria's 

population, one sees that changes that can be 

made in smaller States—and in a sense it is 

almost a city State, if you look at the size of 

Melbourne—cannot be made in States such 

as Queensland, where only approximately 

46% of the population live in the capital city. 

Therefore, when one is trying to maintain 

services to regional and country Queensland, 

there must be Government control of natural 

assets or resources, such as the electricity 

industry. Water is another one. At the moment 

we are constantly battling with the 

Commonwealth over water. As the former 

Premier will know, this was an issue that he 

had to deal with. I know the difficulties that he 

had from what I have seen; we are having the 

same difficulties, because we do not want to 

see people out there paying for water which is 

going to undermine their ability to survive. 

The honourable member for Burnett 

spoke about this—one of the things that I put 

on the hold. Had the National Competition 

Policy gone ahead in letter form, a lot of 

farmers around Bundaberg—and I know the 

member for Bundaberg would share this 

concern as well—would have been the first hit. 

I would not, and the Cabinet would not, let it 

go ahead for that very reason. We were 

concerned about what it meant. We have 

written to the Prime Minister. There have been 

some changes in terms of the implementation 

program, and I want other changes in terms of 

National Competition Policy so the farmers in 

the honourable member's area are not 

disadvantaged. They do not generally support 

my side of politics. That has nothing to do with 

it. This is bigger than politics; this is about 

getting a system of Government where we, in 

fact, control it. 

I totally agree with one of the things that 

the Leader of the Opposition said. It will stun 

him as much as it will stun other members of 

this House. The control of National 

Competition Policy should be taken back to 

the Premiers. It should not be handled by 

some independent body over which the duly 

elected people have little control. We have to 

remember in all these things that National 

Competition Policy on its own can lead, as it 

has in Britain, to large private monopolies in 

the control of water and other natural assets, if 

one wants to put it in those terms. What is the 

point of having water in the control of a private 

monopoly? How does that improve the lot of 

people's lives? It does not. 

At least if someone is unhappy about the 

electricity supply they are getting or unhappy 

about the quality of the water, what do they 

do? They can get on to their local member of 

Parliament, they can turn it into a public issue 

if it is of such significance and they can 

change Government. Governments have been 

changed on the basis of the provision of these 

sorts of services—important, life threatening 

services in some circumstances, or certainly 

services that impact on people's quality of life. 

Governments have been changed on the 

basis of them. That is the ability of an 

electorate to change the Government if they 

do not like the services they are getting. 

National Competition Policy removes the 

control, and we need to do something about 

that. I have to say that it is time that all sides 

of politics in this country at a State and Federal


level rewrote the national competition rules 

and laws as they exist. I have to say that we 

are doing everything we can to achieve it. I 

was delighted to see the unanimous resolution 

of this Parliament last year in relation to 

National Competition Policy. We have used 

that extensively in contact with the Federal 

Government and we will continue to use the 

unanimous resolution of this Parliament to try 

to get those national competition rules 

changed. 

Mr Paff interjected. 

Mr BEATTIE: I did not hear the 

interjection. 

In terms of the point that the Leader of 

the Opposition made in relation to treaties, I 

think it is important to say that, while Mr 

Howard, the Prime Minister, certainly did 

introduce new treaty arrangements in 1996, it 

is my understanding that the Honourable Paul 

Keating was responsible for developing those 

processes for the Commonwealth. I think it is 

regrettable that to date only one meeting of 

the treaty's council has been held. It should 

meet annually, and I will be encouraging the 

Prime Minister to maintain his commitment to 

the treaty's process. 

Queensland has led the development of 

the treaty's protocol for States and Territories. 

Officers of my department coordinate State 

and Territories' input to the standing 

committee on treaties. That is an issue that we 

will keep an eye on. The Trans-Tasman Mutual 

Recognition Arrangement is a very good 

example of cooperation between the 

Commonwealth and all States and Territories 

in the development of a treaty under the 

protocol. The TTMRA is dependent for its 

success on the support of the States and 

Territories. I thank the Leader of the 

Opposition for his contribution. 

I think it is important that we address 

those issues raised by the member for Lockyer 

because they should not be allowed to be on 

the public record without being addressed, 

although I understood that the member for 

Burnett made some appropriate remarks a 

little earlier. I note the concern expressed by 

the member for Lockyer about freeing up trade 

with New Zealand. The point about all this is 

that he is too late. I think the member for 

Logan made some reference to these issues 

as well, and so did the member for 

Sunnybank. The issue is that the member for 

Lockyer is too late. 

New Zealand is one of Australia's major 

trading partners. We sell lots of products in 

New Zealand and they sell lots of their 

products here. At one stage in the early part of 

the history of Australia and New Zealand, they 

were talking about New Zealand becoming the 

seventh State. 

Mr Schwarten: It's closer than Perth. 

Mr BEATTIE: It is closer than Perth. 

Mr Borbidge: They were nearly part of the 

Federation. 

Mr BEATTIE: That is exactly the point. 

They were going to be the seventh State and, 

as the Leader of the Opposition says, they 

were nearly part of the Federation. 

New Zealand is Queensland's second 

largest market for international tourists. Yes, 

we have to recognise their product standards, 

but it is increasingly the case that those 

standards are jointly determined between our 

countries. That is the bottom line. The member 

for Lockyer unfortunately is confused when he 

refers to the High Court case involving 

television content. The High Court ruled that in 

terms of the Closer Economic Relations 

agreement, Australian and New Zealand 

products in a number of sectors would be 

considered as one. There is nothing new in the 

ruling and it works to Australia's advantage. It 

works to our advantage, particularly for 

consumers, who end up with greater choice in 

relation to purchasing products, including 

television. 

The bottom line is that—and we have to 

appreciate this—there are trade blocs forming 

in the world. The European Union with 480 

million people now has the Euro. We have the 

cooperation in the United States between the 

US, Canada and Mexico and its trade alliance. 

We need to have trading partners with whom 

we can trade. That is the bottom line. Australia 

is trying to enhance that with New Zealand—a 

long-term relationship. The world is so 

competitive we cannot do it on our own. It is 

that simple. 

I think it is worth making this point. Our 

difficulty—and this is reflected in a number of 

Government policies—is this: there are only 18 

million of us. We do not have the huge market 

that the United States does of 240 million plus 

their partnerships with Canada and Mexico. 

Europe has 480 million people. What do we 

do when we have a small domestic market? 

First of all, we have to use our brains, which is 

why we keep talking about smart State, about 

education and about training; but we export. 

That is the key to it because export means 

jobs. The most valuable thing that we can do 

to be competitive in the world of exports is to 

have a well-educated, well-trained work force. 

That is the competitive edge. Any smart 

economist in the world will tell honourable


members that. What we then need to do is to 

find those things that we can export. 

One of the things the Government has 

been trying to do is value add when it comes 

to primary produce, to find whatever value 

adding opportunity we possibly can. In some 

senses the previous Government pursued this 

policy, too. Queensland Governments have 

been pursuing this for some time. We have 

added to it. 

Mr Mickel: Value added cotton. 

Mr BEATTIE: Cotton is a good industry. I 

know that the cotton industry is in the middle 

of a debate about spraying, but cotton is a 

relatively new industry that is worth $500m to 

this State and $1 billion to New South Wales. 

It is a $1.5 billion industry. 

Things are changing. I know that my old 

home town of Atherton now has sugar where 

there used to be tobacco. The strategy is to 

value add to primary industries—to value add 

to raw materials. The light metals industry—the 

Teksid foundry, the smelter at Stanwell and so 

on—is so important to us because it is value 

adding down the line. Of course, we also want 

to continue to do well with tourism. 

We are trying to do the traditional things 

well, but then we get to the second part of the 

strategy, that is, we are trying to do something 

about increasing opportunities in technology. 

The regional headquarters of Dascom is 

something the coalition was pursuing for 

Queensland and that is now a reality. This 

State is trying to get high technology ventures. 

No more will the technological engineers be 

going to work in Silicon Valley. As I understand 

it, the head of Dascom is an Australian who 

went to Silicon Valley and has now come back 

to head up Dascom on the Gold Coast. So the 

brain drain that was going on a few years ago 

is being reversed. 

The next stage in all of this is finding new 

industries, such as biotechnology. The 

University of Queensland has some of the 

leading people in the world when it comes to 

biotechnology. Not only do we have to do the 

traditional things well and value add to those; 

we have to get to the next stage, and that is 

find the future industries, the industries of the 

next century. That is what we have been 

seeking to do. 

A number of members on the 

Government side referred to trade 

opportunities, as did members on the other 

side. In all of this we have to remember that 

trade means jobs. That is the bottom line. The 

former Minister for Trade, the honourable 

Doug Slack, made some reference to what he 

did when the previous Government was in 

office. We supported the opening of the 

Shanghai office and we have kept it open. 

Why? Because it was a good decision. I 

supported him when I was in Opposition. Now 

that Labor is in Government, we support the 

Shanghai office. In the same way, when the 

coalition reopened the Los Angeles office I 

went there and we did it in a joint fashion. 

Why? My Government and I are committed to 

trade, because trade means jobs. 

We will continue to have an aggressive 

approach to trade opportunities. That is why I 

have been to China. I went to northern Italy to 

talk to Teksid, I went to Germany to talk about 

film and about coal opportunities, and I also 

went to London. Honourable members know 

that the German coal industry is removing the 

subsidies and moving away from the nuclear 

industry. For the first time in a generation there 

is an opportunity to get into a new coal market. 

I spoke to the Mining Council about this the 

other night. It recognises that opportunity. 

These are the sorts of things we have to do. 

Teksid is something we have to pursue. It has 

been around for a while—I accept that—but 

we have to get out and pursue those sorts of 

opportunities. 

I put this very clearly on the record today: 

honourable members will see under this 

Government a very aggressive attitude 

towards trade opportunities overseas. We do 

have to lead trade delegations. I led a trade 

delegation to Europe. The honourable 

member for Burnett led trade delegations. Not 

once did he get criticism from me about it. Nor 

did the member for Surfers Paradise when he 

went on those trips as Premier of this State, 

because they were valuable trips. We will be 

doing the same and we will be taking every 

opportunity. We will be looking at the United 

States. We will continue our relationship with 

Asia. 

I agree: of course we have to maintain 

our presence in Asia. That presence has to be 

maintained during the difficult times, because 

if we are friends during the difficult times we will 

be even better friends during the good times. 

Asia will come back. No-one should be under 

any illusions about that. South Korea is 

coming back faster than most people think. 

Sure, there is still a year or 18 months to go. 

Taiwan has held up very well. China has held 

up very well. All the pundits who said that the 

Chinese currency would be devalued were 

wrong. Hong Kong has had its ups and downs, 

but it is still solid. Japan has not done as well 

as most people would like to think, but it has 

bottomed out and is slowly starting to come 

back, and the world's second biggest economy


has held up—not as well as we would like, but 

it has held up. 

Sure, there are some problems in 

Indonesia, but we have a particular 

responsibility as well as a particular relationship 

with Indonesia which means that we have to 

do what we can to develop those trading 

partners. Thiess Contractors are there in a big 

way. So is Telstra. There are a large number of 

Australian investors in Indonesia and they 

have to remain. 

The member for Sunnybank made some 

points about India, as did the member for 

Burnett. India is our third biggest importer of 

coal. It is a big future market for us with its 

emerging middle class. Malaysia is on the way 

back. It has some political issues and 

problems, but the economy is solid. Thailand is 

starting to come back. As I indicated to the 

House, I had lunch with Jeff Kennett and the 

Prime Minister of Singapore and the Premier 

of South Australia in Melbourne last Friday. 

We can see Singapore's optimism. While the 

Prime Minister of Singapore was very glowing 

in his view of the Australian economy he 

knows that, while we are solid, they are solid 

as well. 

What does all of that mean? That means 

that we are on the doorstep of the biggest 

market in the world—Asia. We can understand 

Ford's enthusiasm when we talk about light 

metals. We can understand magnesium 

opportunities. We can understand Teksid's 

interest, because as the middle classes 

emerge in India, in China, in Indonesia, in 

Malaysia and in Thailand—you name it—the 

demand for cars of the future, lighter cars 

admittedly, which is what this is all about, will 

grow. Certainly the opportunities for us are 

significant. 

We have enormous opportunities to take 

advantage of that. There is bipartisan support 

for and agreement on these sorts of 

agreements because this is the way to the 

future. I say to the member for Lockyer that we 

have to not think of yesterday. We have to 

think of today and of tomorrow. We have to 

plan these things. If we do not have some 

future industries, if we do not plan for the 

future, then my children and his children will 

not have jobs. We cannot simply be insular in 

these matters or there will not be a future for 

any of us. 

As the House can see, the economic 

strategy I have set out, in a thumbnail sketch, I 

guess, will give some idea of what we are 

trying to do. It is the only way ahead. That is 

why we have to be aggressive and get out in 

the world. As I said before, while I have the 

honour of being the Premier of this State I will 

be knocking on every door I possibly can—in 

Asia, in Europe and in the United States. 

I ask the House to let me be political for a 

minute. One of the things that disappoints me 

about the Federal Government is that the 

Prime Minister is a stay-at-home Prime 

Minister. That is not good enough. The Prime 

Minister of this country should be out there in 

the world, selling our opportunity. Outside of 

what we are trying to do—we are a new 

Government—do honourable members know 

who does more selling of Australia than 

anyone else? It is Jeff Kennett. People in 

some parts of the world would think he is 

Prime Minister! Kennett should be doing what 

he is doing. We will be doing that sort of thing. 

I know that other State leaders—Bob Carr and 

others—are still trying to do it as well, but the 

Prime Minister and the Federal Government 

need to play a more aggressive role in selling 

Australia to the world. 

In many respects we are a long way away 

from the rest of the world. Distance is getting 

shorter. If we want that long-term structural 

development, if we want the Teksids to come 

here and invest in our light metals industries 

and if we want to develop joint ventures into 

Asia, then we have to get off our tails and do 

it. 

I have to say—I have told the House 

this—that I was disappointed when I visited 

Italy a couple of weeks ago. When I sat down 

with the Australian equivalent of Austrade and 

they were talking about coming to Australia, 

they were talking about going to Sydney and 

Melbourne. Members can imagine how well 

this went over with me. 

Mr Schwarten: We want them to come to 

Rocky. 

Mr BEATTIE: We will do this in stages. I 

said that that was simply not good enough. I 

made it very clear that we would be going 

back. I am not necessarily talking about me, 

although I would love to if the opportunity were 

available. In September we will be having an 

exhibition of Queensland companies— 

Australian companies, but obviously 

Queensland companies—in Milan to showcase 

what we can do. We will be inviting a range of 

Italian companies to come here in the lead-up 

to the Olympics next year because the Italian 

Olympics team is, in fact, training in 

Queensland. We will use that as a leg-up to 

highlight the opportunities that exist in this 

State. 

Those are the sorts of things we have to 

do. We have to be in those places. Frankly, it 

is about time that we in this State and in this

9 Mar 1999 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 355 

country accepted that political leaders actually 

have to get out there and promote their States 

or their countries in the world. The ones who 

stay at home achieve nothing. That is why, 

when the Leader of the Opposition went 

overseas on his recent trip, I refused to be 

critical when some wanted that, for the very 

simple reason that I think it was a valuable trip. 

It was an important trip. The alternative 

Premier of this State should be out visiting 

various countries to be equipped to deal with 

those sorts of issues. The Premier of the day 

should be out there selling the State, as well. 

As Doug Slack, the member for Burnett, 

knows, not once did I criticise one of his trips 

overseas, because I saw that as promoting 

this State. That is why we should lift the 

blinkers and the nonsense we hear about 

leaders going overseas. If there is an actionpacked 

itinerary, and people are out there 

doing their bit to promote jobs, then that 

should be the agenda that everyone 

understands is important. In terms of primary 

produce—and a number of members opposite 

represent electorates where there are 

significant primary sector opportunities—we 

have to get out into the world and sell those 

opportunities, as well. 

This legislation does have bipartisan 

support. I did not intend to speak so long, but I 

thought that, after the contribution of the 

member for Lockyer, it had to be put in 

context. If we do not put it in context, we end 

up with a nonsense debate which does not 

advance this State one bit. I am not prepared 

to allow that to happen. 

Mr Schwarten: It's going to cost us jobs. 

Mr BEATTIE: It will cost us jobs, because 

trade means jobs. I will say that again: trade 

means jobs. 


Committee 

Clauses 1 to 8, as read, agreed to. 

Bill reported, without amendment. 

Third Reading 

Bill, on motion of Mr Beattie, by leave, 

read a third time. 

LAND AND RESOURCES TRIBUNAL BILL 


Resumed from 19 November 1998 (see 

p. 3459). 



(3.43 p.m.): The Opposition will not be 

opposing this legislation, but we do have some 

concerns which I will raise during this speech. 

However, I understand that the Government, 

by way of amendment at the Committee 

stage, may well be addressing a number of 

the concerns that I will be raising. I thank the 

Premier for his courtesy in advising me earlier 

today of those proposed amendments. 

The need for a State-based alternative to 

a Perth-based, Commonwealth-run, national 

Native Title Tribunal handling native title 

matters in this State and land matters in this 

State has been clear for a long time. The 

current Premier's Labor predecessor wanted to 

establish a State-based tribunal as long ago 

as the immediate wake of the passage of the 

totally unworkable Native Title Act way back in 

late 1993. He did not do so because he could 

not reach agreement with the then Labor 

Prime Minister on funding and related matters. 

The coalition could not do so in Government 

because of Labor's delays in the Senate over 

the response to the Wik judgment of the High 

Court. 

Native title, which had been a mess under 

the original Mabo-based Native Title Act, 

became a farce after the Wik case, which 

affirmed the doubts we on this side of the 

House had long been seeking to make clear to 

the people of this State. We were parodied for 

that stance by honourable members opposite, 

but history and time proved that we were right. 

Now, finally, almost seven years after the 

Mabo judgment, Labor is at last moving on 

this significant side-bar issue in dealing with 

native title matters. It comes an inexcusable 

nine months after Labor finally let a very 

compromised Wik response through the 

Senate. The template was there in July. The 

Native Title Unit within the Premier's 

Department had done the work. There is 

absolutely no reason why this legislation could 

not have been on the statutes many months 

ago. It is, frankly, staggering that it has taken 

this Government so long to respond to this 

issue specifically, and that it has chosen to do 

so in such a piecemeal approach. In the 

Northern Territory and in Western 

Australia—the other two parts of this country 

where native title issues are a major concern 

for Government—legislation was put before 

the respective Parliaments in a coordinated 

fashion. We have had to put up with a 

situation in Queensland in which each leg of 

the response has been dealt with separately. 

This is the third—and not the last—time 

we have debated native title under this

356 Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 9 Mar 1999 

Government. We should have got it over and 

done with in one go. Even after this, we will be 

revisiting the topic again when we deal with the 

heritage issues. I warn the Premier today that 

we will not be as helpful next time if the 

confidential draft plan on heritage matters is 

even approximately reflected in the final 

version, which may yet be many months away. 

That draft showed it is very clear that the 

intention of the Government is to provide an 

extraordinarily broad definition of cultural 

heritage matters that will simply deepen the 

bureaucratic nightmare confronting almost any 

land issue in the State these days, as a result 

of the Labor Party's determination to seek the 

edge of the envelope for the extension of the 

reach of native title at every turn. 

So with that timetable behind us, and with 

the work still to be done, it is just ridiculous for 

the Premier to claim that he has fixed native 

title, as he contends he has. Of course, he has 

not. He is dawdling his way through it with a 

quite biased approach that will ultimately bite, 

and bite hard. The delays that have been built 

into land management in this State by the 

rush by Labor politicians and their fellow 

travellers—the Greens, the Democrats and 

Senator Harradine among them—to maximise 

its impact are still with us. Certainty in the 

pastoral industry is therefore still a very long 

way off. Certainty for the mining industry is still 

a very long way off. We are nowhere near as 

far down the track as we should have been. 

Very pointedly, the establishment of this 

tribunal is a precursor to Commonwealth 

approval of the alternative State provisions 

related to sections 43 and 43A of the 

amended Native Title Act—the right to 

negotiate provisions. Until this tribunal is up 

and running, the alternative State provisions 

cannot come into play. We dealt with 43 and 

43A last year, when we had the extraordinary 

decision of the Government to maintain a fullblown 

right to negotiate for mining on pastoral 

land—a decision which is going to slow 

development in this State and cost us jobs. 

Even though we dealt with that last year, it is a 

dead letter until this Land and Resources 

Tribunal is up and running. So that is the cost 

of this piecemeal approach. That is the cost of 

a can't do Government. The Opposition 

supports both the establishment of an 

independent State-based tribunal and the 

amalgamation of the Wardens Court with the 

new body. 

It is no secret that there is considerable 

dissatisfaction in some quarters with the 

operation of the Wardens Court. This 

dissatisfaction is best exemplified by the 

decision of the Court of Appeal in late 1997 

which found that the Mining Warden had 

denied natural justice to a central Queensland 

pastoralist. The court found that the warden 

had taken evidence from South Blackwater 

Coal after closing public hearings and without 

notifying the pastoralist, Mr Edward Wall. 

There is no doubt that many in the pastoral 

industry were heavily critical of the Wardens 

Court and believed that its decisions were 

biased towards mining companies. I do not 

wish to pick sides in that dispute, but whenever 

there is a situation in which a court has lost the 

confidence of many in the community, 

remedial action is required. 

In February last year, the Department of 

Mines and Energy, at the direction of the then 

Minister, the then member for Tablelands, 

released a discussion paper on the court. That 

document outlined a number of worthwhile 

reforms aimed at bolstering the court and 

tackling some of the major concerns that 

industry bodies had. 

This reform process has been overtaken 

by the need to establish a State-based body 

to deal with native title issues affecting the 

mining and pastoral industry, and I am sure 

that amalgamating the bodies is sensible and 

will hopefully help to build bridges to persons 

and groups who felt that they were not getting 

a fair go. One step that will help in this process 

is the explicit requirement that the tribunal 

must observe the rules of natural justice. 

A similar requirement is absent from the 

Minerals Resources Act, and although there is 

most probably a common law requirement that 

the Wardens Court observes this basic 

element of procedural fairness, it is better that 

it be made explicitly clear in the legislation 

establishing the new body. Landowners, in 

particular, should be very pleased that their 

concerns about not having a fair go, and being 

treated fairly, are, in part, being addressed. 

Section 26 of the Commonwealth Native 

Title Act provides that the right to negotiate 

applies to the creation of a right to mine. As 

the Premier pointed out when introducing this 

Bill, that includes not just mining leases but 

also tenures that allow exploration and 

prospecting and the extraction of petroleum or 

gas. However, the activation of the right to 

negotiate is avoided if the Commonwealth 

Minister approves alternative State provisions 

that comply with sections 43 and 43A. 

One of the key elements of obtaining 

Commonwealth approval for alternative State 

provisions is the establishment of an 

independent body which will hear objections, 

which body will include a member of the 

national Native Title Tribunal. In addition, an


independent State body is required to be 

established pursuant to section 24MD to deal 

with disputes concerning compensation for the 

compulsory acquisition of native title rights and 

interests. 

I will not repeat at any length the 

Opposition's concerns with the way in which 

the Beattie Labor Government failed to 

address the real concerns of the mining 

industry with the alternative State provisions 

enacted to deal with section 43A situations. 

The right to negotiate process that will be 

inflicted on the mining industry under the State 

Act was unnecessary, will add extra costs and 

uncertainty to the industry and generally is 

counterproductive. However, that Bill has been 

passed and we have to deal with the merits of 

this Bill independently. 

One matter on which I would appreciate 

clarification is the relationship between the 

presiding and the non-presiding members of 

the tribunal. I note that the Premier has been 

called from the Chamber, but I trust that the 

Minister in charge of the House and the 

officers are taking notes of these particular 

issues. I suspect that they may be dealt with, 

as I indicated earlier, in some of the 

amendments that the Government is 

proposing. 

The Premier has indicated that this new 

body is not a court. It is subject to ministerial 

override. Its presiding members are not judges 

of the Supreme or District Courts. Yet the Bill 

provides that members of the Land Court will 

be non-presiding members. Following the 

recent High Court decision in Kable's case, I 

have some doubts about the legality of this 

arrangement. Certainly Land Court members 

are judicial officers, yet under this Bill they are 

being treated differently and poorly in 

comparison with the presiding tribunal 

members. I would like the Premier to address 

this issue in his reply, and in particular whether 

there are any legal or constitutional problems 

in having Land Court members sitting with 

members of this tribunal in an inferior capacity. 

Under this Bill the president of the tribunal 

will be treated in all respects as a Supreme 

Court judge and the deputy presidents as 

District Court judges, even though they will not 

be members of the Supreme or District Courts. 

Appointees will have lifetime tenure and will 

only be able to be removed in the same 

manner as if they were either respectively a 

Supreme or District Court judge. 

I certainly support every effort to make the 

tribunal an independent body, and for that 

reason I support the transfer of responsibility 

for the administration of this statute and this 

body to the Attorney-General and the 

Department of Justice and Attorney-General. 

However, I would say to the Premier that this 

body is not a court. It cannot operate as a 

court and I am not convinced that the 

president of this tribunal should have equal 

status to a Supreme Court judge, especially as 

the person holding that position will not be a 

judge of that court. 

The Supreme Court is the superior court 

of this State, and this or any Government 

should exercise suitable restraint before 

creating ad hoc tribunals and investing their 

members with a position and status the 

equivalent of the superior court of this State. 

There is no requirement in the Federal Native 

Title Act that we do this, and I would be 

interested to know what motivated the 

Government in elevating the president to this 

status. I formally request that the Premier, as 

the responsible Minister, responds to these 

concerns in his summing-up. I would also be 

interested to know whether the Attorney- 

General consulted with the Chief Justice on 

the matter and whether the Chief Justice is in 

concurrence. 

A further matter which requires some 

comment is the fact that, although hearings of 

the tribunal must be open to the public, 

proceedings may be heard in camera if the 

tribunal believes that it is in the interests of 

justice to do so or it would allow culturally 

sensitive issues to be appropriately dealt with. 

This is a provision that will be needed from 

time to time. Nevertheless, in the Western 

Australian legislation there is a provision that 

its equivalent body may take account of 

cultural and customary concerns of Aboriginal 

peoples but not so as to unduly prejudice a 

party to the proceedings. 

I am sure that before the tribunal 

exercised its discretion under clause 48 to hold 

hearings in camera it would try to avoid 

prejudicing other parties. But I think that there 

is considerable merit in putting this matter 

beyond doubt. I would suggest to the Premier 

that consideration be given to clarify the Bill in 

due course to ensure that, in exercising this 

discretion, appropriate consideration must be 

given to the prejudice that may be caused to 

other parties. I would also specifically request 

that the Premier addresses this issue in his 

response. 

The success or otherwise of the tribunal 

will in large part be determined by how quickly, 

simply and effectively it deals with matters 

which are currently heard by the mining 

warden. It will be essential that the rather 

complex nature of this tribunal, with presiding


and non-presiding members, and with various 

referees performing different tasks, does not 

prevent non-native title matters being 

processed effectively. As important as native 

title is—and I should add cultural heritage 

issues as well—it would be an absolute 

tragedy if we forgot that this tribunal has to 

deal with all of the various matters that were 

previously dealt with by the Wardens Court 

under both the Mineral Resources Act and the 

Fossicking Act. 

I recognise that the Premier has indicated 

that day-to-day proceedings will be able to 

heard by single member panels and that as 

minimal a disruption as possible will be caused 

to current processes under the Mineral 

Resources Act. Just last December, the 

Government decided to appoint a second 

mining warden with a third in reserve. The 

Minister for Mines and Energy said, and I 

quote— 

"There is an urgent need now to start 

clearing the backlog of cases which have 

accumulated over the last couple of 

years. It is time to firmly address this 

matter with action." 

No-one in this Chamber would disagree with 

those sentiments, but it would be a retrograde 

step indeed if the new tribunal did not give 

sufficient time or priority to non-native title 

matters. I seek some information from the 

Premier as to how, administratively, the 

tribunal will be structured so that proper priority 

occurs and general mining and fossicking 

issues are dealt with in a timely manner. 

The Premier pointed out that the 

Commonwealth Native Title Act requires that a 

member of the national Native Title Tribunal 

must participate in the determination of an 

objection under the alternative State provisions 

regime. He indicated also that the 

Government's preferred position was that 

presiding members of the tribunal become 

members of the national Native Title Tribunal. 

No doubt discussions with Commonwealth 

officials have taken place about this matter, 

and, if that is the case, I wonder whether the 

Premier can indicate the attitude of the 

Commonwealth. Is the Commonwealth 

minded, as a matter of principle, to appoint 

members of the proposed State tribunal also 

as members of the national Native Title 

Tribunal? I raise this point because if the 

Commonwealth does not agree, there are a 

range of financial, administrative and logistical 

issues that then have to be addressed if the 

State tribunal is to operate efficiently and 

effectively. 

If the Commonwealth does not agree and 

a member of the national Native Title Tribunal 

participates in tribunal matters, who pays the 

expenses of that Commonwealth member? Is 

it the State or the Commonwealth? Has this 

matter been raised and resolved, and if it has, 

what is the outcome? The Premier said in his 

speech that Queensland officers are 

negotiating with their Federal counterparts 

funding assistance issues, so I assume that, if 

these are live issues, then they would have 

been discussed thoroughly in that context, and 

in that regard I would welcome the Premier's 

advice to the House. 

When in Government I directed that all of 

the native title policy and legal areas be 

amalgamated into one division within the 

Department of the Premier and Cabinet. I did it 

with the clear appreciation that it is essential 

that the Premier's Department take charge of 

high-level discussions with the Commonwealth 

on native title. In particular, I was acutely 

cognisant of the need for high-level 

coordination when it came to issues of 

financial assistance, as this will be essential if a 

State-based regime is to be set up and 

function properly. It is with this background in 

mind that I raise these issues, because without 

a proper understanding at the outset of the 

respective roles of State and Federal tribunal 

members and who is going to pick up the tab, 

there is the potential for ongoing problems as 

well as Federal/State disagreements. I would 

ask the Premier to inform the House when the 

next series of Bills relating to native title and 

cultural heritage matters will be introduced into 

this Chamber. 

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of 

native title knows that there is an ongoing 

overlap with cultural heritage matters. Ever 

since Justice Evatt issued her report on the 

review of the Commonwealth Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act a 

little over two years ago, there has been a 

considerable amount of debate as to the 

future of Queensland's Cultural Record 

(Landscapes Queensland and Queensland 

Estate) Act. Ideally, there is merit in having a 

single, cohesive approach to native title and 

cultural heritage, with miners and pastoralists 

not being confronted with different processes, 

different principles and different litigation. 

There is also no argument about having 

proper legislation in place to prevent improper 

interference with burial remains and cultural 

heritage sites and places. In the past, the 

mining industry has attempted to properly 

negotiate with indigenous representatives 

cultural heritage management strategies that 

protect important sites of significance to


indigenous peoples but at the same time allow 

legitimate exploration, mining and 

infrastructure placement activities to occur. 

I say to the Premier that there is growing 

uncertainty and unease in the mining and 

pastoral industries about the way in which the 

State is proceeding with its review of 

Queensland's cultural record legislation. Any 

reforms to cultural heritage laws and practices 

will have to be handled very carefully indeed. 

Already the mining industry is looking offshore 

for opportunities in a way that we would never 

have envisaged a decade ago. This 

Government must be vigilant and not put in 

place any further legislative or administrative 

barriers to job creation by the mining or 

pastoral industries. Subject to what I have 

outlined, and subject to the response to the 

concerns that I have raised in the Premier's 

reply, the Opposition will be supporting the Bill. 

Hon. J. C. SPENCE (Mount Gravatt— 

ALP) (Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander Policy and Minister for Women's 

Policy and Minister for Fair Trading) 

(4.04 p.m.): I believe that it is truly an historic 

day in the Queensland Parliament as the 

coalition offers its support to one stage of the 

Queensland Government's native title 

legislation. It is also an historic day because at 

lunchtime today the Government hosted a 

Women in Reconciliation lunch. That is the first 

time that such an event has occurred in the 

precincts of the Queensland Parliament. It was 

truly a wonderful lunch. Two women who were 

at the forefront of reconciliation and the native 

title debate spoke to us about what the 

process meant to them, and I refer to Auntie 

Ethel Munn and Camilla Cowley who, I believe, 

showed the rest of Australia just what could be 

achieved in the spirit of cooperation, goodwill 

and preparedness to listen. They really taught 

us all a lesson about native title and tolerance. 

Other speakers at the lunch included Jackie 

Huggins, a number of elders from the Brisbane 

and Queensland communities, and some 

Waanyi women from the Northern Territory. 

Reconciliation takes many forms. 

Sometimes it is about public events where 

people have the opportunity to openly 

demonstrate their feelings with respect to 

reconciliation, sometimes it is about the 

Government listening to the needs of 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander 

Queenslanders, and sometimes it is about 

enacting legislation such as we are doing 

today. 

I am pleased to speak to the Land and 

Resources Tribunal Bill 1998, because I 

believe that this Bill establishes a sound and 

fair State-based regime for dealing with mining 

activity affecting native title rights. I understand 

that this legislation has caused some concern 

for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 

who have specified the need for an effective 

and truly independent arbitral body in 

determining the issue of land rights. 

What I will outline today demonstrates 

that, through this Bill, this Government will 

achieve an independent, fair and just tribunal. 

Of equal importance, the legislation sets out 

clearly the rights of indigenous people, 

including sensitivity to their culture in the 

workings of the tribunal. The Land and 

Resources Tribunal is not about ensuring that 

the mighty mining dollar wins at all costs. It will 

make fair decisions about the rights of 

indigenous people and their legally recognised 

rights to their traditional lands. The Bill will 

promote and protect those rights. 

This Government recognises the 

fundamental cultural importance of 

maintaining the strong links between 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 

and their traditional lands. We respect the 

common law recognition of native title reflected 

in the Wik and Mabo decisions of the High 

Court. We are committed to reconciliation and 

to improving equity and fairness for all 

indigenous Queenslanders. This Government 

also recognises the need to give the mining 

industry a clear process so that it can proceed 

with projects with confidence—a move that will 

have a positive effect on job creation in this 

State. 

I think that it is important to put the 

Government's position on native title in 

perspective and outline the substantial inroads 

that we have made since coming to office just 

eight months ago. In July last year, the 

Queensland Government established a Native 

Title Task Force to prepare its response to 

amendments to the Commonwealth Native 

Title Act. Premier Peter Beattie chaired this 

task force to demonstrate the seriousness with 

which this Government takes the issue of 

native title. It was a difficult challenge and was 

of critical importance on two fronts: firstly, the 

native title issue had created a great deal of 

community division that had been born from a 

campaign of misinformation and political point 

scoring combined with some genuine 

misunderstanding and fear; and, secondly, it 

was vital for the State's job creation policy to 

give industry a straightforward and clear 

process so that development projects could 

proceed with confidence. 

That led us to a critical shift in policy from 

a system based on litigation to one that was


underpinned by negotiation. It was a 

fundamental shift that allowed the 

Government to get all interested stakeholders 

involved in developing a process for future 

development activity. That was significant, as it 

was the first time all parties had been brought 

together anywhere in Australia to find a 

cooperative solution to the conflict that had 

surrounded native title for so long. It was three 

months of intense consultation and 

negotiation, but finally we formulated a 

response that was built on the principles of 

acknowledging native title rights and giving 

industry a clear, less costly and less time 

consuming process. That led to the 

development of three pieces of legislation 

which would underpin the new native title 

regime. These are the Native Title 

(Queensland) State Provisions Act, the Native 

Title (Queensland) State Provisions 

Amendment Act (No. 2) and the Land and 

Resources Tribunal Bill. I will speak in detail 

about the Land and Resources Tribunal Bill in 

a moment, but I think it is important that I put 

the whole package in perspective by 

explaining a bit about the first two pieces of 

legislation. 

In line with the Commonwealth 

amendments, the Beattie Government's first 

piece of legislation passed in September 

confirmed the extinguishment of native title on 

all tenures granting exclusive possession as 

per the detailed schedule included in the 

amended Federal legislation. It also 

guaranteed the validity of the intermediate 

period land management actions taken by the 

State between 1 January 1994, when the 

national Native Title Act began, and 23 

December 1996, when the Wik judgment was 

handed down. This gave pastoralists, 

fishermen, miners and other leaseholders 

complete security that their tenures were 

legally valid. This Act also made it clear that 

native title holders whose rights and interests 

were extinguished were entitled to 

compensation. Negotiations are continuing 

between Queensland and the Commonwealth 

to secure financial assistance in paying this 

compensation. 

The second Act goes to the heart of 

native title management in future mining in 

Queensland. Finding a way through the 

impasse which had stalled activity in the 

mining industry—a major driving force of the 

Queensland economy—was and remains 

critical to the Government's stated No. 1 

priority of job creation. However, we also 

recognised that mining activity, particularly 

large-scale development, could profoundly 

affect native title rights and interests. The 

legislation, which was passed by this 

Parliament in November, promotes negotiation 

over litigation. It sets out clearly a number of 

detailed processes to apply in different 

circumstances, depending on the type of 

activity proposed and the type of land tenure 

involved. For instance, some exploration 

activity has minimal impact on land and water. 

In those cases, the legislation provides for a 

simpler, faster process with an obligation on 

developers to consult traditional owners. 

For a major development that has the 

potential to impact seriously on native title 

interests there are a range of procedures to be 

followed. These include a limited right to 

negotiate for native title holders on most land 

and a full right to negotiate on unallocated 

State land. The requirement for proper 

notification and negotiation in each case is set 

out in detail, with the maximum time for any 

proposal to be finally determined set at 12 

months. There are built-in provisions to militate 

against any attempts to stall or subvert 

negotiations. This second piece of legislation 

also provided for the establishment of an 

independent tribunal to make final 

determinations on whether a mining activity 

should proceed in cases where negotiation 

fails to secure agreement between the native 

title holders and the miner. 

As part of the package of legislation 

dealing with native title, the Land and 

Resources Tribunal Bill was introduced to this 

Parliament in November to meet the Federal 

requirement for an independent tribunal. The 

tribunal will absorb the functions of the Mining 

Wardens Court, as well as taking on 

responsibility for native title matters, including 

hearing objections, making determinations and 

ruling on compensation where there is any 

dispute. It will be headed by a president at the 

level of a Supreme Court judge, with two 

deputies at District Court judge level. All 

presiding members must have particular 

knowledge or experience of indigenous issues. 

The independence of the presiding members 

will be upheld by aligning their tenure, pension 

and leaves of absence to that of the judiciary. 

Tribunal members will be assisted by 

three referees, one of whom will be 

indigenous, with specific expertise in certain 

areas but without voting rights on the tribunal. 

The indigenous referee will advise on cultural 

heritage and indigenous issues, which will 

ensure that the tribunal observes sensitivity 

and confidentiality in its dealings with native 

title holders. This referee will also focus on 

specific processes for dealing with the cultural 

heritage aspects of any application. The 

indigenous referee, like the other two referees,


will be highly qualified in their respective areas 

of expertise. The mediation referee will ensure 

that the State's negotiation and litigation policy 

remains at the forefront of the tribunal's 

process. The mining referee will replace some 

of the dispute resolution functions of the 

current mining warden and will advise the 

tribunal about those functions previously 

performed by the warden. 

The tribunal is designed to operate in a 

quick and cost-effective manner for noncontentious 

matters, but will provide full and 

expert consideration of all issues when 

complex legal matters and rights are involved. 

The particular needs of Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander people have largely directed the 

way in which the tribunal is shaped and the 

processes it will follow. The tribunal promotes 

and protects the rights of Aboriginal and Torres 

Strait Islander people in the following ways. 

Consistent with the Commonwealth approach, 

the Queensland Government intends that the 

tribunal will be independent. This is central to 

the administrative workings of the tribunal and 

will ensure that the impartiality of proceedings 

cannot be questioned. This is particularly 

important for Aboriginal and Torres Strait 

Islander people who have concerns—and I 

would say they are legitimate concerns, based 

on the treatment of this issue by the previous 

administration—that the person heading the 

tribunal and other members of the tribunal 

have no vested interest in a particular 

outcome. The tribunal will report separately to 

State Parliament through the Attorney-General 

and Minister for Justice. Indigenous people 

can feel assured that there will be no external 

influences when decisions are being made 

and the tribunal will make its decisions based 

on the facts, the law and fairness. 

It is the clear intention of the Queensland 

Government that there will be no possibility of 

members of the tribunal having a conflict of 

interest. The legislation sets down strict 

guidelines outlining the management of 

pecuniary interests and possible conflicts of 

interest. This will ensure that presiding and 

non-presiding members do not have a bias in 

determining the outcome of proceedings and 

carry out their responsibilities with 

independence. Members of the tribunal must 

fully disclose any pecuniary interests or any 

conflicts of interest. This disclosure ensures 

that natural justice will be upheld. 

The legislation provides that a member of 

the National Native Title Tribunal can be a 

member of the tribunal and also requires that 

a National Native Title Tribunal member take 

part in any determinations. Importantly, the 

tribunal will ensure that its processes and 

hearings are culturally sensitive. All parties 

involved in proceedings may have legal 

representation, but this is not required. Also, 

hearings will be open to the public except in 

the interests of natural justice or to allow 

culturally sensitive issues to be dealt with 

appropriately. It is specified that the tribunal 

must observe natural justice and that it is not 

bound by the rules of evidence. This stems 

from the need to maintain informality and 

reach decisions that are more acceptable to all 

parties. For example, evidence will often need 

to be taken outdoors in remote locations, on or 

near land that is the subject of the hearing. 

Knowing that Aboriginal culture and 

knowledge is partly contained within oral, 

dance and pictorial form, I am confident that 

this relaxation of evidentiary rules may allow 

for: indigenous people to provide oral histories 

and laws passed from generation to 

generation; groups to give evidence and to 

hear evidence from witnesses who are expert 

according to local customary laws; the tribunal 

receiving performances of ceremonial activities 

as evidence; and any lack of fluency in English 

of some indigenous witnesses to be taken into 

account and interpreters used if needed. This 

may also lead to increased sensitivity about 

possible misunderstandings arising from 

differences in language between indigenous 

and non-indigenous people. An appropriate 

degree of protection for culturally sensitive 

evidence will be given to indigenous witnesses 

and those who cannot speak about matters 

that are not traditionally disclosed. The tribunal 

will have mediation proceedings, which will be 

confidential in all respects, should any party 

have a particular grievance that they want 

heard. 

The Queensland Indigenous Working 

Group has asked for clarification of a number 

of matters relating to the Bill to be recorded in 

Hansard, and I now do that as a member of 

the Cabinet subcommittee that has considered 

the native title legislation. Firstly, the cultural 

heritage review that is now under way may well 

yield recommendations relating to the 

operation of the Land and Resources Tribunal 

that may require subsequent amendment of 

this legislation. Similarly, the petroleum 

industry is not included in the tribunal's 

jurisdiction at this stage, as the Petroleum Act 

is currently the subject of review. Once that 

review is completed, the new Petroleum Act 

will no doubt include provisions that amend the 

legislation now being debated. Secondly, there 

has been concern that this Bill does not 

provide a mechanism that will allow urgent 

interlocutory orders to be obtained. The State 

believes the provisions of the LRT Bill in fact


do provide such a mechanism for urgent 

interlocutory relief to protect cultural heritage at 

risk. 

The Land and Resources Tribunal will 

ensure that the interests of Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander people are at the 

forefront of decisions about land in this State. 

It will provide a process that is fair to all parties. 

It is a model that is an effective resolution to 

the substantial cultural and legal issues 

surrounding native title. I support the Bill. 

Mr NUTTALL (Sandgate—ALP) 

(4.19 p.m.): Today it gives me great pleasure 

to speak on the Land and Resources Tribunal 

Bill, which represents another solid 

achievement under the Premier's Native Title 

Strategy. It is important to remind all members 

of this House of what has taken place under 

this Government in respect of the critical issue 

of native title. 

In July of last year, shortly after coming to 

Government, the Premier established and 

chaired the Native Title Task Force, 

acknowledging the complexity and the difficult 

challenge that native title issues present. The 

Premier recognised that it was necessary to 

end the community division which had grown 

up around misunderstanding of the issue, and 

it was vitally important to the State's job 

generation policy to give industry a 

straightforward, unambiguous process so that 

development projects could proceed with 

confidence. 

The Premier's response reflected the 

fundamental shift in policy away from litigation 

to the promotion of negotiated agreements as 

a practical way of managing the native title 

issue. Interestingly, as has been commented 

on many times in this House, this was the first 

time that all interested parties had been 

brought together anywhere in Australia to 

develop a cooperative solution to the native 

title issue. As members of the House would be 

aware, after three months of intensive 

consultation and negotiations, the 

Government formulated its response, which 

was built on the following two propositions: 

firstly, a principle acknowledgment of native 

title rights which included a limited right to 

negotiate over a proposed mining 

development; and, secondly, the clear 

understanding that the mining industry 

required a process that was straightforward, 

less costly and less time consuming. 

This Government then moved quickly to 

introduce the three pieces of native title 

legislation that would establish the native title 

regime in this State. The first piece of 

legislation that was introduced into this 

Parliament was the Native Title (Queensland) 

State Provisions Bill, which provided for the 

validation of the "intermediate period acts". 

This legislation achieved a level of certainty by 

validating those leases and confirming that 

native title on those leases was extinguished 

either totally or partially depending on the 

nature of the pastoral lease involved, which 

had been thrown into doubt by the High Court 

in the Wik decision. That then gave miners, 

fishermen, pastoralists and other lease and 

permit holders the complete security that their 

tenures were legally valid. In addition, this Act 

makes it clear that native title holders whose 

rights and interests were extinguished are 

entitled to compensation. 

The second piece of legislation which 

flowed from the Premier's Native Title Task 

Force was introduced into this House on 21 

October last year. The Native Title 

(Queensland) State Provisions Amendment Bill 

integrated the way in which the State deals 

with native title matters into the Mineral 

Resources Act. Once again, this piece of 

legislation was the result of the Premier's 

comprehensive process of consultation with all 

major groups. This legislation provided the way 

through the impasse that had stalled activity in 

the mining industry, which is a major driving 

force of this State's economy and will be critical 

to this Government's desire to achieve its 

stated priority for job creation—a priority which 

every member of this House no doubt would 

support. 

That second piece of native title 

legislation provided for an appropriate balance 

between principled respect for native title 

holders and their rights and interests, and a 

commonsense acknowledgment of the mining 

industry's practical need for a fair and 

unambiguous process with strict time lines. As 

has been stated in the literature that has been 

produced to assist an understanding of what is 

a fairly complex piece of legislation, the 

legislation states clearly the detailed processes 

that are to apply in the different circumstances 

depending upon the proposed activity and the 

type of land tenure involved. Central to this 

piece of legislation is the establishment of an 

independent tribunal to make final 

determinations as to whether an activity should 

proceed where negotiations between the 

native title holders and the miners have failed 

to secure an agreement. 

That now brings me to the Land and 

Resources Tribunal Bill. The Commonwealth 

Native Title Act ensures that any State based 

regime for dealing with native title will include 

an independent body that hears objections 

and makes the final determinations as to


whether a proposed activity can proceed. 

Importantly, the Land and Resources Tribunal 

will absorb the functions of the Mining 

Wardens Court and will also take on the 

responsibility for native title matters, including 

the hearing of objections, the making of 

determinations and the ruling on 

compensation where no agreement is 

reached. 

The tribunal will be headed by a president 

who, in addition to having to meet the same 

qualifications as someone who can be 

appointed to the Supreme Court of this State, 

must have particular knowledge or experience 

of indigenous issues. In addition to the 

president, there will be two or more deputy 

presidents, who also must be able to meet the 

qualification tests to be appointed as a judge 

of this State. Again, they must have particular 

knowledge or experience of indigenous issues. 

The Bill provides that within this group of 

presiding members there will also be 

knowledge and experience of mining, 

petroleum or land issues. The previous 

speaker mentioned the composition of the 

tribunal, namely, the three referees. I do not 

intend to go into that in detail other than to reemphasise 

that there will be an indigenous 

referee, a mediation referee and a mining 

referee, each with their own particular 

expertise, as was outlined by the previous 

speaker. Further, strict deadlines are provided 

for the tribunal's determinations, with no matter 

anticipated to take longer than six months to 

be decided. The tribunal's decision is subject 

to ministerial override, but only where it can be 

demonstrated clearly to be in the best interests 

of all Queenslanders. 

The Land and Resources Tribunal is a 

concrete step in the development of this 

Government's response to the native title issue 

over the past nine months—a response which 

is based on fairness of principle and fairness in 

process. I commend the Bill to the House. 

Hon. V. P. LESTER (Keppel—NPA) 

(4.28 p.m.): In spite of the constant opposition 

of the Labor Party at both Federal and State 

levels, one of the main virtues of the 

Commonwealth Government's native title 

reforms last year was to give to those States 

that wished to take it up the opportunity to 

craft legislation within just parameters that 

would advance job creation projects by cutting 

through the bottlenecks caused by the right-tonegotiate 

process. 

The so-called alternative State provision 

clauses have enabled those jurisdictions with 

an historically expanding minerals industry to 

legislate to ensure that this industry is given 

the necessary legislative and administrative 

framework to continue to prosper and create 

jobs and wealth. It is a matter of considerable 

regret that last year, when this House debated 

the second stage of the Beattie Labor 

Government's native title legislation package, 

what was passed was in fact a job retarding 

Bill. 

From a Government that constantly 

drones on about jobs, jobs, jobs we see an 

unremitting litany of legislation and 

administrative directions that will have the 

opposite effect. We see a job destroying and 

job inhibiting Government that seeks with ever 

growing desperation to cover up its abysmal 

failure with self-praise and glib media sound 

grabs. This Bill is merely a continuation of the 

Beattie Government's failed native title 

strategy. However, it does have some merits, 

but it is constructed on a base of failed and 

half-baked decisions and has elements which 

should cause concern. 

I will deal first with the elements of the 

legislation which are positive. First, it is clear 

that, if any alternative State provisions are to 

be approved by the Commonwealth Minister, 

there must be an independent person or body 

in place to hear any objection by any native 

title claimant objecting about the doing of an 

act that affects their registered native title 

rights and interests. The legislation that we are 

debating will establish such an independent 

body, and its passage is an essential 

prerequisite to the Commonwealth agreeing to 

any alternative State provisions. Yet for a 

Government that is so keen to help the mining 

industry, the snail's path progress of the 

Premier's native title legislation is a matter of 

regret. 

The Premier knows full well that until such 

time as this Bill is properly debated and 

passed by this Parliament the Federal 

Government is not in a position to finally deal 

with the Stage 2 alternative provision 

legislation which we debated last November. 

Some four months have elapsed since the 

Stage 2 legislation was debated by this House, 

and yet in that four months this Bill has 

languished on the Notice Paper. Four months 

of valuable time has been squandered 

because the Premier could not get his act 

together last year and produce for this House 

a comprehensive package of native title 

reforms. 

The Governments of the Northern 

Territory and Western Australia were able to do 

so, and yet this Government was not. It tries to 

hide its ineptitude behind claims that it is a 

consultative Government. It tries to make a


virtue out of necessity. Yet it is all too clear that 

this Government and this Premier have 

approached native title reform just as they 

have approached most other matters—with an 

indecisiveness and lack of vision. This is a 

Government more interested in buying off the 

various pressure groups knocking at its door 

than in developing legislation that is in this 

State's interests. 

So while the Opposition is pleased that an 

independent body is being established, it is 

less than impressed by the failure of the 

Government to present this Bill at the same 

time as the Stage 2 legislation. If the 

Government had done this, not only would 

there have been a better parliamentary 

debate; the reform agenda could also have 

been advanced by at least four months. 

The second positive feature of this Bill is 

the replacement of the Wardens Court. Over 

the past couple of years there was a growing 

concern in the rural community that the 

Wardens Court was not operating in a fair and 

even manner. There was a widespread 

conviction that the court favoured the interests 

of the mining community over the interests of 

landowners. All of these pent-up concerns 

came well and truly out into the open when the 

Court of Appeal ruled in November 1997 that 

the mining warden, Mr Frank Windridge, had 

denied natural justice to central Queensland 

grazier Mr Edward Wall. 

The Court of Appeal found that the 

mining warden had taken evidence from South 

Blackwater Coal after closing public hearings 

and without notifying Mr Wall. Apparently the 

mining warden had contacted the mining 

company through a Mines Department officer 

and then attended a meeting in the 

company's office to hear new material. After 

that decision was handed down, various rural 

representatives said publicly that they had lost 

confidence in the court and no longer had an 

expectation that they would get a fair go. In 

these circumstances it is most probably good 

that the slate is wiped clean and that there is a 

fresh start. 

Now there is the opportunity for a onestop 

shop arrangement, with the one body 

dealing with both native title and mining 

matters. So it makes sense that there be an 

amalgamation of the two processes and that 

we have a new body that can drive this 

process forward and, hopefully, rebuild bridges 

to the landowners. Whether this tribunal will in 

fact be able to achieve this is a moot point. 

From the wording of the legislation, already 

there are some matters that should raise 

doubts about how the tribunal will operate. 

The third positive aspect of the legislation 

is that the Bill now provides that when 

conducting a tribunal hearing the tribunal must 

observe natural justice. It is appropriate to say 

that following the Court of Appeal's decision it 

is a positive and proper step to enshrine in the 

legislation the obligation on tribunal members 

to observe procedural fairness. While all 

judicial and quasi-judicial officers should do so 

as a matter of course, it does no harm to put 

the matter in the legislation for all to see, read 

and obey. 

The final matter which I find positive about 

this Bill is the fact that it will be transferred from 

the Mines portfolio to that of Justice. Unless 

there are compelling reasons to the contrary, 

all tribunals should be within the Justice 

portfolio and their performance the 

responsibility of the Attorney-General and 

Minister for Justice. The Department of Justice 

and Attorney-General has considerable 

expertise in courts administration and is in a far 

better position to oversee the operations of 

this new body. In addition, it will help to 

overcome any perceptions of conflict of duty 

and interest. 

In the past, when the Mining Wardens 

Court was under the Department of Mines and 

Energy, there were constant suggestions that 

the department was too close to the mining 

industry. No such suggestion could be made 

about the Department of Justice and Attorney- 

General. However, there are a number of less 

than satisfactory aspects to the legislation. 

The tribunal is composed of at least three 

presiding members. Each of the presiding 

members is supposed to be appointed until 

attaining 70 years of age. The president will 

receive the salary, allowances and rates of 

allowances payable to a Supreme Court judge, 

and the deputy president will get the same 

salary and allowances package as a District 

Court judge. There is absolutely no 

requirement in the Commonwealth Native Title 

Act that the tribunal be composed of persons 

who are elevated to the same status, though 

not the position of, Supreme and District Court 

judges. 

Over recent years the judiciary has, quite 

rightly, become increasingly concerned about 

the proliferation of tribunals. Tribunals, as the 

Attorney-General knows full well, should be 

established only as a matter of last resort. The 

reason for this is very simple. The greater the 

number of tribunals, the more that justice is 

made uneven and the greater the risk that the 

jurisdiction and stature of the courts of our 

nation are undermined and marginalised. I 

accept that setting up a tribunal in this


instance is justified, but what I find totally 

unacceptable is that the presiding members 

are being elevated to the same status as the 

judges of the superior courts of Queensland. 

By giving the tribunal members the same 

status as Supreme and District Court judges, 

this Government is creating an unhealthy 

precedent. Why give these members a status 

which is not required? Why give these 

members a status equivalent to justices and 

judges who are required to deal with the most 

complicated of civil and criminal matters and 

across the total spectrum of the law? I hope 

that this is not a case of mates' rates. There 

will be quite a degree of cynicism in the 

community that this Government is 

establishing an ad hoc body with a status for 

its presiding members above and beyond what 

is necessary and one to which it will be 

tempted to appoint its supporters. 

The Opposition's concern is heightened 

by the wording of clause 8, which sets out the 

eligibility for appointment as a presiding 

member. The clause requires that a presiding 

member must, amongst other things, have 

knowledge or experience of indigenous issues 

and one or more of three other matters. One 

of these is mining or petroleum issues. Yet the 

clause goes on to oust from judicial review the 

appointment of presiding members insofar as 

they fail collectively to possess any knowledge 

of mining or petroleum matters. 

Quite rightly, in Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999 

the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee has 

questioned whether this is appropriate, but 

there is an even bigger issue here. The 

Government is abolishing the Wardens Court, 

yet at the same time it is sending a clear 

message that, although knowledge of 

indigenous and land issues is absolutely 

essential for appointment as a presiding 

officer, knowledge or experience in mining or 

petroleum matters is not. 

Again and again the Premier claims that 

he is doing everything he can to encourage 

mining investment, yet we see in this Bill a 

totally blinkered approach to this essential 

industry. How can this tribunal operate 

effectively if none of the presiding members 

has any experience or knowledge of mining or 

petroleum matters? 

Let me repeat: this tribunal will be hearing 

more than simply native title matters. It is the 

primary body for matters arising from both the 

Mineral Resources Act and the Fossicking Act. 

In these circumstances, to legislatively oust 

judicial review from appointments because 

none of the presiding members has any 

knowledge or experience in mining matters is a 

retrograde step and has the potential to 

undermine the tribunal's effectiveness from the 

outset. If this clause is not amended, the 

Premier needs to give an undertaking to this 

Parliament that at least one of the presiding 

members will have the requisite knowledge or 

experience of mining and petroleum matters. 

In this context, it is also to be borne in 

mind that the decisions of this tribunal are 

subject to ministerial override. This fact is 

highlighted in the Premier's speech, and 

examples of the override are set out in the 

Scrutiny of Legislation Committee's Alert 

Digest. In fact, the committee pointed out that 

there is no reference in the Bill to the existence 

of the override and pointed out that this 

omission could lead to a misunderstanding in 

the community of the status of the tribunal's 

decisions. 

The committee recommended that the Bill 

be amended so as to make it clear to the 

community and litigants that decisions of the 

tribunal are subject to ministerial override. This 

is a sensible recommendation and one that I 

would hope the Premier and the Government 

would take up. It is only reasonable that they 

do so. It would put plain English into the 

legislation in an eminently relevant way, 

making the legislation a document which 

ordinary people could use. 

I think the more significant element is that 

this tribunal, unlike the Supreme or District 

Courts, is subject to overriding political 

decisions. It is not a body which is 

independent of the policy process. It is not a 

body of either unlimited or almost unlimited 

jurisdiction or even a body whose decisions 

have to be accepted and followed as of right. 

It is a very limited body in almost every sense. 

In these circumstances, to elevate the 

presiding members to, in effect, the status of 

justices and judges of the superior courts is 

totally unjustified. I suggest strongly to the 

Premier that he reconsider this aspect of the 

legislation. I ask the Premier whether the views 

of the Chief Justice or the Chief Judge of the 

District Court were sought and, if so, whether 

they were in concurrence with this proposal. 

Another troubling matter is the very limited 

appeal rights granted. The Bill limits a party to 

a proceeding before the tribunal to appeals on 

questions of law. I ask the Premier: why are 

appeal rights so circumscribed? Would there 

be any harm in allowing appeals on questions 

of fact? While there may be good reasons for 

limiting grounds of appeal, there is no logic in 

further hamstringing the process by requiring 

that when the appeal is against a decision of a 

Land Court non-presiding member or a mining


referee such an appeal can only be instituted 

with the permission of the president of the 

tribunal. 

The Scrutiny of Legislation Committee 

has noted that no grounds are set out in the 

legislation for the granting of leave. The 

committee has queried whether leave to 

appeal is necessary when appeal is confined 

to questions of law. It is not as if this tribunal 

were the High Court and special leave was 

needed before appeals were launched. There 

is, on its face, absolutely no good reason that 

litigants should have their rights so limited and 

so dependent on the exercise of broad and 

totally unlimited discretions. 

The committee has recommended that if 

the Government believes leave to appeal is 

necessary it should give consideration to 

prescribing grounds for the granting of leave. I 

ask the Premier whether he will outline to this 

House the reasoning behind the current 

requirement for leave to appeal. If there are no 

good reasons, then I believe that this limitation 

on litigants' rights should be withdrawn 

forthwith. However, if there are good reasons 

then I support the committee's call for some 

legislative guidance, rather than leaving the 

granting of leave in a totally unregulated and 

vague state. 

One final matter on which I seek some 

clarification relates to the provisions dealing 

with possible conflicts of interest by tribunal 

members. First, I agree that it is prudent to 

provide that a member must not hold or be 

entitled, directly or indirectly, to the benefits of 

an interest in a mining tenure. Having regard 

to the nature of most proceedings before the 

tribunal and the perception problems that the 

Wardens Court has faced, such a clause in the 

Bill would be desirable. 

I wonder why the drafters of this 

legislation have gone out of their way to focus 

just on mining activities. It is not very difficult to 

imagine a host of other conflicts that could 

arise or which could raise perceptions of 

conflict. One area of risk relates to the 

indigenous issues referee. The qualifications 

for appointment to this position are very 

precise and are set out in clause 18. I would 

suggest to the Government that extreme care 

will have to be taken in this area as well, lest 

the same type of perception problems that 

arose with the mining warden crop up here. 

If it is appropriate—and I think it is—that 

very specific prohibitions on mining interests 

are prescribed in clause 26, I would be 

interested to know why other detailed conflict 

provisions are also not included. I suggest that 

if a person is appointed as the indigenous 

issues referee and loses the confidence, for 

example, of the mining industry or landowners 

because of his or her links with indigenous 

organisations, then it will undermine the 

credibility of this tribunal. I ask the Premier 

whether any consideration was given to 

providing greater guidance in the Bill—— 

Time expired. 


(4.48 p.m.): This is the third occasion since last 

July that the Parliament has had before it a 

major legislative initiative on native title. This 

tells us two things. Firstly, it tells us that native 

title raises complex issues requiring extensive 

effort on the part of the Government and the 

Parliament to implement a fair and effective 

regime. Secondly, it tells us that Queensland, 

of all the States and Territories, is leading the 

way in tackling the issues thrown up by the 

Federal amendments to the Native Title Act. 

Both facts are a tribute to the Premier, as he 

has not only shown strong leadership for the 

State on a difficult question but also shown 

that he is willing to lead the nation. This is in 

stark contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, 

who is struggling to convince even his own 

party that he has the leadership qualities to 

keep his job, let alone lead this State. 

The genesis of the Land and Resources 

Tribunal is found in two sources. Firstly, and 

most importantly, there is the need for 

Queensland to establish a State tribunal to 

carry out functions prescribed by the Federal 

Native Title Act. Without a State tribunal, 

Queensland would not be able to take up the 

opportunity to introduce a flexible system to 

deal with the needs of the resource sector fully 

within the State's Land Management System. 

Secondly, there is a need to reform the role of 

the Mining Wardens Court within the State 

resources regulatory system. The need to 

reform this court arose out of extensive 

criticism of the fairness of the Wardens Court 

processes by landowners and a review of the 

court by the Department of Mines and Energy. 

In November last year, the Parliament 

passed the second stage of the State native 

title regime. The innovation of the State 

regime is that it focuses on the nature of the 

mining interests being sought by the resource 

company rather than the statutory tenure over 

which the interest is to be granted. Now, let me 

explain the significance of this. 

As members would be aware, the Wik 

decision was centred on the question as to 

whether a pastoral lease granted to the 

pastoralist a right of exclusive possession to 

the land. By finding that a pastoral lease did 

not grant exclusive possession, the High Court


concluded that native title rights were not 

necessarily extinguished by a pastoral lease, 

and native title and pastoral rights could 

coexist. This decision then led to the native 

title debate—in the eyes of economic 

stakeholders at least—turning solely on the 

effect that various statutory land tenures will 

have on native title and how this intersects with 

the future act provisions in the Native Title Act. 

There was concern that the Native Title 

Act may have rendered invalid a range of 

activities which pastoralists undertook on their 

leases, such as the construction of dams or 

fences. In reality, these concerns were 

overstated and fed by some dreadful 

misrepresentation of the facts by people such 

as the Leader of the Opposition. Nonetheless, 

the Howard Government reacted by proposing 

changes to the law which graduate the 

procedural rights provided for the protection of 

native title depending on the statutory land 

tenure involved. The most visible manifestation 

of this is the way in which the Native Title Act 

creates different procedural regimes for mining 

over unallocated State land and land subject 

to pastoral lease. For unallocated State land, 

the right to negotiate applies. For land subject 

to pastoral lease, a right of consultation and 

objection applies. Not surprisingly, many 

indigenous leaders view the distinction in the 

regimes applying to unallocated State land 

and pastoral lease land when mining is 

proposed to be artificial. By this reasoning, 

native title rights should be afforded equal 

respect and equal protection regardless of 

whether or not statutory interests have been 

granted in the land. 

From a legal analysis, it is understandable 

why a distinction is drawn. In the case of 

pastoral leases, there exists not only another 

interest holder in the land but, under common 

law and statute, this other interest holder, that 

is, the pastoralist, has rights which prevail over 

the rights of native title holders. In such a 

case, the native title rights must, by definition, 

be impaired to some extent—probably a great 

extent—and hence, should be afforded 

procedural rights no greater than those 

afforded to the pastoralist. Equally, from a 

pragmatic political point of view, it is much 

easier to argue that coexisting interest holders, 

that is, native title holders and pastoralists, 

should have equivalent rights rather than try to 

explain the finer points of legal and 

jurisprudential theory, which indicates that the 

right should be treated differently. As we know, 

native title does not lend itself to snappy 15- 

second grabs on television news. 

What the Premier faced when putting 

together the State native title regime was a 

daunting mixture of stakeholder self-interest, 

misinformation, competing legal theory and 

alternate assertions of moral high ground. In 

devising the solution, the Government, in 

essence, created a process which applies 

equally to unallocated State land and pastoral 

lease land and only draws a distinction for the 

purposes of compliance with the provisions of 

the Federal Native Title Act. This means that 

time frames and processes for notification, 

negotiation and arbitration are similar 

regardless of the statutory land tenure 

involved. In contrast, a clear distinction is 

drawn between exploration and production 

tenures. Exploration tenures trigger a bare 

bones procedural process which reflects that, 

generally, the disturbance to the land flowing 

from exploration will be significantly less than 

for actual mining. 

In summary, the Queensland approach 

has genuinely integrated into the land and 

mining systems of the State the recognition 

and protection of native title rights. The Bill 

before the House continues that process. A 

number of the provisions of the 

Commonwealth Native Title Act require that 

the State provide an independent personal 

body to carry out various functions if the State 

is to take up the opportunity to enact its own 

regime to replace the right to negotiate 

administered by the National Native Title 

Tribunal. The Land and Resources Tribunal will 

be this independent body. This means that the 

Queensland tribunal will take over from the 

National Native Title Tribunal the future act 

determination role in cases of applications for 

the grant of mining tenures over native title 

land and the compulsory acquisition of native 

title for non-Government purposes. 

Consistent with the State approach of 

land management integration, the new tribunal 

will also assume the jurisdiction of the Mining 

Wardens Court. This results in one single 

forum for all energy resource based projects 

irrespective of native title considerations. The 

tribunal is also to be granted jurisdiction to 

hear matters arising under agreements 

reached under the State native title regime 

and also actions brought under the 

Queensland cultural records Act to protect 

indigenous cultural heritage. 

In relation to the Mining Warden's 

function, the tribunal will incorporate the 

Government's response to the 1998 

discussion paper on the administrative 

processes and functions of the Wardens Court 

produced by the Department of Mines and 

Energy. In short, this discussion paper 

recommended the replacement of the 

Wardens Court with a new Mining and


Petroleum Tribunal, the greater use of 

alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to 

resolve disputes, and rules of evidence and 

procedure which move from an adversarial 

model towards an administrative model or 

inquisitorial model. 

This review was done in isolation to the 

native title debate but, interestingly, the 

recommendations which focus on the need for 

greater levels of expertise within the Wardens 

Court and a mediation framework for dispute 

resolution sit well with the thrust of the native 

title reforms. Accordingly, the tribunal will be 

constituted by members with backgrounds and 

experience able to determine matters involving 

indigenous issues, mining and petroleum, 

dispute resolution and native title issues. There 

is considerable flexibility in the make-up of the 

tribunal between presiding members, nonpresiding 

members and referees. Each have 

specific functions and designated expertise 

which should ensure that there is a matching 

of expertise within the tribunal to the issue 

being confronted. These issues may involve 

native title and, in many instances, will not. 

There is one notable area where the 

tribunal will not have jurisdiction, and that is the 

determination of native title. The process of 

deciding whether native title claimants actually 

hold native title and the nature of the rights 

held will continue to be the role of the Federal 

Court and the National Native Title Tribunal. 

The Western Australian Government, in 

contrast, has proposed that all native title 

functions, including the determination process, 

be vested in State bodies. I believe that the 

approach adopted by the Queensland 

Government is preferable, as it ensures that 

the future act provisions of the Native Title Act 

are handled within the land management 

systems of the State. There is no need for the 

determination process to be replicated at the 

State level. In fact, a better outcome will be 

achieved by maintaining a national standard. 

I note in passing that Mr Graham Neate 

has been appointed to replace Justice French 

as President of the National Native Title 

Tribunal. I wish Mr Neate well in his new and 

important role. I hope also that the 

Commonwealth will consider moving the 

principal registry of the National Native Title 

Tribunal to Brisbane, as Queensland will have 

the greatest call on the tribunal's services, 

given the decision of the Western Australian 

Government to effectively move all native title 

matters to the State system. 

Finally, I would like to speculate on what 

the future of the native title regime may be in 

Queensland. The first thing is to note that 

there will be a further two legislative additions 

to the native title regime during the year, the 

first being an extension of the regime to the 

petroleum industry as part of the review of the 

Petroleum Act. Recently, a discussion paper 

on the reform of the Petroleum Act was 

released. The reform will, in part, have to make 

decisions on how the issue of petroleum 

tenures and the operation of pipelines will 

intersect with the State native title provisions. It 

will certainly see the Land and Resources 

Tribunal accept jurisdiction for petroleum 

matters. The Government excluded the 

petroleum industry from Stage 2 reforms 

largely because of the arguments of the 

industry that it faced quite different issues from 

those faced by the mining industry. 

The second addition will flow from the 

review of the Cultural Records Act. This 

legislation governs the protection and 

management of the so-called Queensland 

estate. This means the physical and cultural 

heritage of the State, both indigenous and 

non-indigenous. There are a number of 

shortcomings with this legislation. 

From an indigenous perspective the major 

shortcoming is that the law does not actually 

mandate that indigenous people are to be 

involved in the identification of indigenous sites 

of importance. While this is now required as a 

matter of departmental administrative practice, 

it would be best if the regime provided 

expressly for indigenous involvement in the 

identification of indigenous culture. 

From an industry perspective, a lack of 

certainty has meant that the law has been 

used on occasions as a negotiating tool for 

matters which have little relationship to the 

actual protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage. 

While the use of the law in this way reflects a 

failure in the relationship between Aboriginal 

people and a developer, it nonetheless 

undermines support for cultural heritage 

protection measures. 

The Government has established a 

working party to review the Cultural Records 

Act and this working party has recently 

released an issues paper to help focus public 

submissions on the review of the law. Beyond 

the legislative developments which will occur, 

the future will see major issues emerge under 

three broad categories. The first is the further 

resolution by the courts of significant legal 

issues. The second concerns the impact of 

structural changes to the processes applying 

to the native title regime. The third relates to 

the extent to which native title and economic 

developers will strike agreements largely


outside of the formal supervision of the State 

or Commonwealth native title regimes. 

There are a number of important legal 

issues about the recognition of native title 

which are going through a process of judicial 

development. The High Court will, over the 

year, hear appeals from the Federal Court 

decisions in the cases of Croker Island, 

Miriuwunga Gajerronga and Yorta Yorta. 

These cases involve the existence of native 

title in offshore areas, the Kimberley region of 

Western Australia and the border area of New 

South Wales and Victoria respectively. All 

represent significant Federal court decisions 

which, in the case of the first two decisions, 

have extended or strengthened the position of 

native title holders, and in the third decision 

found that native title had been washed away 

by the tide of history. 

Each of the decisions raises important 

matters concerning the relationship of native 

title to various statutory titles and the rights of 

native title holders to resources. It is likely that 

these issues, together with a consideration of 

what "just terms" means for the compensation 

for the loss or impairment of native title, are 

likely to significantly shape native title law. 

More than likely there will be calls for further 

legislative amendment at the Commonwealth 

level following the High Court's decision. 

The second area of development involves 

the impact that the procedural and structural 

changes implemented by the 10-point plan 

have on the operation of the native title regime 

on the ground. Important in these changes is 

the new registration test being applied by the 

Native Title Tribunal and the recently 

announced shake-up of the boundaries of 

Aboriginal land councils. It was universally 

recognised that there needed to be law reform 

to ensure that only those native title claims 

which were well founded were able to access 

the procedural rights afforded by the Native 

Title Act. While the original Native Title Act 

contained a threshold test for registration, as a 

result of court decisions this test became 

virtually inoperative. 

Already the Native Title Tribunal has 

commenced the process of checking existing 

claims against the new registration criteria. It is 

to be hoped that the outcome of this process 

will ensure that all claims contain sufficient 

information so that indigenous and nonindigenous 

interests alike are able to proceed 

with clarity and certainty as to exactly who is 

asserting native title rights over what area. 

Aboriginal representative bodies play an 

important role in the native title regime. Last 

week the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 

Senator Herron, announced changes to the 

geographic boundaries for the coverage of 

land councils throughout Australia. There is no 

doubt that there needed to be reform to the 

operation of Aboriginal representative bodies. 

Indeed, this was clearly pointed out by an 

examination undertaken of Aboriginal bodies 

by the Office of Indigenous Affairs within the 

Department of the Prime Minister during the 

previous Federal Labor Government. 

However, the concern I have with Senator 

Herron's reforms is that they appear as much 

motivated by a desire to reduce the power and 

influence of some Aboriginal leaders as they 

are by any logical assessment of the needs of 

Aboriginal people. It will prove utterly 

counterproductive to play politics with 

Aboriginal organisations. It will certainly do 

nothing for the relationship between economic 

developers such as the resource industry and 

traditional owners if superimposed upon 

negotiations is renewed conflict about where 

power rests within Aboriginal land councils. 

Mr Bredhauer interjected. 

Mrs LAVARCH: Exactly. The third area to 

be watched closely is the extent to which 

agreements will be used in order to resolve 

native title issues. To this end it is pleasing to 

note that Queensland has seen a number of 

milestone agreements reached. These include 

the Hope Vale agreement, which represents 

the first negotiated permanent determination 

of native title under the Native Title Act. 

Recently, Queensland also settled the 

Western Yalanji claim. This is an important 

agreement as it represented a finding of native 

title co-existing with pastoral rights. 

More recently there has been an agreed 

native title determination involving Saibai 

Island in the Torres Strait. Historically, the 

Attorney-General appeared before Justice 

Drummond in the Federal Court and 

consented to the native title determination. 

This determination recognises the ongoing 

native title rights over four Torres Strait islands 

but notably excludes any determination over 

the waters of the Torres Strait. 

It is the thrust of the Queensland reforms 

that negotiated agreements be reached on 

native title matters. Indeed, the Stage 2 

legislation requires that genuine efforts be 

made to reach agreement, and to this end 

assistance is given by specifying the matters 

that are to be discussed in the negotiation and 

consultation process. 

In conclusion, it is fair to say that 

Queensland is making strong progress in 

putting together the legal framework which will 

assist practical outcomes to native title and


development issues. Further, the Government, 

through its native title services section in the 

Department of the Premier, can provide 

assistance to parties in reaching agreements. 

Undoubtedly, the establishment of the Land 

and Resources Tribunal will also be important 

for on-the-ground outcomes in the State. 

In the final analysis, however, the 

Government can only do so much. Outcomes 

that benefit Queensland require more than 

good laws—it requires goodwill. It is to be 

hoped that the next time the Parliament 

considers further additions to the native title 

regime we can report that this goodwill has 

become the hallmark of relationships in the 

State. 

Mr SANTORO (Clayfield—LP) (5.09 p.m.): 

It gives me great pleasure to be able to join in 

the debate on the Land and Resources 

Tribunal Bill and particularly to support the 

comments that have been made so far by the 

honourable member for Surfers Paradise and 

Leader of the Opposition and the honourable 

member for Keppel. They have made very 

sensible contributions. Whilst supporting the 

Bill, they also expressed reservations, which I 

think in some cases are worth reiterating. 

Two of the stated objects of this Bill are to 

implement Stage 3 of the Premier's native title 

strategy by providing for the establishment of a 

tribunal to deal with future acts which might 

affect native title with respect to mining and 

provide for an independent body required 

under the alternative State provision sections 

of the Commonwealth Native Title Act. To the 

extent that unless this Bill is passed and an 

independent body is established no alternative 

State provisions can commence, the 

Opposition supports it. 

However, with this Bill we again see a 

graphic example of how this Government 

cannot get its act together and produce timely 

legislation. This Bill should have been 

introduced simultaneously with the alternative 

provisions Bill. It should have been debated 

with that Bill and it should have been 

submitted to the Commonwealth Government 

co-jointly with it. The Premier knows that, until 

this House passes legislation setting up an 

independent body, neither the Commonwealth 

Government nor the Senate can deal with the 

Stage 2 legislation that we passed in this place 

in November. 

The Premier knows that, despite all of his 

never-ending rhetoric about decisive action to 

tackle native title and create jobs, this Bill has 

sat around now for almost four months. This 

Government has allowed four valuable months 

to slip away and it has done so because last 

year it could not even present a 

comprehensive package of native title 

legislation to this Chamber. Instead, we are 

subject to a death of a thousand cuts with a bit 

of legislation here and there and, while the 

Government dithers, economic growth and 

jobs are put at risk. Just last week, we saw this 

Government introduce only one new Bill for 

debate. This Parliament has not sat since 

November, yet in the first sitting week the 

Government could not come forward with more 

than one solitary Bill. Whether we look at 

infrastructure projects, legislation or 

administration generally, it is a shocking 

indictment that we witness a Government that 

has not got what it takes. 

One would think that with an issue as 

central as native title, the Government could 

have acted more quickly, more decisively and 

with more sense of direction. The Premier 

knows that the Governments of the Northern 

Territory and Western Australia were able to 

present to their Parliaments a comprehensive 

package of native title reforms. If those 

Governments can do so, why can this 

administration not match their achievement? 

There is no doubt that this Parliament needs 

to enact legislation establishing an 

independent body that meets the 

requirements of the Commonwealth Native 

Title Act. Until we do so, the alternative State 

provisions, which this Parliament has already 

passed, will remain in a state of limbo. So 

putting in place an appropriate independent 

body to hear matters under the Native Title Act 

is a matter towards which we should all be 

working. 

Nevertheless, when I look at this Bill I can 

see a number of problems that need to be 

raised and debated properly. Firstly, in 

common with other members, I question the 

status being granted to the presiding members 

of the tribunal. This tribunal is not the Supreme 

Court, it is not the District Court; it is a tribunal 

of quite limited jurisdiction. I would readily 

concede that the matters that the tribunal will 

have to decide will be important, but I can see 

no justification whatsoever in giving to the 

presiding members of this body the status, in 

effect, of either a justice of the Supreme Court 

or a judge of the District Court. 

The Supreme and District Courts deal with 

all manner of civil and criminal law. In most 

cases, any person who is dissatisfied with a 

decision of either court has the ability to 

appeal to the Court of Appeal and, from that 

body, possibly as far as the High Court. In 

comparison, the legislation that we are 

debating is merely establishing a tribunal—and 

I repeat that: a tribunal—and not a court of


law. It is a body which, as I will discuss shortly, 

is subject to wide powers of ministerial override 

and so far as some non-presiding members 

are concerned, there is no right of appeal on 

matters of fact and only discretionary rights of 

appeal on matters of law. In short, it is a body 

that lacks true independence, is of limited 

jurisdiction and operates largely on its own. So 

to give to presiding members of this body the 

same entitlements as judges of the Supreme 

and District Courts is not only not necessary 

but also strikes at the status of judges of the 

superior courts of Queensland. 

I suggest to the Premier that if this 

Government is establishing a body to which it 

thinks it can appoint people whom it favours, 

then that will not only undermine the credibility 

of this tribunal but also the whole judicial 

system. In his reply, I ask the Premier to 

explain to this House why he has overseen the 

drafting of legislation that elevates presiding 

members to that status while there is 

absolutely nothing in the Commonwealth 

Native Title Act that would require it. 

As I said, this tribunal is not a body with 

self-executing decision-making powers; it is 

subject to broad powers of ministerial override. 

This point is made abundantly clear by the 

Scrutiny of Legislation Committee in 

Alert Digest No. 1 of 1999. The committee 

recommends that the Bill be amended to 

make it clear to readers that decisions of the 

tribunal are subject to ministerial override. As a 

firm believer in plain English drafting of 

legislation, I support this suggestion and I 

hope that at the Committee stage the Premier 

will be moving a minor amendment to give 

effect to this sensible suggestion. 

However, the other point that needs to be 

made is that this tribunal is really an integral 

part of the native title policy process. Whilst it is 

a quasi-judicial body with a degree of 

independence, it is certainly not a court of law 

in the sense that most people would 

understand that term. It is incumbent on the 

Premier and this Government not only to 

amend the Bill to highlight this basic fact but 

also to ensure that a perception is not allowed 

to arise that this tribunal has members of 

equal status and authority to judges of the 

Supreme and District Courts. I emphasise this 

point, because I am very concerned that this 

Bill and this tribunal should in no way derogate 

from the status, authority, independence and 

good reputation of our courts of law. 

As I mentioned, there is also no 

automatic right of appeal on questions of law 

from decisions of the tribunal to the president 

when it is constituted by a Land Court nonpresiding 

member or a mining referee. The 

leave of the president is required, but the Bill is 

silent on the matters that have to be taken into 

account in determining whether leave should 

be granted or refused. The Scrutiny of 

Legislation Committee has queried whether 

leave should be required when appeal rights 

are confined simply to questions of law. The 

committee has also suggested that if there are 

good reasons for not allowing an automatic 

right of appeal, that the legislation should be 

amended to prescribe grounds for the granting 

of leave. 

I cannot understand why litigants' rights 

are so narrowly regulated by this Bill. While in 

most instances hearings of the tribunal will be 

open to the public and the rules of natural 

justice must be observed, nevertheless the 

legislation requires the tribunal to— 

"Act as quickly, and with as little 

formality and technicality, as is consistent 

with a fair and proper consideration of the 

issues before it." 

However, in order to achieve this goal, this Bill 

provides that the tribunal is not bound by the 

rules of evidence, may inform itself of anything 

in the way it considers appropriate and may 

decide procedures to be followed for the 

proceeding. In short, litigants' rights are very 

much dependent upon the way in which the 

presiding or non-presiding member or 

members conduct the proceedings. 

One would think that in circumstances 

such as these that it would be absolutely 

essential that a dissatisfied litigant be able to 

appeal as of right to the president. The 

matters that this tribunal will be hearing could 

involve projects worth hundreds of millions of 

dollars, or even more. With so much at stake, 

it is simply not good enough that people's 

rights are handled in this way. From reading 

parts of this Bill, one would think that we were 

dealing with the Small Claims Tribunal and not 

the Land and Resources Tribunal, or that the 

matters it would be hearing involved a dispute 

over two weeks' rental bond money and not 

whether, for example, a mine could proceed or 

not. The tribunal is granted by the Bill exclusive 

jurisdiction to resolve disputes over negotiated 

settlements and to prevent acts adversely 

affecting a matter of cultural significance—in 

other words, all the sorts of disputes that go 

right to the heart of most mining activity in 

Queensland. So I say to the Premier that 

action should be taken to protect litigants' 

rights by amending the Bill and allowing an 

automatic right of appeal on questions of law 

and a discretionary appeal on questions of 

fact.


When I read the Bill, I was struck by the 

complexity of how the tribunal is to be 

constituted from time to time. There are 

presiding and non-presiding members. Of the 

non-presiding members, there is to be a Land 

Court non-presiding member, a land tribunal 

non-presiding member, an appointed nonpresiding 

member and a referee non-presiding 

member. Of the referee non-presiding 

members, separate qualifications are set out 

for the mining referee non-presiding member, 

mediation referee non-presiding member and, 

finally, the indigenous referee non-presiding 

member. If all of this were not complicated 

enough, there is also the requirement that a 

member of the Native Title Tribunal also be 

party to various hearings. 

I will not confuse this House by setting out 

the very complicated provisions dealing with 

the composition of various tribunal panels, 

except to say that it will take some time before 

people will get used to how this tribunal is 

constituted and how it will work. Perhaps there 

is a pressing need to constitute the tribunal in 

this way and, in that regard, I would simply ask 

the Premier if he could outline to the House 

why the provision relating to this tribunal has 

been drafted in this very complicated manner. 

Nevertheless, two issues flow from the 

manner in which the legislation is drafted. 

Firstly, I note that Land Court members are 

deemed to be non-presiding members, and on 

a panel do not decide questions before the 

tribunal. Their role is to advise the presiding 

member or presiding members about matters 

within his or her knowledge and expertise that 

are relevant to a question and to help the 

presiding members in the conduct of the 

proceeding in a way the presiding members 

consider appropriate. 

I have some concerns about co-opting 

onto the tribunal members of the Land Court 

and then relegating them to, in effect, an 

advisory role only. Not only is this bad as a 

matter of policy, as it strikes at the heart of 

those members' independence and status, but 

it is possibly illegal. I do not hold myself out as 

a constitutional expert, but the recent High 

Court decision in Kable's case may have some 

relevance to the question as to how far a State 

Parliament can go in interfering with the 

operation of courts in general and judicial 

officers in particular. Therefore, I ask the 

Premier whether the issue of Land Court nonpresiding 

members has been carefully thought 

through and whether the Land Court is in 

agreement with this arrangement. 

The second matter that arises concerns 

the National Native Title Tribunal. It is clear that 

there are two broad types of tribunal panels: a 

standard panel and a National Native Title 

Tribunal panel. As its name suggests, a 

National Native Title Tribunal is one on which a 

member of that body sits as a member. The 

Bill provides that a member of this tribunal can 

also be a member of the National Native Title 

Tribunal. In his speech, the Premier indicated 

that he hoped that there would be crossmembership 

of the two bodies and, from the 

viewpoint of convenience, there is much to be 

said for such a proposition. Obviously, 

however, whether that scenario eventuates is 

dependent on the attitude of the 

Commonwealth Government. It would be 

helpful to know whether discussions with the 

Commonwealth have commenced on this 

issue and, if they have, whether the 

Commonwealth has indicated a position. If the 

Commonwealth will not, for whatever reason, 

appoint a member of the State tribunal as a 

member of the national tribunal, an issue that 

will immediately arise is who will be picking up 

the tab for the member of the national tribunal 

travelling to Queensland and around the State 

when he or she is on a panel. Like so much of 

the debate on native title, it often comes down 

to an issue of funding. I would be interested to 

know just how far this issue, if it is one, has 

advanced. 

A number of other issues could be raised. 

Some of the more technical ones are set out 

in the Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation 

Committee. On the whole, I am in agreement 

with the suggestions that the committee has 

made. The success or otherwise of the 

alternative State provisions will in large part be 

dependent on how this tribunal operates. 

However, as I said, the jurisdiction of this body 

goes further than that. 

With the abolition of the Wardens Court, 

many issues of a non-native title and noncultural 

heritage nature will be coming before 

it. Currently, the Wardens Court hears 

applications for mining leases and makes 

recommendations on the grant of such leases 

to the Minister. The court has jurisdiction in 

relation to mining claims and claims for 

compensation by an affected landowner when 

the parties cannot agree on the amount of 

compensation that is to be paid. It conducts 

inquiries into deaths or injuries occurring as a 

result of mining related accidents. It also has 

jurisdiction under the Fossicking Act. I know 

that there is a fair degree of unease about the 

proposed tribunal insofar as it will deal with 

non-native title issues. Over the past few years 

there has been quite a degree of 

dissatisfaction with the Wardens Court. 

However, at least that body was a specialist


court that was focused on one area and over 

the years had built up quite a lot of expertise. 

There were problems, both actual and 

perceived. 

There is merit in having a one-stop shop 

tribunal. So much can be conceded, but what 

a number of people are saying is that the 

proposed tribunal may not be the right body 

for the task and great care will have to be 

taken in the future to ensure that problems do 

not arise. Far too much is at stake to allow 

industry and community dissatisfaction to 

arise. I ask both the Premier and the Attorney- 

General to take particular care to ensure that 

the non-native title work of the tribunal is not 

relegated to second place and that the 

concerns of the various industry bodies are 

taken on board should problems arise. 

Before concluding, I reflect briefly on 

some of the comments made by the 

honourable member for Kurwongbah, 

particularly in relation to the Federal Minister 

for Aboriginal Affairs. In concluding her 

contribution, assisted via interjection by one of 

the Ministers sitting in the Chamber, the 

honourable member suggested that perhaps 

the Federal Minister was motivated by partisan 

and political reasons when he sought to 

change some aspects of jurisdiction in relation 

to land councils. Recently I had discussions 

with the Federal Minister. In fact, two 

weekends ago the entire coalition joint party 

room had discussions with the Federal 

Minister. The Federal Minister went through in 

great detail the changes that he was 

introducing within the regulations and the 

legislation that are to be enacted by the 

Federal Parliament. I reject out of hand any 

suggestion—and it was a scurrilous suggestion 

by the honourable member for Kurwongbah— 

that Dr John Herron, the Federal Minister, 

could in any way be politically motivated in this 

area of policy formulation, which should be 

bipartisan. 

Dr Herron is highly regarded and much 

loved by those members of the Aboriginal 

communities who know that he is trying to 

make the whole system of administration and 

funding of Aboriginal affairs accountable to the 

very people who are most affected by policies 

and funding arrangements, that is, the 

Aboriginal communities themselves. The 

Honourable Federal Minister is seeking to 

make that part of his portfolio very responsive 

to the genuine needs and aspirations of 

ordinary members of the indigenous 

community of this nation. Like me, he abhors 

the growth of the Aboriginal industry that sucks 

up so much of the resources that should be 

directed straight into the communities and 

straight towards those people who are most 

affected by the problems that we often hear 

described by members opposite. 

Mr Reeves: You just want him to leave so 

that you can take his seat. 

Mr Reynolds: This is real Alice in 

Wonderland stuff. 

Mr SANTORO: On behalf of my Federal 

parliamentary colleague, who obviously is not 

in this place to do so, I rebut the scurrilous 

suggestions of the honourable member for 

Kurwongbah and others in this 

Chamber—including those members opposite 

who interject inanely but do not have the 

courage to place themselves on the list to give 

either a prepared or an ad lib contribution. I 

have said what I think should be said. Again, I 

reject out of hand any suggestion that Dr 

Herron, the Honourable Federal Minister, is 

acting in a political and partisan manner. 

I support the Bill with the reservations that 

I have expressed. I support the comments 

made in the beginning of the debate by the 

Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 

Mrs NITA CUNNINGHAM (Bundaberg— 

ALP) (5.26 p.m.): I join my colleagues on this 

side of the House in unreservedly supporting 

the Land and Resources Tribunal Bill. This Bill 

is a significant piece of legislation because it 

will allow the State's alternative State 

provisions, under the Commonwealth Native 

Title Act, to receive the determination of 

the Commonwealth Attorney-General— 

determination that is essential for the State's 

alternative State provisions to be able to 

commence. 

As honourable members would be aware, 

the Commonwealth Attorney-General must be 

satisfied under section 43A that objections are 

heard by an independent person or body. A 

similar provision requiring an independent 

body to hear objections is also found in section 

24 and section 26 of the Commonwealth 

Native Title Act. The Land and Resources 

Tribunal Bill provides the tribunal that will be 

that independent body. It is important to 

recognise that the legislation establishing the 

tribunal must ensure that the tribunal is 

embodied with characteristics necessary for it 

to be seen to be independent as well as, in 

practice, acting independently. At clause 5 the 

Bill explicitly provides that the tribunal, in 

exercising its jurisdiction, is not subject to the 

direction of the Minister. 

The Bill provides, as the combined effects 

of clauses 7 and 9, that presiding members, 

that is, the president and deputy president, are 

appointments for life and will only cease upon 

the member retiring on reaching 70 years of


age, resigning, or, in the unfortunate set of 

circumstances, being terminated in precisely 

the same way and for precisely the same 

reasons as a Supreme or District Court judge 

may be. 

Importantly, the drafting of the Bill 

provides that a high-quality candidate will be 

appointed as a presiding member of the 

tribunal. It requires any person who may be 

appointed as a presiding member to be 

capable of being appointed as a Supreme 

Court judge of this State. In addition, the 

successful candidate must have particular 

knowledge or experience of mining or 

petroleum issues, land issues or something 

else considered by the Governor in Council to 

have substantial relevance to the duties of a 

presiding member. 

In addition to the presiding members, the 

Land and Resources Tribunal Bill provides for 

the appointment of non-presiding members to 

the tribunal. By this legislation, a person may 

be appointed as an appointed non-presiding 

member of the tribunal only if that person has 

experience of not less than five years at a high 

level in industry, commerce, public 

administration, industrial relations, the 

practices of a profession, the services of a 

Government or an authority of a Government. 

Alternatively, a person may be appointed 

as an appointed non-presiding member if that 

person has, in the opinion of the Governor in 

Council, particular knowledge or experience of 

two or more of the following categories: 

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 

communities, dispute resolution, valuation, 

mining or petroleum issues, land use issues, 

indigenous issues, cultural heritage, the 

environment, industrial relations, native title 

issues, or something else considered by the 

Governor in Council to have substantial 

relevance to the duties of an appointed nonpresiding 

member. These requirements are 

not complex, but they will ensure that 

appropriately qualified non-presiding members 

will be available within the tribunal to assist the 

presiding members in the hearing of matters 

before it. 

In addition to addressing the appointed 

non-presiding members, the Bill also sets out 

the qualifications for three referees. Once 

again, those lists of qualifications will ensure 

that the presiding members and the tribunal 

are appropriately equipped with the necessary 

expertise on tap to deal with what might be at 

times complicated, sensitive and difficult 

issues. 

That this Government is putting expertise 

into native title through this Bill is a reflection of 

the Premier's forward-looking approach to 

native title. By adopting commonsense 

solutions and a vision that brings all 

Queenslanders on board, real progress is 

being made for this State. This was no more 

evident than in Mackay last Friday, when 

indigenous leaders stood emotionally with the 

Queensland Government, the local authority 

and other stakeholders as a visionary 

agreement was entered into, and again last 

month when the Premier agreed through 

negotiation to two determinations of native title 

on Saibai and Moa Islands. 

This Bill reflects the Premier's visionary 

native title position and is deserving of the 

support of members on both sides of the 

House. I commend the Bill to the House. 

Mr REYNOLDS (Townsville—ALP) 

(5.31 p.m.): It is with pleasure that I rise in the 

House to support the Land and Resources 

Tribunal Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the 

Premier's great and progressive leadership in 

respect of this Bill—something that a number 

of other speakers from the Government side 

have acknowledged today. 

Mr Borbidge interjected. 

Mr REYNOLDS: That is especially so, 

given that the honourable member for Warwick 

was the next speaker on the list. 

With respect to the tribunal, what we see 

in this Bill would be in stark contrast to what we 

would have seen had the Opposition been in 

Government today. A trilogy of legislation has 

been put before the Chamber since the 

Beattie Government has been in power. That 

this Government has addressed those three 

areas of concern in relation to native title 

indicates that it has been willing to bring 

together the different stakeholders to ensure 

that we have a just, equitable and balanced 

legislative program. The parties involved have 

worked together in a spirit of cooperation to 

ensure that the State's development continues 

and is balanced with indigenous rights. 

I come from an area of north Queensland 

where the development of the mining industry 

is paramount. The Carpentaria/Mount Isa 

minerals province is potentially the most 

exciting and challenging mineral development 

province in Australia. It will offer development 

opportunities for many decades to come. In 

my previous role as the chairman of the 

Townsville Port Authority, I know that we were 

able to exploit many opportunities. For 

example, I cite BHP's Cannington project, and 

also the Western Mining Corporation project 

that will soon see one million tonnes of fertiliser 

coming through the port of Townsville. That 

reflects the great wealth of the


Carpentaria/Mount Isa minerals province and 

our area's potential to assist its development. 

That potential for development will be 

balanced with the important native title 

principles acknowledged in this Bill. The 

Premier's Land and Resources Tribunal Bill 

provides a balance in respect of the 

membership of the tribunal. There is a 

recognition that this body will take its place in 

the community when there is a need for it to 

examine matters pertaining to the mining 

industry and native title interests. I am very 

pleased that the Land and Resources Tribunal 

Bill, as part of the trilogy of legislation that has 

been introduced into the Chamber, will have 

an important role to play in the resolution of 

issues in the mining industry and which also 

pertain to native title. 

Earlier the member for Bundaberg 

mentioned the events that took place in 

Mackay last Friday. As the Parliamentary 

Secretary to the Premier in north Queensland, 

I was very honoured to represent the Premier 

on that historic occasion, when four native title 

holders and groups in Mackay—the Mackay 

City Council and the Mackay Surf Lifesaving 

Club—cooperated with the Queensland 

Government in allowing development to go 

ahead on unallocated State land. The historic 

and emotional ceremony in the Mackay City 

Council chambers last Friday illustrated the 

cooperation between the different 

stakeholders in reaching and signing the 

agreements. It also illustrated that the Beattie 

Government's approach to native title 

contrasts with that of the Opposition Leader, 

who over the past two years has run all over 

the State of Queensland whipping up a frenzy 

among miners and pastoralists. We can 

contrast that approach with the Beattie 

Government's role in the legislation we saw in 

the House last year and which we see in the 

House today in the form of the Land and 

Resources Tribunal Bill. 

The Opposition is not interested in 

achieving a balance and ensuring justice and 

equity for indigenous people, miners and 

pastoralists. It is interested in taking a 

sledgehammer approach to native title. The 

Bill before us today is a very good example of 

the Premier's excellent leadership in bringing 

together all of the stakeholders. This third 

aspect of native title is a very important 

component of the legislation required in the 

State of Queensland. I commend the 

approach that the Premier has given to us as 

a Parliament. His leadership has seen 

Queensland leading the way for every other 

State in Australia. 

I know that, given the make-up of the 

Land and Resources Tribunal, this State will 

take into account the very important 

development opportunities—for example, the 

Carpentaria/Mount Isa minerals province and 

other opportunities around the State—and 

that, importantly, the rights of indigenous 

people will be balanced with that development. 

This Bill has my support, and I commend it to 

the House. 

Hon. T. McGRADY (Mount Isa—ALP) 

(Minister for Mines and Energy and Minister 

Assisting the Deputy Premier on Regional 

Development) (5.39 p.m.): I am pleased to rise 

in the Parliament today to support this Bill, 

which is the third piece of legislation introduced 

by this Government to deal comprehensively 

with native title in our State. The Bill proposes 

the establishment of the tribunal as 

contemplated by the Native Title (Queensland) 

State Provisions Amendment Act (No. 2) 1998. 

This Act amends the Mineral Resources Act 

1989 by incorporating alternative State 

provisions to the "right to negotiate" for grants 

of exploration and mining tenures. 

Members will recall that that legislation, 

which was passed by this House on 11 

November last year, provides different 

processes to protect the rights of native title 

holders, depending on the type of activity and 

the type of land involved. It provides separate 

procedures for applications for prospecting, 

low-impact exploration, high-impact 

exploration, mining on non-exclusive land— 

pastoral leases—and mining on unallocated 

State land. In effect, the legislation contains 

13 separate schemes. The legislation 

establishes clear and fair processes for 

allowing mining companies to explore for and, 

indeed, exploit mineral resources. The Land 

and Resources Tribunal will be the 

independent body which will hear objections to 

proposed grants of tenures where consultation 

and negotiation do not result in agreements. 

Passage of the Land and Resources Bill 

is critical to allow the Commonwealth Minister 

to consider and approve these alternative 

Queensland provisions. The independence of 

the tribunal is, of course, central to achieving 

the relevant determination of the 

Commonwealth and will also be necessary for 

the continued operation of the tribunal and the 

alternative State provisions. The Bill is 

meticulous in this regard. 

The Bill abolishes the Wardens Court 

under the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and 

transfers its functions—except the penal 

provisions, which will be transferred to the 

courts—into the Land and Resources Tribunal.


The tribunal will have jurisdiction also in relation 

to hearings under the alternative State 

provisions established under the Native Title 

(Queensland) State Provisions Amendment 

Act (No. 2) of last year and any ongoing issues 

relating to agreements created under them. 

The Wardens Court has served the 

community well for over 100 years in solving 

disputes and setting conditions on mining 

activities within our State. But the present 

complexity of many mining applications 

requires a greater perspective and a broader 

understanding of issues, including native title 

issues, in determining if and how mineral 

development will take place in Queensland. It 

is extremely important for the economic growth 

of Queensland that we can develop the 

mineral resources of the State and, by doing 

so, create investment and, of course, jobs. 

This Government recognises that new 

mineral developments must take many 

interests into account in deciding if and how 

the resources can be extracted. It is no longer 

the case that if the minerals are in the ground 

then automatically they should be produced 

and, as such, this legislation takes this into 

account. Modern day issues are complex 

involving land-holder rights, native title rights, 

environmental issues, planning considerations 

and the economic needs of the State. 

The tribunal also will have jurisdiction 

under the Cultural Record (Landscapes 

Queensland and Queensland Estate) Act of 

1987 and the Government's forthcoming new 

indigenous cultural heritage legislation. The 

tribunal will comprise a president, two 

additional presiding members, three nonpresiding 

members, a registrar and deputy 

registrars. Complex cases and any cases 

involving native title are to be heard by a 

multiple member panel. 

The Commonwealth Native Title Act of 

1993 requires that a member of the National 

Native Title Tribunal participate when the 

tribunal is determining objections by native title 

parties to grants of tenures on unallocated 

State land. The president of the tribunal is a 

position equivalent to a Supreme Court judge 

and the deputy presidents' positions are 

equivalent to that of a District Court judge. 

Presiding members are appointed for life 

unless they retire or their positions are 

terminated. This will ensure that the tribunal will 

be a highly respected body, which is in 

keeping with the importance of the mining 

industry to our State. 

A mining referee will also be appointed for 

a five-year term. The mining referee will hear 

and determine many of the procedural matters 

arising from small mining leases and mining 

claims, prospecting permits, exploration 

permits and fossicking. Referees will be 

eminently qualified, but will not have voting 

rights on the tribunal. In addition to being 

eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court 

judge, a mining referee must have mining 

industry knowledge and experience, as well as 

experience in land title and land uses or other 

relevant expertise. This will ensure that the 

mining referee is familiar with industry practice. 

More than one mining referee may be 

appointed under this legislation. 

The Wardens Court was characterised by 

its presence on the mining fields and by an 

ability to decide a matter quickly and fairly. 

Those characteristics are retained in the 

structure of this tribunal with the position of the 

mining referee. These hearings will be in towns 

near the mining fields so that the miners and 

landowners involved do not incur unnecessary 

costs. The Bill provides that compensation 

hearings, which are currently heard by the 

Wardens Court, will be heard by the tribunal 

composed either as the mining referee or a 

single land court non-presiding member. 

The Government prefers the parties to 

reach agreement on the terms and conditions 

for development, and I expect this will still 

happen in the majority of cases. We will be 

providing mediation assistance to resolve 

disputes at all stages of the application for 

mining tenures. In addition to the mediation 

offered by mining registrars in the early stages 

of mining tenure applications, the tribunal will 

have a mediation referee and trained 

mediators to assist parties in resolving their 

issues at various stages in the process. But in 

those cases where agreement cannot be 

reached, there is a need for a well-resourced 

and highly respected arbitral body—which the 

Land and Resources Tribunal certainly will be. 

Such an increased status of the tribunal has 

long been asked for by most parties involved 

in this industry—mining companies, 

landowners, environmental groups and local 

governments. The issues in competing land 

uses are becoming more and more complex, 

and the ability of one person to determine this 

wider range of issues has been increasingly 

questioned. 

Where the Wardens Court had jurisdiction 

for a proceeding under the Mineral Resources 

Act 1989 immediately before the 

commencement of section 83, the tribunal has 

the jurisdiction to finish the proceeding. The 

tribunal will be sufficiently resourced to enable 

it to travel to regional centres to hear cases 

and make determinations. This will be 

important for its credibility and profile. By


providing quick and cost-effective hearings 

where the subject matter of the proceedings is 

not complex, the legislation minimises the 

disruption of existing processes under the 

Mineral Resources Act 1989. In other cases, it 

provides access to a more prestigious forum 

with appropriate expertise for resolution of 

native title and other complex issues. 

The mining industry, the indigenous 

community and landowners support this 

approach. The Government is proud of its 

record, over only a few months, in introducing 

native title legislation which is more 

comprehensive, more effective, more 

integrated and fairer than that introduced or 

even contemplated by any other State or 

Territory jurisdiction in this Commonwealth. It 

will prove to be durable legislation which 

establishes the proper balance between the 

rights of miners and native title holders and 

which provides a sound basis for getting the 

industry in Queensland back on its feet. This 

outcome is in the interest of all 

Queenslanders. I commend the Bill to the 

House. 

Ms NELSON-CARR (Mundingburra—ALP) 

(5.49 p.m.): Members on this side of the 

House welcome the consideration of the Land 

and Resources Tribunal Bill today because it 

represents the new way forward—a way 

forward which has been determined after 

extensive consultation with all parties by a 

Premier who gets things done. Under the 

previous Government, the State's 

administration of native title issues was 

bogged down because its way forward was to 

litigate everything. This was a policy destined 

to fail, and the record of those opposite in 

solving native title issues is testament to that 

failure. 

Members opposite might ask how the 

Beattie Labor Government has been so 

successful in an area in which their record is so 

abysmal. There are three factors which the 

Beattie Labor Government took into 

consideration which have been the hallmark of 

its success when it comes to native 

title—consultation, negotiation and, finally and 

most importantly, respect for the indigenous 

person. 

I think it is important that all members 

understand why the three factors which have 

been taken into account by the Beattie Labor 

Government have delivered it successful 

outcomes on native title. As to the first factor, 

consultation, the formation by the Premier of 

his Native Title Task Force brought together 

the diverse interests of those affected by the 

native title issue. For the first time, the Premier 

was able to get a complete understanding of 

all parties' perspectives on all of the issues. I 

understand that at times this was not the most 

pleasant experience, but it was important to 

obtain a full understanding of what people 

thought and where they thought the answers 

might lie. 

In line with the extensive consultations 

that have been undertaken with every single 

piece of native title legislation that has been 

considered by this House, the Premier has 

ensured that his policy of negotiation has been 

incorporated wherever possible. This has 

included extensive negotiations over the 

provisions of native title legislation with 

organisations such as the Queensland 

Indigenous Working Group, the Queensland 

Mining Council and the United Graziers 

Association. Involving these organisations in 

the preparation of legislation has resulted in 

better quality legislation, which means more 

workable legislation and, as a result, legislation 

that everyone can live with. 

When honourable members examine the 

alternative State provisions, the primacy that 

has been given to consultation and 

negotiation is self-evident. For example, the 

alternative State provisions in relation to lowimpact 

exploration provide for consultation 

between the explorer and the native title 

parties prior to entry onto land where native 

title may exist. Consultation must relate to the 

impact of the activities on the land. 

Similar procedures exist in relation to 

prospecting permits and low-impact mineral 

development licences. These procedures 

ensure, in accordance with the Commonwealth 

Native Title Act, that native title parties are 

properly consulted prior to these activities 

being undertaken on land where native title 

might exist. It will be this factor, amongst 

others, which will ensure the success of the 

alternative State provisions. 

The final factor that has ensured the 

success of the Premier's native title strategy is 

that we on this side of the House respect 

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons 

and are committed to the goals of 

reconciliation and the improvement of quality 

of life for all indigenous Queenslanders. The 

creation of the Department of Aboriginal and 

Torres Strait Islander Policy and Development, 

which was delinked from the Department of 

Family Services, is evidence of our 

commitment to these goals. These three 

factors, which have ensured the success of 

this Government, have been integrated into 

the Land and Resources Tribunal.


The final form of this legislation has been 

the result of extensive consultation with all 

interested parties. The role of agreement 

through negotiation is central to the alternative 

State provisions, from which the majority of the 

tribunal's jurisdiction will be derived. The 

tribunal is designed to be informal, flexible and 

responsive to the needs of parties who come 

before it. 

Finally, the Land and Resources Tribunal 

Bill acknowledges and respects indigenous 

culture through making provision within the 

tribunal structure for the appointment of an 

indigenous issues referee and the capacity to 

deal appropriately with culturally sensitive 

issues. Also, all presiding members must have 

particular knowledge or experience of 

indigenous issues. I commend the Bill to the 

House. 

Mr FENLON (Greenslopes—ALP) 

(5.53 p.m.): I welcome this opportunity today 

to contribute to the consideration of the Land 

and Resources Tribunal Bill. I do not think any 

member of this House can underestimate the 

complexity of the native title issue. Indeed, for 

the previous Government this complexity was 

an excuse to do nothing. Unlike the Borbidge 

Government, the Beattie Government has not 

avoided the difficult issues. Close to the top of 

these difficult issues has indeed been the 

issue of native title. 

Almost immediately on coming to 

Government, the Premier announced the 

formation of his Native Title Task Force. The 

Native Title Task Force, which the Premier 

personally chaired, involved in the consultation 

process for the first time the various and 

diverse interest groups that were and continue 

to be affected by the issue of native title. 

Importantly, from the outset the Government 

adopted the approach that fighting out native 

title issues in the courts did not provide the 

way forward. Whilst litigation has its place, the 

Government has built its approach to 

formulating a new process for dealing with 

native title issues on a commitment to 

encourage all players in the process to work 

together to reach agreement. 

Litigation has been hugely expensive for 

Queensland taxpayers. It has dragged on for 

years and ultimately failed in practical terms to 

clarify the day-to-day impact of native title. The 

decisions in Mabo, Waanyi and Wik left 

indigenous people still without any clear 

guidance as to their rights and interests in land 

management in this State. It is ironic that the 

Bjelke-Petersen Government had such a 

strenuous role in creating these precedents. 

Where dramatic breakthroughs and 

concrete outcomes have been achieved, it has 

not been through litigation but, instead, 

through solution-based agreements 

negotiated in good faith and with the goodwill 

of all interested parties. The Beattie Labor 

Government approach has shifted the focus to 

encouraging and facilitating these 

agreements, particularly in the light of the new 

stature afforded to the agreements under the 

Commonwealth Native Title Act. Indeed, I 

understand that in a number of cases the 

officers of the Directorate of Native Title 

Services are assisting parties to native title 

disputes to resolve these issues through 

indigenous land use agreements. I would 

encourage both land-holders and indigenous 

parties to seriously consider the benefits that 

these agreements can provide to all parties. 

It is in this atmosphere of negotiation and 

not litigation that the tribunal we are debating 

today must be considered. Whilst the presiding 

members and non-presiding members of the 

tribunal will be eminently and suitably qualified 

to undertake these responsibilities—and in the 

case of the presiding members qualified to be 

appointed to a Supreme Court—it is important 

to note that the tribunal is not a court but a 

tribunal. As a tribunal the organisation will be 

far better able to ensure that its processes and 

hearings are culturally sensitive. 

The tribunal must observe the rules of 

natural justice, but it is not bound by the rules 

of evidence. That characteristic will allow the 

tribunal proceedings to be conducted in an 

informal manner and will permit decisions 

which will be more acceptable to all parties. As 

the Premier has stated, it is envisaged that the 

tribunal will not be a Brisbane-bound body but 

will conduct hearings throughout the State of 


As noted by the report of the Scrutiny of 

Legislation Committee, in its remarks on 

whether the Bill has sufficient regard to 

Aboriginal tradition and island custom, the 

tribunal will take into account such issues as: 

its degree of formality in procedures; the 

degree to which it relaxes the strict evidentiary 

rules; the taking of group evidence from 

indigenous witnesses; the exercise of taking 

evidence in a culturally sensitive manner; the 

way in which the tribunal deals with indigenous 

witnesses who may not have the same fluency 

in English as do the members of this House; 

and, finally, a recognition that the framing of a 

question to an indigenous witness, given their 

mode of response to such questions, will be 

influenced by cultural factors. How it does this 

will ultimately be the test of the success of the

9 Mar 1999 Health Portfolio 379 

tribunal. In all these things the Bill achieves the 

necessary balance. 

The Premier's native title strategy also 

recognises the important role that mediation 

will play in his "negotiate, not litigate" solution 

to the native title issue. The Bill recognises the 

importance of mediation through the office of 

the mediation referee. The mediation referee 

must be legally qualified and have, in the 

opinion of the Governor in Council, a high level 

of knowledge or experience in two or more of 

the following: dispute resolution, mediation, 

land title and land use issues, or something 

else considered by the Governor in Council to 

have substantial relevance to the duties of the 

mediation referee. 

Debate, on motion of Mr Fenlon, 

adjourned. 

HEALTH PORTFOLIO 


(6 p.m.): I move— 

"That this House notes with concern 

the massive $50m budget blow-out hitting 

Queensland’s public hospitals which is 

resulting in severe cuts to patient services, 

the closure of hospital beds and a 

blowout in waiting lists, and condemns the 

Health Minister’s gross mismanagement 

of the health system and her disgraceful 

attack on the dedicated senior staff who 

work in our hospitals." 

The cracks in the edifice of the do-nothing 

Beattie Labor Government are widening. 

Apparently, it is the Premier's decision to do 

nothing about an unrepentant Health Minister, 

whom he continues to defend. Something is 

desperately wrong with a Government that 

allows a senior Minister—Health Minister 

Wendy Edmond—to go unchastised for 

abusing patients and staff for problems within 

the State's hospitals. Never has a State 

Government had so much Federal funding for 

hospitals—a record amount of funding—but 

already we have seen semi-urgent wait times 

nearly double under this Government. 

I am absolutely appalled that this Minister 

is so desperate to cover up the problems in 

the hospitals that she would slander a man 

who presented for treatment at the Gold Coast 

Hospital with a slashed arm and had to wait 28 

hours for surgery. This is a real person who 

has suffered because of the breakdown in the 

health system. The Minister has lost the plot 

by failing to see the impact on a young man 

who may not regain the full use of his arm. 

The Minister fails to acknowledge the 

unacceptability of such an extremely long 

delay for surgery in emergency circumstances. 

Yesterday at Toowoomba, the Minister 

sacked the hospital's top executive and 

announced an "administrative restructure", 

which is a pseudonym for a massacre. Once 

again, when a hospital is in trouble, her answer 

is to look for scapegoats. She sacks the 

executive team and then does not announce 

any additional funding for that hospital, which 

is servicing a major region. I say to the 

Minister: your Government spent an extra $8m 

to run the Premier's Department in one quarter 

than Premier Borbidge, but you cannot seem 

to find the money for Toowoomba and other 

hospitals around the State. I think you and 

your Government have got your priorities 

wrong. The Beattie do-nothing Government is 

all about doing fancy PR rather than the hard 

yakka in delivering in such key service areas as 

health. You are simply not up to the task. 

After the Toowoomba massacre, there will 

be a lot of other hospital administrations and 

their staff who will be shaking in their shoes. 

Aside from the executive staff, how many 

other staff at Toowoomba will be sacked, and 

how many full-time positions will covertly not be 

advertised, with a growing legion of casuals left 

wondering about their job security? And what 

about the other hospitals? The Royal Brisbane 

Hospital has a $14m budget overrun. I 

understand that that hospital also has about 

30 closed beds, despite running near capacity, 

and it is also not filling permanent positions 

under this Minister. Will Dr John Menzies, the 

district director, be the next to fall under the 

poisoned sword of this Government? What 

about the Prince Charles Hospital, which is 

$1.8m over budget? And what about those 

other highly efficient teams at the Caboolture 

and Redcliffe Hospitals and the Nambour 

Hospital which, respectively, are struggling with 

a $2m and a $2.5m budget blow-out? What 

will they be thinking after the Toowoomba 

episode? 

Then there is the Bundaberg Hospital and 

its $1m budget blow-out. I acknowledge that 

the Minister tripped along to Bundaberg the 

other day and gave the hospital a million-dollar 

bail-out package, but she has not promised 

the same again next year. The highly 

respected medical superintendent at that 

hospital has recently resigned, and that 

hospital has also seen nearly a doubling of the 

percentage of semi-urgent long waits for 

surgery since Health Minister Edmond took the 

helm. It is another hospital that has had a 

downgrade in hospital services with the closure 

of the general outpatients clinic. And in case 

the Minister had forgotten—the Minister

380 Health Portfolio 9 Mar 1999 

approved this closure, just like the bed 

closures at the Nambour Hospital. But she 

could not remember doing so when she visited 

Bundaberg. I will come back to her memory 

problems later. 

Altogether, there is about $50m in budget 

overruns in the Health Department at this 

moment. I have listed just a few of the 

hospitals that are struggling because of the 

cutbacks to elective surgery funding alone. All 

this is at a time when the State Government 

has received a record amount of money from 

the Federal Government for hospitals and 

surgery. There is an extra $1.3 billion available 

to this Government that was not available to 

the coalition Government. There is also $103m 

in windfall funding that came because 

Queensland signed early. That agreement 

also meant that Queensland would get a 

share of any bigger offers if other States 

subsequently were offered more—as they 

were. That is the best Medicare deal a State 

Government in Queensland has seen. Yet this 

Government, right at the start of a five-year 

Australian Health Care Agreement, still cannot 

manage the budget. It still cannot maintain the 

budget. It still cannot maintain the coalition's 

trend for falling wait times for elective surgery, 

nor can it show a bit of compassion for people 

who are suffering as a result. 

We also saw in the Parliament this 

morning another example of the Minister's lack 

of compassion and grasp of her portfolio. I am 

happy to give the Minister the details of the 

young couple who wrote to me about the 

tragic loss of their unborn child and the 

compounding of their grief through the 

treatment they received at the Royal Women's 

Hospital. The mother had suffered the grief of 

losing a baby, but she was forced to endure 

five hours of bleeding and severe pain while 

waiting for a medical specialist to remove the 

placenta. This couple very strongly wished this 

issue to be brought to the attention of the 

Minister and gave me their approval for the 

matter to be raised in the Parliament. They 

also wanted to clearly make it known that they 

were not criticising the staff; they only had 

praise for the hospital staff who, despite the 

work pressures they were under, treated them 

compassionately. The problem, this couple 

said, was a lack of staff. Once again, the 

Minister, in her answer to a question on this 

issue, showed her complete lack of 

compassion or ability to understand that these 

are the real concerns of real people. 

If there is any doubt that this Minister has 

made a habit of attacking staff when the going 

gets tough, do not forget the incident with Dr 

Matthew Scott-Young on the Gold Coast—a 

well-respected surgeon who resigned because 

of the difficulties that the Gold Coast Hospital 

was having in getting adequate funding. The 

people were marching in the streets over the 

Gold Coast dilemma. Perhaps the Minister 

wishes to abuse those people as well. 

Then there is the Nambour Hospital. Like 

the Gold Coast, that hospital is experiencing 

tremendous growth but, contrary to the 

Minister's claims of an increased budget, the 

documentation shows that it has, in fact, 

experienced a reduced budget. What is the 

Minister going to do? Is she going to abuse 

the staff for being some of the most efficient in 

the State? At Christmas time, the Minister 

approved the closure of 36 beds at the 

Nambour Hospital, but today in question time 

she seemed to have forgotten that. There are 

also some 25 full-time permanent positions at 

the hospital that have been deliberately left 

unfilled because of the budget problems. The 

Minister has a convenient memory because, 

despite her district manager's report confirming 

her involvement in the bed closures, in the 

House this morning the Minister said that she 

did not get involved in operational matters. 

Well, it is about time that the Minister did get 

involved in managing the department, rather 

than having her bureaucrats manage her. I 

renew my challenge to the Minister: why does 

she not allow Sunshine Coast media to inspect 

the 36 beds which are still closed well after the 

Christmas break? The Health Minister should 

hang her head in shame for her lack of 

compassion that was shown this morning, 

when she slandered a patient who had had 

the misfortune to wait so long for surgery. 

Then there are the mental health issues. I 

would like to quote the Minister, who thinks 

there is not a problem with acute mental 

health beds in south-east Queensland. The 

Minister stated— 

"There is no indication of a shortage 

of mental health beds in south-east 

Queensland." 

The Minister also went on to talk about how 

emergency beds were available and that, 

according to the mental health services, those 

beds had been accessed only about twice in 

the last six months. I think that the Minister 

had better stop listening to her close circle of 

bureaucrats and start talking to the doctors 

and psychiatrists who are dealing with this 

issue at the coalface. When I talked to Dr 

Eileen Burkett, who last week issued a press 

release from the AMA, she said that she and 

staff members spent hours ringing around 

looking for beds for mental health patients.


That is hardly the best use of time for treating 

psychiatrists. 

The College of Psychiatrists has also 

been calling for some months for a review of 

the current number of acute mental health 

beds. In light of the Minister's answer this 

morning, it is obvious that she has not realised 

that there are problems with access to mental 

health beds. Even when there is a suicidal 

man who threatens to kill himself and his wife, 

he is unable to get a mental health bed for 

more than a week. If the Minister does not 

think that something is wrong, there is 

obviously something wrong with her 

management. Furthermore, it is also wrong to 

have psychiatrists who are being paid, say, 

$100 an hour, or their registrars, having to 

spend hours ringing around looking for where 

these beds are supposed to be. 

The Minister has to undertake that review, 

and she must put in the coordinators who can 

do that work instead to access these beds 

which are supposed to be available. But this 

Minister cannot do anything, because she is a 

Minister in a do-nothing Government, and they 

continue to ignore the problems and the 

reductions. This is a do-nothing Government, a 

can't do Government, which continues to 

reduce services. It has not delivered in this key 

area of health. 

Time expired. 

Mrs SHELDON (Caloundra—LP) 

(6.10 p.m.): I rise to second the motion moved 

by the member for Maroochydore. 

Queensland Health is in total disarray. In 1993 

the health crisis was described in the 

Queensland Parliament as a ship without a 

rudder going from crisis to crisis under a Labor 

Government. Now, some six years later, we 

are facing the same situation with yet another 

Labor Government. 

Queenslanders are having to suffer the 

trauma of an endless series of Labor health 

plans and a Minister incapable of running the 

State's health system. In previous years under 

a Labor Government we saw a system that 

strangled true health care delivery with failed 

plans that started the bed and theatre closures 

whilst waiting lists were growing and growing. 

Discontent amongst staff grew to disturbing 

levels. Today under the Beattie Government 

we are reliving this nightmare. 

The question needs to be asked: what is 

the state of Queensland Health today? Well, it 

appears that the Minister cannot manage the 

Health budget. From her answers this morning, 

she obviously does not know. Toowoomba, 

Nambour, Redcliffe, Caboolture, Prince 

Charles and Bundaberg Hospitals all have 

massive budget blow-outs. The Government 

was forced to rescue Bundaberg Hospital with 

a $1m cash grab redirected from other areas 

of the Health budget. This is just one example 

of fundamental mismanagement in 

Queensland Health. 

Will the mismanagement of our hospital 

system create a domino effect? Let us have a 

look at some other instances of poor actions 

that have been forced upon Queenslanders. 

There has been the termination of contracts 

with private facilities, leaving patients to join 

already unbearably long waiting lists. If the 

budget blows out this Minister will just close it 

down. 

We have recently seen the closure of the 

drug and alcohol unit at the Toowoomba Base 

Hospital. This unit offered detoxification and 

rehabilitation services to Government agencies 

and the general public since 1982. Where to 

now for those who so desperately need its 

services? Toowoomba Hospital has a budget 

blow-out of more than $7m. The Government's 

reaction to this situation was to restructure, 

which is just another fancy name under this 

Government for the sacking or redeployment 

of key staff. Where are the Labor members 

standing up and speaking about this? Where 

are the union people? Where are you, Jim 

Fouras? 

The Minister is using the staff as 

scapegoats for her lack of control. Does she 

believe the same of Toowoomba Hospital as 

she stated today in this House about the 

situation at Nambour General Hospital—that 

she leaves the operational matters to the 

people who are paid to manage hospitals? It 

would seem not. 

But it is not just Toowoomba Hospital that 

is in crisis. Nambour Hospital is $2.5m over 

budget. Should its staff and the public fear 

restructure? Redcliffe Hospital is $2m over 

budget. Should its staff and the public fear 

loss of vital front-line services? Caboolture 

Hospital is $2m over budget. Prince Charles 

Hospital is $1.8m over budget. Bundaberg 

Hospital is $1m over budget. It seems that the 

list is never ending. Once again we are seeing 

a Labor Government that is not capable of 

running the health system in this State. There 

is gross incompetence—or as those opposite 

call it "budgetary problems"—evident at every 

corner turned. 

An issue that particularly concerns me is 

the Caloundra Hospital redevelopment 

scheme. This scheme has now been on the 

boards for a number of years. It was contained 

in two coalition Budgets. It has still not been 

delivered by this Minister. At the moment "they


are grading roads". That is as far as it has 

gone. I would like to quote from the manager's 

report to the Sunshine Coast District Health 

Services. He reported that work would be 

commencing very shortly. That has been said 

for the past two years. He reported— 

"Whilst the project planning is 

advanced the project has been estimated 

to be considerably over budget. A 

meeting was held at Capital Works and 

Asset Management Branch on 12 

January 1999 and as a result of this 

meeting a revised plan was developed 

which maintains the integrity of all 

services." 

I spoke to the previous Minister about the 

delays that were occurring at Caloundra 

Hospital. The management services branch 

that was looking after the plans kept changing 

the plans. In the Budget we had $14.8m. The 

plans were signed, sealed and delivered. We 

are talking about last May. The plans are still 

being revised and we still have nothing 

happening at the hospital. Meanwhile, I know 

that the $14.8m has been used by this 

Minister to prop up other capital works in other 

hospitals—most probably in Labor electorates. 

I notice the Minister nods. The Minister actually 

nodded; she agreed with my statement. That 

will go down very well on the Sunshine Coast. 

What we are seeing here is deliberate 

delaying tactics so that the Minister does not 

have to use that capital works money. This 

was money that was previously allocated by 

the coalition Government. There is no doubt 

that the Caloundra Hospital redevelopment is 

yet to proceed. 

Time expired. 

Hon. W. M. EDMOND (Mount Coot-tha— 

ALP) (Minister for Health) (6.15 p.m.): I move— 

"That all words after 'concern' be 

deleted and the following be inserted— 

'the increased pressure placed on 

Queensland public health services by 

the decrease in private health 

insurance, an ageing population and 

increased expectations and also 

notes the range of new health 

services being provided in the record 

Queensland health budget by 

dedicated Queensland Health staff.'." 

I thank the member for Maroochydore for 

moving the motion because it gives me 

another opportunity to remind Queenslanders 

that this Government introduced, and this 

Parliament has approved, a record Health 

budget. The budget of $3.772 billion is 

$128.8m—or 3.6%—more than the coalition's 

budget proposal for this year and $288m—or 

8.4%—more than the budget approved by the 

coalition last year. The new initiatives alone 

that we have introduced as part of this record 

spending are worth more than $93.8m. 

The motion today also gives me the 

opportunity, through my amendment, to 

remind Queenslanders that public health 

services in Queensland are under increasing 

pressure from a range of sources. How ironic 

that a coalition, which in Government could not 

come up with any new ideas or any new 

initiatives in Health, is now trotting out the 

same tired, old bleatings. In Health, the 

coalition was well and truly a never-never 

Government. It never did anything to improve 

the Statewide health situation. Possibly the 

only change the coalition made was replacing 

budget overruns with budget carryovers or 

negative carryovers. Some achievement! The 

coalition also never came to terms with the 

issues confronting health service delivery in 


We have seen the mathematically 

challenged member for Maroochydore trying to 

claim that the Commonwealth gave 

Queensland Health more than $100m extra to 

reduce waiting lists this year. I wish the 

Commonwealth had done that. I do indeed 

wish that the $103m in CUT money, to which 

she refers, could be divided by five 

years—because it is spread over five 

years—and that we would still get $100m a 

year. Even on my mathematics that does not 

add up. However, it might add up under the 

coalition's mathematics. 

Let us have a look at the facts. Last 

year's second Queensland Health budget—the 

one that was proudly brought down by 

Labor—was $288m more than the previous 

year's budget brought down by the coalition, 

and $129m more than the coalition's May 

budget. The increased funding brought down 

by Labor for this financial year has allowed us 

to proceed with a range of new initiatives that 

have significantly boosted health services 

across the State in palliative care, in accident 

and emergency, in parenting support, in 

adolescent health, in mental health and in 

surgery. These initiatives are all about 

increasing and improving health services for 

Queenslanders. 

We also abolished the Horan health tax 

which would, over years, have sucked out the 

bulk of growth funding—$2m this year, $25m 

next year and up to $80m a year for ever and 

ever thereafter. We have continued the 

elective surgery strategy started by Premier 

Beattie when he was Health Minister and


which was taken up by the previous Minister, 

the member for Toowoomba South, and 

claimed as his own. He is someone who has 

never had an original thought in his head. 

The difference is that we have been open 

and honest about it. What do the figures for 

waiting lists really show? We do not see the 

manipulated data that we used to see. This 

year we see that there are half as many 

waiting as there were at the same time last 

year. More importantly—because this is what 

people want to know—more than 4,000 

patients, or nearly 6% more, have had their 

surgery since the Labor Government came in 

compared with the same period in the previous 

year. Unlike the previous Government, we 

have full Treasury funding for the EB 3 

agreement which is on the table at the 

moment. We are not going to cut any services 

in order to meet the increase in pay for our 

dedicated hospital workers. This is in contrast 

to the $25m of unfunded commitment given 

by the previous coalition Health Minister. He 

gave the staff a rise but the hospitals were 

expected to cut services and staff to get it. Of 

course, they did not. They could not. 

This is the money which we have had to 

find within existing budgets. But even after 

making adjustments for one-off payments we 

were still able to increase funding to every 

single one of the 39 health districts. Despite 

the inaccurate claims made by the Opposition 

earlier, this includes the Sunshine Coast with a 

4.3% budget increase, the Gold Coast with a 

similar rise and Townsville with a 7.1% 

increase. 

I remind members opposite that, in 

January 1998, 14 districts were foreshadowing 

budget overruns. This year, in January, 11 

districts are forecasting budget overruns 

totalling not the way-out figures that the 

member opposite is saying, but the $33m that 

I have indicated already, and of which $25m 

appears to be the unrealised EB 2 savings. 

However, that needs to be kept in 

perspective. With more than $33.5m still to be 

allocated this financial year, there is no crisis. 

Of course, Health budgets are always tight. 

One could always spend more, but clearly the 

Health budget is far from any crisis situation. 

Time expired. 

Mr SULLIVAN (Chermside—ALP) 

(6.20 p.m.): I rise to support the amendment 

moved by the Health Minister. We now know 

why the former Deputy Leader of the 

Opposition, the former Health Minister, failed in 

his leadership challenge against the 

Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge. He 

anointed the member for Maroochydore as his 

number-cruncher, and it is glaringly obvious 

how bad she is with numbers. On radio, 

television and even here in the Chamber this 

morning, the member for Maroochydore 

proved just how mathematically challenged 

she is. She has been repeating the fallacy that 

only $77m out of the $620m allocated this 

year has been spent so far. She has no 

understanding that the $77m to which she 

refers is a figure only for new contracts signed, 

not an actual total expenditure for the whole 

period—new contracts, not total expenditure. 

Here are some of the facts. The 

appropriated expenditure for the Queensland 

Health capital works program this financial 

year, including joint State/Commonwealth 

programs, is $621m. As of 31 January this 

year, I am advised that the actual expenditure 

by the Health Department on capital works is 

$288m. All the indications are that we will 

spend all of the allocated $620m this year. 

To show where this confidence comes 

from, I ask members to consider the following: 

at the Royal Brisbane/Royal Women's 

redevelopment site, the budget estimate this 

year was an expenditure of $53m. We are on 

track to spend slightly more than that figure. 

The Princess Alexandra Hospital rebuilding 

program is 12 weeks ahead of time and on 

budget. In my own electorate of Chermside, it 

was anticipated that we could spend $42m. In 

fact, we will probably spend closer to $49m this 

year at the Prince Charles Hospital. 

I ask members to contrast that level of 

capital works with what happened in the past 

financial year under the Borbidge Government. 

Departmental records show that the coalition 

Government's budget allocation for the 1997- 

98 financial year was $557m but their actual 

expenditure amounted to only $475m. That 

leaves a massive shortfall of $82m not spent 

by Opposition Leader, Rob Borbidge, and the 

member for Toowoomba South, Mike Horan, 

when they were in the positions of Premier and 

Health Minister. That $82m could have been 

spent on improving Queensland's health 

facilities and giving Queenslanders jobs. 

The Beattie Government's Capital Works 

Program spending this financial year has 

created about 9,000 jobs. Add to these jobs 

the jobs of 600 additional workers who are 

delivering health services as a result of the 

Beattie Government's health initiatives, and 

the people of Queensland will see what a cando 

Government the Beattie Labor Government 

is. 

It is timely also to remind members, 

particularly the new members opposite, that 

the Queensland Capital Works Program, which


contains one of the largest public hospital 

rebuilding programs of its type in the world, 

was a Labor Government initiative. That 

initiative contrasts starkly with the coalition's 

record of 32 years during which it allowed the 

hospital system in Queensland to run down. 

Every single member in this Chamber knows 

what a shambles the Royal Brisbane Hospital 

was. Members opposite have been into some 

of those buildings that should have been 

condemned in the 1950s, yet they were still 

allowed to operate as supposedly tertiary level 

wards up until Wayne Goss and a Labor 

Government said, "No. Enough is enough. We 

need $1.5 billion over 10 years to change it." 

However, under the coalition the Capital 

Works Program stalled, and stalled badly. That 

is an undeniable fact. That is how we explain 

part of the $82m underspent just in one year 

under the former Health Minister. Fortunately, 

under Labor it is back on track. Under Labor, 

Queenslanders across the State will have 

world-class hospitals and community health 

centres. We will do it without the Horan health 

tax that would have ripped $554m out of 

hospital budgets over nine years. I ask 

members: do they remember the Horan health 

tax? I say to Mr Horan that some of the new 

members do not, but we do. That was where 

the member for Toowoomba South, as 

Minister, handed out capital works money with 

one hand and then took it back from the 

hospitals in a capital works repayment in the 

other. What a neat trick! "We will give you 

some money to build things but we will take 

money back in the Horan health tax." That is 

something that is not being done now. That 

was abolished under Labor. 

The member for Maroochydore is so out 

of touch. In a media release of 3 March, when 

referring to the Townsville Hospital 

redevelopment she even confused the Public 

Accounts Committee with the Public Works 

Committee. However, that is just one of the 

many, many mistakes she has made. She was 

wrong again there. 

In the few seconds remaining to me, I 

remind the member for Toowoomba South 

that the people of Brisbane's north side have 

not forgiven him for ripping out the community 

hospital facilities at the Prince Charles Hospital. 

I will detail further how the member caved in to 

the medical mafia at the Royal Brisbane 

Hospital and, through ripping out the facilities 

at the Prince Charles Hospital, not only 

deprived the people of Brisbane's north side of 

services but also added tens of millions of 

dollars of extra costs to the rebuilding of the 

Prince Charles Hospital. The member's 

performance as Minister was a disgrace. I 

support the current Minister. 

Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) 

(6.25 p.m.): What a tragedy it has been for 

Queensland to be hit again with a Labor 

Government in charge of the hospitals of this 

State. We all have to ask the question: where 

has all the money gone? We saw this happen 

before under the Goss administration and we 

are seeing it again now: $103.5m of sign-on 

money obtained under the Medicare 

agreement—one-off, up-front, sign-on money 

obtained through the Medicare agreement on 

top of the huge rise that was negotiated in the 

ordinary year-to-year funding over the five-year 

term of the agreement. Where has that money 

gone? All we see are hospitals with budget 

crises. Where has the money gone? Has it 

gone into the hospitals? Has it gone into 

elective surgery? 

In terms of elective surgery, all we have 

seen is a massive blow-out. After two years of 

hard work by the staff in organising Surgery on 

Time—the doctors, the nurses, the technical 

and support staff—to get the semi-urgent wait 

times down to around 10% across the State, 

that wait time has now doubled—blown 

out—to just on 20%. What an absolute 

tragedy for this State! 

During this debate, I have heard Labor 

members interject asking, "Where are you 

going to get the money for all of this?" 

Everyone wants more money for health. What 

did the members opposite do with the money? 

We received the biggest Medicare increase 

ever seen in history—a $1.35 billion increase 

over five years and we got $103.5m of the 

$120m sign-on money that was available 

across Australia. We in Queensland got the 

lion's share. What has happened to all that 

money? Where on earth has the money 

gone? That is the question that should be 

asked in this Parliament as we see hospital 

after hospital in financial crisis. 

We see the situation in the Toowoomba 

Hospital of the $7m budget overrun. However, 

what about the Royal Brisbane Hospital, which 

has double the budget of Toowoomba 

Hospital but also has double the budget 

overrun—a $14m budget overrun? Are there 

going to be any scapegoats in the Premier's 

electorate? Is the district manager going to get 

the sack, along with the medical super and the 

director of nursing? Or is it just because 

Toowoomba happens to be a regional town 

and Labor thinks that it can do it that way? 

Mr Sullivan: You know what you did. 

Mr HORAN: The member represents an 

electorate on the north side of Brisbane. What


does he think about the situation at the Royal 

Brisbane Hospital—a $14m budget overrun? 

The Government will do nothing about that. It 

will probably bail out the hospital like it bailed 

out the Bundaberg Hospital because it 

happened to be in a Labor electorate. 

Today, we have heard plenty about some 

of these overruns: Nambour Hospital, $2.5m 

and 36 beds at the Nambour Hospital still 

closed; Prince Charles Hospital, $1.8m; 

Bundaberg Hospital, $1m; Toowoomba 

Hospital, $7m; the Royal Brisbane Hospital, 

$14m; and Redcliffe and Caboolture Hospitals, 

$2m. I ask the question—and I am going to do 

so over and over again tonight—where has all 

the money gone? What on earth has the 

Government done with the money? Certainly, 

it is not spending it on the hospitals, which are 

at the front line of service. 

The Government is certainly not looking 

after the elderly people. Tonight we have 

heard some stories about not being able to 

get a mental health bed. In terms of mental 

health, the coalition Government put in place a 

system of emergency beds that would be 

available so that that problem could not occur. 

We put it in place in conjunction with the 

various psychiatrist and psychologist groups. 

At the moment, a Treasury razor gang is 

going through Health, but there are all of these 

unfunded promises that Labor made during 

the last election campaign. When the coalition 

came to power, it had to fix up the capital 

works budget when it found a $1.2 billion 

shortage. When Premier Beattie was the 

Health Minister, in one of the most scurrilous 

campaigns I have ever seen he travelled 

throughout the State of Queensland going to 

hospital after hospital saying, "We will build 

you an $80m hospital", when he knew that 

there was only $40m in the budget. He did 

that in the week after the Mundingburra byelection. 

It was one of the most scurrilous 

campaigns that this State has ever seen. I will 

never forget the low-grade hypocrisy of that 

particular campaign. 

Tonight there is going to be a real test for 

the member for Nicklin. Before he slithers 

across the carpet, he ought to think about 

whether he stands for the people of his 

electorate. What about the 36 beds of the 

hospital in his electorate? What about the staff 

of that hospital? What about the budget 

overrun of that hospital? Now is the time for 

the member to stand up—to be a bit proactive 

on behalf of his own hospital and not be a 

captive of the Labor Government who used 

him when it wanted to. What do we see? Is 

there going to be a bailout for the Nambour 

Hospital like there was a bailout for the 

Bundaberg Hospital? I bet there will not be. 

If there is one thing that we have to 

concentrate on in this debate tonight, it is that 

once again we are seeing a Labor 

Government squandering precious health 

money. This Labor Government was left with a 

department that was absolutely awash with 

money after the Medicare agreements, with 

the sign-on money and the recurrent increase 

over five years. What on earth is happening in 

Queensland to all the money that was left in 

the Health Department? 

Time expired. 


(6.30 p.m.): I am pleased to support the 

amendment moved by the Minister for Health. 

If members opposite truly cared about the 

health of Queensland citizens and if they truly 

cared about our hospitals, they would not be 

playing personality politics; they would be 

getting behind our push for a better health 

funding deal from the Commonwealth 

Government, which is formed by members 

from their own side of politics. If the member 

for Maroochydore wants to do something 

constructive, she should speak to her Federal 

colleagues. If members opposite truly cared 

and if they wanted to do something 

constructive—if they were not just in it for the 

short-term political gain, to get a 15-second 

grab on TV to get better known—they would 

pressure their Federal colleagues to ensure 

that Queensland is not short-changed $465m 

by the Commonwealth Government. They 

would join forces with us on behalf of all 

Queenslanders. 

If members opposite were of a view—as 

they should be—to join forces with us and 

lobby their Federal colleagues, that would give 

our prospects a little bit more oomph than 

when they were in Government. One of the 

most appalling things that happened when 

those opposite were in Government was their 

response when the Commonwealth withdrew 

the dental health program. At that time, the 

member for Maroochydore said— 

"I regret to say that the 

Commonwealth dental health program will 

continue only until 31 December 1996. 

... 

I am very disappointed that the 

Federal Government has pulled the 

money out of that particular program." 

The shadow Minister for Health should have 

been outraged, but all she said was, "I am 

disappointed." 

Miss Simpson interjected.


Mrs LAVARCH: Yes, the previous 

Government did continue it, but at what cost? 

What service is there for our dental patients? 

The waiting list to get an appointment for a 

check-up blew out to 27 months. 

Mr Sullivan: They had a waiting list for 

the waiting list. 

Mrs LAVARCH: Yes, they did have a 

waiting list for the waiting list. Then the 

honourable member buried her head and 

would not address the issue. All she would say 

was that the former Government kept the 

service going, but I am afraid that it could not 

be called a service. 

I wanted to make a positive and 

constructive contribution to the debate tonight. 

I am pleased to say that, in spite of increased 

pressure, the Government can justly be proud 

of its record in health generally and in mental 

health particularly. I will focus on mental health 

for a very good and simple reason: one in five 

Queenslanders will experience a mental illness 

or serious mental health problem at least once 

in his or her life. This startling statistic makes it 

imperative that we provide high quality mental 

health services and facilities throughout 

Queensland, otherwise there is the capacity for 

mental illness to impose a significant burden 

on the health system. Recognising the 

importance of this situation, in its very first 

Budget the Government injected a record 

$29m into mental health. That massive 

increase will allow the State Labor Government 

to expand and upgrade services in community 

and hospital settings, particularly in regional 

and rural areas, mobile intensive treatment, 

child and youth services and services targeting 

indigenous people. It also provides for the 

implementation of the second national mental 

health plan in communities throughout the 

State. 

This represents a significant and 

fundamental difference from the position of 

the members opposite, who would rather see 

mental health kept in the background and 

service consumers who are locked away, 

literally and figuratively. The proof is in the 

words and actions of members opposite. While 

claiming a shortage of mental health beds, the 

Opposition is holding up the development of 

new supported mental health accommodation. 

In particular, I point to the appalling behaviour 

of the member for Mooloolah, who is trying to 

obstruct the provision of appropriate 

community-based mental health services on 

the Sunshine Coast. I am advised that, 

despite numerous briefings, the member for 

Mooloolah has been actively agitating against 

the development of the community care unit 

for long-term mental health consumers in his 

electorate. Shame on the member for 

Mooloolah! This is despite the fact that the 

people involved—— 

Time expired. 

Mrs GAMIN (Burleigh—NPA) (6.35 p.m.): 

This morning in this place I asked the Health 

Minister to explain why a young mother and 

her husband were forced to suffer a five-hour 

wait for a medical specialist at the Royal 

Women's Hospital, an enduring and lengthy 

wait while the poor young woman was 

suffering immense pain and blood loss. In the 

husband's words, the treatment was— 

"... five hours of what I can only describe 

as cruel and inhumane." 

In an effort to explain the unnecessary delay, 

the woman and her husband were informed by 

hospital staff that the five-hour wait was due 

to, and once again I use the husband's 

words— 

"A lack of staff because the 

administration had increased in number 

and departments were fighting for 

operating rooms while the powers that be 

were sacking the doctors and nurses." 

Instead of the Minister apologising for yet 

another case of the Beattie Government's 

gross mismanagement of the health system, 

the Minister displayed the ultimate lack of 

compassion and elected to discredit a patient. 

The Health Minister slandered a patient to 

justify the unnecessary delays and to cover up 

the incompetent management of the health 

system. 

The Health Minister's performance was 

appalling and unethical. The ease with which 

the Health Minister displayed a total lack of 

compassion and indulged in unethical 

behaviour displays, once again, that the 

Premier has no control over his Ministers nor 

the standards that they employ. The Health 

Minister's performance was disgraceful and it 

reflects the sham that the Beattie Government 

has become. I can only hope that the Minister 

has dashed off a sincere statement of 

apology, begging forgiveness for her lack of 

sound judgment and her substandard method 

of operation. 

That poor woman and her husband have 

had to endure not only a traumatic and tragic 

event. The loss of a baby after 18 weeks of 

excited anticipation of a healthy birth and a 

long life together as a family is one of the most 

traumatic experiences that anyone can 

endure. My heart goes out to them. I know 

that my fellow members of Parliament who 

have a sense of compassion will join me in


commiserating with the husband and wife and, 

similarly, with the Gold Coast patient who the 

Health Minister found it necessary to 

denigrate. I am very sorry that that patient's 

plight was not given the courtesy and privacy 

that a patient in a Queensland hospital should 

expect. 

I must admit that I was surprised to hear 

the Health Minister's outburst this morning, for 

I recall only too well her infamous memo to her 

Labor caucus colleagues that encouraged 

State Labor members to look out for waiting 

list victims who could be used politically against 

the former successful Health Minister, Mike 

Horan. I recall the slogan, "a victim a day 

keeps Horan at bay". Sadly, we now look at 

the unfortunate way in which the current 

Health Minister treats the true victims of the 

current health system. 

Referring again to the incident that 

occurred at the Royal Women's Hospital, the 

problem is not with the nurses and doctors; it is 

clearly the responsibility—or should I say the 

irresponsibility—of the management of the 

hospital and the health system. Since 1938, 

the Royal Women's Hospital has provided a 

tremendous service to Queensland women 

and their families. The women's hospital is a 

highly regarded facility. Over the past 60 years 

it has been staffed and managed by some of 

our most respected nurses and doctors. Some 

455,000 Queenslanders have been born at 

the hospital since it opened. I feel confident 

that the mothers and fathers of those 455,000 

Queenslanders would be more than pleased 

with the treatment that they received as, 

indeed, I was myself when I had my first baby 

there almost 40 years ago. 

However, when management cuts the 

budget to restrict staff numbers, sadly we 

witness tragedies such as I outlined earlier. 

Hopefully, those tragic circumstances, in 

conjunction with the current redevelopment of 

the Royal Women's Hospital, will provide us 

with the opportunity to significantly improve 

facilities at the hospital. This major upgrade will 

give staff the tools they need to continue 

providing first-class care into the next century. 

However, I remind the Health Minister that 

hospitals are not about just buildings and 

equipment. The lifeblood of any hospital is the 

staff—the nurses and doctors—who provide 

care to patients every day of every year. For 

the Health Minister's benefit, I point out that it 

is her job to ensure that the correct staffing 

levels are employed at the Royal Women's 

Hospital and at every other public hospital 

under her jurisdiction. 

Unfortunately, as we have witnessed 

many times previously, a Labor Government 

cannot manage and, whether we are talking 

about a health system or a financial system, it 

makes a mess of the operation. The coalition 

Government was committed to giving 

Queenslanders a health system that they 

wanted and deserved no matter where they 

lived. The coalition Government delivered on a 

range of health services throughout the State, 

which overcame the six years of 

mismanagement and procrastination under a 

Labor Government. The coalition's goal in 

health was to get it back to basics—— 

Time expired. 

Ms BOYLE (Cairns—ALP) (6.40 p.m.): 

Tonight I am pleased to support the amended 

motion and decry the original motion of the 

Opposition spokesperson for Health and the 

comments of the former Minister for Health. 

They pretend to believe that health is only 

about hospitals. They know in their hearts and 

heads that there is much more to health than 

just hospitals. 

Tonight in the debate they ignored the 

trends towards day surgery, shorter stays in 

hospital, changes to bed allocations, 

community-based health services, and 

palliative care, such that in their pain and 

sometimes while suffering terminal illness, 

people can remain in their homes. They ignore 

the trend towards community-based support 

for mental health services in the community, 

which will provide support to prevent 

hospitalisation. They ignore the trend towards 

early intervention programs and to the broader 

education and health promotion programs, 

which are the programs that will lead us into 

the new century. Instead they concentrate on 

a hospital system that has been, but which is 

no longer, sufficient as a direction for 

addressing the health of all Queenslanders. 

Their focus on hospital beds is irresponsible. 

They are also irresponsible in causing division 

in the community based on people's pain and 

anxiety, when funding from the 

Commonwealth is the true problem. 

This evening the former Minister for 

Health, Mr Horan, dared to criticise this 

Government's Health funding even though we 

have increased the Health budget. He was the 

one who took the additional $15m in 

Commonwealth sign-on money and distributed 

it to his favoured areas around the State prior 

to the election rather than joining with us in a 

clear plea to the Federal Government to give 

Queensland Health funding a fair go. 

The former Minister would know where 

that increase in Health funding has gone, and


I am pleased to say that Cairns has had its 

share. It has gone towards palliative care 

services—the $10m program recommended to 

Minister Horan and which he funded with half a 

million dollars. Instead our Minister has 

progressively increased the funding to the full 

$10m amount of the program. The increased 

funding has gone towards a quarter of a 

million dollar increase for local councils' 

immunisation programs. It has also gone 

towards the establishment of the 15 PPP 

parenting programs that are up and running 

around the State, with a further 15 to be up 

and running by the middle of this year. 

In so many debates this week and last 

week we have heard how members on both 

sides of the House understand that crime 

prevention requires early education in the 

home and a focus on family values and the 

importance of parenting. Our Health Minister 

introduced that initiative as soon as she 

became the Minister. 

The funding has gone towards test drives, 

as we are calling them, of a new style of child 

health delivery involving support groups for 

parents and the delivery of child health 

services into the home. It involves advice, 

referrals and joint initiatives with other 

Government departments. An example can be 

found at the Smithfield and Edmonton health 

centres in Cairns. 

The money has gone towards innovative 

school nurse programs that address with 

young people the very issues that frighten all 

of us in this House—suicide, drug use, 

violence and despair. I am pleased to say that 

the Cairns State High School and Yarrabah 

are part of that program. I am proud to be on 

the Minister's health team and proud that our 

Minister is leading the shift to a broader 

delivery of health services—a delivery suited to 

the nineties and the new century—rather than, 

as the shadow Health Minister suggests, 

basing health services purely on hospitalfocused 

funding, a system that on its own is 

insufficient. 

I am amazed that tonight the shadow 

Minister for Health alleged abuse. She alleges 

abuse after abuse—and the Hansard record 

shows this—when in fact all members of this 

House know today that the abuses that we 

heard about are those that have poured from 

her own lips. What have we heard from the 

Opposition in terms of constructive 

suggestions? Nothing! What have we heard in 

terms of alternative health policies? Nothing! 

Where have we heard it offer, as the people of 

Queensland would wish, a joint non-political 

effort to secure the proper share of 

Commonwealth health funds? Again, it offers 

no help. All it offers is destruction, criticism, 

abuse—nothing that is constructive. It will not 

wash with the public. 

By contrast, Minister Edmond has 

increased Queensland Health funding, sped 

up the rebuilding program, broadened the 

focus of Health and led with new initiatives. I 

extend my congratulations to her. 

Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (6.45 p.m.): 

Tonight I rise to speak in favour of the motion 

moved by the member to Maroochydore, 

which represents a very fair and responsible 

response to the record of this can't do Labor 

Government and another can't do Labor 

Health Minister, who in seven months have 

proven themselves totally incapable of running 

the State's health system. In that short time 

Queensland's most incompetent Health 

Minister ever has demonstrated her inability to 

manage the State's Health budget. 

Queensland's most incompetent Health 

Minister ever has shown a complete lack of 

understanding of the basics of budgeting and 

financial management. 

The results are quickly becoming 

apparent, and no amount of repetition tonight 

can dull this Minister's shocking litany of 

failure—Redcliffe Hospital, $2m over budget; 

Nambour Hospital, $2.5m over budget; 

Bundaberg Hospital, $1m over budget; Prince 

Charles Hospital, $1.8m over budget; 

Caboolture Hospital, $2m over budget; and 

the Toowoomba Hospital, an incredible $7m 

over budget. These figures indicate 

mismanagement and incompetence of 

mammoth proportions. That mismanagement 

and incompetence strikes at one of the most 

basic human rights of every Queenslander— 

the right to adequate health care. 

The tragedy of this mismanagement and 

incompetence is that it strikes at individuals. It 

strikes at all of us, and it does so when we are 

most vulnerable. When people need and 

deserve health care, they find that the millions 

of dollars in budget overruns that the Minister 

talks about in this place translate into real pain 

and suffering for them as individuals. 

Unnecessary pain, needless suffering and 

unfair inconvenience along with a lack of 

treatment and lack of services are becoming 

all too common in Queensland's health 

system, and many examples have been given 

in the House today. There are many examples 

that affect real people in my electorate—real 

people with a real need for health services, not 

meaningless statistics to be manipulated for 

the latest press release from the Minister's 

office.


The health debacle affects people in 

larger regional hospitals, in larger regional 

communities and in small rural communities. It 

affects people everywhere. However, it is in the 

small communities that the lack of services 

caused by this Minister's sheer incompetence 

in financial management is, in my opinion, 

most cruel. The Monto Respite Centre is one 

of the many real examples—one of the many 

cruel examples. 

An application for recurrent funding from 

the Monto Blue Nursing Service to establish 

centre-based respite care has this week been 

rejected by the Minister and her department. 

An application for just $60,000 in recurrent 

funding for a badly needed service in a 

community that has done more than most to 

help itself has been rejected by the Health 

Minister because of a lack of funds—funds 

that obviously have been needed to prop up 

failing budgets and to provide rescue 

packages for a health system failing due to 

mismanagement. It is the Minister's 

incompetence that has led directly to the 

underfunding of these services across the 

State. It is these ancillary services that are the 

easiest to cut back in the short term as a 

panic-stricken Minister struggles desperately to 

contain the ever-increasing budget blow-outs. 

It is worth looking at the example of the Monto 

Respite Centre, because it illustrates the 

effects of the budget blow-outs on real 

people—the people who are trying to deliver 

services and the people who desperately need 

those services. 

The Monto Blue Nursing Service brought 

together groups across the community—carer 

support groups and disability support 

groups—and in a remarkable display of 

community cooperation they raised funds, 

obtained a suitable building and arranged to 

outfit it for respite care. What they have been 

so cruelly denied by the Health Minister at the 

last minute is the necessary recurrent funding 

to make the service a reality. 

In Monto, like in so many other 

communities, respite care is desperately 

needed for the frail aged, for the younger 

people with disabilities and especially for the 

carers. At present in Monto, hospital beds and 

the local shire hall are being used for short 

periods for respite care for some patients. The 

volunteers who make up the Monto Blue 

Nursing Hospital Committee and, more 

especially, the people they are trying to help 

are the real victims of the Health Minister's 

woeful lack of financial management. These 

vulnerable people are the real losers from the 

horrific budget blow-outs which have become 

all too apparent after only seven months of 

Labor administration. 

Elective surgery waiting lists Statewide are 

similarly unacceptable. Up to 25% of patients 

are now waiting more than ninety days for 

Category 2 surgery. This has more than 

doubled since last June, when the worst 

Health Minister in Queensland's history began 

her maladministration of our health system. 

The answer to this debacle is in the proper 

financial management and proper submission 

of budget expenditure. 

Time expired. 


(6.50 p.m.): Far from criticising this 

Government's contribution to health services 

on the Sunshine Coast, members opposite 

should be praising us for the high quality of 

services we are providing in the region and the 

new initiatives we have taken which are 

benefiting all Sunshine Coast families. Let me 

list some of them for those opposite to refresh 

their memories. 

This financial year Nambour Hospital 

received a $3.2m boost in funding in 

recognition of the areas of special needs. This 

included $1m for 12 new mental health beds 

and $2.2m to address the immediate concerns 

in areas including intensive care, renal dialysis 

and special surgical services. We have the 

crocodile tears of the former Treasurer, who 

whipped $4m out of the Nambour Hospital's 

capital works budget to pork-barrel her own 

electorate and in the same process then 

agreed to the Horan health tax. 

I am sure the parents of the 2,000 

children at Burnside and Nambour State High 

Schools are incredibly pleased with the 

Government's school nurse initiative. Those 

students now have a health professional they 

can come to know and trust and who can give 

them advice on medical services available in 

their local community. The school nurses can 

also get to know the young people and pick up 

the early signs of problems such as eating 

disorders or mental disturbance. 

Another great boost for the families on 

the Sunshine Coast is the Government's early 

intervention and parenting support initiative. 

Nambour and Maroochydore are two of the 15 

locations around Queensland which will benefit 

from this positive parenting initiative, which is 

enormously important to parents with young 

families. We are giving them the skills they 

need to develop close and meaningful 

relationships with their children. This will work 

well throughout their lives. 

The Sunshine Coast is also getting the 

opportunity to trial new-style child health


centres. This is an important back-up service to 

help parents and families. The Sunshine Coast 

centre will expand the services currently 

available from the existing Nambour and 

Maroochydore community child health centres. 

Mental health services have also been 

expanded on the Sunshine Coast as part of 

the State's record boost to mental health 

services. The Sunshine Coast has gained 

another child and youth mental health worker 

since this Government came to office. 

I turn now to another health district and 

the management of the Toowoomba District 

Health Service, which has been a major cause 

of concern for some time. Let us look clearly at 

what those opposite are saying: the Minister is 

fully responsible for the public hospitals but 

should not do anything to rectify problems 

occurring in them. It is like telling the West 

Indian cricket team's selectors that it is all their 

fault for the collapse this morning, but they are 

not allowed to improve the team by changing 

it. 

While the Toowoomba Hospital has an 

excellent staff and provides a high quality of 

care to those treated at the hospital, it has the 

worst financial record of any hospital in 

Queensland. It completed the 1997-98 

financial year $2.3m in the red and the budget 

has continued to blow out during this financial 

year to an unacceptable and unsustainable 

level. It has become clear that a restructure 

and change of direction are needed to 

introduce modern management practices to 

increase the amount of surgery performed at 

the Toowoomba Hospital each year. It is 

estimated by Queensland Health that, for the 

dollars spent on health services in 

Toowoomba, an additional 500 Toowoomba 

people should have received surgery during 

the past 12 months. 

That is the full measure of the 

incompetence of the former Health Minister 

and member for Toowoomba South, who 

allowed archaic management practices to 

thrive in Toowoomba under his stewardship. 

When he was the Minister, the member for 

Toowoomba South closed beds quicker than 

West Indian wickets fell this morning. That is 

not surprising when this member was the 

champion of the budget blow-outs. He would 

have done Christopher Skase proud. 

Managers do have a responsibility to 

manage their budgets without cutting the 

range of services or reducing the number of 

permanent staff. In some exceptional 

circumstances, such as high growth areas like 

the Gold Coast, we have taken steps to 

compensate for high population growth and 

extra pressure on the hospital. For example, a 

special working party investigated problems at 

the Gold Coast Hospital late last year. It made 

a series of recommendations, including that an 

additional orthopaedic surgeon and a full-time 

paediatrician be appointed at the Gold Coast 

Hospital. It also recommended additional beds 

for winter this year and the expansion of local 

community health services. 

So honourable members can see from 

this brief survey that each hospital and health 

district is different. Each of them has its own 

problems and challenges, and we respond to 

those challenges in the way that best meets 

the needs of the local area. The bottom line is 

that we are in the business of providing high 

quality health services to all Queenslanders. 

Question—That the amendment be 

agreed to—put; and the House divided— 

AYES, 44—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, 

Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, E. A. 

Cunningham, J. I. Cunningham, Edmond, Elder, 

Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, 

Kingston, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, 

Mickel, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, 

Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Reeves, Reynolds, Roberts, 

Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, Struthers, 

Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: Sullivan, Purcell 

NOES, 40—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor, 

Cooper, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott, Feldman, Gamin, 

Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, 

Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, Malone, 

Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Pratt, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell, 

Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, 

Stephan, Turner, Veivers, Watson, Wellington. 

Tellers: Baumann, Hegarty 

Pairs: D'Arcy, Goss; Nuttall, Springborg 

Resolved in the affirmative. 

Question—That the motion, as amended, 

be agreed to—put; and the House divided— 

AYES, 46—Attwood, Barton, Beattie, Bligh, Boyle, 

Braddy, Bredhauer, Briskey, Clark, E. A. 

Cunningham, J. I. Cunningham, Edmond, Elder, 

Fenlon, Foley, Fouras, Gibbs, Hamill, Hayward, 

Kingston, Lavarch, Lucas, Mackenroth, McGrady, 

Mickel, Mulherin, Musgrove, Nelson-Carr, 

Palaszczuk, Pearce, Pitt, Pratt, Reeves, Reynolds, 

Roberts, Robertson, Rose, Schwarten, Spence, 

Struthers, Turner, Welford, Wells, Wilson. Tellers: 

Sullivan, Purcell 

NOES, 38—Beanland, Black, Borbidge, Connor, 

Cooper, Dalgleish, Davidson, Elliott, Feldman, Gamin, 

Grice, Healy, Hobbs, Horan, Johnson, Knuth, 

Laming, Lester, Lingard, Littleproud, Malone, 

Mitchell, Nelson, Paff, Prenzler, Quinn, Rowell, 

Santoro, Seeney, Sheldon, Simpson, Slack, 

Stephan, Veivers, Watson, Wellington. Tellers: 

Baumann, Hegarty 

Pairs: D'Arcy, Goss; Nuttall, Springborg 

Resolved in the affirmative.

9 Mar 1999 Adjournment 391 

ADJOURNMENT 

Hon. T. M. MACKENROTH (Chatsworth— 

ALP) (Leader of the House) (7.05 p.m.): I 

move— 

"That the House do now adjourn." 

HOME Assist/Secure Program 

Mr LAMING (Mooloolah—LP) (7.05 p.m.): 

I rise to speak on the issue of security in the 

home for Queensland's seniors. Honourable 

members will recall a series of disgusting 

attacks on elderly women late last year and 

earlier this year. There are very few incidents 

that could equal the depravity of cowardly 

attacks on the elderly. Housing Department 

units seemed to be the main, if not only, target 

in this particular instance and it is to be hoped 

that the good work of Housing Department 

personnel and police will result in a conviction 

and safer streets for all residents, but 

particularly our elderly. 

The Minister for Public Works and 

Housing responded to the situation in January 

by initiating an audit of security at public 

housing seniors units in the Brisbane 

metropolitan area. I understand that a problem 

was identified that in some cases security locks 

or doors that had been fitted were not always 

used or keys were sometimes left in locks. I 

believe the initial audit also identified other 

initiatives which could enhance existing 

security, including such things as the 

installation of security plates adjacent to 

security screen door locks which would make it 

difficult for people to unlock the door from the 

outside and the provision of hooks on the wall 

near security doors to encourage tenants not 

to leave keys in locks but have them ready in 

case of evacuation. I add that such hooks 

would perhaps be better placed behind the 

solid door so as not to be visible to potential 

intruders. 

I understand that the audit also identified 

a need to reduce the amount of thick shrubs 

around units where intruders might hide from 

view. Several other security issues were also 

identified during the audit. I support all of 

those initiatives and commend them to all 

householders as sensible initiatives. 

I am sure that all honourable members 

would agree on the importance of security 

measures, not just in seniors accommodation 

but in all homes. But it is the senior citizens in 

our community who feel the most threatened, 

which is understandable due to their inability in 

many cases to defend themselves. 

Last year a survey called the Conference 

for Older Australians was conducted by the 

Federal Government right throughout 

Australia. Many Queensland centres were 

visited, including Townsville, Cairns, Mackay, 

Caloundra and other regions, as well as 

Brisbane. Although the report covered a 

number of issues such as health, education, 

transport, communications and carers, 

isolation, security and safety came through as 

very important issues. I quote a section of the 

report— 

"Maintaining strong links with family 

or friends in their community can help 

prevent older people from becoming 

isolated. However it was strongly 

emphasised in the consultations that a 

number of factors can contribute to the 

feelings of isolation (including physical, 

geographical, social and emotional). It 

was also recognised that isolation means 

different things to different people and 

can be quite different from someone who 

'wants to be alone'. 

Even though the statistics reveal that 

older people are less likely to be victims of 

crime or personal violence than those of 

any other age group, there is a very real 

perception among older people that they 

are at risk. Not surprisingly, there was a 

considerable discussion at the 

consultations about how to improve safety 

and security for older people, and a 

number of practical suggestions were 

made. Overall, participants at the 

consultations recognised that the level of 

crime for older people was comparatively 

low, however they strongly believed that 

the worry about safety was something 

which could very much inhibit the lifestyle 

of older people and prevent them from 

undertaking activities that they enjoy." 

The Minister's initiatives, although 

commendable, should be extended by 

increasing funding to the HOME Assist/Secure 

scheme to ensure that all qualifying senior 

citizens are provided with increased security. 

The elderly living in private homes should be 

afforded the same degree of protection. 

Although any increase in funding for the 

security of public housing, such as security 

screens being fitted to windows and doors 

accessible from walkways, trees or meter 

boxes, is commendable, the Government 

should also extend such security provision to 

those in private homes who qualify under the 

HOME Assist/Secure program. People living in 

private residences should be afforded the 

same degree of protection and should not be 

disadvantaged. I call on the Minister to extend 

the HOME Assist/Secure program to achieve 

just that.

392 Adjournment 9 Mar 1999 

Zillmere Community Sport and Recreation 

Centre 

Mr ROBERTS (Nudgee—ALP) 

(7.10 p.m.): I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to speak about a momentous 

initiative for my electorate. Sports Minister Bob 

Gibbs has approved funding of $1m to 

construct an indoor sport and recreation centre 

at Zillmere. The Brisbane City Council has also 

agreed to provide around $100,000 in 

assistance towards this project. The funding 

has been provided through the State 

Government's Community Sport and 

Recreation Facilities Program. 

The Zillmere sport and recreation centre 

will be a great asset for the northern suburbs 

and will have features such as indoor playing 

courts, a stage and community meeting 

rooms. It will provide a much-needed boost to 

the district and give hope to local youth and 

families and to our elderly community. 

I thank the Minister, his department and 

the many individuals and organisations that 

have given this project strong support over the 

past three years. I particularly congratulate the 

board of management of the North Star Sports 

Club for having the foresight and courage to 

take on this initiative on behalf of the Zillmere 

and surrounding communities. I particularly 

mention its secretary/manager, Barry Hardie, 

and president, Wayne Yule. I also thank the 

Brisbane City Council for its support, 

particularly Councillor Terry Hampson and Lord 

Mayor Jim Soorley. 

This sport and recreation facility will 

service the needs of many north side suburbs, 

including Zillmere, Boondall, Geebung, Taigum 

and Aspley. It will also be an attractive 

alternative venue for schools and community 

groups as far afield as Banyo and Nudgee. 

People in these communities currently travel 

as far as Sandgate to access a decent facility 

to conduct events such as school presentation 

evenings and performances. This is a matter 

upon which I have been campaigning since 

my election in 1995. I take particular pride in 

being a part of a great decision of a true Labor 

Government. Quite simply, if it was not for a 

Labor Government, that facility would not be 

built. 

The guidelines for the Community Sport 

and Recreation Facilities Program provided for 

up to 50% of funding for eligible projects. 

However, the Minister has exercised his 

discretion in this matter and decided to provide 

100% of the funding for the project. This 

decision is based on the significant and 

genuine needs of the Zillmere community. 

These needs have been identified in a range 

of Government studies which acknowledge 

Zillmere as an area of high social need. I have 

argued strongly that if the 50% funding 

guideline was applied in this instance, the 

people of Zillmere and surrounding suburbs 

would never be able to construct the facility 

they so desperately need. 

In 1995, the then Department of Tourism, 

Sport and Youth identified Zillmere as the area 

in Brisbane most in need of community facility 

development. It was also ranked in the top 10 

areas of need in the State. In acknowledging 

the reality of Zillmere's needs and agreeing to 

wholly fund this project, Bob Gibbs has proved 

the Government is truly committed to fairness 

and equity—fairness and equity which could 

only be delivered by a preparedness to 

recognise that sometimes bureaucratic 

guidelines need to be modified when basic 

decency requires it. This decision is a great 

victory for the Zillmere, Boondall and Geebung 

communities. It demonstrates a genuine 

commitment to fairness and, in my opinion, is 

indicative of a real Labor Government at work. 

The campaign for this facility began in 

1995, when I established a small community 

working group to progress an application for 

funding under the Goss Government's 

Community Recreation Facility Program. The 

working group had its hopes raised when Clem 

Jones, who was heading the unit responsible 

for the program, visited Zillmere in February 

1996 and advised that his committee was 

keen to work towards a facility in the Zillmere 

district. Soon after that visit, the Goss 

Government lost office to the coalition which, 

in its next Budget, abolished that very 

worthwhile program. 

Despite an acknowledgment from the 

coalition Government of Zillmere's needs, 

there was no funding program put in place to 

address those needs. In the lead-up to the 

1998 election, Labor announced that it would 

introduce a new Community Sport and 

Recreation Facilities Program should it be reelected. 

As a pre-emptive move, I met with 

representatives of the North Star Sports Club 

in early 1998 to ascertain their interest in 

applying for funding on behalf of the local 

communities. They agreed, Labor was reelected, 

and the rest is history. 

Throughout the campaign to secure this 

facility, I have stressed to the North Star Sports 

Club the need to provide a facility which is 

accessible by a wide range of community 

interests—a place for activities for our youth, 

families and our elderly population. The club 

has supported this approach and is keen to 

ensure appropriate community input into the


development and management of the facility. 

A consultative process will be put in place to 

inform the community of what is proposed at 

the centre and to seek feedback on how best 

to ensure that as many community needs as 

possible are met. I look forward to working with 

the community and the North Star Sports Club 

to achieve that objective and to ensure that we 

get the best value for the $1.1m that will be 

allocated for this project. In many respects, this 

is a dream come true for Zillmere and the 

surrounding suburbs. I am particularly proud to 

have played a part in securing this decision for 

my constituents. 

In my first speech in September 1995, I 

spoke of the need for this facility and 

committed myself to working with the 

community to achieve it. We now have what 

we want and need. Let us now work together 

to ensure that the Zillmere sport and recreation 

centre delivers great and positive benefits for 

our community. 

Petford Training Farm 

Mr BEANLAND (Indooroopilly—LP) 

(7.15 p.m.): Last week, the Minister for 

Families, Youth and Community Care and 

Minister for Disability Services tabled in the 

House the Petford Training Farm report of 

October 1998 prepared by Sydney-based 

consultant Mr Peter Daffen. This report is 

clearly a character assassination of Mr Geoff 

Guest and his wife, Norma. The report, which 

contains a number of unfounded, untested 

allegations, smears Mr Guest, the operator 

and manager of Petford. Many of these 

allegations had been investigated by the 

police who, upon investigation, took no further 

action. 

The Minister, in the process of tabling the 

Petford report, indicated that she, the Minister, 

had relied upon a number of departmental 

and police reports. Yet again, none of these 

reports—without identifying particulars of the 

young people—has been tabled in this House. 

Clearly, what we have here is a situation in 

which Mr Guest, having been afforded no 

natural justice whatsoever in this matter, has 

certainly had his character assassinated by this 

process. Mr Guest is a hardworking 

Queenslander who received the Order of 

Australia in recognition of his services to 

Aboriginal youth and the Petford Training Farm 

for Boys. In addition, he received the Paul 

Harris Award from the Rotary Clubs of Cairns 

and has been praised by judges for his work 

with those with behavioural problems that led 

them to commit offences. 

These are things which we should not 

forget. It is very important to remember that Mr 

Guest, who has an enormous amount of 

practical experience and is highly motivated, 

has adopted a very commonsense approach 

to the problems of young people with 

behavioural problems who have offended 

against the State. Yet we have a situation in 

which someone who has done a tremendous 

amount of work for our community is suffering 

from a character assassination contained in 

this report. Mr Guest is not university trained in 

behavioural issues, nor does he possess an 

accounting qualification. Therefore, Labor 

does not believe that he is appropriate to do 

that work. However, he has life skills— 

wonderful life skills, in fact—and a rapport with 

the type of young persons who have been 

sent to Petford with behavioural problems that 

have led them to commit offences. 

I call on the Minister to reconsider and 

provide further funding together with 

appropriate services for Petford. I say this 

because, after all, it is well known that Mr 

Guest has for some time been asking the 

department to supply a bookkeeper. 

Unfortunately, those who took on that role did 

not remain at Petford. In recent times, no-one 

was supplied to do that sort of work. 

It should be remembered that Petford is a 

former station in the far-north Queensland 

hinterland, in rugged terrain and outback living 

conditions. It can hardly be compared to a city 

lifestyle and modern, comfortable capital city 

living. I think that we sometimes forget this 

when we talk about a place such as Petford. It 

is not some comfortable suburban household 

around Brisbane, the capital city. Petford is, in 

fact, in the rugged terrain of the hinterland of 

far-north Queensland. I have been there— 

unlike the Minister. I went there some time 

ago. I understand that Minister Bligh 

summoned Mr Guest to Cairns to see her 

some weeks before Christmas. Yet the 

Minister has not made the effort to visit Petford 

herself. That is a great shame. Should she do 

so, she would see that it is vastly different from 

the sort of establishments one might find 

around this city. 

Over 2,000 young people have passed 

through that facility for a range of offences, 

including petrol sniffing. It is little wonder that it 

has received such rave reviews from so many 

people. From the comments of local Labor 

members, in fact, it is obvious that they have 

no confidence in their own Government and 

the Minister on this issue. I notice that, 

according to an article in the Cairns Post, a 

number of them have tried to distance 

themselves from the Minister on this particular


issue. There is quite a lengthy article, in fact, in 

relation to this matter. 

Dr CLARK: I rise to a point of order. The 

member is misrepresenting our position. Local 

members have indicated quite clearly that the 

Minister had to act on the information she 

received. 


order. 

Mr BEANLAND: I will read what the 

member said in the Cairns Post in a moment. 

But if the member is supporting it, that is fine. 

If the member for Barron River is saying that 

she is against Petford and supporting the 

Minister, that is fine by me—whatever she 

wants to say. I want to get back to my speech, 

though. Clearly there has been no natural 

justice. I am glad to hear that the member for 

Barron River has now stated her true position. 

It is not what was portrayed in the Cairns Post. 

Dr CLARK: I rise to a point of order. Again 

my position has been misrepresented by the 

member. I have made it very clear that I 

acknowledge the contribution Mr Guest has 

made but I support the Minister's action. 


order. 

Mr BEANLAND: The member cannot 

bring herself to decide which side to support. 

The Minister ought to resign. 

Time expired. 

Debt; Diesel Fuel Rebate Consultant 

Mr PEARCE (Fitzroy—ALP) (7.20 p.m.): I 

have a couple of matters that I wish to draw to 

the attention of the House. The first issue is 

one that we in this place need to take more 

seriously. I refer to the silent but real increase 

in the number of Queenslanders who are 

finding themselves running into serious 

problems with debt. Not only do we hear about 

the troubled farm sector with a national farm 

debt of $21 billion but we are now hearing 

about more and more businesses closing and 

people being forced into bankruptcy because 

they are unable to service their debts. 

I believe that the upward trend in 

unserviceable debt has not reached the levels 

to attract public attention because of low 

interest rates and the perception of a healthy 

economy. Any upward movement in interest 

rates would have an immediate and more 

visible impact than that which is occurring in 

the current economic climate. In my opinion, 

the reason for the increase in debt is the rapid 

growth in casual or part-time jobs. The income 

of families is slashed by the stroke of a pen. 

Job uncertainty is causing unknown social 

problems in the way of family breakdown and 

lack of confidence. People are not prepared to 

spend on anything but the basics. Cash flow in 

the community slows and this affects business 

and jobs. The cycle continues. 

The policies of the Federal Government 

will drag all workers back to the days of master 

and servant. Unfortunately, most Australians 

choose to ignore what is happening to 

standards of employment until it happens to 

them personally. That is when they become 

concerned. Any member who is in touch with 

the electorate would realise that the gap 

between rich and poor has widened. The top 

20% of earners are paid 10 times more than 

the bottom 20%. The gap has increased by 

4% over the past two years. One in four 

employees is a casual. The number of full-time 

jobs is on the decline. 

Australia has one of the highest 

proportions of part-time employment in the 

developed world. Between 1994 and 1997, 

one in 15 workers was retrenched. Those 

numbers are increasing. Only 36% of workers 

now feel that their jobs are secure. Those at 

the bottom end of the income scale are now 

caught up in the social welfare safety net. This 

group is fast being overtaken by the working 

poor as minimum wages—the actual takehome 

pay—are lowered. No wonder 

bankruptcy is on the increase. No wonder 

families are walking away from mortgage 

contracts. We have family breakdowns and 

marriage breakdowns which are causing a 

great deal of concern in the community. 

The other matter I wish to bring to the 

attention of the House reminds us of the lowlifes 

who prey on decent citizens in our State. I 

am aware of a rip-off whereby rural producers 

have engaged the services of a diesel fuel 

rebate consultant for the purpose of lodging 

applications for the diesel fuel rebate with the 

Australian Customs Service. The diesel fuel 

rebate system is based on self-assessment of 

the amount of diesel fuel that a producer has 

used or intends to use in activities that are 

eligible for rebate. 

Although I intend to protect the identity of 

my constituents, I will be naming the 

consultant who has deliberately ripped off an 

elderly couple who live in isolation on their 

property in central Queensland. These two 

down-to-earth central Queenslanders have 

struggled through drought and have felt the 

pain of living the life of a rural producer. I say 

without any disrespect towards these two 

lovely people that they are victims of a 

conman who has exploited their trusting nature


and lack of understanding of paperwork. As a 

result, the conman has been able to convince 

them to sign documentation without an 

explanation and left no copies of the 

documentation. 

He convinced my constituents to 

authorise payment of the rebate into a bank 

account at Tweed Heads. That payment in 

excess of $2,000 was made as per an 

Australian Customs Service diesel fuel rebate 

scheme payment advice in mid-November. All 

attempts to contact this conman have failed. 

He is not in, he is not available, is sick or is 

away on business. 

Mr John Corbett, a diesel fuel rebate 

consultant, advertised in the Queensland 

Country Life and attracted the attention of my 

constituents. They contacted him in good faith. 

The address on his business card is Suite 33, 

Chateau Royale, 23 Garrick Street, 

Coolangatta. He credits himself as a former 

senior inspector, diesel fuel rebates. He forgot 

to add that he is a thief and a man who lacks 

compassion and an understanding of the 

impact of his actions. 

Time expired. 

Crime, Gulf Country 


(7.25 p.m.): Crime is a major problem in 

Queensland, but in the Gulf Country violent 

crime and crime against the person is among 

the highest in the State. This was highlighted 

in the recent CJC report entitled A Snapshot of 

Crime in Queensland. In this area where 

rainforest and bush is the dominant feature, 

the Queensland Government cannot even 

afford a fit and proper Aboriginal tracker to 

hunt down criminals on the run, to seek out 

growers, manufacturers and producers of 

drugs, or to locate lost and stranded tourists 

and would-be adventurers. 

The whole situation is a debacle of major 

proportions, especially for the police who are 

responsible for controlling crime in this area 

and for the local Aboriginal population who 

depend upon the police to crack down on 

crime and chase to ground those who have 

taken to the bush after a criminal escapade. 

As I understand the present situation, the 

police station at Laura is a one-man station. 

This officer must police 45 cattle stations, 280 

kilometres of main highway and some 170,000 

tourists who pass through the region in one 

year. 

Quite frequently, the single policeman has 

to break up brawls of upwards of 10 to 20 

men. As the Queensland Police Union general 

secretary has warned, this situation is a threat 

to the safety and wellbeing of Queensland 

police officers involved in this and similar 

situations. In fact, many citizens will be quite 

surprised to know that in Queensland there are 

still some 60 one-officer police stations. This 

poses special problems for law and order. 

The Police Minister astounded many 

when he claimed that no further police were 

needed at Laura. That was news to the Laura 

Progress Association. What we have not been 

told is that there is a refusal to reinstate the 

prestigious position of tracker so that the 

residents of Laura, Lakeland and Drumduff on 

the gulf could see some muscle imposed upon 

the activities of criminals in the north. The 

Minister obviously does not appreciate that the 

position of tracker is a position of stature 

among these gulf communities where the 

Aboriginal heritage is so important. 

What the Minister also does not realise is 

that a tracker is vital in this rugged Queensland 

police division of some 63,000 square 

kilometres. Indeed, searches for lost tourists 

and visitors are a regular occurrence and a 

tracker is essential for a successful outcome of 

any search in heavy bush. 

The Laura Progress Association has 

protested strongly about the loss of a paid 

professional tracker, a person who is covered 

under an Australian Workers Union award. The 

filling of this position is supported strongly by 

the indigenous community. The Government's 

act in depriving this gulf community of a 

professional tracker is both inappropriate and 

morally indefensible. Steps should immediately 

be taken to appoint a tracker. 

The media has added insult to injury by 

exposing the unusual situation whereby the 

local nurse at a Cape York community had to 

take over the job of the police in road 

accidents and murder-suicides while the officer 

was away on other duties in neighbouring 

Coen. Something is deplorably wrong up north 

and the Government has a duty to solve some 

of the problems that have shown up at Laura. 

What does the local community at Laura 

have? The police are under undue stress. 

There has been no tracker for some seven 

months. Now it is proposed to replace a 

working tracker with a police liaison officer—a 

social worker. Recently, the community was 

forced to employ a 79-year-old tracker in the 

absence of a working tracker when a vital 

search operation was conducted. The progress 

association complained that there was no 

appreciation, no recognition and no thanks 

given to this 79-year-old man.


The tracker did a great job, but it is the 

height of folly to ask a man nearing 80 years 

of age to risk his health trudging through the 

hot and steamy bush seeking out criminals for 

a Government which is not prepared to 

appreciate what he has done. The progress 

association also believes that the community 

faces a major crisis involving crime. There has 

been a $10m drug raid, murder-suicides, riots, 

arson, common assault, domestic violence 

and drunk and disorderly problems. But these 

are only the tip of the iceberg. 

Time expired. 


The House adjourned at 7.30 p.m.

Full transcript - Final - Queensland Parliament - Queensland ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?